Railworks America

I'm not trying to brew up a storm here, I'm just hoping to get clarification on something.

When I purchased Railworks a few years back, I did so with the understanding that a major aspect of the product was the ability to create routes using the default assets and share them with other people. It was literally part of their advertising pitch. Now they've gone and made part of those default assets payware, and it just so happens I have used a fair amount of assets from Cajon but apparently will be unable to share the use of them with any new purchasers of Railworks like I was originally promised. Now I'm sure RSC think they've covered all their legal bases by renaming the simulation etc... nevertheless, the morality of what they've done is questionable and in my country under the consumer gaurantees act would be illegal. Unfortunately this is an international situation so I don't know exactly what the rules are Anyone got any ideas?

I think they can still be used you just need to tell the people they need the US asset pack. I know it is not ideal but most people will want or need them anyhow and they are not that expensive. Just my opinion though not sure of the legality of it all

In that case I hope all the paths are the same as the original.

NDORFN wrote:In that case I hope all the paths are the same as the original.

Now that's a really good question. Is there someone out there reading this that bought the "new" assets that can tell us where these assets are located so we can compare them to the ones that us old timers have and see if they are in the same place.

The origional Kuju RailsimulatorUS assets are in the Kuju\RailSimulatorUS directory.

There is nothing illegal about going back on a promise, its just a simple restructuring of the way they wish to do operation. The terms of service are not set in stone and neither is the EULA it can be altered at any time without you even knowing. The moving of default assets to payware for new users was a low move in my opinion and simple profit taking as others try to find the assets to use on other freeware routes. But it is a business and they do have bread that has to be put on the table.

You can still create the routes with all of the Cajon assets, but you cannot distribute the assets with the route as you could in the past.

They are in the same folder structure just FYI

dfcfu342 wrote:The terms of service are not set in stone and neither is the EULA it can be altered at any time without you even knowing.

Their EULA isn't necessarily legally binding anyway. An 'agreement' isn't the be all and end all legally. If they wanted absolute authority they should've used a contract.

You can still create the routes with all of the Cajon assets, but you cannot distribute the assets with the route as you could in the past.

We were never "allowed" to distribute Cajon assets. Just .bin files pointing to them.

I'm increasingly getting the impression that RSC aren't game developers at all. I've got a hunch they simply bought the game off Kuju when MSTS2 fell through and created a business around it. They don't seem to have a clue how the game itself works, but they sure know how to pull money grabbing manoeuvres like a typical corporation.

robbit wrote:They are in the same folder structure just FYI

Cheers for the info. That's a BIG relief!

NDORFN wrote:I'm not trying to brew up a storm here, I'm just hoping to get clarification on something.

NDORFN wrote:I'm increasingly getting the impression that RSC aren't game developers at all. I've got a hunch they simply bought the game off Kuju when MSTS2 fell through and created a business around it. They don't seem to have a clue how the game itself works, but they sure know how to pull money grabbing manoeuvres like a typical corporation.

Those two statements are in contradiction with each other.

The clarification you are looking for: if you have a contract that explicitly says that RSC promises to keep these particular assets available for free, and that contract does not have a clause that says RSC reserves the right to change this without notice, then you may have a legal leg to stand on, providing you are willing to drag them in a British court on your money.

Your second statement is uninformed and insulting opinion. You've got a hunch, they don't seem, etc. None of us knows what's happening at RSC. This situation annoys you, but it doesn't mean they're incompetent. You're entitled to post your opinion, but it sure contradicts your first statement about not wanting to brew up a storm. Your choice of title also contradicts this. It would be good material for trainsim.com forums, though.

This I agree with: RSC should have kept those assets available for free. This change annoys developers and users, and the amount of money RSC gets from it is probably negligible.

Chacal wrote:Your second statement is uninformed and insulting opinion. You've got a hunch, they don't seem, etc. None of us knows what's happening at RSC. This situation annoys you, but it doesn't mean they're incompetent. You're entitled to post your opinion, but it sure contradicts your first statement about not wanting to brew up a storm. Your choice of title also contradicts this. It would be good material for trainsim.com forums, though.

It's not an opinion, like I said, it's a hunch. It's not an uninformed hunch either. Obviously I don't know the hard facts, but it doesn't take a MRI scan for a Doctor to know a patient has a head cold, just an observation of the symptoms. I've been observing symptoms coming out of RSC since day one.

Anyways, whilst it's unfortunate I wont be able to achieve my original mission to provide the highest quality route to ALL players, 100% free and freeware dependent, regardless of their computer specs or technical knowledge of Railworks... I think I'll still come close. And who knows, one day might find the time to create all my own assets so's not to be at the mercy of RSC policy change.

This is the point of RCAP. So you can make a freeware route without payware dependencies.

Yes. That's what the NERW team did for their NEPA route and scenarios (provide all needed assets and use only those assets in their scenarios) and what RCAP aims to achieve for everyone, if I understand correctly.

It is too bad for RSC because they were in the unique position to be that provider and they lost it because of their business choice.

Anyway, I would get your route even if it meant buying assets!

This RCAP thing is such a relief. When it's been well established and has enough variety to it I'm going to make an assessment of what prototypical route I can build that will incorporate and fully utilise all of the assets included in the package, and get into it. I long for the day I can zoom around in editor, planting this and that and not have to worry about the fact that it may be impossible for some to see what I see, and experience what I've created to the fullest.

To put the icing on the cake, it would be a dream to make a readme that simply says 'You must have the RCAP from RWA installed... that's it!"

robbit wrote:They are in the same folder structure just FYI

Thank you.