...but modding and talking about modding is NOT allowed / tolerated / taken in account here, correct? I mean, hundreds of mods on Trainsimcommunity.com.... (and ALL of us use them...) but they are all "ILLEGAL" from DTG point of view. Correct? I was just wondering how users make those mods... but didn't found nothing in the whole net. Looks like TSW modding is the deepest secret in the universe protected by the gods. A pak file put in the DLC folder that modify the light intensity of a DTG loco's headlights... Sounds illegal. Isn't it?
I do not believe modding is illegal and it is heavily discussed on the forums. Some publishers/developers actively encourage it while some may not.
There is a whole section in this forum called 'TSW Editor Discussion'. So it's fair to take off the tinfoil hat now
Well, now I'm a criminal. I use mods in TSW, and in Snowrunner I edited the configuration files for cars, cargo, etc. I'm waiting for the police to ring my doorbell.
Of course it's not illegal, what law do you think is being broken?!? What modding is, however, is unsupported. DTG try to support the concept of modding, in that the game allows user content, but if a mod causes something not to work, DTG can't help you fix it. Also: No. Only PC users can, and not all do. I use various ones, but I've seen enough posts from PC users saying they don't to know it's not universal.
Not correct. Used generated content (UGC) is actually regulated to a certain degree by the EULA. Then you certainly didn't search well enough. Again, look at the editor discussions section. There are actually lots of tutorials. Also on YouTube quite a few video tutorials covering different topics. Even a few DTG Stream called editor masterclass. Getting tooth paste back into the tube is a deeper secret tbh. It neither sounds illegal. Not is it illegal. Or would be indeed illegal, to actually sell these mods. But distributing them for free is not illegal.
Seriously, DTG should be praying to mod creators and supporting them in every way possible. Most mods, at a minimum, make the game interesting, and the secondary goal is to increase profits. Many mods require the purchase of several add-ons to be functional, such as the repaint pack for the BR218 and BR140, which have a working GSMR if you have the BR101 Expert add-on.
Ok maybe "illegal" was a strong word. What i meant is, i don't think DTG is happy if you extract an .asset from their .pak and then modify that asset. It is not a supported practice, there are no official tools to do that, ... but tousands of trainsimcommunity mods are made of this, modified original pak files. And i would be very, very suprised if in the forum section all of you suggest i would find something about extracting a DTG pak and editing it....... but i will.... i will go there and i will ask how to modify a DTG loco. LEt's see what happens.......
And what does it mean? Means that i can unpack a loco or route .pak, modify it, and put it in the game?
If the modified loco requires the OG dlc to work, i dont see the problem. Why would they be against stuff that actively makes the game better and can give an incentive for players to buy the dlc
I think the OP is wildly confused, to put it mildly. You cant resell DTG assets. That sounds like what they are talking about instead of mods.
Nothing about modding the game has ever been 'illegal'. DTG have even altered the game in ways specifically to acomodate for mods, with things like the release of the official modding tools or the disable mods function in the settings. Modifying their assets is complicated because of how baking assets works in Unreal Engine - you cannot unbake them and rather would require access to the raw files which only DTG or certified 3rd parties can access. But as OP later stated, such mods do exist where models within the game are altered or at the very least added to. Not only are they just retextured, but in some cases their models themselves are altered. For example: The 66s here have their later L2 lights, and 86259 has its number and name plates actually modelled and not just textured on. Branding is also not an issue it seems. DTG themselves can obviously only publish and charge for branded items when they have the appropriate licensing, and when they don't we get unbranded trains. Again however, branded mods exist and are never pushed back against, and branded liveries are even distributed in the game's own built in livery designer. DTG can't do anything about them anyway unless they were to make the game unmodable full stop. They don't endorse or encourage the brandings, but they never stop them. This even applies when a mod overlaps with something the game releases in an official capacity. Biggest example, if you were someone who downloaded the various enhancement packs for WCMLS, you got an 805 long before AABS were even on the scene in the form of an 801 retextured inside and out in Avanti colours. Can you tell which one is which? There is only one time in the game's history when DTG did anything to oppose mods. In the leaked material ahead of the launch of TSW5 we saw that WCMLS had full LNWR branding on the 350s and stations, however this was absent upon release. Mere weeks before launch either LNWR pulled the license or there had been a misunderstanding and DTG never had it in the first place, I don't believe this has ever been fully clarified. In discussions following this, executive producer Matt encouraged people not to publish mods that reinstated the branding on the route and trains as this may cause harm to any negotiations to restore the branding officially. Not some ultimatum, a request. Well... New mods are published and available to this day with the branding. Again, no action has ever been taken against them. The point I am making is that there is a difference between what a company is willing to allow versus what they will actively endorse or promote. DTG do not, and in some ways legally cannot, encourage or endorse certain kinds of mods. Modding as a broad subject and idea however, they do endorse. They are just simply not responsible for what is then created as a result, in much the same way that YouTube might encourage and support you in creating a video in principle, but they have no part to play in what you then might post. The only time they cannot support mods is in diagnosing technical issues, and this is standard across every single game ever published. This is simply because a developer cannot help with code they do not have access to. That is as far as the lack of support goes. And yes, I have just posted a ton of images of the modded content I've been talking about in DTG's own forum, and I have openly talked about some of the ways modding works. It's safe to do so, and every single mod I've posted an image of comes from various enhancement packs and other such creations which have been actively talked about, announced and promoted in this very forum.
By "illegal" i wanted to mean "NOT SUPPORTED OPENLY". I am sorry for all this misunderstanding. Leaving, over and out. Best luck to everybody.
Talking about mods, a bit of a random question here has anyone else noticed how the class 158 causes delays on some modded timetables in game, for some reason the A.I. 158s are turning on the DRA causing them to get stuck until u manually go in and turn it off, doesn't affect all of them for some reason tho.
