New London Underground Bve Trains Site:

Hello! I have setup a new site for London Underground Trains for all versions of BVE only, no other trains.
There are currently no trains submitted so it would be great if you could submit some! Anyway, if we could get this new site big, it would be easier for people who just want London Underground trains, so there we are. Here's the link: www.londonundergroundtrainsbve.tk Enjoy.

Deleted

Strange. An LU site from an internet server somewhere in the middle of the Pcific, round about Samoa. I bet they don't take Oyster cards there!
 

graymac wrote:Strange. An LU site from an internet server somewhere in the middle of the Pcific, round about Samoa. I bet they don't take Oyster cards there!
 

[Off topic]
The domain name .tk stands for the tiny island of Tokelau, with only 1300 inhabitants.
I believe the reason why this page uses the .tk domain (together with millions of other websites) is because it is only country-level domain name that can be registered free of charge.

This is a good website.

Looks like Spam :-)

I went there and it links to a site that sells engagement rings.

...and the next one going there will probably get enlargement rings. (...or pills)

Bottom line: Is getting a real host with a real domain for less than 5€ a month really so much of a financial pain in the backdoor cavity?

I got apparently from Google Chrome a Smart Phone for $1!

I did not find out what the costs were outside of the $1.......

But someone offering a site to host work already released on the makers site is nothing new.

I think that's because people have posted that we have lost all this content since Bve4 days or even Bve2 and they have not spent any time looking for it.

It's still out there....

But why would you want Bve4 or 2 routes?
 
It's 2014, should what is released be nothing better than a Bve2 release?

But why would you want Bve4 or 2 routes?
It's 2014, should what is released be nothing better than a Bve2 release?

I think it's a "quantity" rather than a "quality" problem we're facing here, Steve. Allow that there are far more users than developers of routes and it's easy to see that the "route mileage" released for OpenBVE in the last three or four years is nothing near the amount made for the earlier sims. It just looks as if a lot of users are prepared to accept less realism for more choice.
Hate to use the smart-ass "told you so" quote, but . . . . . . I've been banging on about "not enough route builders producing stuff" for at least three years now.

What I say here is concerning British/Irish routes and excluding LU activity, which appears to be more alive at present than the "overground" scene.
Much of the best OpenBVE route work has been around a while now. NWM is updated from time to time. Nothing recent from Anthony B; Denis Lance seems to have retired a while back. So that seems to leave only Alan Hudnott, Chris Lees and me producing anything currently. I hope Tony Haylor is working still, but have no idea what he might be doing - any chance of Swindon to Gloucester if you're reading this, Tony??
Add to that Taffy Cross's "Bute Town" WIP (for which I have high hopes, Stephen's been around a while but is "new" as a route builder) and that's the picture of the British Isles scene today.

Do say if I missed anyone?? Or any significant work that is currently available.

graymac wrote:

But why would you want Bve4 or 2 routes?
It's 2014, should what is released be nothing better than a Bve2 release?

I think it's a "quantity" rather than a "quality" problem we're facing here, Steve. Allow that there are far more users than developers of routes and it's easy to see that the "route mileage" released for OpenBVE in the last three or four years is nothing near the amount made for the earlier sims. It just looks as if a lot of users are prepared to accept less realism for more choice.
Hate to use the smart-ass "told you so" quote, but . . . . . . I've been banging on about "not enough route builders producing stuff" for at least three years now.

Route building always gives the impression of being the next level up of difficulty though.  As well as a building the route itself there's the objects that make it up and you can't always guarantee the long-term availability of those. (Edit- unless you're building them yourself)

As an aside, a question has just occurred to which I really don't know the answer.  Supposing I wrote a route and only referenced objects in, say, Railway\Object\Barrow-Carlisle (I'm using a route that nobody seems to be directly involved in to try and make the question a little more hypothetical) where would you stand with that compared to copying the items into "your" Railway\object\"yours" folder.  Setting aside that it would still be polite to ask, and would be dishonest not to credit somehow, where does that stand?

In essence, would it be out of order for someone to produce a set of .csv route files, saying "To run this route, you need to also have downloaded Route X, Route Y and so on?

There's no issue whatsoever legally if you don't include them in the download yourself - but personally I would expect the original developer to be asked and credited.

And that I guess is one of the reasons why so few take on creating OpenBVE routes. While for the BVE-community it seems to be something exciting, new and revolutionary to create a set of free-to-use objects in LokSim3D it is totally different. You are not expected to create all objects by yourself, and all objects from published addons are considered free to use in other addons unless explicitely stated to be not (usually only if they're so-called route-specific objects).

To be honest though that attitude has been changing over the last few years. Not sure about mainline stuff, but on LU there are a few developers, myself included, that decided all this copyright stuff is pointless when no revenue is at risk and put up a notice saying feel free to use anything, but an email letting us know would be nice.

To be honest though that attitude has been changing over the last few years.

I think that's true. I'm quite happy to lend a few objects to any existing or aspiring route builder if I'm asked (and have done on several occasions). Just so long as it's not to produce a wholesale rip-off of big parts of my stuff. Things like housing, trees and industrial units etc are much the same everywhere, so there's not really any prestige in hogging it as if it's anything special. The clever stuff's getting it to blend in for mile after mile, without using the same objects/dikes/stations and boring the arse off the punters  

In essence, would it be out of order for someone to produce a set of .csv route files, saying "To run this route, you need to also have downloaded Route X, Route Y and so on?

If that means using whole folderloads of objects by another builder I would say you are taking or borrowing too much. Unless you had that builders blessing to do so.
If you borrow objects (with permission) you can put them in your own object folder structure - external linking can introduce errors which really p!$$ people off.

Plus, if that was the case, and you borrowed a smorgasbord of other builder's stuff, where is the originality, the difference or the uniqueness of the work? I believe it needs to be distinctive and have the "signature" of the maker. That's why Cwm Twypsin isn't a clone of NWM or Midland Suburban. The users would be disgusted if I copied other people's stuff because they wouldn't be getting anything new or different.

graymac wrote:

To be honest though that attitude has been changing over the last few years.

I think that's true. I'm quite happy to lend a few objects to any existing or aspiring route builder if I'm asked (and have done on several occasions). Just so long as it's not to produce a wholesale rip-off of big parts of my stuff. Things like housing, trees and industrial units etc are much the same everywhere, so there's not really any prestige in hogging it as if it's anything special. The clever stuff's getting it to blend in for mile after mile, without using the same objects/dikes/stations and boring the arse off the punters  

In essence, would it be out of order for someone to produce a set of .csv route files, saying "To run this route, you need to also have downloaded Route X, Route Y and so on?

If that means using whole folderloads of objects by another builder I would say you are taking or borrowing too much. Unless you had that builders blessing to do so.
If you borrow objects (with permission) you can put them in your own object folder structure - external linking can introduce errors which really p!$$ people off.

Plus, if that was the case, and you borrowed a smorgasbord of other builder's stuff, where is the originality, the difference or the uniqueness of the work? I believe it needs to be distinctive and have the "signature" of the maker. That's why Cwm Twypsin isn't a clone of NWM or Midland Suburban. The users would be disgusted if I copied other people's stuff because they wouldn't be getting anything new or different.

I see your point- I wondered if it might be a shortcut to someone learning how to code a route- a sort of sandbox.

I find objects the thing that puts me off route building. I'm quite happy laying track (Apart from point objects!) but when it come's to scenery, I just don't feel like I can scenerise a whole route.

I must have about 12 routes on my hard drive where it's just track, platforms and station signs and if luck a couple of signals and a bridge!

I see your point- I wondered if it might be a shortcut to someone learning how to code a route- a sort of sandbox.

IF anyone uses the Denis Lance routebuilding tutorial (see the "Knowledge" page on here) there are sufficient bits provided to make a start. And  object building gets easier the more you practice. I'm NOT saying you will master it in an hour, though it's worth the effort to learn it.
This is how I started out and it worked for me.

I find objects the thing that puts me off route building. I'm quite happy laying track (Apart from point objects!) but when it come's to scenery, I just don't feel like I can scenerise a whole route.

Unfortunately, the reality is that objects is about 80% of the whole route builders job.
I wonder, Chris, if you put one of these "unfinished symphonies" up for grabs maybe some others might add stuff to include. You would need to have some place to send donated objs and maybe run a thread with "wanted" items and screenies on it. You would have to do your share of the work too but just, maybe, a workable crowd-made route might come from it???
Another possibility is if you can join efforts with someone else who might like to be involved but doesn't feel up to tackling it all on his own? Ask and find if there's any interest.

graymac wrote:Unfortunately, the reality is that objects is about 80% of the whole route builders job.

And that's what I suggested could be the problem. For LokSim3D there are many routes with hardly any original objects at all - and they're not less interesting, entertaining and individual. Though one must add there is a major difference between the sims: While OenBVE does *everything* with objects, landscape is done within the route in LS3D. The default landscape is a green grassy plain and you're forming the landscape using height lines - making it especially easy to convert isohypses from maps to route landscape and you're texturing it with texture fields. This means one will never get fully around object creation in OpenBVE. The same goes for rails (in LS3D you specify just a 10m texture and the cross section - curves, points etc. are created automatically), which, again, are objects you'll usually have to at least punctually adjust for your needs.

But trees, generic buildings, generic landscape textures etc. are something which could be shared generally without any negative side effects.