Freeware routes and their dependance on payware

[lateagain]

Freeware routes and their dependence on Payware

I've waited longer than most to try out Railworks so despite being involved (...oh no wait ....I think the technical term is obsessed?! ) with Rail Simulators ever since MSTS was released I'm a newcomer to Railworks. I'm also a comparative newcomer to Flight Simulators having uninstalled FS98 as rubbish back in it's day. I now have FS9 and FSX on my machine. I've followed the "Silent Hunter" series of Sub Sim from version 1 onward.

So what? Well any real simulator fans would see that as a pretty dedicated (er ...obsessed) "Simulator Fan" pedigree?

The thing that has made simulators a serious branch of computer gaming and a new "virtual" arena for long standing modelling hobbies is the community input. I've spent more money than I care to account for on payware add-ons for simulation programmes so I'm not against payware. I do have to remind folk though that that is because I'm lucky enough to have been able to afford this.

This input has always been a mixture of payware and freeware. In other train simulators there has been a massive amount of freeware. BVE is all(?) freeware. Flight Simulators have a MASSIVE freeware content available and many involved with RailWorks have seen the necessity for such support to forward the hobby.

Matt's encouragement to create a library of freeware assets for Railworks and the support it's received has to be recognised, in my opinion, as essential for the expansion of RW as a viable hobby simulator.

So why do I post this now? Well, and let's be clear there's NO CRITICISM of the uploader here, I looked at what was necessary to run the new Thameslink Route in the library and started to tot up the cost of the necessary payware add-ons.

I gave up when it hit over £64.

Anyone who thinks this has no significance has missed the point that some of the most creative and prolific contributors to the hobby have been folk who are not amongst the richest in the land. Necessity is the mother of invention. As far as simulators are concerned there's few more relevant sayings?

Where am I going with this?
Well there's no doubt that many really excellent freeware assets have been created and uploaded. I've yet to try them but praise for the route building competition entrants has been pretty vocal.

What I'm suggesting is that future uploads for RW be categorised. I leave the categories to the forum to debate but my rough idea is as follows.

No payware involved (other than default or Steam Freeware)

Limited payware involved (x amount of routes, stock etc.)

Payware involved (where multiple payware title ownership is involved in running stuff)

One slight dig at the Thameslink uploader, and as I'm new to RW he may be better than many(?), is that where additional payware uploads are required a FULL and Fully spelt out list of locations and titles should be provided.

Sorry if this seems longwinded but previous posts in the RW forum have been trashed by rather pointless and negative input so I want any newcomers (folk who haven't followed simulators for as long as many of us here have) to be quite clear where I'm coming from.

IMHO RW has loads of potential but for all it's "New Kid on the Block" status it still has the same hills to climb as Trainz, BVE, MSTS, FS and many Sub Sims.

Geoff

[gptech]

I agree that for a newcomer to RW buying the addons required for Thameslink is very costly, but in defence (?) of xguerra the addons are ones that long standing RW users have built up over the past 2 years or so, thus spreading the cost a fair bit.

The Isle of Wight in particular has almost become an essential, as many routes rely on the assets from it.

You have highlighted something that may be a big problem though, as RW continues to enjoy success and more and more people jump on board there is the risk of immediately alienating them by adding to the cost. I like the principle of your idea to categorise route downloads, but fear that this may become too cumbersome for the volunteer admins to properly manage---perhaps a message to uploaders that it would be nice/appreciated/desirable if they could fully detail the addons required, with an idea of the cost involved, in the details page is a step in the right direction?

[bigvern]

Interesting suggestion Geoff but the problem is there are so many permutations of the different payware it might be difficult to put a particular route in a certain category. However I do agree that is absolutely incumbent on the route author for any and every item of payware or for that matter additional freeware (whether hosted at UKTS or elsewhere) to be identified along with a current location where it can be obtained.

Your bringing up the freeware asset pack actually jogged me into wondering whatever became of the idea as the last post on the topic is some time ago.

[danny3]

There is one thing I should add, the third rail (which in my opinion should be default content!) is only in two routes (the IOW and WCML North), one of the reasons why I've had to use one of those routes assets in the route that I'm creating (I choose to use the wcml north mainly because it has both the LED signals and the 3rd Rail but I'll probably get a bit of grief for that ).

[gptech]

There is one thing I should add, the third rail (which in my opinion should be default content!)

Definately!! ...one asset that's essential for anyone to model a Southern region route for example could mean that a route that otherwise uses free or default assets costs 20 quid +

[transadelaide]

What I'm suggesting is that future uploads for RW be categorised. I leave the categories to the forum to debate but my rough idea is as follows.

No payware involved (other than default or Steam Freeware)

Limited payware involved (x amount of routes, stock etc.)

Payware involved (where multiple payware title ownership is involved in running stuff)

Shouldn't the list of payware items required be enough for this? Many downloads already include the words 'default content only needed' if they do only need default content. I don't think there is any need for anything more than the current routine of having a list of everything required with a commonly understood descriptor for the source (just writing Steam, IHH, DT, JT). After all, freeware items are made by the creators for themselves, that they choose to give it as a free gift to us is more than they should be enough without recategorising. Nobody owes you freeware.

Every RW freeware download does already depend on a minimum of two software items that are payware (Windows and RailWorks) so even before you include DLC the 'freeware' descriptor has already morphed into shorthand for 'free to those who already have certain payware.' The freedom to use this shorthand for 'free to those who already have certain payware' should be allowed no matter which items are required, as long as it is all listed. Using a more idealistically pure concept of 'freeware' would place the 'freeware' status of items in the UKTS file library themselves in doubt, to many RW users on other forums the requirement to pay for a premium membership for decent access to the file library makes UKTS a paysite and all items on here payware rather than freeware.

What I would like to see instead of making arbitrary distinctions between differing asset requirements is more authors supplying a comprehensive listing of freeware items required instead of just a list of UKTS download ID numbers. Seeing a number like 12345 makes no connection with me as it's just a number, who could possibly know the download number of every RW download in the library? Seeing a proper description that makes sense, for example DRS Class 37/6 Repaint (37602) - UKTS22632, would be much more useful as I can instantly have a good idea of whether or not I have it already.

[MisterWho]

... However I do agree that is absolutely incumbent on the route author for any and every item of payware or for that matter additional freeware (whether hosted at UKTS or elsewhere) to be identified along with a current location where it can be obtained...

I couldn't agree more. However, I came across another problem in this respect last week on not one but two of the older routes in the UKTS library - the passage of time. Even when the builder has provided links from which required assets can be downloaded, the source for those assets can disappear. Here, it would seem that the entire websites where those assets had been available had been shut down, rather than it being that the assets were just not there. In this particular case, while the builder did provide links, they did not provide any meaningful description of what the assets were, so it would have been impossible to use RW-Tools to replace the assets with something equivalent. Result - two routes downloaded but then deleted.

Personally, I'm now moving to the opinion that routes should, wherever possible, be self contained. If a builder has used an asset, then that asset should be packaged with the route ... unless of course, it's a payware asset,
moi

[lateagain]

What I'm suggesting is that future uploads for RW be categorised. I leave the categories to the forum to debate but my rough idea is as follows.

No payware involved (other than default or Steam Freeware)

Limited payware involved (x amount of routes, stock etc.)

Payware involved (where multiple payware title ownership is involved in running stuff)

Shouldn't the list of payware items required be enough for this? Many downloads already include the words 'default content only needed' if they do only need default content. I don't think there is any need for anything more than the current routine of having a list of everything required with a commonly understood descriptor for the source (just writing Steam, IHH, DT, JT). After all, freeware items are made by the creators for themselves, that they choose to give it as a free gift to us is more than they should be enough without recategorising. Nobody owes you freeware.

Every RW freeware download does already depend on a minimum of two software items that are payware (Windows and RailWorks) so even before you include DLC the 'freeware' descriptor has already morphed into shorthand for 'free to those who already have certain payware.' The freedom to use this shorthand for 'free to those who already have certain payware' should be allowed no matter which items are required, as long as it is all listed. Using a more idealistically pure concept of 'freeware' would place the 'freeware' status of items in the UKTS file library themselves in doubt, to many RW users on other forums the requirement to pay for a premium membership for decent access to the file library makes UKTS a paysite and all items on here payware rather than freeware.

What I would like to see instead of making arbitrary distinctions between differing asset requirements is more authors supplying a comprehensive listing of freeware items required instead of just a list of UKTS download ID numbers. Seeing a number like 12345 makes no connection with me as it's just a number, who could possibly know the download number of every RW download in the library? Seeing a proper description that makes sense, for example DRS Class 37/6 Repaint (37602) - UKTS22632, would be much more useful as I can instantly have a good idea of whether or not I have it already.

Well if you don;t mind me saying so you seem to have presented a rather circular argument here and introduced a lot of hardly relevant stuff. To address the latter I don't want to start any discussion on UKTS being a payware site. You have a choice on whether to take out premium membership. Neither do we need lectures on freeware. Many people here have been contibuting to the freeware library and more aquire the skills to do so through help on this site and many others like it.

Now to your final point first. Whilst I see your point about file ID's by listing them in a block you can find out what they are in seconds using the Bulk File ID Search so listing the ID's in a block would be more useful than more detail perhaps?

Your point about commonly understood descriptors however is what a good deal of the problem is. If you are going to include payware assets why is it such a huge task to either give the full English description and source or more usefully a hyperlink to that source. This is a web page after all?

As for "isn't it enough?" Well that's the WHOLE point of my post so if my response seems churlish ....no IMO it isn't. As has been stated here the Isle of Wight Route seems to have become almost an essential in RW route add-ons for assets within it. However the list in the Thameslink (and perhaps others already?) is both extensive AND expensive. My simple suggestion is that within the library route uploads should be categorised to reflect the DEGREE of dependance on payware assets. Hardly rocket science not any great deal of work?

Geoff

[markpullinger]

Hi Geoff, there is only 1 slight problem with only showing the ID numbers, and that is if the item gets removed from the library for whatever reason, you have no clue what it was unless someone who has previously downloaded it (and has kept it), comes on the forums to say what they are. Sometimes the same item is available on other sites so a description is useful. Sorry for the lengthy reply

[lateagain]

Hi Geoff, there is only 1 slight problem with only showing the ID numbers, and that is if the item gets removed from the library for whatever reason, you have no clue what it was unless someone who has previously downloaded it (and has kept it), comes on the forums to say what they are. Sometimes the same item is available on other sites so a description is useful. Sorry for the lengthy reply

Good point Mark. The issue of file ID's and withdrawals or updates is a whole area in itself.

Geoff

[TransportSteve]

Hello Geoff,

I don't disagree with what you've written, but, this is the old chestnut again, freeware against Payware. IMHO the default content we have in the game and the early creations on the UKTS library are now becoming old and outdated. Consequently, for modern route building, creators are utilising modern assets, which seems only logical. If creators had provided freely the stuff now being used most, such as, UK catanery, LED signalling, houses, buildings, etc, etc, then there wouldn't be much need for Payware items, however, as nobody has built any of these items for free, or, whatever is freely available on other websites, such as the French and Italian catanery, but, cannot be used on British routes for operational reasons (height), etc, or not cosmetic enough for our country, then, if you cannot afford the Payware content now on offer, you won't be able to enjoy playing on any routes which utilises these new Payware toys in the future.
I also agree with categorising assets used on layout "Read Me" documents, but, we are all in the hands of the creator to provide sufficient information and not everyone knows what is needed, or, maybe too excited to get their route released to the community and misses half of the valuable information off. IMPO I think there is far too much stuff, particularly routes, currently being released without being checked first and/or BETA tested, I would also state that as a lot of assets used on certain layouts are on "foreign" websites around Europe, North America, etc, that the creators don't want to put their assets in the UKTS library, so, it's up to you the end user if you have the time and inclination to bother and go and look for them, some will, others won't, but, you can't blame creators for keeping their content on their home turf. IMPO I think it's a laugh that folks can't be bothered to go and look for content, tough titties then, you'll miss out on all the other stuff from these wonderful websites around the world, and you don't even have to move off your chair, it can be obtained with a few clicks of the mouse using Google, this forum, etc, etc, what could be easier.....I agree that this is just a hobby for most of us and time is sometimes short and real life often gets in the way, but, reading many posts on many forums, laziness kicks in with quite a substantial lot of us.

I believe that the route creator Xavier, who did the Thameslink route, is Spanish, and this is his very first layout he has built freely for the community, I honestly don't think he knows what is fully required in the "Read Me" document field and as English is not his first language, I think we need to cut him some slack on this minor issue, he's done his best, I think encouragement, rather than vilification, is required in small doses, we don't want to frighten off our foreign route creator friends, there aren't too many of them providing layouts freely for us as it is, and he has done a prototypical British route, how many Brits have created a prototypical foreign layout, for nothing.

Cheerz. Transport Steve.

[Darpor]

Matt's encouragement to create a library of freeware assets for Railworks and the support it's received has to be recognised, in my opinion, as essential for the expansion of RW as a viable hobby simulator.

Hi Geoff

The RWFreeware program?

An idea that I started, contributed to and encouraged only to see a small handful even bother to add to with most just deciding to argue about developer structures.

I still plan on adding to the library and would like to think others would too, at least to build up a sustainable group of assets that anyone can use in a freeware route which in turn may decrease the over reliance on payware.

[antonyperks]

Some good Ideas there Geoff, but just my 2p's worth, when it comes to the end user loading these Free routes................It is up to the user wether(spelling), they down load it or not, the builder of that route has chosen to use the assets he/she saw fit to use(right or wrong), Pesonally i buy assets route whatever if i feel they are worth the money or a route i like the look of needs them, for instance I always told my self i wouldnt buy GARL electrics not really my thing and only a short route too, But when ally said his up and long coming(not a dig) route was GARL dependant I bought it...................or was it the half price RSC sale? Any way Yes the listing thing is avery good idea one guy is a constant non lister of whats needed Xavier! loads of re-skinns and payware. And Yes if you add it all up it costs, Personally I have given up on my model railways too cold in the garage, and very Limiting Railworks However, you are really Limitless.

[gypbrc]

I've been thinking about this too. It turns out that currently the payware routes required to run my route tot up to a total of just under £97. And that's even before scenarios are created using payware stock; which would easily add another £100 to the price tag. The freeware assets that have been used have permission from their authors to be included in the package though. This does give the problem of increasing file size vastly though; and as a large percentage of the people who download the package will already have the majority of the assets is this really a better idea?

[johny]

...

Consequently, for modern route building, creators are utilising modern assets, which seems only logical. If creators had provided freely the stuff now being used most, such as, UK catanery, LED signalling, houses, buildings, etc, etc, then there wouldn't be much need for Payware items, however, as nobody has built any of these items for free, or, whatever is freely available on other websites, such as the French and Italian catanery, but, cannot be used on British routes for operational reasons (height), etc, or not cosmetic enough for our country, .....

A complete UK OHLE catenary kit and LED signal kit, both by yours truly, are available in the UKTS file library, it doesn't take much to find them.

John