Atomic Systems

jpvdveer wrote:Ok. The end result is the same though - Pete is not simply making some money on the back of someone else’s work, as suggested above, but has also made a very significant contribution himself.

Well merging routes isn't anything close to the work that originally went into the route, especially if the merging is as quick and easy as is claimed.

As stated by others, with different origins it is neither quick nor easy. Perhaps it will as a result of Pete’s work now become a bit easier going forward, but in that case he has made an important intellectual contribution for which he equally deserves to be rewarded. And the amount of money he stands to make from this is in any event much smaller than a commercial route would generate. Yes there is the subscription fee but a whole host of other costs also need to be covered from this, including bandwidth, payments to AP and RW Enhancer for the “free” products provided etc.

Where can I read this intellectual contribution; where are the tutorials?

Yes I fully agree that it would be great for this method, if there is one, to be made available for use by the wider community. There are still quite a few of routes out there that can usefully be merged.

Quote >>I wonder how long it will be before TSW allows you to sit in a cab in a station and know that your real destination hundreds of miles away lies in front of you?
Already can, In TSW I often sit as second man and let the driver drive, you can walk the train and sit as a passenger too. What I really REALLY want is to be able to do that (or at least sit as second man) in TS2019.
John

jpvdveer wrote:Yes I fully agree that it would be great for this method, if there is one, to be made available for use by the wider community. There are still quite a few of routes out there that can usefully be merged.

Hang on....a few posts back you were praising the contribution, and postulated that merging routes could now be easier----now you say there's doubt that the method/methodology/tools exist?
If the rest of us can't learn from this merge then it's not contributing to the collective knowledge base.

I just don’t know. Pete has clearly achieved something previously thought impossible to do properly - whether that is on the basis of a more widely applicable methodology/trick or just arduous manual work I can’t tell. He deserves praise regardless. As stated, if there is something more widely applicable then we would all benefit from having knowledge of this, even though he would also be perfectly entitled to keep this for himself.

jpvdveer wrote:even though he would also be perfectly entitled to keep this for himself.

As are route builders. At least on the basis that they expect to create and host it where they like and not have this option taken away from them.

jpvdveer wrote:I just don’t know. Pete has clearly achieved something previously thought impossible to do properly - whether that is on the basis of a more widely applicable methodology/trick or just arduous manual work I can’t tell. He deserves praise regardless. As stated, if there is something more widely applicable then we would all benefit from having knowledge of this, even though he would also be perfectly entitled to keep this for himself.

even though he would also be perfectly entitled to keep this for himself.
he certainly is. though he's used others payware! to receive subscriptions for the use of it. of course we have the option to subscribe or not.

There's no argument that he's a "smart cookie" but part of getting to that state is the help and advice from others in forums such as this; help and advice freely given in the spirit of a "freeware based community".
If memory serves, when he started on his route building ventures he was very unsure of the quality of what he produced, but encouragement from "the community" gave him the reason to carry on. He's still asking for that help and advice, one has to wonder whether it will be so forthcoming now as everybody has the right to keep things to themselves.

Merging routes with different origins has never been impossible--I think Otto Dad over at Railworks America did it a number of years back-- but yes, because of the time and difficulty of the task it was considered that for all intents and purposes it was something to consider as such, life being too short etc.

I may have missed it, but have any payware producers/providers contributed to this post or is anyone aware of a payware producer/provider objecting to what is happening on Alan's site (i.e. what is being posted on the site and the subscriptions) or is this a community objection to the concept and perceived wrongs to the relevant payware producers/providers.

If payware producers/providers do object I am certain they have a legal process to follow.

Confused, as I am not really certain what the underlying objection is - is it outrage on behalf of the original route authors (and if so, is it known that they actually do object, or are they in fact happy to have a potential to increase sales) or is it more simply an objection where the belief is that the merged route should be free (and if so, I would say that is still a matter between the authors and the person merging the routes).

On the original authors point, I notice from the "News" page on Alan's site that Just Trains appears to be happy with the concept of the discounting of certain of their routes, one of which just happens to be Newcastle to Edinburgh, and which is required for the merged ECML.

An interesting thread...

Rod

johnrossetti wrote:

I wonder how long it will be before TSW allows you to sit in a cab in a station and know that your real destination hundreds of miles away lies in front of you?

Already can, In TSW I often sit as second man and let the driver drive, you can walk the train and sit as a passenger too. What I really REALLY want is to be able to do that (or at least sit as second man) in TS2019.
John

I think the point being made was "your real destination hundreds of miles away lies in front of you" and you can drive all the way

In TSW you might be driving a Paddington - Plymouth HST but you have to stop after 36 miles at Reading
In TS2019 you can drive the 245 miles to Plymouth

Peter

august1929 wrote:I may have missed it, but have any payware producers/providers contributed to this post or is anyone aware of a payware producer/provider objecting to what is happening on Alan's site (i.e. what is being posted on the site and the subscriptions) or is this a community objection to the concept and perceived wrongs to the relevant payware producers/providers.

If payware producers/providers do object I am certain they have a legal process to follow.

(...)

On the original authors point, I notice from the "News" page on Alan's site that Just Trains appears to be happy with the concept of the discounting of certain of their routes, one of which just happens to be Newcastle to Edinburgh, and which is required for the merged ECML.

I'm pretty certain that Just Trains and ATS have entered into an agreement on the basis of which ATS is allowed to offer Just Trains routes, with ATS taking a 30% or so cut (which is not an uncommon one in the software industry) in exchange for selling, providing support etc. ATS is then legally free to decide itself on the retail price and has recently offered two of the routes for 15% off - thus effectively giving away half of their margin (i.e. of the 30% cut) in the form of a discount. Just Trains will surely be happy as this is just another way of increasing sales - the 15% discount is actually small compared to what Just Trains itself offer from time to time. As things stand (it will surely not last), you can actually see the success of this, or lack thereof, on the ATS site: Scottish ECML has been downloaded 10 times and Newcastle - Edinburgh 37 times. (Other Just Trains routes have been selling either 0 or 1 copies so far on the ATS site). So this particular cooperation does not seem to be a overwhelming success so far. I also note that other payware developers have stated that they consider the 30% cut to be too high - fair enough.

SkylineBoy wrote:As are route builders. At least on the basis that they expect to create and host it where they like and not have this option taken away from them.

I don't think that there is any suggestion that route builders would no longer be free to choose where to host their routes. I've just been outlining some simple economics suggesting why ATS may attract many users and why freeware route builders may follow (payware could be another matter). It's a bit like Facebook - everyone is free to stop using it but many people have no option but to stay since all of their friends are also on Facebook. ATS' model is built on the basis of similar principles - developers will want to be where users are and you, as site owner, need to attract both of them. So far it seems to be rather successful at least on the user side - apparently the ATS site has been already received more than 2 million hits, and the ECML route has now been downloaded 319 times.

gptech wrote:There's no argument that he's a "smart cookie" but part of getting to that state is the help and advice from others in forums such as this; help and advice freely given in the spirit of a "freeware based community".
If memory serves, when he started on his route building ventures he was very unsure of the quality of what he produced, but encouragement from "the community" gave him the reason to carry on. He's still asking for that help and advice, one has to wonder whether it will be so forthcoming now as everybody has the right to keep things to themselves.

I think this is a very good and important point. Let's hope he takes note.

749006 wrote:I think the point being made was "your real destination hundreds of miles away lies in front of you" and you can drive all the way

In TSW you might be driving a Paddington - Plymouth HST but you have to stop after 36 miles at Reading
In TS2019 you can drive the 245 miles to Plymouth

Peter

Peter, thanks, that's exactly the point I was making.

I'm not sure I want to drive from London to Edinburgh in one go; but it will be a great sitting in the cab, even on a much shorter route, knowing the world really does go all the way if I want to. It sort of adds to the immersion factor and means TS will stay attractive for a long time, unless DTG do something radically different with TSW.

Personally, I've nothing against paying a reasonable amount to those who have 'just' joined routes together. A worker is worth his wages and all that.

Rod, the payware developers seem to have been approached with regard to the sales channel for their products, but Darren Porter certainly wasn't asked about 2 of his routes being involved in a "pay for" package; the request he gave permission for was for a freely available merge..
We may be quibbling over a seemingly minor point, but one with major repercussions---the stance as of now from alanthomsonsim/Pete Mitchell can easily be seen as one of "We/I will do what we like with any freeware item, no matter what the producer of that item says"

I've no doubt Thomson Interactive are watching closely, having already had issues with the XC route's use of Trent Valley on a "pay for" basis. It can be argued that TI's objection is based upon a weak point of law, but as we all accept and and abide to comply with the EULA of that route just by installing it then section 8.1 of the manual comes into play.

IronBidder, making a merged route payware isn't the big problem, if it's advertised as being £10 then that's what it is. The issue is when a subscription arrangement is used to disguise that.