Small route merging rant.
- Thread starter DARTrider
- Start date
Christopher824
CDETrainz.com
I have been following this post for a few days now
https://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?168090-Small-route-merging-rant&p=1927129#post1927129
There is a lot of good comments and points made here. As a content creator, my wish is that the user of my content enjoys it. That includes the ability to merge a route with a route, no matter what the source. The problem arrises when a 'bad actor' uses it for commercial gain against the creator.
So to me, as Trainz continually advances, it needs to develop a better solution for this.
An answer floating around in my head is to embed any 'key' needed into a route, which means multiple keys if nessecary, so that the route would only be useable to others if they owned all the keys. That being said the DLS would need to accept these routes and flag them as 'you need these keys' and then a user could only use it if they had the 'keys'. If I wanted to use DARTrider's route, I just have to make sure I got the 'keys'.
I think this would really add to the appeal of Trainz for a large segment of users, and really come up with some super 'Free' extras for Trainz route owners to play with.
Although not the perfect soultion, what else can you do to stop the 'bad actors'?
So maybe Zec can chime in and say if they would look into this after the TRS22 release as one of the next big updates? Please? Maybe put on the Content Store as an addon to exsisting Routes? The creator of the original route(s) would not mind, I'm sure of that as it would drive more sales of the route and the addon (and addon could be free as if on the DLS?). I'm sure there is more than one solution, but should be very doable.
https://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?168090-Small-route-merging-rant&p=1927129#post1927129
There is a lot of good comments and points made here. As a content creator, my wish is that the user of my content enjoys it. That includes the ability to merge a route with a route, no matter what the source. The problem arrises when a 'bad actor' uses it for commercial gain against the creator.
So to me, as Trainz continually advances, it needs to develop a better solution for this.
An answer floating around in my head is to embed any 'key' needed into a route, which means multiple keys if nessecary, so that the route would only be useable to others if they owned all the keys. That being said the DLS would need to accept these routes and flag them as 'you need these keys' and then a user could only use it if they had the 'keys'. If I wanted to use DARTrider's route, I just have to make sure I got the 'keys'.
I think this would really add to the appeal of Trainz for a large segment of users, and really come up with some super 'Free' extras for Trainz route owners to play with.
Although not the perfect soultion, what else can you do to stop the 'bad actors'?
So maybe Zec can chime in and say if they would look into this after the TRS22 release as one of the next big updates? Please? Maybe put on the Content Store as an addon to exsisting Routes? The creator of the original route(s) would not mind, I'm sure of that as it would drive more sales of the route and the addon (and addon could be free as if on the DLS?). I'm sure there is more than one solution, but should be very doable.
lovetrainzloathen3v
New member
Understood about "merge" removing the payware designation Zec.
Hence making a merge fair game for distribution.
But that merge is still useless to a pirate recipient, because they will not own the required packaged assets.
I'll get my coat.................. :hehe:
Mike.
Hence making a merge fair game for distribution.
But that merge is still useless to a pirate recipient, because they will not own the required packaged assets.
I'll get my coat.................. :hehe:
Mike.
(from GM strange analogies department)
if I buy a car (a payware vehicle) and I buy a caravan(a payware vehicle)
can I drive them combined(merged)? sure I can
if I buy a car (a payware vehicle) and I build a caravan(a modified vehicle)
can I drive them combined(merged)? sure I can
Can I remove the brand from my car, and sell it as if I made the car myself, don't think so
the key, as suggested by John and Chris, could be a good thing
also I like what Zec says about contacting(thus showing respect) of the original creator
An alternative, is not merging at all, but use the session trigger/trackmark I made(see scripting forum)
which can warp you from 1 session to another session (route can be same or different)
if I buy a car (a payware vehicle) and I buy a caravan(a payware vehicle)
can I drive them combined(merged)? sure I can
if I buy a car (a payware vehicle) and I build a caravan(a modified vehicle)
can I drive them combined(merged)? sure I can
Can I remove the brand from my car, and sell it as if I made the car myself, don't think so
the key, as suggested by John and Chris, could be a good thing
also I like what Zec says about contacting(thus showing respect) of the original creator
An alternative, is not merging at all, but use the session trigger/trackmark I made(see scripting forum)
which can warp you from 1 session to another session (route can be same or different)
@lovetrainzloathen3v
Yes, in fact, a few of the dependencies of Eagle River, LoBN 1 and LoBN 2 are route-specific, non-DLS assets. You'd need to actually buy all three routes. Furthermore, if someone DID want to share an edit of three routes, they could always reference the original routes in the config file, so there's always those infuriating missing dependencies. Combine it with the previous ones and pirates will go on a year-long trip to find the KUIDS, which leads them to buying all three routes to play the one. Drives more sales.
@Christopher824
I like the idea where you could have free 'expansions' that add on to the route. It would mean more sales for the original creator and more fun operation and driving for the person who downloaded the expansion.
Yes, in fact, a few of the dependencies of Eagle River, LoBN 1 and LoBN 2 are route-specific, non-DLS assets. You'd need to actually buy all three routes. Furthermore, if someone DID want to share an edit of three routes, they could always reference the original routes in the config file, so there's always those infuriating missing dependencies. Combine it with the previous ones and pirates will go on a year-long trip to find the KUIDS, which leads them to buying all three routes to play the one. Drives more sales.
@Christopher824
I like the idea where you could have free 'expansions' that add on to the route. It would mean more sales for the original creator and more fun operation and driving for the person who downloaded the expansion.
Hi DartRider, I've seen your name pop up amongst this conversation and I had to giggle a little bit. Didn't you happen to have a route up on your website that had half a dozen PAYWARE routes merged into it?
I wonder why DRM exists and why payware routes probably shouldn't be allowed to be merged after all.
Cheers
Jamie
hiawathamr
DLC developer for Trainz
I do and same with TANE where you couldn't edit them period.
Cheers
Cheers
lovetrainzloathen3v
New member
It's called progress and now we need to progress to merging, as well as editing.
With the necessary in built protections, of course.
Mike.
With the necessary in built protections, of course.
Mike.
I never created that route, so once I realized what was happening I took that down after. I wouldn't take stuff, merge it and pass it off as my own.
Well, I just bought the LoBN 1 and 2, so PNW Route, here we come!
Last edited:
They merge really nicely. I put my connector between Eagle River and the LoBN 1 and 2 just about the middle of the LoBN2 near where the power plant branch is located but on the opposite side. There's that dead end spur that goes off into the woods there on the right and I took that and made that the line to the Eagle River. It took a bit of landscaping there, but it blends in nicely. I then continue the BN mainline up-grade out of the yard and on to the LoBN 1.
I did change the names of the towns a bit so that there's no duplicates and then setup some operating sessions. I do the manual freight and passenger drives and let the AI do the rest. My operation can last for hours, or until I decide to quit with little if any interruptions to wake up AI or untangle them. Because of the route's length, I can run prototypical length freights and they look great winding their way through the landscape.
I have my routes set up with the LoBN 1 and 2 connected at the Vernon area, where a little branch line meets the mainline. Built a wye to facilitate easy transfer of traffic to and from the Vernon area. The Eagle River route has had a bit of trouble merging (it takes forever and never gets anywhere, but I wanted to merge it from the power plant area or the dead-end spur on LoBN 2 like you said. I may try and merge another route in, like Tidewater, to serve as something like a coastal intermodal terminal in Oregon or Washington. I changed all the track to the TSM track on the DLS (it really beats the JR track on the older portions of the route), and did a run-thru before I attempted to merge in Eagle River just in case I missed any track.
For Eagle River, what's keeping it from merging in a timely fashion? LoBN 1 merged in just fine, under a minute might I add, and its much bigger. I'm getting no errors either.
Last edited:
That's a good location too. There are a lot of them. You can add in other connections and routes too which I've done. It gets a bit complicated to explain but near the first lake on the Eagle River I added in a spur that goes off to the right along the opposite side of the lake. I run a tourist line up there and it makes for some extra activities while the freights move along. I also added in another spur farther up that goes to a small town which also has some tourist-related stuff and a longer branch that runs out of the town where the engine house is located near the big lake. (I'm going by memory). This branch also follows the back side of the lake then runs under the rail-road bridge and on to a bigger paper mill complex. This gives me an excuse to run some more freight on that end of the line. And finally, I added more industries up where the old plywood plant is located. This is an addition for more industry up there as well and excuse to run tanks up the line. With me running this operation, and the AI doing their thing, this route can be really fun and interesting to drive for hours.
I included the Tidewater route in with another, so I didn't put that one in with this complex. The issue with the Tidewater will be it's at quite a substantially different height. If there was a way to lower the route easily, then it would be a nice addition to this route as you said as a port like that found in Oregon or Washington state.
The merging of routes is what makes Trainz really one of the best because combinations of similar routes can make a whole empire all in its self.
I've also combined the Pennsylvania and Berwyn with the Dry Brook and Esopus. This took a little bit of working out, but it extends the mainline straight out of Esopus, not off from the left or right, and then along a stretch that has various small towns and industries to pass by until it reaches the beginning of the P&B.
When I merge routes, I try my best to make sure the combination is seamless, so there's little difference in the landscape. This is part of the challenge I think and when it works it's awesome.
Last edited:
I will second that. My current project was started back in TS2004, before the existence of TransDEM and Google Earth, so I guessed the elevation and, as it later turned out, I was out by 483m. It was easier to maintain the error as I expanded the route than to go back and correct it. This continues today with further expansions and updates. Another user is building an extension to be merged with the route and has to adjust all the elevations by subtracting 483m from the actual elevations.
I've run into exactly the same issue also from an early route I started in TRS2004. I thought that when setting the measurements to Imperial that this applied to the measurements in Surveyor which they do not.
I suppose this could be remedied by carefully copying and pasting one baseboard or may two baseboards at a time on to blank baseboards then deleting the old ones, but what a pain in the you know what that would be.
Alas, that is my problem. After the original TS2004 and then TS2006 versions, a great deal of work was done in T:ANE (but not released) and now in TRS19.
Yes, and things were adjusted in there in my routes, but that still didn't fix the gross difference in height caused by the metric vs. Imperial measurement. In my routes I used a difference of what I thought was 24 feet, meaning +12 for the top level and -12 for the waterfront. This turned out to be 78 feet, almost a 79-foot difference between the two grades. This measurement was used all the way through the route before I found out that these were supposed to be meters.
It would be nice if the ability to adjust route heights and direction too was available to us in Surveyor. The only way we can do that is to copy areas and paste them on new baseboards set to an adjusted height. The issue I see is lining things up and computer resources from copying and pasting all that data.
G'day All. I'm a bit late to the party as I've only just seen this post.
First up, JCitron, if you haven't heard about it since posting this, surveyor 2 does have this feature available. You can select an area (I don't think there's a limit to the size) and then bulk-adjust the height of everything. I haven't tried it in the context of merging routes, but I have had a quick "play" to confirm it's possible.
On to the original subject of the post; This is something which I have an interest in as well for the same reasons (bought a route from N3V before I understood the limitations). It's interesting that several people are asking the same question about the same route, LotBN II. Possibly because it's the most expensive and not cheap to buy twice, just for this reason?
I completely understand the aspect of the creator's rights to be able to protect their work if they wish (although it's a shame that the few can ruin it for the majority). One thing I haven't seen mentioned though is, how can this be a limiting factor if they're ok to sell the same route, for a similar, or same price on a third party site like JR?
If the creator has genuine concerns about limiting access to their work, and they choose to only sell it via N3V, then fair enough. But if it can just as easily be bought elsewhere without the restrictions (once you're aware of how it works), then why bother applying the restrictions on the N3V version? That's the part I'm having difficulty understanding.
Anyway, for me, I'm at the point where I'm just going to try to reproduce some of the more significant LotBN II additions / improvements on my LotBN I version (until I fail miserably and give up
).Cheers,
Piere.