Yes, I've seen... and participated in the countless threads around this for the past few years. However, as a Brit, I'm still embracing a rather stubborn refusal to accept that those tools will not be coming. Because at the end of the day, it is a massive loss to DTG that more content cannot be created and curated. Third-parties are where we can start to see people pushing the boundaries of what is possible for the sim. So with that in mind, a few proposals on how to distribute the tools. So as far as we understand, the main problems for DTG appear to be : Licensing and having unauthorized use of brands in the sim Accessible tools for everyone Whilst we can’t really do anything about the second (you can’t model/texture a train on a PS5 or Xbox). We can make suggestions for how the first could be structured. The Basics Essentially, DTG would have to take the role as publisher and curator, akin to Apple and the app store. DTG have a list of requirements that must be fulfilled before anything can be published to their platforms. There is precedent for this in the form of the MSFS store. However, this would mean the only place you could share content to is DTG, so the tools would need to be modified to ensure that Cooked content cannot be published elsewhere A tighter relationship is maintained between the developer and DTG, or breach of contract would result in consequences. Tagging the developers In order to ensure this, developers would be assigned a unique key/identifier (attached to their steam/epic account). This key would be used to encrypt cooked content made by an editor to ensure that it is only playable on a developers host machine. The benefits of this is : It makes sure that early development content is not distributed and potentially violate current DTG licensing agreements It gives creators freedom and flexibility to develop and add people to their team. Should a creator breach any terms of their arrangement with DTG, the key can be revoked to prevent further abuse. The relationship Developers would have to be bound under certain rules. Therefore, an acceptable programme would be needed to set basic expectations such as : A publishing portal, where final builds are examined and playtested by DTG to ensure quality control Clear documentation or webinar on available IPs and best practices for handling that IP Clear documentation or webinar on valid types of marketing e.g. Ensuring someone doesn’t use TFL branding all over their posters when they haven’t been checked by DTG or the licensor. Clear documentation on the procedures if you are able to procure your own licensing agreements, and have sufficiently proven you have done so. Clear documentation on best practices for multi-platform development. How to tailor clickspots, performance management etc. Transparent arrangements for commission fees from DTG for publishing. Clear arrangements on who owns the final published work and expectations from each developer. Arrangements for a shared developer space. Developers could upload their content to make sure DTG has what is needed to ensure the content is maintained in the event a developer is non-responsive. There is a precedent for this in the form of DCS content. There are ways to ensure and prove if developers have validly acknowledged the requirements before them e.g. mandatory webinar presentations, quiz. This would act as a filter to “cowboy developers”. We don’t want a system that is too rigorous that it would offput developers entirely due to red-tape, but we also don’t want unauthorized abuse of that system. Having this system in place will act as a basic competency check. I’ve got my key… now what? From this point on, developers would now be free to use the “near same” tooling as DTG. As part of the programme, they would have : Access to the full Unreal editor with a 3-6 month rolling period. If no published or submitted content is provided withing that time, then their identifier must be renewed. Request to access approved artwork and imagery per licensor e.g. access to official TFL fonts, roundals where necessary An area to define team-members and manage use of their identifier More direct contact with DTG content Access to the publishers portal, where final content goes to get checked. Hmmmm this sucks, why can’t I just publish this myself? I agree, it does suck. But you know what… we still are not any close to an editor since TSW was released in 2018. If this was on the level of Train Simulator Classic, we would be on a different level right now. With this system; Pros Dovetail can get in on the action and have greater control on what gets published and what doesn’t No licensing conflicts Finally encourage more variety and innovation for TSW The system wouldn’t be too limiting to people just looking to tinker with the tools. Content can be published to all platforms (console/epic/steam) Fairly okish playtesting Content can be maintained on your behalf incase of absence e.g. everytime there is an engine upgrade. Cons Developers can’t publish to their own stores. So Justtrains, Alanthomson etc would be dead The system might still appear more authoritative to indie third-party developers Whilst the barriers to entry are kept as minimal as possible, there are still barriers Limited by the licenses DTG have picked out. Also beholden to DTG maintaining those licenses. May still be hard to push for new technology that isn’t made/authorized by DTG e.g. excessive use of the blueprint system for personal scripting. Steam locos. Multiplayer. VR. Clouds That's all I have to add here. Of course you'll let me know what you think but I still think it's important we try to push for an editor (even if it means accepting compromises). In practice, this should see DTG act more as the role of publisher.
id imagine downloading a User creation is similar to Downloading a mod on Fallout 4 input you dovetail live account go selecting and then download
That creation club Bethesda has is probably a good way to go about doing things, especially to cater to multi-platform requirements.
Your proposal closely matches what the current situation is. Developers are already using the tools under certain conditions, some of them are releasing content already or plan to in the future. You have basically suggested what is already in place.
Your proposal sounds like what Rivet, TSG and Skyhook are already doing now. They have made content under certain conditions and more content will be released in the future. It just isn't free content though
