the curse of packaged routes.
- Thread starter dangavel
- Start date
This probably isn't of any value, but after many problems with uploading a route only to find people are having problems finding assets. I always make sure I can see the asset(kuid) number in surveyor. If anything is shown in red I know not to use it. If in in yellow I would try and make sure it was built-in with my version. And of course anything in white I felt was fine. Of course things are always changing in this game, and I only build in TANE so not so many folks are kept from using it.
Last edited:
In theory yes, but in practice it is not always the case. Certainly the label "Packaged" is meant to indicate that this particular asset version is also available on the DLS.
Problems arise when an new "up-versioned" asset is included in a DLC package but has not been uploaded to the DLS. Sometimes the package creator has simply forgotten to upload, sometimes they have exercised their right not to upload the new version of their asset to the DLS. I understand, from past posts made by Zec and others from N3V on this matter, that the process of packaging DLS assets for payware is not (or was not) automatic and required some human intervention and sometimes some DLS asset updates simply fell through the "digital cracks". Zec has mentioned that a message to the helpdesk will often resolve that issue.
I am definitely one of those although my reason is simply that I do not want to play the "hunt the missing asset game". If a downloaded route has missing assets that are not just minor scenery items that could be replaced with something that is on the DLS or built-in, then I delete the route and keep any of its assets that are on the DLS. Likewise, I have no 3rd party assets on my Trainz installs as I do not want anyone who downloads one of my creations to have to play that game as well.
Before I upload anything to the DLS I run it through a few CM filters to see if:-
- it contains anything "foreign" that somehow has slipped in (it sometimes happens)
- it contains any assets labelled as "Third Party" (which means on the DLS but unavailable or undergoing "repairs")
- any of its "Packaged" assets are NOT on the DLS
... and take remedial action as required. Information on this and dealing with "packaged" assets can be found on the Trainz Wiki at https://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki/index.php/Understand_Content_Manager_Status_Labels
The latest Trainz builds seem to have included a "fix" that will allow an earlier version of an asset to be used and not be flagged as "faulty" or "Obsolete". See the above link for more information.
None of the above, of course, solves all these problems or is likely to soothe the frustration that some (myself included) have felt over the issue of "Packaged" assets that are not on the DLS. I had hoped that someone from N3V will jump in and spread some light (or soothing oil) otherwise conspiracy theories start to take root. For example ...
As Zec and others have posted on many occasions, the "Packaging" is intended to stop the flood of complaints they were getting from users who have downloaded a DLC package and then have to spend time downloading all the DLS content referenced in the package. In particular those without an FCT then find themselves restricted in terms of speed and download limits (the DLC package is always delivered at the maximum speed allowed and without download limits).
PS: I hope that I am not being an "Apologist" from "out of the woodwork".
Last edited:
Christopher824
CDETrainz.com
@pware, nice wiki page, very detailed, lots of information. You learn something everyday, thank you
If N3V choose to Hijack someone's asset and up-version it so that it is no longer available to other users, the very least they should do is to inform the original content creator and ask if they object to it being also added to the DLS. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect a content creatorto scour DLCs to find out if one of their assets has been updated without their knowledge.
N3V have created what is the most user hostile way of implementing packaged items. I understand the reason for DLCs but when a a DLS asset is upgraded for a DLC, the upgraded version should also be placed on the DLS unless the original creator objects.
Anyone downloading a route infested with "Unknown" assets has already spent ages tracking them down and finding out that some if not all are on the DLC and then having beg N3V to put on the DLS is not an acceptable approach. This problem has been around for years and N3V appear to have no interest whatever in tackling it.
Mike
Perhaps you have not read the "terms and condition" that apply to uploading assets to the DLS?
And if the creator decides, for whatever reasons, not to place the upgraded version on the DLS? That is their right if they choose to do so. What then?
Again, that may be a decision of the original creator. As I posted earlier, there have also been cases where the original creator has simply forgotten to upload the assets to the DLS. The "missing upgrades" have then appeared some time (sometimes a considerable time) later after a user has "politely" posted the creator about the missing assets. We are all human.
Zec and others have made posts on this issue ever since the "Packaged" assets appeared so they clearly do have an interest in tackling it, but obviously not fast enough for everyone's liking.
- Those terms and conditions are why many creators refuse to upload to the DLS. And that just adds to the "unknown" problem. N3V reserves the right to break the rules that apply to everyone else.
- In this example, the creator had nothing to do with the "upgraded" version, was not consulted at all or even told about it and had no control.
- It was not a decision by the creator in the above example.
- In this example, the creator had nothing to do with the "upgraded" version, was not consulted at all or even told about it and had no control.
- It was not a decision by the creator in the above example.
I am willing to assume that pware's cases of certain assets ending up where they are is accurate. However, the fact remains that a major number of assets have become unavailable simply because someone has used them in a DLC route. Assets are not delivered by the stork; most of the ones we are talking about were formerly on the DLS. N3V should have left them there in addition to packaging them for payware or incentive routes that they offer. They surely have backups of their asset database. It would be a straightforward matter to query any of these transactions and make packaged assets available again where appropriate. Having to beg someone across the seas to do this on a case-by-case basis is unproductive for customers.
johnwhelan
Well-known member
Typically they compress the textures on DLC content to a .texture file which means a new version is created. The old version is still on the DLS. It can be a problem for content creators when wishing to correct or update their content.
This is a fairly recent problem.
Cheerio John
Others in this thread have provided examples of assets NOT being on the DLS any longer. My example is TANE 1-track wood, or something like that. If you try to run this TANE route in 22, the track is not available on the DLS. If the compressed version is different, then just give it a different version number or kuid; but leave the earlier one on the DLS. This "recent" problem as you put it, also makes the marketing statement that Trainz is "backward compatible" a big fib.
Do you have the exact name, or better yet the KUID?
That will help us search for it. There's also a possibility that the track was hidden from downloading due to something wrong with it and it's on the CRG's Faulty Assets List awaiting repairs. If this is the case, then a right-click and download this version usually works.
I do agree that the issue with up-versioned assets because they're built in causes problems. Keep the old one and provide a new KUID. I've run into textures suddenly becoming PBR textures causing a very old route of mine to require a full renovation. It's not just textures though as we know. The problem is we have a development team and company going one way without informing the community that these changes are being made. This has been an ongoing issue since day one and every time we end up on the short end of the stick and SOL. To put it bluntly, they only care about the future and not what people have spent their many hours and years of spare time on.
I started a different thread recently about the track. My error, I think it was TANE Jarrah track. https://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?170873-Where-id-TANE-Jarrah-track-go
Thanks for the offer; someone found it for me in I think Sebino Lake. Anyway, how is one supposed to substitute track when the missing track is not available? You cannot use Bulk replacement for an asset that is not available. One would have to try to recreate the entire track system from scratch.
Yes, I know there are ways to resurrect from old builds. But the OP was talking about inconvenience and near despair for users who come after. And those discouraged by great uploaded routes that have virtually un-retrievable assets. And route creators trying to give back to the community by uploading routes.
I agree about your comment about N3V not caring. That seems quite clear, unfortunalely.
Last edited:
I agree with Dan as well. This is more than an inconvenience and we shouldn't have to go through hoops. For the techs and experienced we can figure this out and come up with workarounds but for new users, they'll just give up and forget about it and move on. This is clearly a problem because if they are packaging assets, they should also be available on the DLS according to Zec.
The issue of not being able to substitute a missing asset is something that needs to be addressed. According to Tony, this is a future project but being N3V, that could be anytime soon(tm) and I'm not holding my breath for that.
I'll check out the other thread and see what's up. I've been extremely busy with life unfortunately with an elderly father whose having some health issues having me running him to appointments and hospital visits and haven't had much time to do anything more than quickly glance at the forums. The good news is he's getting better and eventually with be back to normal soon.
What's the odds that we will still be having this discussion in three years time? , with one or two people pleading mitigating circumstances for nv3 , the handful of us who make routes we want to upload for free to the DLS complaining bitterly and the rest of the users continuing , just putting up with it and as a consequence not using routes that could easily be brought back from the brink if a better strategy was implemented. I'd say it's a safe bet .
Interesting that Tony allegedly describes this as a "new project". N3V were the ones that took a functioning situation and started packaging. So now it is another project to undo what they just did? Weird. Seems to me to be just a few SQL queries into their database. ei
I fully agree. I have yet to find a way to see if a given route on the DLS has missing dependencies without actually downloading the route (and incurring the "gigabytes of assets"). How is that done? Using filters or something?
Bill
My recent release of Highland Valley TRS2019 had a few issues with missing dependencies to work out. I first tried changing the KUIDs in the kuid-table to reference KUIDs on the DLS, which didn't work. The next thing I did was replace the assets altogether. So far, I've not had any reports of issues, but if anyone has any issues with it, don't hesitate to send me a PM with your problem and I'll see what I can do.
Since the most common cause of this issue is that all assets with dependencies simply reference those dependencies in their config.txt files, then the obvious solution is to force all asset uploads to include all their dependencies in full. By that I mean all the texture files, scripts, images, sounds, etc in the dependencies included in the download. And if any of those dependencies have dependencies of their own then those must always be included as well.
The big advantage of this is that when you download a route, for example, you will get the route and everything it contains exactly as it was originally created with no missing assets. If a DLS asset is updated in a DLC package and is not uploaded to the DLS then it will not be a problem as you have the original version as specified and required by your route.
Downside? None I can think of, after all who these days does not have GB/sec download speeds with unlimited downloads?
The big advantage of this is that when you download a route, for example, you will get the route and everything it contains exactly as it was originally created with no missing assets. If a DLS asset is updated in a DLC package and is not uploaded to the DLS then it will not be a problem as you have the original version as specified and required by your route.
Downside? None I can think of, after all who these days does not have GB/sec download speeds with unlimited downloads?
Last edited: