BOB WIRTH: Are you out there?

[Coonskin]

Trying to contact you about your Raton 3 route.

If you're still active here, please contact me at laming at cebridge dot net.

Thank you.

Andre Ming

[Jdark34]

are you having trouble with raton pass 3 msts route andre?

[Orbita]

https://www.trainsim.com/forums/foru...0335-bob-wirth

Might want to look at this.

[Coonskin]

https://www.trainsim.com/forums/foru...0335-bob-wirth

Might want to look at this.

Thank you Kyle.

Life is so short.

Andre

[Coonskin]

are you having trouble with raton pass 3 msts route andre?

No, not at all.

I have been exploring and experimenting with backdating a copy of Bob's Raton 3 to the year 1882. (My MSTS/OR "thing" is 19th century railroading.) Primarily this would include the section from a few miles east of Trinidad to a few miles west of the town of Raton.

Within the readme/EULA file I find this statement: "©2008 By Bob Wirth. This route can not be redistributed or used for commercial purposes."

I was going to ask Bob for permission to share the modified route as freeware with others once enough was completed for viable beta testing.

Essentially, I would be stripping all track from east of Trinidad to west of Raton and relaying the track and reshaping the terrain as best I can as per the scant 1882 information I have.

However, with Bob's passing, then I suspect the hope of sharing with other interested simmers is now not possible.

Sadly, this is case over and over again with restrictive EULA's when it concerns deceased authors, abandonware, etc.

This would be a good time to again make it general knowledge that upon my passing, any and all of my works are free to be uploaded/modified/redistributed/whatever without restriction.

Andre

[johnnyboy99]

I do have a problem with the default westbound activity of Raton Pass where the first AI train spawns going through the last passing loop and pulls up to the player train on single track at the beginning

[oper190]

I guess unfortunately you need to edit the Activity yourself, unless someone else has redone it and will offer their update.

Edit - Which Version of the route are you running?

[johnnyboy99]

the version that's always been on the file library i think?

[eric]

Coonskin Two approaches....

1) You could approach it as an update with installation of v3 as a prerequisite

2) Go ahead and package up the route with all the appropriate credits

I won't outright claim that EULA's should be ignored, but if you're not charging for the update, given how Bob's routes were freely shared here suggests he would have likely agreed to your request.

[oper190]

the version that's always been on the file library i think?

I just found two versions, Ver 2 & Ver 3 - there was Ver 1 as well at one time. The Route Name will tell you which version.
I run Ver 3 and here's my first meet in that activity with no problem with the trains passing each other:
Open Rails 2025-07-31 02-21-56.jpg

Edit - What is the name of the Activity, I have three West bounds in my Route so not positive which is the "default" one.

[Coonskin]

Coonskin Two approaches....

1) You could approach it as an update with installation of v3 as a prerequisite

2) Go ahead and package up the route with all the appropriate credits

I won't outright claim that EULA's should be ignored, but if you're not charging for the update, given how Bob's routes were freely shared here suggests he would have likely agreed to your request.

You are probably correct in that Bob would not have a problem allowing distributing of such a modified route as freeware as long as all due credit is retained. (Which would be the case.)

In my case, I do not want to raise the ire of those that disagree. Perhaps possessiveness toward freeware has changed over time, but in the past, overly restrictive EULA's have caused many wars.However, it could be that there's been such attrition among our ranks, which results in frozen abandon ware (unless there is a trustee to the remaining virtual assets), that the community as a whole more fully understand issues that follow EULA's that were constructed 20 years ago in the ill-fated attempt to thwart piracy.

My thinking was, should I ever accomplish enough to warrant a beta release, to (in the process) trim the route as much as possible so it wasn't as large. However, it would take huge amounts of time to go through the ref file, shapes and textures folders, and root out no-longer needed assets. Then there's the very real possibility of inadvertently trashing the route when pulling interactive objects out of the route. (I've already experienced such a crash when trying to make it to La Junta with interactive object removal!)

In the meantime, I will ponder my options.

IF I could find the VT Builder/DEM download tutorial that Jerry Sullivan created a few years ago, I would be tempted to see if STDS DEM can still be downloaded and converted into a format that DEMEX can use. That so, I would create my own Raton Pass route and start over with a clean slate and fresh terrain. After all, so much is going to be changed I suspect I would be time ahead take that approach. (Unfortunately, a search here at Trainsim did not turn up the Jerry Sullivan VT/DEM tutorial.) Frankly, starting from scratch that would be my preferred path to an 1882 Raton Pass route.

Andre

[eric]

it could be that there's been such attrition among our ranks, which results in frozen abandon ware (unless there is a trustee to the remaining virtual assets), that the community as a whole more fully understand issues that follow EULA's that were constructed 20 years ago in the ill-fated attempt to thwart piracy.

That's exactly the point we're at, Andre. Those who share their work freely don't intend for it to disappear upon their death or the demise of a specific site.

As this site's owner, I'm going to err on the side of intent when it comes to freeware: It's never OK to claim someone else's work as your own, but building on someone else's work is entirely acceptable.

I won't play the role of EULA police, but if someone from the Wirth family were to raise a complaint, I'd have to comply with it. Otherwise.... I'd say proceed with intent in mind...

[johnnyboy99]

Westbound, the activity included with version 2

[oper190]

Well I can't help you further as I'm using Ver 3 and ran that named Activity, as posted, without your problem. Might I suggest loading Ver 3. it will install as a separate Route so you can compare the two.

[Coonskin]

That's exactly the point we're at, Andre. Those who share their work freely don't intend for it to disappear upon their death or the demise of a specific site.

As this site's owner, I'm going to err on the side of intent when it comes to freeware: It's never OK to claim someone else's work as your own, but building on someone else's work is entirely acceptable.

I won't play the role of EULA police, but if someone from the Wirth family were to raise a complaint, I'd have to comply with it. Otherwise.... I'd say proceed with intent in mind...

Thanks Eric for your comprehensive reply.

At this point I'm waiting on the second of two books to arrive concerning Raton Pass. (Trying to unearth info concerning the early years of Raton Pass.).

I hesitate to start track work until I have as much information as I can gather in hand. In the meantime, I will continue to weigh the options you present and your position on the matter.

Actually, for just the Trinidad to Raton portion that I intend to start with, I would actually prefer a clean, bare terrain route. However, IF (over time) I can modify Bob's Trinidad to La Junta section and the Raton to Las Vegas section to represent 1882 track structure, then I would have a 200+ mile long main line that's already in place that I didn't have to plot and then lay. That would be quite a time saver.

Anyway, IF I decide to make a go of it, it will be months (or even a year or more??) before anything would be ready for early beta tester(s) to look at. SO, releasing the route en masse may never be something I'll face.

Thanks again for your input and your encouragement.

Andre