TrainSimulations Scenery Assets in Freeware Routes: An Open Discussion

[TrainSimulations]

Update 9/16/2025

Here is the new policy regarding the use of TrainSimulations art assets in freeware route releases:

• You are permitted to include TrainSimulations art assets in freeware routes only. No commercial use.
• You may include all relevant texture files with your download package.
• Your readme file must instruct the user to copy over the entire, or portions therein, of the SHAPES folder(s) from the TrainSimulations route(s) needed to fulfill the required shapes. In the interest of making this as easy as possible, it might be best to just have users copy entire SHAPES folders over, since these tend to be much smaller in size than the TEXTURES folders.
• The use of TrainSimulations intellectual property in freeware routes is limited only to the files located in TrainSimulations route SHAPES and TEXTURES folders.

We feel this is the easiest way to make all this work easily for the developers and the end users.

Thanks,
The TrainSimulations Team

[SD40-2]

Hello,

I approve of this idea. While directly copying the shapes and textures from the route(s) would be the easist method for route-builders, I would honestly prefer an installme.bat of some description as that'd make it easier for the end user.

Also, side note: All the installme.bat files I've used worked regardless of the location of the main MSTS directory, or the routes folder for that matter.

[CSRX]

As one that has been using a lot of TS shapes and textures for my routes, and chatting about this option, I'm glad this is happening. This will give me motivation to finally release my routes when the time comes, and hopefully help sales for TS too.

[geepster775]

Instead of using batch files which are set up kinda clunky and static in terms of the source and destination locations, I wonder if some of our present day utility builders can come up with an app that allows people to input their uniquely custom source location and destination location? Optimal would be something that also requires your codekey to make sure the source is legit purchased, validates against something in the registry???

[mishtahshneaks]

This is a fantastic idea for everyone involved. With the precedent for how the use of paid content in the past (I.E. Microsoft Train Simulator) is handled in freeware routes, following that should be the gold standard if you're to permit their usage.

[Coonskin]

TrainSimulations Team:

As a former commercial developer, as I have watched as the V scale community continually retract over the past several years, I've become more motivated to attempt to take steps to make the effort to get my former (and dated) V Scale Creations products available for free, as well as easing restrictions on their use and the assets therein.

I applaud you for opening up a discussions about how TrainSimulations could possibly help the struggling V scale community in regards to possibly relaxing some of your restrictions on your products. As a former commercial developer, I understand what a big step this is for you as a company.

Andre Ming
V Scale Creations

[eric]

I like the idea, and the way ORTS works, having a missing shape or texture defined in the World files doesn't cause an error preventing the route from being loaded or enjoyed.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[PerryPlatypus]

One thing I could see as a challenge / thing to be careful about is that there are some assets (especially textures) that have the same exact filename, but are actually different between various TrainSimulations routes. Just one example is the various ENR_Fir_## textures - in one route ENR_Fir1.dds could be a dry pine tree, vs. in another route ENR_Fir1.dds could be a lush fir tree. So to ensure that the end user gets the correct files that the route builder intended, the installer file would need to be smart enough to know which route to get certain files from. Maybe that is a bit beyond the ability of what a basic "installme.bat" can do, or maybe it's not. I'm not a programmer, so that will have to be up to some of the coding-savvy folks from this community to work through.

I am really hoping that, although our community is small, this can help towards getting a new "wave" (even if it's a small wave and not a tsunami) of routes being released over time. Anything that we (TrainSimulations) and the ORTS community can do at this point to inject some new life into this platform should be worth it for all of us.

[dcarleton]

The uploader would have to clearly state which TrainSimulations route (or routes) they used for shapes and textures. That shouldn't be too challenging.
And thank you for anything that promotes the development of new routes!

[EldoradoRailroad]

Optimal would be something that also requires your codekey to make sure the source is legit purchased, validates against something in the registry???

Umm....no...and NO THANKS!

There is already so much clutter garbage/dumped into the windows registry that I would not like to have yet another headache to deal with. I can see how some unwanted windows "update" will end up bricking this idea. The latest round of windows "update(s)" forced me to kill all future "updates" until some "AI" infused genius decided that he/she/it better check their work before forcing this "update" into production.

Steve

[SD40-2]

One thing I could see as a challenge / thing to be careful about is that there are some assets (especially textures) that have the same exact filename, but are actually different between various TrainSimulations routes. Just one example is the various ENR_Fir_## textures - in one route ENR_Fir1.dds could be a dry pine tree, vs. in another route ENR_Fir1.dds could be a lush fir tree. So to ensure that the end user gets the correct files that the route builder intended, the installer file would need to be smart enough to know which route to get certain files from. Maybe that is a bit beyond the ability of what a basic "installme.bat" can do, or maybe it's not. I'm not a programmer, so that will have to be up to some of the coding-savvy folks from this community to work through.

In the olden times, an installme.bat would be explicitly told from which route to copy a particular file from.

Just as an example:

copy ..\Japan1\shapes\talltreeblock.s* .\Shapes\talltreeblock.s*

[EldoradoRailroad]

At some point....the idea of freeware has to be exactly that....freeware. There is a huge benefit to good quality freeware for this hobby. The fact that you are inclined to think about it is most promising. If you look at an outfit like JointedRail they have both freeware and Club Car (it is not free unless you are a purchaser). But once these are released, thinking about how they can be controlled and where they might end up might be somewhere between a tall order and a fools errand. So if you intend to release route items, signs, buildings, railway crossings, etc ,etc. as freeware I would just allow that, especially if you intend to maybe create upgraded NON freeware items for future routes, etc.

Over the two decades that I have been paying attention to this hobby, far too much effort is placed on policing some non enforceable IP rules that just alienates users, especially the newer ones. I doubt this has had ANY financial benefit and if someone was bent on "breaking the rules" it was going to happen whether in public view or not.

Showing good will with freeware opens the door to newer customers. Customers who are not so entrenched in rigid/oppressive "rules" and more than willing to pay a fair price for what you have to sell. "Word gets around fast".

Steve

[PerryPlatypus]

To be clear, we aren't talking about "releasing" anything new in this discussion. We are just discussing the possibility of opening the door for people to use our route products as "dependencies" / sources for route assets. Obviously I'm a bit biased here, but this shouldn't really be viewed as something restrictive, when we are actually discussing making things *much less restrictive* than they have been up to this point. Also, nobody is being forced to use any of our content in their routes if they do not wish to. The only reason this is a discussion is because we've seen a growing laundry list of new routes and upgrades of older routes that people say can never be released because they use shapes, textures, terrtex, etc. from one of our routes. We all stand to benefit from more routes being released, or upgrades to make older routes really shine and take advantage of what ORTS is capable of. If anything, this policy would give added value to our routes for the people who purchase them. Now, instead of getting just one route when you purchase, you could potentially get access to numerous routes, without having to pay anything more. I have a hard time seeing how that is unreasonable, rigid, oppressive, etc. I'll also point out that people releasing freeware routes that have payware dependencies for the assets is a VERY common practice in the other non-ORTS train sim platforms, for exactly the same reasons we are discussing here.

[rdayt]

I downloaded a European route a while back that included assets from the Shasta route. Lots of them.
I bought the Shasta right after it came out and was surprised that the stuff was already being included in another freeware download.
Nature of the beast I guess.

Randy

[CSRX]

I downloaded a European route a while back that included assets from the Shasta route. Lots of them.
I bought the Shasta right after it came out and was surprised that the stuff was already being included in another freeware download.
Nature of the beast I guess.

Randy

There will be some of us, that will be legitimate 100 percent when it comes to this process. This is something I have pursued for awhile with my routes, and had discussions about this possiblity for the MEC Mountain Division, so I am extremely happy to see this becoming a reality for more folks to potentially do the same.

Will those that have done this before with other routes and not taking this path with agreement with TS and release their routes ruin it for the rest of us? Hopefully not. Will there be a process to prove you have purchased their products in order to release? Maybe. Should it be a requirement? No, I don't believe it needs to be.

I know for a fact, my route that I really want to release to the public, will require files from the SP Shasta, MRL Mullan, and CN Ruel, and those of course, will be required for the MEC Mountain Sub, when this possibility becomes reality, and of course it will be noted in the readme files, and will have the direct links to those said routes.

Anyways, hopefully this works out. Because this will open up the option to do my other routes with the same features.