Add On Announcement

[calvert]

Are people forgetting that freeware is un regulated? The people who say, Im going to build route so and so plan to do it by freeware!
The 97% of people who want to build a route usually want to build it for free!

It is my view that if the commercal groups want to make money from the sim that Kuju have developed I do not see why Kuju should be barred from making money from the commercail add ons.

I personally cant see what the fuss is about, I think it is a very sensible idea, logaical and well thought.

[nath9425]

Well I think for all the people out in the BIG WIDE WORLD should wait and see what happens!!!!
We have a few months between now and the release of "Rail Simulator" and I expect Kuju will make a few suprises!!!
They should make money out of this but not much!! I would of thought that you should not pay more than £10.99 for a commercial add-on, this would cover the cost of P+P, Cd and Developers.
Many delvelopers like people to enjoy there makings for free and if making a route is easier than MSTS I expect lots of people would make routes. Kuju should make one website for commercial add-ons and one for freeware addons where they can be uploaded by anyone and downloaded by anyone!!

Well Thats my thought!!!

Nath

[AndiS]

The payware groups seem to think that their software is the reason for the success of MSTS and will be the reason for the success of KRS, whereas I choose to believe that it will be the freeware routes that will bring KRS alive, hosted here as before if Matt is so inclined.

I would not say "black" or "white" here. It is true that the payware groups did a lot for MSTS and that - if Kuju is not going out of business - they will not be in the position to further develop an abandoned product like they did with MSTS. So their role will not the same.

But at the same time, there are many people who like to go to the shop to buy some readymade add-on which is "professional" in all its aspects and for which they are willing to pay the usual sum.

At the same time it is certain that freeware will play a big role in KRS, because of the much better support of the hobby modeller by much user friendlier tools. At the same time, the bar is raised high by the default content. Therefore, we need to take a differentiated look at the different types of contributions.

• Rolling stock is either created some very expensive CAD software, or 3DCanvas. We are yet to learn whether it is possible to make models created 3DCanvas look as good as the default content, e.g., when it comes to shadows.
  The modelling of the physics will be more precise than in MSTS, so the challenge to the modeller will be greater. Already in MSTS, a large number of shortcomings regarding physics result from bad configuration data, not limitations of MSTS.
• Passengers and other figures definitely seem to be built using an addon to the Max software (if I understood that correctly), so the common man will have to resort to reskinning existing ones. Lets see of the licence for the default content gives us a headache when redistributing reskinned figures or not.
  Scripting their behaviour will not be easy, but if you only want to define the region where they move around, you will certainly have a user friendly tool from Kuju for that.
• Scenery should pass without the latest 3D effects (although near the track you would recognise characteristics of the shade etc.). So we are well equipped with 3DCanvas (and GoogleSketch). But since KRS can display more complex scenery, we will be challenged to produce it. Also there will be far more items per mile to place – using a much friendlier editor.
• Track laying will be fun for sure. But again, the increased capabilities of KRS will require that you model all tracks, not only the most important ones, to keep the sim from hanging. Also, shaping the embankments and cuttings will be easier on the one hand, but require a lot of care on the other hand as we again cannot blame MSTS anymore for the unnatural look of a slope.
• Activities/scenarios are said to be easily done, and creating them can only be better than in MSTS again.
• Signalling will certainly be less esoteric than in MSTS, but at the same time, the increase in possibilities will result in the demand for perfect realism, which could lead to complex scripts. (We don't know anything yet beyond the name of the scripting language, but complex arrangements in stations cannot result in simple models.)

Overlooking this list leads me to the impression that freeware will focus on routes and people will mostly use payware (or default) stock on it.

Even then it will require quite some collaboration of specialists; and/or a huge library of freeware scenery – which again raises the question of licences for freeware (to manage content removal).

The recent announcement about independent content servers sounds like there will not be some centrally managed unique identifiers. Then organising all the objects in the world of train simulation to provide easy and safe reference to them would be yet another task for the freeware community.

Since there will not be any control over freeware, there will also be no one to execute QA on it. Again, organisations like UKTS will be needed to provide solutions here, and at least for rolling stock, all the analysing and defining the many shades of gray between right and wrong will be quite some task.

All in all, there certainly will be a strong and busy freeware community. But it will run in parallel to the payware community, not concurring or replacing them. Obviously, Kuju are not nice to cottage industries at the moment, but I would not bet on that being a lasting symptom. My private prognosis is that there will be loads of routes and scenery objects from lots of freeware contributors, but that sophisticated rolling stock will mostly come from payware setups, cottage or not.

[AndiS]

Edit: Upon now deleted request I summarise above essay as following for the hasty reader - please note the caveat at the end.

Assumption:
- great Kuju editors lead to lots of freeware routes,
- difficult and expensive external modelling software leads to little freeware rolling stock (of quality matching the default stock)

Theory:
- Payware rolling stock on freeware routes will prevail
- Many freeware authors need to collaborate

Conclusion:
- Community issues such as QA, licencing and referencing of objects need to be solved by community.

Caveat:
- Read the full reasoning to see all the 'buts' before you say I pop unreasoned theories.

[johndibben]

The world kept turning despite my ignorance and so I deleted the post

Cheers

John

[seagulls2000]

Correct me if im wrong but Microsoft have just released a tenth version of another simulator thats been running for 20 years now. In that time am I right in thinking that commercial and freeware add ons have been available for Flight Sim without having to pay MS a penny (or cent depending on where you are from) and much like they did with MSTS, MS encoraged people to create for their simulator by offering tools and tech info to aid creation. After all, if someone produced a kick . route for KRS that you wanted and you did not own KRS at the time would you not go and buy KRS and the add on, therefore actually creating sales for Kuju because of the add on.

Also MS have been producing 2 versions of flight sim for the last couple of versions one with extra content for a higher price. Would anyone actually object if Kuju/EA released 2 versions of KRS, one with the sim and default routes/stock for say £30 and a "plus" version with the route creation tools and other extras for say £50? If you just want to play you buy the £30 version but if you want to create you buy the £50 version. That way Kuju/EA get the extra kick back from the dev version, everyone be it commercial or freeware are on a level playing field and speaking personally, I would still buy the "plus" version because one day I might actually gain the skills needed to use the creation tools, so they will make the extra cash from people who realistically will never produce any content.

Gary

[NeutronIC]

I actually think that having a two tier system where content creation is only in the upper tier is quite counter productive unless there is an upgrade path - instinctively most people will buy the cheapest version assuming they won't want to get in to content creation but later on they decide that since they have the tools, why not give it a shot - and then suddenly find they are good at it. How many of the great freeware (or even commercial) content creators are here because they had the tools from the outset?

I kinda like the idea of the way that FSX has been done - in the deluxe version you have more scenery, more aircraft and more adventures. You get two functional extras, the glass cockpit and the ATC mode - but content-wise you are as able in one as you are in the other.

Content creation is where all platforms like this live and die, if you do anything to restrict content creation then you follow the latter route in *most* cases, particularly in fringe interest areas such as railways.

I do tend to agree with the assessment that MSFS has done very well, as did MSTS with the approach that they have taken for many years.

Matt.

[johndibben]

A two-tier sim isn't practical.

No idea why standard and professional editions are produced but assume it's to make more money.

The difference in price between the two versions of FSX led me to buy the professional without question as with the others.

A few might not have the extra few quid but the price of the possible upgrade to your computer is far more.

A question mark hangs over computer games in the market although denied where it's vital to the hobby.

The cheaper version makes a good Christmas present for those who know the receipient will likely only use it for a few days.

I'd guess most games are like model railway items and the majority remain in their boxes.

That is still a market and makes money and benefits those who use them constantly.

Cheers

John

[AndiS]

I assumed that they would take the approach that Gary describes. Of course the editors or whatever must be available as an upgrade, not only in a separate package (i.e., you pay 30 and later 20, not 30 and later 50 in the example).

As John points out, it benefits all if there is a cheap version handy as a gift and also suitable for gamers who play trains one day, and cars next day and then war again.

However, since KRS is intended to attract the Trains community in addition to the MSTS community, it is clear that an easy to use editor must be in the core package. A while ago it seemed that there would be some extra tool called The Depot which would not be included in the core package, but the latest release sounds like they threw that in, too.

In a way, the $70 you have to pay for 3DCanvas are the entry ticket into content creation, but this goes to Amabilis, not Kuju. So in a way Kuju give all they can for free to the content providers - under the condition that the created content be freeware. Once you leave these grounds, some mysterious £1.000 are come your way. Given previous debates on UKTS how difficult it is to draw a line between segments and how many hues there are between the mega-seller and the freeware item, I am surprised that Kuju have not addressed the issue of small scale payware. But we need to keep in mind that the £1.000 are second hand information, not an official statement. For the latter we are still waiting. Patiently, ATM.