Simulation Info Available in the new Docs

[Bill Hobbs]

I downloaded the new Developer Docs yesterday and they now have sections covering the Simulation setups for steam and diesel locos. Very interesting reading. Somehow I had failed to note earlier that documentation already existed for the sounds and on adhesion and resistance. We are on our way to being able to set up equipment.

Bill

[plainsman]

Hi Bill,
Where did you find that documentation?
Thanks,
Bob

[sniper297]

Where all the Redcoats hang out;

www.railsimulator.com

Gotta register and log in before you can read or download anything, after that the dev tools and docs should be on the right hand side.

[plainsman]

Hi Jim,
I can't sign that license. I guess I won't be getting the docs. Drat!!
Thanks anyway!
Bob

[jp 4712]

Why can't you sign?

[plainsman]

The license creates too much legal liability for my circumstances.
"You shall indemnify (and shall keep fully indemnified) RSDL and its licensors from and against all claims, demands, costs, liabilities, losses, expenses and damages (including legal fees and expert witness fees) arising out of or in connection with any actual or alleged breach of paragraph 5 above."
and
"This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and we and you agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts."
Both provisions are unacceptable to my particular circumstances. I can't afford the risk, no matter how slight.
Just for the record, those that know me understand that I take intellectual property rights as soberly and sternly as anyone in these forums. It is not out of any misbehavior that I can't sign!! Operative words like alleged mean you don't have to do anything wrong to incur liability. The English courts have a much different view of what constitutes having established a case for liability.
You will note I did not participate or even install the MSTS BIN project for the same legal liability reason. I know the chance of legal misfortune is small, but I can't take that chance.

[sniper297]

Wonder if there's ever been an actual test case on these things, "by clicking this you agree to these terms and conditions". In legal slang, "SOD" is "Some Other Dude", can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one of my neighbors (hereafter known as "SOD") didn't sneak into my house while I wasn't home and click that button? Is that actually as legally binding as a signature? :rolleyes:

Think I'm in violation of this alleged contract which I might or might not have agreed to anyway;

Notices to Content Users
7. You shall ensure that the following notice is displayed on all packaging for the Content and is also shown on screen to end users of the Content before they install the Content (note that different conditions apply for “Rail Simulator Approved” add-on commercial content):
Warning. This content is not approved or endorsed by the creators or publishers of Rail Simulator.




I didn't do that, none of the other freeware downloads I've seen have that disclaimer either, and in any case I didn't click the agreement button, SOD did it.


8. You must not claim that the Content is endorsed or approved or distributed by us. You can refer to Rail Simulator (2007 Edition) when describing your Content, provided that you do so in accordance with the usage requirements published on our website www.railsimulator.com (http://www.railsimulator.com/). However, you may not use the Rail Simulator logo.

Can't use the logo?! So does that mean I'm in violation for using Billboard 05 in the MSTS route? :eek:

This licensing agreement has been in contention since day one, if the meaning was actually clear and understandable they wouldn't need to post explanations both here and at UKtrainsim. Some have even pointed out that an explanation by a railsim official isn't legally binding either, just because Derek "clarified" some things don't make the clarification an amendment to the contract. On the other hand it does muddy the waters, many judges would rule that the fact the contract required an explanation from a company official after the fact makes it null and void. I'm not a shyster, but personally I think the whole thing is so muddled up they're gonna need to rewrite it anyway to make it resemble an actual EULA. :confused:

[BX620]

Look at it this way: they would have to send you to England to stand trial.

Post bail, stay on the crown's dime....err pence, bring your camera, watch trains, take measurements, make MSTS models...

Just remember when you go to the chopping block, tip the nice man wearing the black hood and holding the big sharp axe. :p

[plainsman]

Hi Jim,
I know what you are saying, and to most reasonable folks in most circumstances it might be enough. For me I am still not able to do this. First the "SOD" defense would not work for me, as I take the oath very seriously, so if asked if I did it, I couldn't say "SOD" did it. I see from the forums on UKTrainSim, a lot of folks were concerned over the freeware vs payware issue. I am not concerned as to that, or at least only very tangentially as I will explain in a momment, but I am very concerned over the prospect of litigation over things and conduct over which I have no control. I am in real life, a professional scientist and engineer. I have a professional license. If litigation such as this were to arise, I could loose my professional license. Let me illustrate with some examples that would concern me.
First, I do physics for all sorts of projects, from a guy I never met who emails me about a project to payware firms that are widely known. I can think of several events where I did physics for a project only to find out later that some neferious activity was or may have been involved. Some specifics, remember the well car war between two folks in MSTS. I did the physics for both parties, and I never saw the projects before it/they was/were released. I still don't know for fact who the real culprit was if any was at all?? But guilt is not the issue here, it is alleged misconduct. Would my physics work draw me into litigation even if I had no part in the release or actions of the modelers or repainters?
Another example. I do work for both freeware and payware shops, although I have never actually recieved a cent on any project, my only compensation being a free use of the product in return for the physics. How do I sign the license, as the work may appear in a payware project, I just won't be paid myself.
As to having to send me to England, I don't think that is correct. I think the court could order liability even in my absence. And I am not sure reasonable doubt applies in English law? I don't think it is exactly that standard? Now I am not worried about the 1,000 pound fee. If someone were to make that the limit of my liability, I would be very unconcerned. It would smart a bit to get whacked with that, but life would go on. However that is not the liability. A tedious lawsuit could run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs, including the mentioned legal fees and expert witness fees. I do expert testimony, I know that runs hundreds of dollars an hour.
Now another issue is defamation. Suppose I do physics for a project that turns out to be used for some irate user who puts nasty comments about RS on a model and paints it bright pink. I didn't have a prior knowledge of how the project would be used, I can't afford to scrutinize everyone who asks me for physics as to their character or lack thereof. I know the bad actors after the fact, but that might be too late.
I know at face value the contract has legitimate intent. I know Adam and Derek don't want to punish folks for adding content. But if someone gets out of hand, I don't want to be a victim of collateral damage if I didn't have anything to do with the misconduct.
Hope this make the point more clearly!

[Paddington bear]

hi,

Am I Correct in presuming that you are not talking about the "normal" everyday consumer type use of the information? Just seeking a clarification of such a stance.

Ross

Edit.... Answered by your post.

[jivebunny]

Plainsman, I'm a bit confused by your stance on this:

"You shall indemnify (and shall keep fully indemnified) RSDL and its licensors from and against all claims, demands, costs, liabilities, losses, expenses and damages (including legal fees and expert witness fees) arising out of or in connection with any actual or alleged breach of paragraph 5 above."

All this paragraph is saying is that you cannot hold RSDL liable if you break or are accused of breaking copyright or other laws. You are indemnifying RSDL against actual or alleged breaches of paragraph 5, not accepting liability for the same breaches or alleged breaches. I'm pretty certain the MSTS and Trainz EULAs contain similar clauses indemnifying them from any prosecution arising from your own actions. I don't think it's reasonable to expect RSDL to be held liable if you choose to copy someone else's work or use something without permission. Indemnifying RSDL of liability does not automatically make you liable however and I don't see how that particular clause affects anyone other than RSDL.

As for this clause:

"This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and we and you agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts."

Again I don't see the problem, the product is made by a company based in England and is therefore governed by English law. I can't imagine MSTS or Trainz would have had the same global success if people outside of the US or Australia had refused to agree to EULAs governed by US or Australian laws.


It is of course entirely your choice, but having to potentially defend or accept responsibility for your own actions seems a strange reason to refuse to create content, especially when the same agreements are no doubt in place for other commercial simulators past, present and future (I don't have any of my sims to hand so can't check).

JB

[sniper297]

Indemnify:
To secure against loss or damage or to hold harmless, and/or to compensate someone or something for loss or damage.

Also means you're agreeing to pay them if they think you have caused them loss or damage, that's what Bob has a problem with. Understandable, if their land shark is bigger than your land shark it isn't your little land shark that gets eaten, and essentially by agreeing to this you're agreeing to become lunch if they happen to get hungry.

[woodfyr]

Perhaps I should consult with my attorney before I purchase any software.
What is this world coming to?:(

[Bill Hobbs]

Bob, Those documents are information you are entitled to have simply because you own the system. They do not imply that you will be devloping anything commercially or doing anything othe than amusing yourself. Withouth this information, you cannot be getting the full benefit of the system.

[plainsman]

Hello Alan,
JB, I want you to understand my position. I have no problem with the issue as you present it. If a third party and I get into a dispute, I certainly understand RS wanting to be protected from that dispute. That is not what bothers me.
Let me illustrate with another example. Suppose Jim Ward decides he wants to release a PO&N SD40-2 heavy coal version, and asks me to do a physics update for that locomotive. I make the modifications and send him the file or files. He releases the new file on T-S library, but fails to include the warning about it not being authorized by RS. A few days later, BNSFDude (insert your favorite troll here), decides to redo Jim's version as a reskin, but changes the green to bright pink, adds a RS logo, and a photo of Britney Spears waving a middle digit on the hood. RS decides that release is damaging to the product, and sues BNSFDude (who is probably a 12 year old kid), Jim, and myself, as my credit appears in the readme for the file. I had no way of knowing that anyone would do something malicious when I sent Jim the physics, but now I am sued, and under English law. Note the following:
http://www.iptablog.org/2004/12/05/english_defamation_law_everywhere.html
The point being, English law may not protect me like US law might, I just don't have enough knowledge to know?? Thus, signing a contract which grants venue to England may be dangerous for me?
I reitterate, I have no problem with RS protecting themselves from my doing harm to their intellectual property, as long as I am only going to be sued if I actually did the infringement.
Hope this helps make my point clear.
I just want asurance from RS team that they will not use the license as an encouragement to sue ME if my work appears in something they don't like, or if I say something in the forums they don't like. I realize if the conduct were egregious, even failing to sign the license would likely not protect me, but I don't expect egregious malice toward a company to be my conduct, thus I don't see real risk in that regard. I hope something such as a comment about not likeing the dynamic brake routine would not be actionable in English courts? I am using this as a hypothetical example, I have no actual opinion on the dynamic braking routine, I may find it is just what I like? I will say, the very tiny amount of time I have had to run the simulator, I have been impressed by the graphics and the frame rates are very good. I have not encountered any fatal problems thus far, no crashes or terminal malfunctions. It appears to be a very high quality product.

[Bill Hobbs]

Bob,
You can try and do physics for RS without the documents. Changes are that you will make a lot more mistakes. How is that going to be better?
Bill

[sniper297]

On the other hand, he could forget about it and not take the risk, MSTS X is coming eventually and won't have these screwy problems. :rolleyes: Rich Garber has been predicting a very short lifespan for Railsim, and he's been right in most of his trainsimming predictions so far. :eek: Some of the best and brightest from MSTS have been reluctant to come on board until other problems are hammered out, this is just one more. It's possible we could be looking at a wet firecracker fizzling in a rainstorm here. :(

[Bill Hobbs]

Bob,
I'm sure that Microsoft won't put any legal restrictions on MSTS. Why just look at their other products....
The world is full of uncertainties and waiting on a future software product like that isn't an exciting way to pass the time. RS is here and as I have time to play with it, I am getting to enjoy it more. I just don't have much time right now.
Think about the legal issues this way. RS is basically saying that you should not represent your addons as haveing been created by or approved by RS. If you state that clearly that should take care of the problem. There is no way to drag RS into the suit. Now consider that your product doesn't work. Even if it is payware that sells for, say, $20 the costs of pursuing legally are prohibitive. It would cost many multiples of that to even hire a lawyer to file the suit for you. And the chances of a lawyer being willing to take such a case on a contingency basis are almost nil because the expected returns are almost nil as well. Remember that the users of these product by and large whine about coughing up the $40 or $50 to even buy the product and then expect all addons to be free.
In a related vein, given that RS was released with bugs, what damages do you think you might be able to collect from them by suing them?
And in your example about BNSFDude, the person who has the potential liability is not one who contributed the physics or some other part, but the person who has released the product itself. You are an unwitting contributor who does not bear responsibility for the final product.
I think the diesel guys will miss you if you don't play.
Bill

[Paddington bear]

Hi,

You know, the more I read the more I think to myself ....there is no way on this earth MSTS-whatever has a hope in all the universe of living up to the expectations people are building up. The wait and see train could be a spectacular ride one way or the other.

And lets face it, the billy brigade do not exactly have a bug free product launch record.

Ross

[plainsman]

Hello Bill and Ross,
I seem to have been unclear again. I in NO WAY meant I wanted to sue or take legal action against anyone. My only concern is that I do not want to be the victim of a lawsuit that might be initiated by RS team (or their entity). If I felt confident "You are an unwitting contributor who does not bear responsibility for the final product." would apply, I would not be concerned, but I see folks brought into legal action all the time that had no real involvement in the event in question, but who were merely on the paperwork in some way. Again, I don't know how English law looks at this? I just can't afford to get caught in a legal action for which I had no more involment than providing physics to an offender unwittingly. I also don't want to be sued if I say something in the forums that isn't liked by someone. Again, as I have said I understand that egregious malice would not be what I am worried about, and anyone who was part of that would be actionable with or without the license anyway.
The bottom line is I would just like some assurance that the license will not be used to enable a lawsuit by RS against me, if I didn't do anything personally to warrant the action. Again, I can't control what trolls may do with my work. If you look at the ~1000 works in MSTS that use some form of my work, they span an immense quality and skill range. Some of the work was very good, some awful. But I could not control how the work was used, if the modeler or reskinner was great or horrible, had care and skill, or a brat without concern. I don't want to be sued if my physics gets used by some troll in a release that violates the RS parameters for release. I can't make other folks follow the correct procedures.
Ross, I in no way was saying anything bad about the RS product, to the contrary It seems like a very fine product. I was also not comparing it to MSTS or any future MicroSoft product. As above, my only concern is that I don't want the license to be used against me by the RS team (or their entity) filing suit against me if my work appears in something I didn't personally create, but that the RS folks don't like. I would just appreciate some assurance that is not what they contemplate.

[t1metraveller]

Hi,

You know, the more I read the more I think to myself ....there is no way on this earth MSTS-whatever has a hope in all the universe of living up to the expectations people are building up. The wait and see train could be a spectacular ride one way or the other.

And lets face it, the billy brigade do not exactly have a bug free product launch record.

Ross

I'll ditto that, Ross.

2009 is a long way off, and KRS will gain some sort of foothold by then. Maybe in the end it will take on a Trainz-like following if MSTS-X does come out and is successful. In the mean time, I am not holding my breath and have moved on to KRS.

My problem is, and I have mentioned this in another thread, that MSTS-X's requirements are going to eliminate it from some people's budgets because of the necessary CPU and video card upgrades necessary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but train sims are not flight sims in their overall popularity. MS$ will not sell nearly as many MSTS-X's as FS does, and maybe even less if the hardware requirements keep some of us out of the market. It's kind of like shooting oneself in the foot unless your end sales figures will outweigh those that drop out of the picture because of the hardware requirement..

The good thing about KRS is it's easy on the framerates. I find even when the FPS drops to 13-15 here, it is still pretty smooth and not objectionable. That was not true for me in MSTS1 or Trainz.

I don't think you're going to find the level of support for MSTS-X from MS$ like you have right now from RSDL. More than 40 documents have been issued concerning how to program and mod files for KRS. More coming too. How many documents do you think will come out of MS$? My guess is few to none and we will have to figure it out on our own.

I am willing to give KRS a chance and am discovering a lot of possibilities here.. I'll also buy MSTS-X whether it will run on my machine or not in 2009, just to see what the big deal is. But to spend another $500-$700 on an upgrade is probably going to be out of the picture next year for me.

I wonder how many others are in the same boat? I'd like to see the poll results of how many people who would be willing to upgrade their computers just to stay in the train sim hobby with MSTS-X. It would be very interesting.

TT

[sniper297]

I'm not really talking about MSTS X here, no fan of megasoftheads either, I'm talking about damage control. If and when MSTS 2 finally DOES come off the ways, the battle will be rather one sided if KRS is half sunk already. Seems to me KRS launched with LESS than the usual number of leaky seams, but what I see is the crew running around punching more holes in the hull.

"It's kind of like shooting oneself in the foot unless your end sales figures will outweigh those that drop out of the picture because of the hardware requirement.."

Time will tell, but I think KRS shot themselves in the foot with the marketing, the two versions will be "compatible" only if you buy the extra content that the other version has and yours don't. If I hadn't received the first copy as a gift, I'd be sitting here on the sidelines reading all this and saying "not for me". I didn't buy into Trainz specifically because of the "modular" idea where you didn't get the complete game without buying other stuff, and the restrictions on what and where the freeware addons could be shared also turned me off. We'll see, but I think the net result will be lower sales due to the number of people used to the MSTS routine, download routes, activities, or trainsets from here or UKtrainsim or TheTrain.de and it works, no additional purchase required.

Having to sign a contract just to get a full toolset for the game, or even just to read the docs, is just one more hole in a hull that's already too leaky IMAO.

[t1metraveller]

Time will tell, but I think KRS shot themselves in the foot with the marketing, the two versions will be "compatible" only if you buy the extra content that the other version has and yours don't.

Ditto that too. KRS is also not without it's flaws. For one, this separate folder structure for European (\RailSimulator) and US (\RailSimulatorUS) drives me nuts and has already caused a ton of problems. I assume we're stuck with that. Maybe the patch will fix some of the other stuff. I like it's moddability though. Once you get through the learning curve of converting the files it's not bad.

I did use Trainz for a couple of years after MSTS. It had some good features years ahead of the others, like jumping trains anytime, turntables, a dynamic route map like KRS. However, the asset acquisition and missing asset problem was a royal, royal pain and a source of constant complaining among the troops..

I think if the asset difficulties can be solved in KRS, we have a fair platform here to have some fun with for some time to come. Wish more people would jump over here and try it. Cheap fun.

TT

[Bill Hobbs]

Relative to your comments about differences between versoins, read the following on what will be included in the first upgrade:
http://www.railsimulator.com/en/node/2058

I agree that a little more time before release might have been useful, especially if it allowed some ofthe documentation that has been released subsequently to have been included with the initial release. For other bugs, their discovery might not have been discovered without more extensive use by users with vastly different levels of computer "smarts".
What I find to be critical is the ongoing support they have offered. Given the complexity of the code involved, I believe finding and fixing a lot of the problems has been a time consuming task.
With a limited staff, they have had to make some judgment calls on which of the problems were most pressing. Using my own very unscientific methods (looking at the forums), I would say that the derail problem from the switches has probably cost as much good as any of the others.
I am looking forward to having time to read through the loco simulation blueprints and the sound blue prints to get a better feel for working with the sim. At thisi point, I don't have any real unhappiness with the system and am not very interested in MSTSX.
Bill

[sniper297]

Not following your theory of relativity here, none of that fixes the "you need the UK version or York Newcastle addon to run this route/scenario", altho it sounds like they've fixed the object filter bug. Don't help with Bob's problem tho, you buy a game and want to create freeware addons or mods for it, and you need to hire F. Lee Bailey to look over the EULAs first? Bit too much trouble for a spare time hobby, don't you think?

[plainsman]

I may have a solution to this without having to acquire the docs or sign anything and still be completely valid as to RS Eulas. Remember Peter Baker and I worked together to put out a large volume of dynamic brake work for MSTS. A similiar partnership might work very well in this case, with my only supplying data and calculations needed to have someone else use the data and calculations to fit into the program. The other party has a lot of knowledge that would make the work much more thorough and comprehensive in addition. I have a valid US version to run the results, so I can test and provide feedback. He would have a lot of testing ability as well. For example, I can use raw data (which I worked with long before even MSTS came out) to calculate an appropriate tractive effort curve, and someone else with the docs can figure out how to put that curve into the program. I don't see how this would create any adverse actions on anybody's part, as I would never see the actual editing process. I think the only downside to this, is I would not be able to provide as much help to forum questions as might otherwise be the case. Since I would not release the files, the other party (and the applicable RS restrictions) would control how the files would be used and offered.

[sniper297]

I'm not worried about anything, Bob, if their screwy way of doing business drives 90% of the potential customers away, I don't own any company stock.

[NoMoreTrains]

I hope you work out some sort of solution to your dilemma, Bob, because ... well we really need ya on board RS! :)

[Bill Hobbs]

Response to two different things. First to Sniper: my "relative" comment was intended to simply point folks to the MK1 discussion at the RS site. I have no idea whethe the problem at hand was addressed or not but thought that someone else might figure it out. I don't even understand what the problem is.

Back to Bob. I reread the License agreement and the infamous paragraphs 5 and 6. I still don't see what the problem is with signing. You and I basically do physics for people. How are we going to bring "disrepute" to RS? Supply a wrong value? The real issue here is intellectual property rights and creating updated simulations even for RS supplied equipment does not create any problems as long as you don't violate intellectual property. You can reference in the xml / bin files but you cannot distribute copies with your files. You cannot steal other people's intellectual property and call it yours, etc.
Even the MSTS EULA contains warnings about intellectual property.
How do you indemnify RS? Read paragraphs 7 and 8. Don't claim they did it.

Finally, I will once again mention the litigation issue. It costs large sums of money to file and pursue litigation even in this country. Pursuing an issue about freeware in court is clearly absurd and would be beyond the means of almost all users of the software. Even payware can resolve issues by refunding the purchase price. The expected return on the ligigation is too small for it to be realistic to pursue. If you read the MSTS EULA you will see that that license limits damages to $65 or the purchase price -- that even if their software caused your computer to catch on fire, burn down your house and start a California-like brush fire that destroys Los Angeles.

Finally as regards Bob's proposal of his supplying data to a third party, I fail to see how that is really any different that his donig the xml / bin files himself. In any case, it is up to the person who does the final release of the files to insure that the relevant safegaurds have been met.

[sniper297]

Well, let's see if I can clarify this.

6. You shall indemnify (and shall keep fully indemnified) RSDL and its licensors from and against all claims, demands, costs, liabilities, losses, expenses and damages (including legal fees and expert witness fees) arising out of or in connection with any actual or alleged breach of paragraph 5 above.

My neighbor cuts his toes off on his property with his lawnmower, and sues me because I suggested the place where he bought the lawnmower. Since you signed this agreement with me, you're responsible for all my expenses whatever they turn out to be, all I gotta do is allege I got the idea from you originally for him to go to Sears. That makes you legally responsible since you're allegedly involved, doesn't matter if I can prove it or not because you signed the agreement.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, only testified at one civil trial in my entire life, most of my first hand experience is with criminal law (I'm from Chicago, don't ask!), but I've been burned by the fine print often enough to look at it suspiciously. And that do look suspiciously like carte blanche to me even if it was a commercial license, which this is not.

[RSDLadam]

Hi Guys,

Sorry to see that so many seem to have issues with the License Agreement for obtaining the professional Tools for Rail Simulator.

I can attempt to assure everyone that RSDL are in no way trying to setup some form of frame work that will allow us to go about suing people, to earn money without doing hard work like everyone else.

We're all here to enjoy and enhance the hobby or Railway Simulation and RSDL certainly have alot of vested interest in promoting as much of this amazing community skill that is seen both here and on many other sites around the world. Just check out the current advertising we are running for German Railroads.

All companies have legal conditions with regards their products, so Rail Simulator is no different. Simply because we are up front about our legal standing instead of hiding them in small print somewhere at the back of a manual that has 50 languages, does not mean we have any more intent to specifically use them in disputes. We would rather be open and clear about these issues so people can feel more happy about where they stand.

[sniper297]

On the advice of counsel I decline to express any opinion on whether the above assurance does or does not constitute an Implied-in-Fact Agreement to Amend a Written Contract. :rolleyes:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Oc0zSmk631g