I have a series of updates made by robertoconti19 whose updated assets are listed as 'Unknown Location': <kuid:146087:27063> betulla8 14m-2005, <kuid:146087:27007> alberello 08m-2005, <kuid:146087:27016> alberello 05m-2005, <kuid:146087:27008> alberello 07m-2005, <kuid:146087:27028> betulla5 08m-2005, <kuid:146087:27029> betulla5 12m-2005, <kuid:146087:27033> betulla6 12m-2005, <kuid:146087:27046> quercia 16m-2005, and <kuid:146087:27067> bagolaro4 10m-2005. All of the updates end in the suffix :127 and say 'Unknown Location'. All of the assets installed say 'Modified, newer version available'. I've selected 'Revert to original' many times and it hasn't reverted them to their original condition. These only appeared after I updated to TRS19 SP2. Does anyone have any ideas how to solve this?
Updates shown as 'Unknown Location'
- Thread starter jordon412
- Start date
Some authors in the prior decade thought releasing version 127 would preclude unauthorized modifications.
stagecoach
75377
127 was added as a version number when an asset was updated in earlier versions. If you add a new asset as kuid:111111:999999 and later update it to kuid2:111111:999999:1 it will often get 127 as there is no version 0. Both the asset kuids above are in fact the same asset. See https://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?146784-KUIDs-ending-with-127.
This can be cured by deleting the 27 from its version number.
This can be cured by deleting the 27 from its version number.
Hi Stagecoach,
I don't recall a time that there was the kuid2 prefix without the version suffix - both conventions arrived on the scene together with the advent of kuid revisions, which goes way back to 2002. True enough that if the download station or CM see a kuid2 with no version suffix, it supplies a ":127" to keep the software interpreters running smoothly. How a kuid number gets that way, aka "kuid2:xxxxx:yyyyyy", is another matter. I don't agree it was the default manner in which kuids were able to be revised in the early versions. Suffixes were omitted out of lack of understanding of the kuid2 convention or as a way to preclude revisions. Another way was to release "kuid2:xxxxx:yyyyyy:127".
As seen from a sample below from the cited kuids in the OP, here the suffix was omitted, so I stand corrected in my post #2 where I said the ":127" method was used.
stagecoach
75377
There should not have been any kuid2 assets without a version number. What I said was a kuid asset which if updated would be given the version 1, which is the same as an asset without the kuid2.
Asset kuid:111111:999999 = kuid2:111111:999999:1 as 0 is not used in versions.
If the creator updated the first asset and gave it a kuid2 version 1 it is replacing itself. The update should be.
Asset kuid:111111:999999 update becomes kuid2:111111:999999:2 not version 1.
Asset kuid:111111:999999 = kuid2:111111:999999:1 as 0 is not used in versions.
If the creator updated the first asset and gave it a kuid2 version 1 it is replacing itself. The update should be.
Asset kuid:111111:999999 update becomes kuid2:111111:999999:2 not version 1.
Ok, good, we are in agreement. As you can see in the example I took from the OP, the 127 was added by Auran's software (CM and ".cdp" compiler) to correct for the author's mistake of omitting (or intentionally omitting) a version number on a kuid2 designator (i.e. he starts with a K2 and has no 3rd colon or suffix). In Post #5, "127 was added as a version number when an asset was updated in earlier versions." read as if that used to be the normal standard, rather than a compensatory measure Auran implemented for content creator omissions.
That has never been the case. Try this experiment. In your CM, make a new asset using Developer > New Content. Commit it. Then select it and choose Content > Create New Version. You will see that the update to a kuid:111111:999999 is indeed kuid2:111111:999999:1. Here is my screenshot of this to demonstrate.
They are not the same version.