The DLC-system lets me fall into despair

ZecMurphy said:
Thanks Basti, I'll look into those in the next couple of days (I've already added myself a task with the assets so I can look into it :) ). If all goes well I'll put a reply here to confirm which assets are uploaded/etc (in theory all, but I just need to verify their DLS status first :) ).
Click to expand...
Can you guess how long this will take? :)
 
Hi Basti
Apologies, last week I ended up a lot busier on other tasks than I expected, I'm hoping to look at this during this week to get started. It might take a little time to get through all of them, but I'll put a reply here when I'm able to report news :)

Regards
 
Thanks Zec,
its okay :) I just look forward, i was just interested if we talk about days or months.
If I can help somehow - let me know

Thank you

Sebastian
 
Hello! I have a problem with loading scripted objects on DLS. They are only rejected due to deprecated features, even though the asset build is 3.7.
Here is an example
An Error Occured with <kuid2:400089:38:1> C platform people 10m<kuid2:400089:38:1> : VE197: Syntax error in script 'plscript.gs' for asset <kuid2:400089:38:1> "C platform people 10m"
<kuid2:400089:38:1> : VE267: plscript.gs(40) : function GetTriggerList is obsolete in object World.
<kuid2:400089:38:1> : VE267: plscript.gs(64) : function GetGameObject is obsolete in object Router.
In fact, there is no script error, CMP does not see it, the object works fine.
And I can't contact support because their page doesn't load in any browser. Pinging the site http://www.auran.com/helpdesk shows that the page is not responding at all.
Please advise me how to solve this problem.
 
So its been half a year since i started this thread and i the issues still stay.

There are even new ones. Having an MPS route with content packages works fine - until I install some DLC, then i'm told that two driver assets have incompatible dependencies as their differ between DLS-version and DLC-version.

I've still the opinion that the way packages are built is a dead end for people that build routes.

In all those years I use Trainz (around 21 meanwhile) i never faced such issues like the packages system. And now - there's even a new package "idea" for MPS routes.

Its one of the most reasons i don't start Trainz not often anymore. Too much trouble.
 
agree Basti


Story(fun I hope):
Some time ago when Queen Elizabeth passed away, we could download a "free" loco DLC pack
but I don't understand how the Trainz store works at all, so I missed it....


For MPS to be a succes, ALL content should be allowed and not in complex packs
the only rule should be, that all users have the same content.
This can be done, when someone places an asset, the other users,
could get a message, what kuids they should get and from where
Trainz knows what each user has installed, so an online compare is possible


The argument I hear of people can have modified weird content
well if I drive a lovely train and someone else has changed it locally in a blinking upside down horse carriage
then too bad for him or her.
The argument but we want to earn money... Well maybe charge a little for MPS, per session/time
or have it only in plus.


Don't give up Basti, just have fun with trainz
gruss GM
 
I understand that kind of packs is required for technical reasons.

Making sure that all content is the same works for years for MP driver mode.

Some may remember asset packs that were available long before DLC packages, why not use a way like this where DLS-items are referenced?

Via the package way, i have the same asset again and again installed. Even this may work some day - its not a clean solution. Ways to identify "correct" DLS content exist for many versions.
Why not juse use packs with indexes of allowed (DLS-) items instead those (DLC?)packages?

Via TCCP Project editor I can already drag and drop assets for a package... why can't this be used to create an index for allowed DLS content?

DLC-packages could be allowed too, so also (Payware-)DLCs are available for MPs. But that really shouldn't be the only way.

In my (personal) opinion, the DLC-system is a mess.
 
To go back to your original point in your first post in May.

-Basti- said:
Now when i want to use the route in newer versions, i have to install lots of DLCs (which most I do not want to install) just to have the required items.

The reason? DLC-assets from DLS get a new KUID-version when packaged into DLCs. So when I use for example T:ANE with some DLCs installed (or some DLS-content I used becomes built-in) and I work on the route, the required KUID-version is set to the DLC one.
Click to expand...

I have noticed recently that in the latest SP5 update to Trainz Plus a solution to this issue seems to have appeared. I have updated the Trainz Wiki page on the DLS Status labels at https://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki...Packaged_Assets_in_Routes_Uploaded_to_the_DLS to cover this change.

I suspect that there will never be a perfect solution to this that will suit everyone, especially if, as Zec has pointed out, some creators do not update their DLS assets to match those used in their DLC packages. Do we ban them from creating the DLC packages? (I think not).

My thoughts.
Peter
 
pware said:
I suspect that there will never be a perfect solution to this that will suit everyone, especially if, as Zec has pointed out, some creators do not update their DLS assets to match those used in their DLC packages. Do we ban them from creating the DLC packages? (I think not).

My thoughts.
Peter
Click to expand...

This problem would not exist if a simple rule was adhered to: If a DLS item needs to be updated for the DLC, then a decision is made by the content creator: Do I want to prevent users from downloading the new version from the DLS? If the answer is YES, then the new version should be given a new unique kuid for that DLC. If the content creator is happy for it to be on the DLS, then it should be updated on the DLS, preferably automatically. I suspect that one of the problems is that content creators finish with the DLC and forget the consequences the update has for existing assets.

Regards Mike
 
Out of curiosity why can’t N3V simply copy and renumber all assets included in a package to their own Kuid, use a new user say -1000 which will identify all Kuids contained in a package which route creators should not use for layouts they wish to put on the DLS
At present I would not buy any DLCs as it seems too confusing to get involved.

Ken
 
Last edited:
I updated a route of mine that has all items on DLS in SP4 2019, sent it to someone who is possibly making a session for it, but in 2022, a lot of erstwhile built ins from 2019 are now showing as unknown, it's this sort of thing that is damnably annoying , plus of course one has to install big routes like Avery Drexel just to use a few dozen kuids that didn't used to be payWare in TANE , the changing nature of the DLS is a bugbear for any route builder who wants to share their work on the DLS . I had an invite to write up my experiences as a content creator for the newsletter, I'm afraid my experiences are so negative I could not in all faith write anything for NV3 to use that promotes their product as I can't pretend all is well with the app for something that is for publication, it's unfair to those who have no idea what a minefield some aspects of using this product actually entail.
 
Hi Dan
That's why I couldn't contemplate buying any DLCs at present.
My point was that as N3V have effectively taken ownership of the dependencies they should renumber a set of copies for the DLC issue. This would then not affect the original assets that other users might want to use.

Ken
 
KenGreen said:
Out of curiosity why can’t N3V simply copy and renumber all assets included in a package to their own Kuid, use a new user say -1000 which will identify all Kuids contained in a package which route creators should not use for layouts they wish to put on the DLS
Click to expand...

While that would seem to be a logical solution it does have the problem of ownership. By changing the kuid user identifier number the original creator will lose any sense of "ownership" of the asset(s) they created. While I am certain that this would not worry some creators, there are probably others, myself included, who would feel that the asset is no longer "theirs" (in all senses of that word - morally, ethically and in terms of responsibility).

Legally, once uploaded to the DLS or to DLC, an asset may become the property of N3V due to the upload agreement you sign but I like to feel that because it still has my ID code that I still have some "ownership" and feel some pride in the fact that I created it - regardless of how bad the asset may actually be. Being the "owner" also gives me a sense of responsibility to improve and update the assets(s) where possible. I would not feel that responsibility if the assets I create where to lose that aspect of their identity.

Maybe that viewpoint is egotistical but I would certainly be more reluctant to contribute any DLC assets if they were to be "anonymized".

My thoughts.
Peter
 
I agree with Stonegate. I still have a handful of assets that are "Packaged, Newer version available", although the newer version is actually NOT available. Someone said they were going to hide these, but nothing has changed that I can see. One has a newer build version, from 2.9 to 3.9, the rest have not even changed build versions, so it is not as if the current package I have could not handle the new version. I might go a little farther than Mike (Stonegate) and say if a DLS asset is updated, it should automatically be uploaded as DLS UNLESS the author specifically wants the new version to be DLC only, at which point a new KUID should be assigned. That would also raise the question of whether going forward is this then the end of the line for the DLS version, with no further updates, and any future updates will be only on the DLC version?
 
I've said many times, to create a kuid3 that can be applied to DLC content only. Creators keep their ID and DLS assets won't get overwritten or replaced. The creator would need to upload a separate kuid2 to the DLS if they want it made available to all.
 
stagecoach said:
I've said many times, to create a kuid3 that can be applied to DLC content only. Creators keep their ID and DLS assets won't get overwritten or replaced. The creator would need to upload a separate kuid2 to the DLS if they want it made available to all.
Click to expand...

if they were changed to kuid 3 would they not overwrite the original as kuid 2s do.
if N3V issued new numbers as user -1000 they could show these as username Auran followed by the original kuid number.

Ken
 
KenGreen said:
if they were changed to kuid 3 would they not overwrite the original as kuid 2s do.
Click to expand...

While the update path from an original asset (e.g. <kuid:1234:56789>) via the Update method in CM is through the kuid2 system (e.g. to <kuid2:1234:56789:1>) there is no such automatic update (and overwrite) path to any future kuid3 system. This would have to be a manual process either by the asset creator or N3V. So the original kuid: or kuid2: assets would not be obsoleted.

My theories anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Dlc ID Update?
Replies
6
Views
858
itstypicalrailfanner
I
P
Thinking of getting into the TCCP for mobile content. How can I distribute it to mobile?
Replies
2
Views
2K
ZecMurphy
ZecMurphy
I
What Happened To The Amtrak Superliners, Budd RDC Pack and Remodeled Class 43 HST Pack
Replies
3
Views
488
ZecMurphy
ZecMurphy
P
Missing DLC from TRS2019 to TRS2022?
Replies
3
Views
493
PhilChorusch01
P
S
China D38 Schnabel Car Red steam dlc for Trainz 22 issue.
Replies
17
Views
434
JCitron
J
Back
Top