Aliasing Rolling Stock assets

I have been experimenting with using the "mesh-asset" tag to replace bogies in rolling stock assets. The initial problem I had was with narrow gauge (3ft 6in or 1067mm) rolling stock assets from the DLS that had been created with standard gauge (4ft 8.5in or 1435mm) bogies. The rolling stock assets were from a narrow gauge system (Queensland Rail from the early 20th Century) so I am uncertain as to why the creator had given them SG bogies.

Anyway, my experiments succeeded.

My new modified assets contain only config.txt files and thumbnails (which I have created) but reference the original assets to use their meshes and texture files. The "bogy" tags in my config.txt file point to narrow gauge bogies that I found on the DLS.

Anyone who uses the modified assets would need the original assets installed - this would be automatically performed by the CM download/install process.

Would it be legal (copyright-wise, morally, ethically) for me to upload the modified aliased versions to the DLS?

I have sent a PM to the original creator asking (politely) if he would consider uploading new NG versions himself, different bogies would be the only change needed, or allowing me to upload fully modified files (with his meshes, textures but different bogies) or upload my aliased versions (which may not require his permission, but I would like to be polite). I have not heard back but he has been inactive in the forums and on the DLS for over a year.

If the consensus is not to upload then I will accept that and move on. One option would then be to use the original versions with the wrong gauge bogies (and hope no-one notices).

There is no immediate rush as my route and session project is still at least 6 months from completion.

Advice welcome.

I think it’s implicated in what happens when you upload to the DLS - waive your rights to say what can and cannot be done with the asset. Heck, N3V can even upload and built-in your own assets in the next version of TRS.

Anyway, you aren’t copying their asset files, textures, etc., so I’d like to think anything on the DLS is free game to use the mesh-asset tag for. Payware or not.

(emphasis on DLS)

Peter,

Very good question. All you’re trying to do is get the original author to correct a mistake, or obtain permission to correct it yourself. The stumbling block is that the author isn’t responding, so the default moral (if not legal) position is that you can’t do it.

However, could you put the question to N3V, via someone like Zec Murphy, and see what their ruling/opinion is?

Another avenue is to refer these assets to the Content Repair Group to correct and issue an updated version under the original author’s kuid and using your preferred NG bogies? I think this would be an ideal way to handle the issues, since the CRG has the authority to do exactly this type of thing, and the author retains ownership under his/her kuid.

The only practical problem is that the CRG is a small group which is about to become engulfed with a list of 16,000 scripted assets to fix due to a recent tightening of script validation rules. Maybe contact pcas1986 or clam1952 and discuss the possibility. It helps that you have already worked out a very quick and easy solution for them, so it might just get priority before the scripting deluge hits them.

~ Deane

.

Thank you both for the responses. It is tempting to follow the principle of "publish and be damned" as I would not be copying or pirating the original creators work. It would be a pity to scrap the assets or have to use the wrong gauge bogies.

I will give it a few months, as there is no rush, and then if there is no response I will consult Zec and the N3V crew for advice. I certainly do not want to pester the CRG people for such a trivial matter.

Advice still welcome.

First up, I'm not a lawyer

If you aren't actually including any of the work from the author in your own asset (so no textures, or scripts, etc), then there should be no issue with using the mesh-asset tag to create an 'alias' of another author's asset as you aren't actually including any of their work in your asset, simply referencing it (much the same as referencing it in a session).

This may depend on the license in the asset though, they may state that you aren't allowed to do this, although since referencing assets is a somewhat intrinsic function to Trainz (ie being able to use them in routes or sessions), it may be difficult to enforce this, it's hard to say.

I think it’s implicated in what happens when you upload to the DLS - waive your rights to say what can and cannot be done with the asset. Heck, N3V can even upload and built-in your own assets in the next version of TRS.

Click to expand...

This isn't true, and it's honestly unfortunate that it is still being stated. Authors absolutely can place restrictions on what people can do with their assets, so long as they aren't trying to prevent people from actively using them in Trainz... We do actively help author's enforce such rules where they are breached by DLS uploads (ie people releasing clones of assets without permission), but we can really only assist with breaches that occur on our sites.

As to updating assets, we do require creators to give us permission to fix assets where they are found to be faulty. We either do this internally, or work with the content repair group. The same as we require uploaders to give us permission to distribute their assets through paid products (remembering also that the DLS is technically a paid product, as you need to own Trainz to access it...).

Regards

Thank you for that Zec, from one non-lawyer to another.

ZecMurphy said:

If you aren't actually including any of the work from the author in your own asset (so no textures, or scripts, etc), then there should be no issue with using the mesh-asset tag to create an 'alias' of another author's asset as you aren't actually including any of their work in your asset, simply referencing it (much the same as referencing it in a session).

Click to expand...

That is what I was thinking. Every route and session uploaded to the DLS contains references to other assets (trees, building, track, rolling stock, etc) created by other users that has to appear in the route/session.

ZecMurphy said:

This may depend on the license in the asset though, they may state that you aren't allowed to do this, although since referencing assets is a somewhat intrinsic function to Trainz

Click to expand...

I checked the contents of each of the 4 assets and there is nothing prohibiting the use of aliasing to correct errors or make other changes.

But I will stick with my original intention of not rushing to upload. I will make future attempts to contact the creator, out of courtesy. I may even find more suitable correctly gauged assets to use which will remove the ethical problem.

Peter

One of the principles of the Content Repair Group (CRG) is that we cannot change the author's intent. This can be a grey area but in this instance deliberating changing an asset from narrow gauge to standard gauge seems wrong to me. We fix broken assets and assets that don't perform as expected but still pass validation. There are quite a few of those. I can't see your problem fitting into our criteria. Sorry.

For aliased asset repairs, the CRG is using the aliased asset as a mesh asset and swapping the textures with a script. Its ugly but works reasonably well.

But I can't see why you could not use the vehicle body as a mesh asset and a narrow gauge bogie. Or have I missed something?

pcas1986 said:

But I can't see why you could not use the vehicle body as a mesh asset and a narrow gauge bogie. Or have I missed something?

Click to expand...

I agree and no, you haven't missed anything. I would prefer that the author make the simple swap himself but in the absence of that, or finding more suitable alternatives, I may upload the aliased versions.

To add to the mystery, I have just found (on the DLS) a set of 3 very good narrow gauge bogies by the same author who created the narrow gauge rolling stock assets, which he released with standard gauge bogies. So I have now added one of those bogies to my aliased versions of the assets.

ZecMurphy said:

If you aren't actually including any of the work from the author in your own asset (so no textures, or scripts, etc), then there should be no issue with using the mesh-asset tag to create an 'alias' of another author's asset as you aren't actually including any of their work in your asset, simply referencing it (much the same as referencing it in a session).

Click to expand...

Is therefore acceptable to reference the mesh of a scenery object in the config file of another object? E.g. to turn a scenery car into a product or into a road traffic vehicle?

I don’t see why not.

Pendolino said:

Is therefore acceptable to reference the mesh of a scenery object in the config file of another object? E.g. to turn a scenery car into a product or into a road traffic vehicle?

Click to expand...

Even with the original creator’s permission, co-opting someone else’s assets for other purposes comes with some risk. The original asset might be updated and changed in a way that makes the dependent asset faulty or otherwise unsuitable. That sort thing has happened to me when some of my scenery vehicles were referenced like that. Since I want to be free to update and change my creations without worrying about possible collateral damage to other authors’ dependent assets, if asked for permission these days, I usually refuse the “offer” and explain why. I don’t think I can stop anyone doing it, but if their assets get screwed up at some point and become faults in many routes, that’s their problem.


.

Pendolino said:

Is therefore acceptable to reference the mesh of a scenery object in the config file of another object?

Click to expand...

That is exactly how routes and sessions work. Otherwise every route creator would also have to create every asset that they have used (every tree, house, railway track, texture, sky, rule, locomotive, etc) themselves.

Pendolino said:

E.g. to turn a scenery car into a product or into a road traffic vehicle?

Click to expand...

If you are not altering or copying (directly in your asset file) any work by the original creator such as textures, meshes, scripts, then, in my view (I am not a lawyer), you have not violated copyright. If you are an author and create a novel based on a theme created by another author does that violate the original copyright (think about all the Star Wars novels written by independent authors but using the original characters and settings)?

Dinorius_Redundicus said:

Even with the original creator’s permission, co-opting someone else’s assets for other purposes comes with some risk. The original asset might be updated and changed in a way that makes the dependent asset faulty or otherwise unsuitable..

Click to expand...

That is also a risk for all creators of routes and sessions. An asset is updated to a higher build number that no longer works in your old route/session. This can also occur if you have created an item of rolling stock with, for example, 3rd party bogies that are referenced (as they always are) in the config.txt file and the bogy asset is updated.

Of course, in a perfect virtual world, these issues would never occur.