Please stop updating items for DLCs but not uploading them to the DLS!

With my recent release of my New England Coastal route I tried very hard to weed out any items that came just from DLCs so that users would not be forced to have to download and install freeware DLCs just to obtain needed content. With this route release I wanted to ensure that content was 100% available either from the DLS or built-in to TRS19. One of my users reported that the <kuid2:60238:37038:2> Track Green Invisible in Driver dependency was not available for download from the DLS or built into TRS19. See this screenshot:



As you can see the missing item is listed as built-in in TRS19. But that is not the case at all. It apparently only comes from a freeware DLC that must be installed in order to obtain that content item. The item however is available on the DLS but not under the DLC version number as shown in the following DLS screenshot:



Apparently somebody updated the item and then included that new version in a free DLC but did not upload it to the DLS. I hate it when they do that as it is impossible to tell if an item is truly built-in to TRS19 or not after the DLC has been installed. The only immediate fix would be to install one of the following free DLCs to get that item of content:

<kuid2:154322:100063:15> ECML EDINBURGH - DUNDEE
<kuid2:154322:101483:23> ECML Kings Cross - Edinburgh
<kuid2:453099:100037:20> C&O Hinton Division
<kuid2:515942:100169:17> Cornish Mainline and Branches - TRS19

FYI I have sent an email to Ian Manion (ie; Vulcan) asking him to update the that content item of his and upload it to the DLS. I don't know if he will or not.

Whoever is doing this please stop it or ensure that the new version of the item is also uploaded to the DLS as well!

Bob

An excellent point. i an now downloading a 7 gb route that I have no interest in using just to get an asset. (I would not even have known to do that without a helpful comment on the forum).

Also, my session for Port Loleta does not work for some users because I used drivers shown as "built-iin" but they do not have.

As a previously enthusiastic session uploader, my excitement is quickly waning.

I notice too some items show as Out Of Date and will show the updated version but list it as Unknown Location.

Hi Bob,

What you are seeing is the result of N3V requiring all DLC packages to contain all assets used by the DLC. If the DLC contains an item already installed with the same version number then the game installs it but leaves it "open for edit" and the DLC flagged as faulty. The adapted workaround was to up the version number to the next unused number without making any other changes to the asset. But that creates the problem you are seeing. What is odd is that downloading the older version from the DLS will make the route happy. I'm not sure why an asset with the same version can't just over write the one installed.

William

boc61 said:

I notice too some items show as Out Of Date and will show the updated version but list it as Unknown Location.

Click to expand...

Try this? on the unknown location right click then delete, yes illogical but it's worked a few time here and the item is no longer missing and uses the original one.

I am convinced there is some sort of caching problem with Manage Content.

Possible fixes
-1 Quick and dirty, use the Bulk asset replace tool, source[Missing spline] target any of the 50+invisible tracks
-2 take another inv. spline/track, clone it and give it the kuid of the missing, add to game
-3 Dont bother Ian, nag at N3v not to change the rules/tags all the time
the original should just work fine.


Why would we need so many invisible?
So what is next? //pun Invisible track (PBR) //end pun
greetings GM

Hi guys,

I did have another user with a similar problem with a dam spillway model, I assumed that N3V had updated the kuid number to version 2, I made a version 3 and placed it on the DLS, after checking that the version 2 update was the same as the original model.

For the invisible track, N3V made a version 2 and built it in to TS12, there was therefore no reason for me to place any new versions on the DLS. N3V only added the different foreign usernames to the model as the version 2.

The model does show as builtin to my TS19 installations, and it places correctly in Surveyor. Yes I do have the three of the above listed routes installed in TS19, I thought they came with the original install of TS19 or in an update, I do not recall specifically installing them myself separately.

I can make a new version 3 for the track model, but it will need to be build 3.5 and possibly rebuilt to the new spline standards, although I was surprised when the DLS accepted my dam spillway model using the old TRS2004 spline format.

Bob, I have not received an email.

Ian

G.M. you forgot fix -4 N3V FIX IT! I think I understand what wreeder is saying, but the logic of doing that escapes me completely. The logic I guess I would understand would be, if the process breaks stuff, come up with a better process? Once in a while N3V NEEDS TO THINK OF THE CUSTOMER.

vulcan said:

Hi guys,

I did have another user with a similar problem with a dam spillway model, I assumed that N3V had updated the kuid number to version 2, I made a version 3 and placed it on the DLS, after checking that the version 2 update was the same as the original model.

Click to expand...

That's what I had to do when lots of common Italian railway equipment - released as Freeware - suddenly became payware because it is included in the Sebino Lake. To add insult to injury, a very common element of the catenary system was "improved" by changing its kind, messing up all the Italian electrified routes.

Thank you, I can live without such improvements!

vulcan said:

Hi guys,

I did have another user with a similar problem with a dam spillway model, I assumed that N3V had updated the kuid number to version 2, I made a version 3 and placed it on the DLS, after checking that the version 2 update was the same as the original model.

For the invisible track, N3V made a version 2 and built it in to TS12, there was therefore no reason for me to place any new versions on the DLS. N3V only added the different foreign usernames to the model as the version 2.

The model does show as builtin to my TS19 installations, and it places correctly in Surveyor. Yes I do have the three of the above listed routes installed in TS19, I thought they came with the original install of TS19 or in an update, I do not recall specifically installing them myself separately.

I can make a new version 3 for the track model, but it will need to be build 3.5 and possibly rebuilt to the new spline standards, although I was surprised when the DLS accepted my dam spillway model using the old TRS2004 spline format.

Bob, I have not received an email.

Ian

Click to expand...

If the asset shows as unknown, the user cannot change versions from the CM.

Soemthing similar happened with the steelworks that used to be built into Tane which I used for timber ridge line, they removed it from the 2019 build, thus it appeared as unknown in 2019, then I discovered there were two different versions , the one in TANE was a later asset update ending in 3 but the one on the DLS which could be downloaded for 2019 ended in 2 , thus ensuring total confusion .... was also told to download the related DLS just to find two assets that in total are about a megabyte. I thought i was playing safe by using built in's, but not so, i'm going to avoid them in future as there is no guarantee they will make it into the next version of the software in a way that they can be used within earlier routes.

dangavel said:

Soemthing similar happened with the steelworks that used to be built into Tane which I used for timber ridge line, they removed it from the 2019 build, thus it appeared as unknown in 2019, then I discovered there were two different versions , the one in TANE was a later asset update ending in 3 but the one on the DLS which could be downloaded for 2019 ended in 2 , thus ensuring total confusion .... was also told to download the related DLS just to find two assets that in total are about a megabyte. I thought i was playing safe by using built in's, but not so, i'm going to avoid them in future as there is no guarantee they will make it into the next version of the software in a way that they can be used within earlier routes.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is reasonably possible to avoid them. There are so many needed. Just my observation

BTW I am also starting to see this problem with my own content items used in DLCs.

How can I stop this?

Can I forbid the use of my items in DLCs? I agree that seems pretty drastic, and probably unworkable, but this is starting to become major pain in the tail to my route efforts, not to mention users that have to find needed dependencies. I don't want to punish DLC designers for bad N3V policy. I do however completely agree with an earlier comment stating why should I have to install a multi-gigabyte DLC when all I need is just one content item in it. That seems crazy at best!

Why can't N3V just alter the TRS19 code a little to ignore installing any content item over a previously installed version with the same or earlier build number? Coding that would not be all that difficult, just simply some type of "if-then" or case statement which looks for a conditional match.

Also keep in mind that you cannot delete a built-in content item, which is a real pain sometimes.

Bob

Can I forbid the use of my items in DLCs? I agree that seems pretty drastic, and probably unworkable, but this is starting to become major pain in the tail to my route efforts, not to mention users that have to find needed dependencies.

I have several new sessions nearing completion, with the goal of uploading them. I am putting these on hold until I either change my mind or there is some resolution to this. If the assets are in a database, which they seem to be, then there is a programmable solution to this. I have been pretty quiet on the forums insofar as criticizing N3V, but no longer. I have lost my enthusiasm.

Bob, If I recall correctly, this is why some creators like rgcx left trainz. They saw their content being "taken over" by N3V. I have not seen the releases content creators must agree to before uploading to N3V but from what I can see, it looks like N3V, who is SOOOOOO adamant about preserving authors' rights, seems to take a pass when it comes to themselves. Anyone looke into that? Do you remember signing your copywrite rights away?

pitkin said:

Can I forbid the use of my items in DLCs? I agree that seems pretty drastic, and probably unworkable, but this is starting to become major pain in the tail to my route efforts, not to mention users that have to find needed dependencies.

I have several new sessions nearing completion, with the goal of uploading them. I am putting these on hold until I either change my mind or there is some resolution to this. If the assets are in a database, which they seem to be, then there is a programmable solution to this. I have been pretty quiet on the forums insofar as criticizing N3V, but no longer. I have lost my enthusiasm.

Click to expand...

You can forbid your content from being sold by N3V by hosting it somewhere else & not on the DLS. By uploading it to the DLS you implicitly give N3V rights to pretty much whatever they want with your content.

peter

You Know, I am not a creator, and I don't know much technical about trainz, but it seems like pissing off both your creators and customers on a pretty much constant basis is a really BAD business model.

I wonder if this is related. I noticed that some of my objects are now classified as built-in. I suppose I should be flattered. When I looked in their config files, I saw that whole language sections had been added as well as other parts which wouldn't be so bad if they were without error but often there was a grammar error - a missing " which made the whole thing faulty. Since I still have the original source files, I can undo the damage locally. For everyone else, sorry but I didn't damage them.

Forester1 said:

Bob, If I recall correctly, this is why some creators like rgcx left trainz. They saw their content being "taken over" by N3V. I have not seen the releases content creators must agree to before uploading to N3V but from what I can see, it looks like N3V, who is SOOOOOO adamant about preserving authors' rights, seems to take a pass when it comes to themselves. Anyone looke into that? Do you remember signing your copywrite rights away?

Click to expand...

http://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki/index.php/Download_Station_License_Agreement

Grant of license

With regard to all your New Works uploaded to the Download Station, you grant to N3V a personal, transferable but non-exclusive license to those New Works in order that N3V can redistribute the New Works to third parties:
(a) by making the New Works available for download from the Download Station for free or for payment; (b) by including the New Works on a CDROM or DVDROM (or other storage medium) that is made publicly available for sale or that is given away; or (c) both (a) and (b). No conveyance

The grant of the license in clause 2.1 ("Grant of license") is not and cannot be deemed to be a sale, transfer or any other conveyance of your intellectual property rights held in the New Works.

Click to expand...

Above is also linked Linked from DLS upload page

I confirm that the files contained in the package I am about to upload to the Auran Download Station: are free from all computer viruses; do not infringe any copyright, patent, trademark or other intellectual property rights of any person; do not contain any 3D meshes or textures created or distributed by Auran that have not been substantially modified; are in compliance with the Auran Content Creation and Distribution Policy; and are appropriate for download by all members (including minors) of the Planet Auran community. Auran is in no way responsible for the contents of your upload package and can in no way be considered liable for any of its contents.

Click to expand...

Also same is stated in the agreement you should read when uploading direct from Manage Content which you have to agree to before uploading!

Not bothering to read the information properly is not N3V's fault is it!

This thread has split into licensing versus creators not knowing what "built-in" really means.

I don't care about giving away my sessions. My point (and one of Bob"s) is that the term "built-in" has become somewhere between ambiguous and meaningless.