BNSF Scenic Sub V2 Options

[bandorr2000]

Will the templates for the Scenic sub have to be changed for Version 2?

[smokeytc]

Denis - this is the latest from SLI help desk. So if you are leaving the templates as they are now, I can buy the V1 route for $13.50 to get the rolling stock. If, however, you decide to revamp the templates to work with V2, then I will stay with what I have. Your pick -obviously less work for you, but will still be confusing and expensive for future buyers of V2. (this Chris guy doesn't seem to realize that they messed up by changing the stock) Ted

Date: 2011-07-08 00:40:25
Name: Chris Nelson
Message:

Ted,
The Scenic Sub version 1 is still available for $13.50 on the website, and it comes with all the rollingstock you'd need. As such, it isn't really fair to ask me to pass along rollingstock for free that you would have to pay for. It is not the fault of StreamLines that the makers of the activity templates messed up, so why ask us to pay for their mistakes?

Kind Regards,

Chris Nelson
Stream Lines Corp. - Helpdesk

[sgdavis]

Denis - this is the latest from SLI help desk. So if you are leaving the templates as they are now, I can buy the V1 route for $13.50 to get the rolling stock. If, however, you decide to revamp the templates to work with V2, then I will stay with what I have. Your pick -obviously less work for you, but will still be confusing and expensive for future buyers of V2. (this Chris guy doesn't seem to realize that they messed up by changing the stock) Ted

Date: 2011-07-08 00:40:25
Name: Chris Nelson
Message:

Ted,
The Scenic Sub version 1 is still available for $13.50 on the website, and it comes with all the rollingstock you'd need. As such, it isn't really fair to ask me to pass along rollingstock for free that you would have to pay for. It is not the fault of StreamLines that the makers of the activity templates messed up, so why ask us to pay for their mistakes?

Kind Regards,

Chris Nelson
Stream Lines Corp. - Helpdesk

This isn't really a technical problem that we can fix at Skyline Computing so I've refrained from posting. But given the amount of discussion on this and at Denis' request I am weighing in.

The way I look at it, Denis did a lot of work creating this template, as a hobby and favor to the MSTS/AG community, for no reward or profit. He used the rolling stock he had and was simply unaware of the fact that Streamlines included a different set of rolling stock in their 2.0 version than they included in the 1.0 version. An honest oversight, I wouldn't even go as far as to call it a "mistake".

Now Streamlines is trying to make a profit from creating these products which is their right and in fact as a hobbyist I support that: if they don't make a profit, they won't be able to continue creating routes and rolling stock of such a high quality that we can all enjoy, since doing that requires some level of staffing and investment. I am not sure if their descriptions made it clear that V2 contained different rolling stock than V1 - if they didn't, that is something I'd be miffed about. If they want to sell these as two separate rolling stock packs they have every right to do that, many others do, but they should make it clear.

Now the template end user also has a right to expect that if he/she follows the directions and installs the template, it should run. It is our goal as the software designer and template creators to do our best to insure that happens. To me there are a number of possible fixes, all equally good in my mind:

1. Denis reworks the template to contain only V2 rolling stock.
2. Denis reworks the readme, only, to state that users need to install both V1 and V2 to get all the rolling stock rolling stock packs needed to run the template, OR, the user must use a utility like ConBuilder, RouteRiter, or Activity Master to modify the template to include only the rolling stock on that user's hard drive. Also best case Denis would include a list of all rolling stock used.

But of course Denis is offering his time, creativity and efforts for free for this community and is not obligated to follow any of my suggestions.

So I see no harm or foul here, just a bunch of well-meaning folks all with different expectations. There are many fixes, none of them bad. Some throw the effort on the template creator (Denis), some throw the effort on the end user. Worst case the end user either deletes this template, adds Streamlines' V1, or uses a utility to solve the issue on his/her machine.

Thanks,

Steve