Edit: Matt answers below - summary, don't panic! There is a lot of good (and exciting!) discussion going on in the Editor threads and I'd like to thank DTG staff (especially Matt) for answering lots of our questions. However glancing at the "thread of update-fixes-being-charged-for doom" I just had a thought - and it's not a particularly good one. If we make content with the TSW4 editor and release it freely as pak files, when TSW5 inevitably releases next September will it be incompatible with the new version? I believe DTG have to re-cook every piece of content for each new release? So presumably content creators will have to do the same. If so this has a few not so good knock on effects: - User created content won't be usable in the new version on it's release - Creators will be under pressure to buy the new version immediately and update all of their content - Content by creators who have moved on will have a maximum shelf life of 1 year, probably a lot less - Players might need to keep half a dozen versions of TSW installed so they can keep playing older content that will never be updated Additional note of pure horror: This makes creating new creations for other peoples creations (locos for routes, rolling stock for locos) REALLY perilous - if your creation time slips over the September boundary and the other creator doesn't update their content then the 2 things will never be able to interact. Imagine a shiny new GWR loco is released for TSW7 - they started making it during TSW6 because an awesome GWR route came out... however the creator of that route then moved on to other things so doesn't re-cook it to TSW7. You'll never be able to use that loco on that route. I would imagine this isn't a big issue for 3rd party as they are getting paid (big incentive!) and DTG will likely provide them with an advanced copy of the next version. DTG might even "look after" 3rd party sources and re-cook when needed (they would be incentivised to keep DLC on sale as they get their cut). But I can see this being a big problem when it comes to a collaborative freeware environment like we had with TSC (Jetgriff's South Devon Banks route spawned KevMT's GWR locos which spawned my GWR wagons, etc, etc). I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I have a horrible feeling I'm right about the process due to the way DTG have described how they have to re-cook everything for each new TSW version
Thanks to giving voice to something that had been nagging at the back of my mind, Pete. In the midst of dusting off kml files, trying to get Shape converter working (without success) to revert to source my old MSTS models, I did start to wonder what the long term prospects of a route build might be. My first attempts as stated will probably be small routes or upscaled model plans. But even that probably represents 3 months work. So yes, the answer to this will very much determine if I move across or just carry on as now in Trainz and TSC or hope DRS adds terrain and real world data to their editor.
Recooking isn't necessary unless there's a big change somewhere. We re-cook content to take advantage of latest core updates and its a part of the process that gets things uploaded into new product slots on the various backends - but in theory, a tsw3 pak will still work fine on tsw4 (there may be other reasons it doesnt work, but I am not expecting it to be simply because it needs recooking). When it comes to 3rd party, all their source is stored on our repository and we handle all the recooks, re-uploads and so forth as part of our normal processes. There's no guarantee that it will work without changes going forwards of course, but I am not expecting recooking to be the cause if there is one. We don't make changes for the sake of it, and in the case of TSW3 -> TSW4 nothing needed any changes, it all repackaged smoothly and hasn't had problems - unlike when we went up major unreal versions where everything broke and needed a bunch of per-product fixes. But, then this is one of the reasons we are no longer looking at changing the UE version because that *would* kill content (and as I've said in the past, was one of the reasons to mothball the editor way back when). We tend to make changes by duplicating something and "up-versioning" - meaning old content continues to work fine as it is. The community hate this, because it means old content doesnt get the benefit of new fixes - but if we modified all old content instead of doing this, it would absolutely definitely break your editor-created things all over the place. Our practices should help minimise or altogether avoid any such problems. I will say that - the price for a product that is continually developed, is change. While we avoid unnecessary change and work hard to maintain backward compatibility (for good reason, it saves us immense time having to go back and upgrade everything in our past, which is utterly impractical) sometimes it's necessary. We'll try and communicate that as we go, but hopefully you can appreciate that it's in our interests as much as anyone elses to NOT create a huge headache when it comes to this. Hope that somewhat allays fears. Matt.
It's a good question. But everything the community creates will also be free and no-risk; this may just be the natural flipside. We can hope for a repository of some kind that people abandoning a project might drop it into for others to continue. Also keep in mind that this is the first time two TSW versions have been released a year apart, and we have no idea if that's the new normal. DTG themselves may have no idea at this point either. Hm. Since the DTG Editor would presumably be updated with a new TSW version, as it's what DTG and 3rd parties themselves use, maybe access to updated versions would be automatic, so content could be recooked without having to buy the new TSW version. But I guess you'd still need to have the new TSW to test your stuff on anyway. Oh well. This still amounts to thinking two versions ahead now, as we don't even have the initial release yet. But it is a good question to ask. [Edit: Matt's a faster typist. Well, most everybody is. May rewrite later.]
That's really good to know, thanks Matt Totally understand that it's a developing product but all the talk of recooking things for every new version was playing on my mind. Great to know that it's not a requirement unless major changes happen.
Sets my mind at rest. Guess the protocol will be to keep the final uncooked version of whatever it is you make firmly backed up, so in the event it does need to be redone for TSW8 or TSW9 you can just throw it back on the griddle.
