3d cad source files

[muskokaandtahoe]

With Open Rails intended to (eventually) be Open Source Code I got thinking about the question of Open "other stuff" in train sims... which left me curious to learn why model builders have not included the source files when they contributed freeware into a library, such as the one here at T-S.com.

Essentially, Open Source CAD files.

It hardly has ever happened w/ MSTS... but if you think about it, an Open Source license means (1) any subsequent modification must credit the original and (2) must also be open, and (3) must also be free, which is pretty much what every freeware license I've ever read has said.

Seems like Open Source Cad files would have been a great way to continually build upon all of the contributions that have occurred over the years... anything and everything from adding LOD's to adding 3d details to tweaking the location or size of some element to make another, similar class of object.

So... a question: If you are a model builder, why didn't you also distribute the cad source file?

[mestevet]

I uploaded some catenary supports ("gantries") to the file library which included the TSM .dst files. Of course, since then, I've greatly revised those models to make them way more "streamlined" so the modelling methodology in my originals is out of date from my perspective. I've only ever had one person come back to me and ask about the models for modeling purposes though... but that's another story...

As far as including the source files for my rolling stock models... I didn't feel comfortable including those for a variety of reasons. First, the way I model, simply including a single TSM .dst "source file" would really leave another modeler stuck. The way the model looks when I produce the final .S file (set up for LODs and subobject sorting in PolyMaster), bears little resemblance to the way I actually model (part by part). So to do it correctly, I'd have to provide multiple models with instructions for the purpose of each (a tutorial?). I keep several versions and "submodels" as part of the model creation process. Also, in the case of both my Silverliners and E44s, I have multiple models for different road numbers and versions of the cars. Providing the TSM .dst for each would greatly expand the size and complexity of the upload.

The other part of my thinking in this regard is that if another TSM modeler asked me for it, depending on the person, I would give them a model, or parts or pieces that might help them. If a respectable modeler came to me with a good case for sharing my model, I would seriously entertain the idea. I have shared models and parts of them with other TSM modelers in the past - Steven Hoffmeier got the entire CWR flat car I did so he could use it for his portion of that project. And not trying to be prideful, but I have helped a fair number of TSM newbs learning to model, or struggling with problems in the past couple of years, and have freely shared modeling information and even the odd part or texture.

A couple of reasons why I would specifically NOT include source files is a) the thought that some kid would take it and paint it pink with purple polka-dots and call it his own original model, despite the "license," would really tick me off b) the level of effort I put into some of these models makes them sort of "special" to me, and honestly it would just be a little hard to let them go quite that much - yes, I know that decompilers exist and it's only slightly more difficult for someone to steal a model that way c) I would only be helping a fraction of the modelers out there, at best, since TSM is but one of the commonly used packages - GMax, and other users wouldn't be helped at all (3D Canvas is supposed to import TSM models, I don't know how well that works, I've only heard it's possible).

What I wish we had was a way of exchanging model formats between GMax and TSM or 3DCanvas - back and forth. I know from former CAD experience that converters typically don't work flawlessly, but it still could be a great benefit to the hobby.

Steve

[muskokaandtahoe]

Steve, as an alternative, what would you think of Open Sourced "exported" components (e.g., the exported mesh, not the cad source file), collected into a sim library, and "assembled" in-game via an "instruction" file (i.e., this component file origin is at abc and that component file origin is at def, etc)? The referenced component files are either a member of the Open Source library or something custom built.

IOW, if what you want to do is, oh... say... the 1937 AAR 10ft IH boxcar for the Southern Pacific, you do some of the mesh on your own, such as the carbody and car ends, and in your "instruction" file you assemble the entire car from the combination of your mesh and library meshes? By virtue of pointing at the library meshes you give credit to the original author.

[mestevet]

If I take your idea correctly, you're saying that one could do something like model a car body, but use "standard" trucks, coupler, brake wheel, brake components, etc. that were taken from some standard library of parts.

I would have no problem with that, and would gladly contribute to such a library. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about it, but doesn't RailWorks have a system kind of like that?

One pitfall I can see with that would be the inability to control specific parameters to work with my preferred "modeling methodology". What I'm saying is that if I prefer to set up parts with 3 LODs at 50, 150, and 2000m, but the library part has 1 LOD at 2000m, then my model must carry the "weight" of that part, or I'd have to modify it with one of the post-processing programs, like PolyMaster, Shape Fixer, etc. (thinking in terms of what we have today), or simply re-create it to my own preferences (as I would now). If I did modify a library part in that way, then do I invalidate the "License" of the original author of that library part?

Another thought that comes to mind is animated parts, like a pantograph. It would be nice if a system like this accomodated animated parts as part of the scheme, so that a common pantograph could be placed at different locations, x, y, or z and still have the animation function properly: it must meet the wire. This might be trickier than is obvious at first... For instance, I have a "Faivley" pantograph type I used on my Silverliner II model, that I used on my E44 as well (since both did use a similar GE-Faivley type), but the roof heights of the different bodies were different, so I had to re-adjust the pantograph model when I re-used it on the E44 so the pan animated properly and met the wire at the right height. When I reuse it on the Metroliner model I have, I'll have to tweak it again. Perhaps there would be limits to what could be accomodated (as in real life). Or perhaps a limitation would be that it just couldn't handle this, although trucks and wheel sets would almost certainly have to be accomodated, so animation at some level must be considered.

I don't think what I'm describing is a fatal flaw, I truly do think it's a valid concept. Just that it would make sense to think through some of the pitfalls to see if any of them can be prevented.

Yes, definitely an interesting idea...

Steve