[Lindsayts]

I don't quite know the best place for this post..............



A task I set myself quite some time back was to try an get a reasonably accurate performance out of MSTS's rolling stock. THe major problem with this is steamers. After VERY much mucking around to gain experience of what was possible and how such rolling stock performed in real life, and better still with some recent improvements in Openrails this is now becomeing possible.

I recently have done much work on ALCO's H220(ALCO is the name a small group of mainly commercial developers call themselves in Australia), performnce tests on the latest changes to the ENG file shows this is now performing close to what the real machine did. Draw bar powers greater than 3000BHP with a water consumption of around 12 lbs/bhp/H. Water consumption is still a bit high (in real life the range is 10 to 12 lbs/bhp/h) but there is more improvement to be had in OR's new code.

Pulling a 550 ton trailing load to Seymour, the model topped the Glenroy bank at slightly under 40mph, this accords with H220's (Note 1) peformance pulling the "Spirit of Progress" (a pass between Melbourne and Sydney) in the late 1940's, although its speed was 45mph, its possible the train was not as heavy.

Now the problem with all this is I believe such work CANNOT be reditributed as it violates the licence that comes with the machine, this as far as I am concerend as a great tragedy. Now as far as I am concerned this actaully occurs with nearly all loco's released for MSTS. This effectively means the work of people such as I that has specialised in loco performance is for most purposes uselless to the general users of MSTS/OR.

What do others particularly loco developers think on the status of such work, as I do not believe such work can be released.

Note 1: H220 was supposed to be the first of 4 4-8-4 3 cylinder locos built by the Victorian Railways (Australia), loco weight 146 ton, tender weight 112 tons designed to pull a 550 ton passenger train on its own up an extended 1 in 48 grade on the Melbourne, Adelaide run. Due to the 2nd world war only H220 was completed. The loco spent its working life pulling mainly Fast freight trains over the Great Dividing range on the Melbourne Albury run. The machine was much loved by its crews and even the railway management due to its excellent performance. It was final retired in 1959 (well into the diesel era) and is now in the railway museum near Newport.

Lindsay

[Genma Saotome]

Lindsayts, on 06 March 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

Now the problem with all this is I believe such work CANNOT be redistributed as it violates the license that comes with the machine, this as far as I am concerned as a great tragedy. Now as far as I am concerned this actually occurs with nearly all loco's released for MSTS.

What sort of license and how does it relate to all locomotives released for MSTS?

[roeter]

What about distributing a file which only states the new values?
Anyone with that engine can update his or her own version. You are not distributing any file which was part of the original engine so not violating any copyright.

Regards,

Rob Roeterdink

[Lindsayts]

Someone in AUS posted a valid point which I had wondered about, In MSTS all ENG, WAG, CVF and sig cfg scripts are derivative works, ie works originally done by some else, in most cases Microsoft and modified to suit the current item and therefore copyright cannot be claimed on them (except by Microsoft).

Genma Saotome said

"What sort of license and how does it relate to all locomotives released for MSTS?"

I was actually refering to most AUS releases, the copyright docs in a number of these clearly claiming copyright on all files. This through me, and I was really wondering how someone could claim copyright on what clearly was a derivative work.

I am going to release at least one up dated ENG file and I fully expect someone to have a go at me.

The major purpose of this thread was to try an clear up once and for all the copyright position of ENG files as modified versions of these are going to be central for decent performing rolling stock in OR.

Lindsay

[Lindsayts]

roeter, on 06 March 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

What about distributing a file which only states the new values?
Anyone with that engine can update his or her own version. You are not distributing any file which was part of the original engine so not violating any copyright.

Regards,

Rob Roeterdink

The most serious problem with this is that a lot of eng files are a __REAL__ mess more than half of the loco's and DMU's I have have had to have the ENG files almost rebuilt from the ground up. Commom problems being poor brake sections, poor resistance section, multiple parameters, engine section a complete mess including but not only poor boiler section, in correct fuel (and water) for both coal and diesel sections, in steam locos almost in all cases far to low power figures, incorrect and inconsistent controls and on and on and on.

The reason for all this mess is that the physical world is not very well understood by most people so almost all ENG, CVF sigcfg's etc are based on some else's little understood work.

Note: I hold to a VERY high standard for controlling machines in the sim, it MUST be as much as possible given the limits of a keyboard like real life. MSTS and OR are simulators, they are supposed to simulate real things!

Lindsay

[Genma Saotome]

Lindsayts, on 07 March 2013 - 12:44 AM, said:

Someone in AUS posted a valid point which I had wondered about, In MSTS all ENG, WAG, CVF and sig cfg scripts are derivative works, ie works originally done by some else, in most cases Microsoft and modified to suit the current item and therefore copyright cannot be claimed on them (except by Microsoft).

Copyright is about protecting creative works, not any works. Ordinary data cannot be creative. The product of many skills is not creative (e.g., you cannot copyright 5*6=30 on the claim it takes mathematical skill to produce the answer). Most interesting is you cannot copyright the "system of play" -- the logic of a game (n.b., you CAN copyright your words describing how to play, but then somebody else can also copyright their words describing how to play). Last, any work whose purpose is to represent an ordinary, real world object, is an example of skill but not creativity. IOW, the closer you get to reality the less claim you can make on creativity.

That doesn't quite create a sharply delineated line between protectable and not-protectable works for the contents of .eng files but IMO it comes pretty darn close: There may be plenty of knowledge, effort, and skill that goes into the contents of an .eng file, but very, very little creativity... perhaps none whatsoever.

A hypothetical example: Thomas_the_Tank Engine.eng; If somebody put into that .eng a set of data that created a display of lights and steam used in conjunction with a happy song file that Thomas might sing while working, you could claim creativity and maybe even make it stick. But OTOH, it's BNSF_SD-90.eng and what you've got is a set of data that matches exactly the unique lighting that the BNSF has on it's SD-90's, something that no other road uses, you've got no chance of making any claim on creativity as all you have done is represent an ordinary, real world object (arguably using skill and time)... and such a work is, by definition, not creative because all you've done is look at the original and copied it.

In short, someone making a claim for copyright protection doesn't mean he has met the criteria for one.

Another example: The old Seaview route is wholly creative. The WP 3rd Sub route is mixed. There is plenty of creative art in tertex and model .ace files so all those things are copyrighted, but the unaltered DEM data and the location of track is not -- one is data, the other is a representation of a real world object, done as accurately as skill allows.

Last example: Open Rails. MS/KUJU has no copyright protection whatsoever on the MSTS system of play and so the OR team can write their own code to perform an identical system of play.

Does that help?

[Lindsayts]

Yyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeessssssssssss,

This is essentially the answer Mareck (Superheatedsteam) gave on a forum here is Aus. Another point that was put to me sometime back is that the file formats were created by someone to use in a trainsim and the formats them selves are the IP rights of the current owners of MSTS, As a user one gets the rights to use these by purchasing a copy of the sim. So one cannot claim IP rights on this data. This view actually conflicks with the last line of the previous message, no wonder there is confusion over IP rights.

As a community then what can one do to try prevent the confusion and pain caused by a developer that does claim such rights on these files. I suppose all one can do is to point out the error and if he/she goes of in a sulk little can be done.

Incedently you made a good point about a particular layout in a loco, here in Aus a number of companies have kick up a stink about someone using there logo or colour scheme on a model with out permission. In these cases it appears the textures/colour schemes used on the model are IP rights of the company.

In the end though there is no substitute for dealing with the public from inside a thick skin, say an M1A1 Abrahms tank, as there will always be someone willing to pull one down!

Lindsay

[Genma Saotome]

Lindsayts, on 07 March 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

Incidentally you made a good point about a particular layout in a loco, here in Aus a number of companies have kick up a stink about someone using there logo or colour scheme on a model with out permission. In these cases it appears the textures/colour schemes used on the model are IP rights of the company.

Ahhh, well... that's because those are not copyright issues, they are (likely) trademark issues, a completely different branch of the law. The short explanation of trademark IP is that it covers anything that the consumer will recognize as the "official" indications of who is responsible for providing the product or service. It is to avoid confusion and prevent "leeches". So brand names, company names, certain symbols (e.g., The Nike "Swoosh") are things covered by Trademark protection. Here's the loophole: The registrant must document the kind of business/products/services in which the marks apply. So, if you want to open up a retail Knitting Supplies stores under the name of IBM (because those are the initials of your name) you probably can because it is highly unlikely that International Business Machines ever expected to be in the business of selling yarn and knitting needles.

So in your example, if those companies said their colors & name are protected in computer games... then they are, end of debate. And if they did not, they're not, end of debate. That said they could choose to make life unpleasant for anyone who tried to use their colors because they have lawyers on retainer (paid w/o regard to being busy on something) and you probably don't. Oh.. also (here in the U.S.) if someone has a Trademark and fails to defend it, they are at risk of losing other contested arguments. That causes companies to sue (and settle w/o trial) over usage that is clearly not protected, just so they can say later on when dealing with real abuse that they've always been defending their marks.

[Genma Saotome]

Lindsayts, on 07 March 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

Another point that was put to me sometime back is that the file formats were created by someone to use in a trainsim and the formats them selves are the IP rights of the current owners of MSTS.

I don't know enough to say with knowledge one way or the other about which IP principles apply to file formats.

Speculating... because the KUJU file formats are so basic I suspect they are not creative but instead are largely/entirely a necessary form for functionality (i.e., the shape of an ordinary brick, garden hose, gear, etc. are necessary forms for functionality) and it's really not much different than JSON files so I expect it would be extremely hard to argue anything about the format is creative... so no copyright. Highly unlikely it's nothing like prior "art" so it's unlike a patent was issued. There doesn't seem to be anything about it that would fall under trademark law -- how would the average consumer of data file formats know it's a KUJU trademark?

Maybe there's something else that might say IP protections apply but I'm unaware of what it might be.

[Lindsayts]

Now a straight question.....

Given what has been discussed above do you think it is OK to post a complete ENG file updated to the latest OR physics. As far as I can see from what has been disussed here and on another thread it seems one just needs a bit of guts and understanding and posting such things is OK. I so far have not been overly impressed on the behaviour and understanding of some MSTS developers, mind you they may have been just having a bad day.

In the end an easy and consistent way of updating ENG files will be a cornerstone to the sims improved physics.

Another thing here is that there are plenty of improvements to be had in the code to enable better and more accurate performing locos, the problem here is the number of people that will be able to set these parameters up correctly (for instance ForceFactor2) in the whole world could probably be counted on both hands, well not very many anyway!

Things are getting interesting,
Lindsay