How Much Payware In A Freeware Route? (Poll)

[Acorncomputer]

On the subject of scenarios, I think all base free roam scenarios supplied with freeware routes should use just default rolling stock so that the scenario will always load. I also try to use default or freeware rolling stock in any scenarios I create and distribute with my routes on the basis that the scenarios can be run by anyone but the stock can be swapped out if desired. The only exception to this is the use of the Isle of Wight assets.

Once a route has been uploaded and is working correctly on the user's computer, they are then free to add anything they like into the route. Once The Big Layout was uploaded and working correctly, it did not take long for me to start adding non-default locos and rolling stock which I have enjoyed running Evening Star and some Halls around the route.

This Poll question is useful to people who are going to create and upload routes, which is a relatively small proportion of the forum membership, so we should take note of the poll results even if it is not a definitive answer.

[eyore]

I see spikeyorks and bhyde type faster than me, but I'll add my post anyway in support of their comments.

I think we're in danger of drifting away from the question that was asked. Vern wanted to know what end users wanted to see in a freeware route but a number of route builders seem to think this means their options will be restricted.

Most route builders choose a route that appeals to them, set in an era they like. They build for their own pleasure and as such are entitled to include any assets they choose, and I totally support their right to do so. However, if you want that route to be appreciated by a wider audience you need to consider the needs of the "end user", and the purpose of this poll, it seems to me, is to establish what you need to include/exclude to maximise that appreciation.

I am working on the Lynton & Barnstaple route and accept that choosing a steam era, single track, narrow gauge route will have limited appeal. As I do want to share it with the largest possible audience it will contain no payware, other than the IOW. That is the decision Gary and I made on our route, but it was not imposed by anyone else, and I suggest other route builders must make the same value judgements for themselves.

[Acorncomputer]

More wishful thinking than anything else .. but including the IOW route as default route would be a welcome move by RS.com

[bigvern]

Just my opinion - but 'free routes/scenarios' should not include any PayWare as it is a simple procedure to swap stock to what you want (using RW_Tools?) when you want.
OK, it takes a little effort but makes the providers job a lot easier and quicker?!

We aren't talking rolling stock here so much as actual route building assets - trees, buildings etc. My policy on releasing routes regardless of how much payware has been used for the 3D items is to make the scenarios with default items - though you could argue if scenery assets have come from a payware pack that includes rolling stock then the end user will have access to that having purchased the payware route.

[bigvern]

I see Paul has now posted about the WCML as I was typing my answer. Paul I don't think the poll result should put you off making whatever type of route you want. Just give a slight thought to whether you have to ask people to spend £60-£80 to be able to run your route. It is your own personal answer that is the right one.......not anyone elses.

Regards

Maybe I should have put a variation in the original poll - how much are you prepared to spend acquiring payware assets you haven't already got, to run a freeware route? I suspect most RW users own the IOW and a few months ago several of us tried to make a case that it should have been incorporated in the core but got shot down unfortunately. I still hopefully see a situation in a few months when potential sales have been exhausted and RS.com incorporate IOW in the core, however I can't see that ever pertaining with GARL or the Rich Garber routes.

[Traveller54]

Sorry Vern for bringing 'scenarios' into the argument - however there are usually one or two provided with a new route and, inevertably, these will include 'payware' stock?

And a message to Paul - the GARL is totally overpriced for a 'fictional' route (even for a for a real-life one!!) so to include things from there restricts your personal preferences to be shared with others IMHO. Maybe when you do the WCML_North (to include Warrington?) things may have changed?

[msey0002]

But why restrict his personal preferences, Trav? If Paul sees fit to include payware assets in his own personal route, then he has a right to do so. Those who wish to use it can use it, those who don't or can't don't use it. It's as simple as that.

Paul and Ally will soon be uploading routes, and they will not be making a profit out of their terrific work. They paid for the GARL and the IoW as much as the rest of us did. If they feel they ought to include assets they paid good money for, it should be entirely up to them, no one else.

[alexnick]

I've always thought that freeware creations using payware products were fine as they acted as a bonus for the original payware - this is especially true of activities / scenarios. That said, I can't imagine people going out of their way to purchase payware add-ons just to run a freeware route. Whilst it is nice if something works 'out of the box', it's hardly essential.

Let people create what content they want, using any products they choose, and it's up to the community to download what it wants. If it contains more payware than someone wants, they don't have to download it. I don't think that the community has any sort of right to 'payware-free' add-ons.

AN

[Darpor]

Now looking at the results, I am not sure what you are going to get out of this Vern. With "default only" currently in the lead but with IOW only not far behind along with "up to two", your basically damned if you do and damned if you don't, no matter which path you choose. The problem is, not so long ago there were various posts in a thread (cannot find it now) stating that the use of third party items was essential because routes using default only would look far to generic and repetetive. These results (so far) completely contradict that theory.

As for people consistently telling creators what to do, pointless and ungrateful, that is my opinion. Whether they use payware assets or not, you are the guys constantly complaining about the lack of community spirit so when someone decides to create something for free, how about just supporting the decisions they make instead of trying to make them feel they are creating a white elephant just because you won't download it.

[Traveller54]

But why restrict his personal preferences, Trav? If Paul sees fit to include payware assets in his own personal route, then he has a right to do so. Those who wish to use it can use it, those who don't or can't don't use it. It's as simple as that.

Paul and Ally will soon be uploading routes, and they will not be making a profit out of their terrific work. They paid for the GARL and the IoW as much as the rest of us did. If they feel they ought to include assets they paid good money for, it should be entirely up to them, no one else.

Where did I restrict his personal preference? All I did was express MY opinion, you started the argument!
He can do what ever he wants to IMHO but the consequences of it may not be as appreciated as he had hoped?

[Traveller54]

...

What is the point in anyone asking for feedback then when it is given, good bad or indifferent, people have to then have a go just to satisfy their own opinions
Vern, you have wasted your time here mate 'cos .... well, I'm out of here :bad-words:

[msey0002]

But why restrict his personal preferences, Trav? If Paul sees fit to include payware assets in his own personal route, then he has a right to do so. Those who wish to use it can use it, those who don't or can't don't use it. It's as simple as that.

Paul and Ally will soon be uploading routes, and they will not be making a profit out of their terrific work. They paid for the GARL and the IoW as much as the rest of us did. If they feel they ought to include assets they paid good money for, it should be entirely up to them, no one else.

Where did I restrict his personal preference? All I did was express MY opinion, you started the argument!
He can do what ever he wants to IMHO but the consequences of it may not be as appreciated as he had hoped?

And I expressed MY opinion and never said you shouldn't express yours. I countered your argument, as you countered mine.

Your opinion would restrict creators preferences for the sake of the general public, something that I see unacceptable in a freeware route.

That is MY opinion, please feel free to counter it.

[growler37]

Hi
Of course a great way forward would be for commercial route developers to consider releasing route asset packs,such as GARL signaling Etc,but i wont hold my breath on that one,the ethos seems to be big bucks from a few, rather than small bucks from the many!but i am going off topic.
Route builders have some great freeware assets at there disposal now,Sads Altenburg route alone contains hundreds of items of the highest quality that put payware to shame,the library here has lots of assets for the route builder to use,i agree IOW should be included as a default route with RW,this is were the developers have failed in some respects,it seems the churning out of loco,s is paramount,when the real need is some route building asset packs, apart from IOW and a small foliage pack,there has been nothing for route builders,unless you want to pay megebucks for a route that you will run a couple times,then just use its assets for route building,so thats an area that needs serious consideration.
To answer Verns poll i would have to say as little payware as possible,with the exception of IOW,but in the end it is totaly up to the author to use what he wants.
Regards
Kevin

[Fincra5]

Because of the quality of the GARL and IOW addon I tend to use them most in my freeware routes. I do try to use as much freeware as possible.

[spikeyorks]

As for people consistently telling creators what to do, pointless and ungrateful, that is my opinion.

That's not what's going on here Darren. Vern (a creator) has had the courtesy to actually ask his "audience" for their input. That is what he is getting and, in my opinion, that is a good thing.

Where I think you are right, though, is that is that if only a small number of assets are used in route creation then all routes will, by default, end up looking similar. Maybe that is more a comment on the lack of freeware creators, or the dominance of payware creators, rather than anything else?

As for any alternative arguments going on around us then it is a shame they can't be editted out as they are distracting from the main point of the thread