trainz of course

[decry]

gday

just a thought.. will groups interested in contributing extensive add on routes commercially to trainz encounter the same copyright issues with using aurans basic objects and textures such as trees etc as 3dtrainstuff.com did with microsoft, with their tehachapi pass release?

[driver89]

I would imagine so, after all those sorts of things are the property of the original company. Plus people have already paid for them once when they purchase the program so why should they pay for them again. The way around it would be to build a couple of trains and charge for those, and then give away the route for free. Sort of like an added bonus.

[decry]

thats a good idea .. though it would all depend on how extensive the route is.

[Barney]

Brad Brown and his team at 3DTrainStuff.com are part of the Trainz beta group and I am sure I would have heard from them regarding this issue. Also as far as I know Auran will encourage exchange of user created files. There's already a file exchange system in preparation on their site.

Barney
[link:www.crotrainz.com|www.CroTrainz.com]

[driver89]

>Brad Brown and his team at
>3DTrainStuff.com are part of the
>Trainz beta group and I
>am sure I would have
>heard from them regarding this
>issue. Also as far as
>I know Auran will encourage
>exchange of user created files.
>There's already a file exchange
>system in preparation on their
>site.
>
>Barney

Remember, there is a diffence between sharing user created files, and Auran's original files. It all depends on the how the creator would like to share his work. MSTS wasn't against you sharing their work, they were against charging to share it. If you look at the Abacus route it contains all new shapes, trains and routes, so it's a true add-on, and this isn't a breach of the EULA. In some ways I agee with this, but if I wanted to get around it I would market the route as a free add-on, build one free train, and charge $19.99 for it. The route would be free-ware and not breach the EULA and I would be in the clear.

James.

[stationmaster]

An interesting side note to this. I received the Auran Regional Add-on for MSTS and their lococmotives use sound effects aliased from the original MSTS locomotives!

It will be interesting to see how Microsoft reacts to this. It has been my (non-professional) contention ever since this issue came up, that Microsoft's interpretation of the EULA is invalid and unwise. I'm kind of glad to see someone challenge it.

[brucek]

.. will groups interested in contributing extensive add on routes commercially to trainz encounter the same copyright issues with using aurans basic objects ....

As a beta-tester for Trainz, I have to say that I can't see it as being a problem for one very, very simple fact:-

The ONLY files that you will have to provide with your route/layout are those created when you create the new route/layout AND any custom-made 3D and texture files.
All objects are called up from a central library; they are NOT part of the route itself.

Therefore, if you create a route/layout which uses nothing more than all the default Auran files you will not have a problem...you simply make the new data files (about six of them) available as your package.

Therefore, even with some custom-made objects and textures, the file package will be quite small indeed. To give an example, I'm currently 15 miles into a route based on a real-world line and the core route file is only 4 MB!

Hope this is of help to you.

Bruce.

[driver89]

Hmm, that's a good point Bruce. I guess if you were able to alias the shape files in the routes, you would be able to by-pass the EULA for MSTS.

James.

[stationmaster]

>Hmm, that's a good point Bruce.
> I guess if you
>were able to alias the
>shape files in the routes,
>you would be able to
>by-pass the EULA for MSTS.

Unfortunately, Microsoft claims that if a commercial add-on aliases ANY files from the original MSTS routes it is violating of the EULA for the utilities. Apparently, the only exception that they seem to be willing to make is for track and road objects.

The problem is compounded by the lack of a compression utility for the ACE files. This makes it impractical for 3rd party objects to be used as replacements for existing MSTS objects because of the huge file sizes. I understand that this is why 3DTrainStuff's route had to be stripped down to a "Developer's" route.

[decry]

bruce

excellent :)
thanx

[brucek]

James, I don't know about MS and TS but Auran are actively encouraging third-party input with Trainz and they appear to have a much more enlightened approach to the whole theme. They recognise the simple fact that community involvement is beneficial to their business and the more that the community is allowed to become involved, the better all round.

Of course, it is understandable that they guard their rights very closely, but they do not appear to be placing any unnecessary roadblocks in the way of layout creators to use, and therefore call up, any textures or 3D objects that form part of the Trainz product.

Totally the opposite attitude to MS.
----------
Bruce

[driver89]

>James, I don't know about MS
>and TS but Auran are
>actively encouraging third-party input with
>Trainz and they appear to
>have a much more enlightened
>approach to the whole theme.
>They recognise the simple fact
>that community involvement is beneficial
>to their business and the
>more that the community is
>allowed to become involved, the
>better all round.
>
>Of course, it is understandable that
>they guard their rights very
>closely, but they do not
>appear to be placing any
>unnecessary roadblocks in the way
>of layout creators to use,
>and therefore call up, any
>textures or 3D objects that
>form part of the Trainz
>product.
>
>Totally the opposite attitude to MS.
>
>----------
>Bruce

Hi Bruce,
I agree that Auran does seem to have a better approach to the community than MS does/did. They want the community to be involved from the start and that, I think, is what is going to seperate their product from the MSTS. To be fair to MS I don't think they ever intended to discourage community involvement with their EULA, just look at all the files on this site and how much the community has made for it. Having said that, I do think they could have been A LOT more helpfull with the support they provided to the community in terms of the editors and import tools.
As far as the EULA went I think it was to stop people from developing a quick knock off of their product and then trying to re-sell it. For example if I build another GP series loco, I can sell it as long as it's completely my work. However if I use the MS bogies and wipers,to save time, then I can't sell it. To me that makes sense, as I would be charging for someone's work and not just my own. This makes sense to me.
This whole thing that MS was preventing people from making commercial add-ons for MSTS got started with 3DTrainStuff and their UP route. Yet Abacus is also developing a commercial route and add-on package for MSTS so it must be possible to do so.
I think as far as Auran goes with their commercial add-ons it will be the same, you can build it and sell it as long as it's your own work. I know I'd feel pretty ripped off if I paid $20 U.S. for an add-on and found out that 90% of it was available for free somewhere else.
As for Auran's community interaction, that's the whole reason I'm buying Trainz now instead of waiting for the reviews.

Cheers,
James.

[driver89]

One more thing I just thought of about the 3DTrainStuff's route and it's problems. They ran into problems with MS because all they were going to sell was a route and nothing else, no locos. Mind you they couldn't put any trains and rolling stock on the route as it was a UP route, and Union Pacific has said in no uncertain words that their logo may be used but only for free. No ifs, ands, or buts. I think the reason the Abacus can sell their add-on is because it's a complete package, route, trains and some buildings.

James.

[stationmaster]

>As far as the EULA went
>I think it was to
>stop people from developing a
>quick knock off of their
>product and then trying to
>re-sell it.

The problem with Microsoft's interpretation is not that it prohibits redistribution of the original files, but that they want to prohibit add-ons from even refering to files that are already installed on the user's computer. An add-on that aliases existing objects would not work unless MSTS was already on the customer's computer. It's a bit like Microsoft telling other application developers that they can't make calls to the Windows API.

>Yet Abacus is
>also developing a commercial route
>and add-on package for MSTS
>so it must be possible
>to do so.

Yes, but primarily because the LTV route is much smaller than the MSTS or Tehachapi route.

I think the only positive thing about the Microsoft EULA position is that it will encourage 3rd party developers to support Trainz instead.

Ron

[rgarber]

Nope. The problem isn't MS, and the EULA. The problem as I understand it is, the objects belong to Kuju. Probably Kuju has an agreement with MS that they stipulate MS will prosecute and stifle any use of the objects in payware routes.

If it was all MS then the flight sim crowd would have ran into the same problem. But they haven't because they have total ownership of the product.

It's not MS, it's Kuju.

Rich Garber

[stationmaster]

>It's not MS, it's Kuju.

Yuo might be right Rich, I do not have first hand information so I could be wrong to blame MS rather than Kuju. However, the statements by 3DTrainStuff's staff on this board give the impression that the problem is with MS. According to Brad at 3DTrain Stuff:

"When we talked to Ian at Kuju regarding it, he referred us to Darryl at Microsoft, who in turn said "no way"."

(See thread: http://forums.flightsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3012&forum=DCForumID3&archive=yes )

The EULA in question (EULA2.RTF) does not mention Kuju.

I do not know if the same situation would come up for Flight Simulator. The technical need for add-ons to alias existing objects might not exist for FS developers. Or it might be that the product managers for FS are just a bit more enlightened about the benefits of 3rd party support.

Despite it's flaws, I'm quite happy with MSTS and I'm glad Microsoft decided to publish it. I just really hate to see them cripple the product this way.

Ron

[driver89]

Well Auran just announced their official policy concerning add-ons and it seems quite liberal. :) The only thing you won't be able to do is use any of their original works unless you change it by at least 75%. I guess that opens up a whole bunch of possibilities for people.


http://www.auran.com/trainz/contentcreation.htm

James. :)