.s to .obj converter?

[EldoradoRailroad]

Ok...time for a scenario, proof of acceptable norms on this site.

1) A person downloads some model/shape file from this site. The original author is named O. Author. The person who downloaded the model/shape file is named M. Modeler.
2) M. Modeler looks at the O. Author model and decides he/she/etc can update the wheels so they are less "flintstone like". After all O. Author made this model 10-15 years ago, so why not make use of the work that was done, but improve on it.
3) M. Modeler de-compiles the model into a format that can be edited and modified.
4) After M. Modeler does that work described in 3) and re-compiles the model....
5) M. Modeler now uploads the model back up to this site and:
a) Acknowledges the original work done by O. Author
b) Describes the changes that were made, improvements made by M. Modeler etc

No harm , no foul, or are we still stuck in the dark ages of previous years?

This is but one of several scenarios. Notice that I purposefully left out contacting O. Author. While not always the case, O. Author might have passed on, or is uncommunicative, either by accident or design. I have seen this before where O. Author cannot be contacted and thus any movement forward is left in "file thirteen" and the hobby wanes for lack of improvements/interest or updates. Ultimately the person who could do/did the updates just keeps the updates on their HD/SSD, never to see the light of day in public here. Is this good?

When it comes to payware we have to play hopscotch. Often the EULA "prohibits" any de-compiling etc. Yet at some point most will do exactly that to improve/fix things. So the tacit NDA strangles any improvements and again the person who could/did the updates just keeps the updates on their HD/SSD, never to see the light of day. Is this good?

At this point I do not even know if showing a screen shot of this modified payware will not garner being drawn and quartered, and banning. This helps the hobby how? Ditto for models from other places that have been adapted to being placed/run in OpenRails.

There may be procedures/methods that allow for converting from other sources, should those also be kept secret? The premise here is that somebody purchases a model from whatever source, not necessarily MSTS/OpenRails, and succeeds in converting it into a shape file that can be used by MSTS/OpenRails. Said person provides a proof of concept as in a screen shot, and also outlines the steps taken to do this. It is left to the reader to a) acquire/purchase the model by legal means, b) redo the work to get it into MSTS/OpenRails, c) NOT SHARE THE FINAL work. Is that acceptable?

This is what I meant by guidance, if not clarification.

Always asking the hard questions, many have accused(complimented!) me of/on being a Philadelphia Lawyer,

Steve

[pwillard]

Well, my answer to the issue of "The model is old, has flintstone wheels, so needs fixing" really should be interpreted as "The model is so old it needs to be redone from scratch to bring it up to date" in which case that "modeler" needs to think bigger and take it a bit further than having something with better wheels. Do the whole thing over. (But yeah, that's my opinion)

Another thing worth mentioning here... I personally do not think reverse engineering a file from 2003 to make a new version "from scratch" while using that original as a sort of "guide" is a bad thing, provided you are actually redoing the shape "yourself." As you might imagine, there is no reason you would make a model in 2025 the same way you would have made it in 2003. I hope I'm making myself clear in what I'm trying to say here.

As for textures, that's a whole different can of worms. I do not think it would be well-accepted that you make a new model from scratch, but then apply the texture from the original without the blessing of the original author. If they are ok, no problem... but even the logic of doing that is flawed since the mapped texture needs to map correctly to the underlying model, and this new model, being freshly designed, won't map up correctly to the original texture. So, once again, you need to remake it from scratch.

As we all know... even the great artists create 'art' from references... I guess that's my point.

mucha.jpg

[eric]

With that... the OP's question has been answered. The side question about "can we even discuss this" has been answered.

I'm OK with a little bit of thread drift here, but I'd caution against going down too many rabbit holes of hypotheticals.

It shouldn't need to be any more simple than be respectful of other people's work, and live by the terms you agreed to on payware when you bought it.