Mods discussion, links, etc

[AndyJWest]

I see Nearmiss has posted a sticky saying that discussion of mods is now permitted on this forum. Can I take it that it is ok to post links to the mod sites themselves? If so, another sticky with the leading ones (Ultrapack, SAS etc) would be useful.

As Nearmiss says, we shouldn't misuse this so can I make a personal request that everyone tries to avoid negative comments on mod pack FMs etc, and on all the other issues that have led to so much acrimony. Regardless of past issues, 'Classic' IL-2 modding is here to stay, and shows real signs of reaching a more stable and consistent state. Cliffs of Dover seems to have been designed right from the start to be more 'open', so the difference between 'stock' and 'mods' becomes largely an online server issue, rather than anything more fundamental. I think all this suggests that we can put past debates behind us, and work towards producing better sims.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I guess, they are just too lazy to divide this topic between IL-2 and CoD. A bad choise IMHO.

[nearmiss]

Nothing lazy about it.

There is a sticky thread saying the same thing on the BOB COD and the IL2 Sturmovik forums respectively.

----------------------------------

At this point there is no restriction on links, which may change.

----------------------------------

Abuses--- well, we don't at this point know how creative abusers can be.

So, this is a wait and observe thing.

[AndyJWest]

Ok, lets start with a couple of obvious links:

UltraPack: http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php
The most popular online mod pack - some rather large downloads, and they are just about to release version 3.0, so you may do better to wait for that, rather than downloading the current version.

SAS: http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php
The site of chouce for the majority of modders, these days. They have their own Modactivator for custom mod setups - preferable if you only want to install a few mods, or like to tinker.

Both sites expect you to have at least at some technical competence regarding computers, and SAS can be a bit snappy at newcomers asking questions that have already been answered - search first. And don't spam the forums with requests to make this or that mod, or asking 'when it will be ready' - the answer is always going to be 'when it is done'.

Even if you aren't actually interested in installing mods yourself, I'd take a look at some of the things that SAS have done - helicopters, post-war jets etc. Most of their current mods will be going into the new UltraPack version too.

[bf-110]

Well,I will post some videos of very violent modding,quite revolutionary.Thought most of those mods are nearly senseless for a WWII sim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJnRxkRzf6A&feature=feedrec_grec_index

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYXLYStKw5U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-biazbbhpw&feature=related

[nearmiss]

I just never get it

The dramatic music and no aircraft sounds.

Sorry, but all the drama I get on the Tele...is beyond my saturation level.

[Oktoberfest]

Great ! Here is a link to Claymore's rework of 3D and cockpits of the Fw190s.

They should be implemented in UP3.0 I think.

External 3D :

http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=161614

Cockpits :

http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=156711

You'll like the details he put in all the aircrafts ! With nearly everything working inside ! I'm amazed at what he did.

[Azimech]

This is wonderful, I think this is one of the ways to close the gap between the communities.

I think most people want mods, if implemented correctly. Everyone here's happy with the mods that were included with 4.09/4.10, they were just being called mods until absorbed in the official patches.

Imagine everyone working together to create a unified package with the least amount of bugs, solidifying IL2's name for the many years to come. This could be a great way of advertising CoD as well, if people see how dedicated and professional modding is done on this platform. It could even attract new technologies for upgrading the IL2 engine that were unknown in the past. And it's not going to harm CoD, because that's the future. If 1C embraces all the talent that currently works on IL2, for sure the talent will stay for CoD!

I can dream, can I? :-)

[Bearcat]

Ok, lets start with a couple of obvious links:

UltraPack: UltraPack: http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php
The most popular online mod pack - some rather large downloads, and they are just about to release version 3.0, so you may do better to wait for that, rather than downloading the current version.

SAS: http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php
The site of chouce for the majority of modders, these days. They have their own Modactivator for custom mod setups - preferable if you only want to install a few mods, or like to tinker.

Both sites expect you to have at least at some technical competence regarding computers, and SAS can be a bit snappy at newcomers asking questions that have already been answered - search first. And don't spam the forums with requests to make this or that mod, or asking 'when it will be ready' - the answer is always going to be 'when it is done'.

Even if you aren't actually interested in installing mods yourself, I'd take a look at some of the things that SAS have done - helicopters, post-war jets etc. Most of their current mods will be going into the new UltraPack version too.


And let us not forget HSFX (http://www.242sqn.com/phpBB2/index.php?sid=c37d4184d5069cb2ca44afcc6c101d69)

[4./JG53_Task]

HSFX -> More geared for SEOW
UP (contains content from SAS, HSFX) -> More geared for public dogfight servers

[norulz]

oh... we are now allowed by gOD to talk about mods...


pfff...

[bf-110]

BTW,I saw the planes and etc at SAS and many looked great!
Are they going to be included?

[Aviar]

BTW,I saw the planes and etc at SAS and many looked great!
Are they going to be included?

Here is the current list of mods scheduled to be included in UP 3.0:

http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/topic,3892.0.html

Aviar

[Aviar]

Ok, lets start with a couple of obvious links:

UltraPack: UltraPack: http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php
The most popular online mod pack - some rather large downloads, and they are just about to release version 3.0, so you may do better to wait for that, rather than downloading the current version.

That UP link does not work for me. Try this one:

http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php

Aviar

[salmo]

Thankyou 1C for allowing MOD disussion here. I know this issue has been a controversial one. I believe that the overwhelming majority of mod-makers only intend to enhance & improve the wonderful IL-2 Sturmovik game. There are now many fine mods that improve the game immersion even further. What was a WW2 combat flight simulator is now a WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War simulator.

[MOH_Hirth]

I see Nearmiss has posted a sticky saying that discussion of mods is now permitted on this forum. Can I take it that it is ok to post links to the mod sites themselves? If so, another sticky with the leading ones (Ultrapack, SAS etc) would be useful.

As Nearmiss says, we shouldn't misuse this so can I make a personal request that everyone tries to avoid negative comments on mod pack FMs etc, and on all the other issues that have led to so much acrimony. Regardless of past issues, 'Classic' IL-2 modding is here to stay, and shows real signs of reaching a more stable and consistent state. Cliffs of Dover seems to have been designed right from the start to be more 'open', so the difference between 'stock' and 'mods' becomes largely an online server issue, rather than anything more fundamental. I think all this suggests that we can put past debates behind us, and work towards producing better sims.

+1! Smart decision, more brains, more improvements, ideias...

[fabianfred]

Does this mean that TD are going to stop changing the codes just to throw a spanner in the works of the modders? I had heard that 4.11 was especially aiming to do this.
Of course I could be imagining it all....it just seems that way sometimes... :cool:

[Oktoberfest]

UP 3.0 is going to be amazing ! Graf Zepelin and Peter Strasser CV ! Plus new IJN light CV !

Ar196 torp !

I can already imagine alternate history scenario with IJN and KM together in the Pacific fighting against Anglo-american CV task forces ! SOOO GREAT !

And +1 with fabianfred : PLEASE make 4.11 compatible with other mod packs so we can just enjoy the best of both world ! It would be so great and would avoid Mod makers to stay in older version to continue their dev.

[Azimech]

I agree. The huge list of servers on hyperlobby (most sparsely populated or totally empty) and with incompatible requirements (4.09 or 4.10.1, HSFX 5 with or without expert mode, UP2.01 with or without MDS, etc.) is a pain in the whatchamacallit. There's even a server still running 4.08! Constantly switching folders or executables for the right server is no fun at all. And with the release of UP 3.0 it will only get worse until all 2.01 servers have switched.

Instead of widening the canyon, I vote for a more "holistic approach" and hopefully one day we'll have a true unified package, even if it means bending Oleg's rules. For example: let's loosen the polygon/texture size restriction for cockpits and models. We're almost halfway 2012 and shouldn't bother with the fps on ancient systems. In the future, if someone's upset he can't enjoy the the high frame rates of the previous patch he might as well buy a new videocard or CPU. Hardware is cheaper than ever.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Graf Zepelin and Peter Strasser CV ! Plus new IJN light CV !



Fantasy repaints and frankenstuff = lame!

I really don't understand all the fuzz about mod packs.
Only real benefit is the different sound IMHO.

[nearmiss]

Maps
effects
sounds

make for alot of improvements

[Aviar]

Does this mean that TD are going to stop changing the codes just to throw a spanner in the works of the modders? I had heard that 4.11 was especially aiming to do this.
Of course I could be imagining it all....it just seems that way sometimes... :cool:


Actually, it looks as if UltraPack has already decided to split from DT. This is what StG77_HaDeS posted on the UP site:

"UP 3.0 and any future ones will be incompatible with TD's version of game. It is possible to include any interested features and/or planes but not everything like we did in 4.10.1m
The reason behind this is that we don't have the required time to re-write and/or update our addons each time TD wants to break compatibility with the "mods".
And the biggest reason is that UP will have features like AI triggers, the Jet Era, sniper gunners advanced fix, dynamic weather, more advanced Flight Model and advanced Radar (possibly with doppler effect) in the future, etc... Things that TD's version of game doesn't have and possibly never will. Even if this will be possible it will require years, just remember how it took to release the 4.10m, buggy (around 100 serious bugs) and without many features that has been announced.
And, as i say, the choice is yours. You can play whatever version you like, "stock", UP or any other pack."


http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/topic,3898.105.html


Aviar

[SPITACE]

hi all i can not find a MODS FOLDER in 4.10.1:( i have seen it before in 4.09

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Does this mean that TD are going to stop changing the codes just to throw a spanner in the works of the modders? I had heard that 4.11 was especially aiming to do this.
Of course I could be imagining it all....it just seems that way sometimes... :cool:

Of course it is only the imagination of a few paranoid guys, because it is simply not true. Thats just a bad talking. :evil:
If we change something on the code or the game anyway, it is for our own development reasons only and I find it really irritating, that anyone might get angry about it. :(

Actually, it looks as if UltraPack has already decided to split from DT.

Which hopefully means, that they stop to include DT's work without any asking. I'd really like to see them going their own way. :rolleyes:

[Azimech]

And as Aviar posted, it makes sense.

Even I was against soundmods but recently with HSFX 5 it seems that the Tiger sound mod really is a step forward, original sound cannot compete in any way anymore, and I refuse to accept the old. I posted a great idea and some people agree with me, that a folder with custom sounds to be parsed by the system, could be a nice alternative for anyone who wants compatibility online and still enjoy the sounds they want. Never any reaction to it. "Can't be done" doesn't exist, it's all about the effort. Never forget why the game was hacked in the first place. And "we" are not interested in Oleg's personal preference, he once wrote he very much liked the sounds as they were, well ... that's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't explain the energy that has been put in to replace them all. Almost every aspect of IL2 has evolved since 2001, but the last real change with the sounds occurred with the introduction of Forgotten Battles, 2003. And the game was hacked in 2006. And all this time it "seems" both Maddox Games and TD never wanted to listen to the community. Wouldn't be nice if the sound system got an overhaul for a change? If people want to hear Star Wars lasers or maybe the knights who say NI instead of guns, it's their preference. Create a folder where people can dump their own samples and if there aren't any, you hear stock. Couldn't affect online if done properly.

[Azimech]

Which hopefully means, that they stop to include DT's work without any asking. I'd really like to see them going their own way. :rolleyes:

I don't agree with your statement but I don't have the time left to elaborate right now. TD's work is as much important as the work done by other teams/modders. I very much respect your work as I do the things done by other people. "We" don't want two different games, "we" want the best of all. Communication is the key, and I feel 1C/Maddox Games finally has given us a way to close the gap. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone puts away past differences and see the broader picture?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Unfortunately the picture is much broader than you think. No time to eloborate either.

[bf-110]

Do you think this will make mods more probably to be incorporated into IL2 patches?

[WWFlybert]

I think any past bad feelings should be dropped if we want this thread to work

anyway .. I want WWI aircraft in IL-2 engine .. know it can be done effectively because Oleg told me so :cool:

I *know* it would breath some fresh air into the sim, would be popular with 1000s of pilots .. there is some work being done at SAS .. just trying to get interest going where ever I can ;)

Former ( and the few current ) Red Baron 3D players would love it, many came into IL-2 over the last 2 years hoping WWI in IL-2 would get done, and there are many in RoF displeased with some gameplay values .. there isn't even a good way to score games in RoF !

[SaQSoN]

Do you think this will make mods more probably to be incorporated into IL2 patches?

The shitty franken-stuff; models, stolen from other games; dubious FM changes; Grummann-related stuff (no matter how high quality it is); non-WWII related stuff, etc. - definitely NOT.

As for the high quality models, well thought and well designed code changes, well documented and well tested FM changes, quality maps and other high quality stuff - anyone could add this before without a problem by contacting DT and will be able do this in future.

So, basically, the changes in rules of this forum have nothing to do with DT or 1C:MG vision of the further game development.

[Azimech]

You do have a very strong point there, SaQson. All the material should at least fit the minimum quality standard. The nice B24 cockpit is pleasing to see but horrible when you switch on the instrument lights. The B17 cockpit has a lot of the textures missing. Most four-engined planes have and no (working) gauges for engines 3 & 4, a lot of gunner positions are borrowed from the B25, etc.

And of course NG related stuff is always out of the question.

[csThor]

Amazing what people read when they genuinely want to believe someone's out for their fur. Gotta love that paranoia. :roll:

[csThor]

Look, I don't give a damn about what you do in your freetime. But it was you who read a lot of things into SaQSon's statement, none of which are real except in your overly active imagination (although I know where the thought comes from - and I find that highly amusing). All he did was to outline (again) the basic rules for cooperation with TD, which have been there since TD became active BTW, except that he didn't bother with diplomacy. But that should not surprise anyone.

[SaQSoN]

Le0ne, frankly I really do not believe, I give a sh.t about you, or Hades (whomever that is) or your lame opinions.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

That was clearly a personal oppinion of SaQSon.

EDIT: A typical one. :D

[SaQSoN]

A typical one. :D

I am for honesty and truth. Even if it hurts. :rolleyes:

[EnsignRo]

non-WWII related stuff

...and why not?...why not make IL2 1956?...or IL2 1966?...or even IL2 1916?...

[ocococ]

The truth is that, all the available IL-2 ModPacks give an unfinished/experimental/buggy/hobby/arcade feeling to IL-2. And this becomes more apparent the more you play them.

There isn't a single ModPack out there, that is conservative, that acts "like" an official patch. Improving/adding only what is really needed and only with very HQ stuff.

Instead all the ModPacks have loads of unnecessary changes that mess up the game and destroy the good old IL-2 feeling that we are all used to, while also introducing rookie bugs and incompatibilities.

I think that if there was a more serious patch-like-modpack, the situation would be better. But there is not.

However, I must tell the truth, there is some great and very polished mod content out there, that is a shame it is not official. But imo they are the exception and minority.

[SaQSoN]

...and why not?...why not make IL2 1956?...or IL2 1966?

Because, a) there are lots of stuff still left out for the WWII; b) no one yet did a good enough (at least, comparable to the existing WWII subjects) simulation for the jet engines and avionics, sub- and supersonic FM, helicopter FM and so on. Who's going to do that? DT? Doubt it. Plus, how many planes for this era available ATM? One or two? What about ground units for the period? And so on. Without all that the 1956-66 planes are out of place in the IL-2 game.

...or even IL2 1916?...
Same questions, as above, plus there is already ROF, which is much better, then anything, modders or DT can suggest in this area.

[ATAG_Doc]

This place is already hot. Just a few minutes after birth already 41 post. Better have thick skin.

[xmac1x]

Because, a) there are lots of stuff still left out for the WWII; b) no one yet did a good enough (at least, comparable to the existing WWII subjects) simulation for the jet engines and avionics, sub- and supersonic FM, helicopter FM and so on. Who's going to do that? DT? Doubt it. Plus, how many planes for this era available ATM? One or two? What about ground units for the period? And so on. Without all that the 1956-66 planes are out of place in the IL-2 game.


Same questions, as above, plus there is already ROF, which is much better, then anything, modders or DT can suggest in this area.

Here's a simple solution! If you don't want it don't download it! :D UP, HSFX breathed a new life into this game, before TD was set up I believe, If somebody wants to make a mod about 1966 let them, don't like it don't get it and don't complain that it exists in the first place. UP is pretty well polished and doesnt at all feel like an arcade experience

[SaQSoN]

If somebody wants to make a mod about 1966 let them
Absolutely. Who says, they can not? If someone wants 1956, or 1966, or 2366 martian frankenstein invasion - the can have it all in their mods. But not in the official add-on. That's the point of this discussion.

[WWFlybert]

look .. UP 2.01 and it's switchers allow 4.09m , 4.10m (rarely used now of course) and 4.101 .. I updated to 4.10 then 4.101 through the UP updater .. it was painless

yes, most servers are empty .. so what ? .. most of the ACTIVE dogfight servers are either 2.01 (with or without Zuti MDS 1.13 ) or 4.101 ..same with coop..

4.101 is great .. UP 2.01 is great .. both have things about them that are different ..

why fight or argue ? .. UP 2.01 has a 4.09m base .. so much credit goes to TD or UP 2.01 could not be what it is .. UP 3.0 will need to have ability to switch, with JSGME, to 4.101 .. because that is what the players want .. not having to switch between 2 or more installs to play online

you can argue that UP is inaccurate or incomplete in some respects .. you can argue that 4.101 is inaccurate in perhaps fewer respects and definitely that it does not have the variety / number of plane types or easy to enable options

1C was not perfect, TD is not perfect, the sim IL-2 1946 is not perfect .. TD, UP and SAS and smaller mod groups are all trying to improve IL-2 1946 with feedback from the players .. ( AAS is a joke, the guy running that does not even fly IL-2 and is developing a WWI sim based on Virtual Simulator / hangsim engine )

The game is made better by all of you .. rather than argue over who is *better* .. recognize the good contributions each group has made and be happy the options are for each to play the version(s) they want to play .. they are not mutually exclusive

[Hans Burger]

In my opinion, it is not a problem to have choice between different mod packs (DT, UP, SAS, etc...) since all are realised under SFS format and, at this level, a pack has not an advantage with regard to the other.
So, choice between one pack with regard to others will be done by the content and by the quality of it. I think, this kind of competition is very clean and, at least, the choice (the "winner") will be done by users. We are very closed to basic situations of real life and for me, it is a good point.

[II/JG54_Emil]

And since there are many and enough competitioners out there, DT could maybe take care of improving the core of the game and bring it to 2011 game standarts(Multicore, 4GB+ RAM, etc.).

This would be a sort of coorperation that would benefit the entire comunity.

[dFrog]

Which hopefully means, that they stop to include DT's work without any asking. I'd really like to see them going their own way. :rolleyes:

Well, they're not alone. Remember Flakiten's flares ? And that's not the only one case.

I am for honesty and truth. Even if it hurts. :rolleyes:

Me too, see above. :)

[Hans Burger]

Great idea, Emil.
In my opinion, it is probably more difficult as adding new maps, new planes, change an "0" by an "O" for button file, change some java class to add rew effect, etc..
But since we have developpers in front of us and not simple irresponsible modders, these points will increase significantly FB in a good direction...

[II/JG54_Emil]

Paranoia ...... who there is more like a religion in here than anything else.

Le0ne out :-P

???

[Asheshouse]

After reading some of the earlier posts I think I must post an apology for having spent the morning acting as an "irresponsible modder". I'm sorry this is all I have to show for it.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/image13-2.jpg

[SaQSoN]

Well, they're not alone. Remember Flakiten's flares ? And that's not the only one case.

List, please. Otherwise - you are a liar.

[Maori]

Which hopefully means, that they stop to include DT's work without any asking.

Sorry but this is absurd.

Modders just mod on top of the official stock game. Have they asked permission to Oleg and 1C to do so? well, no.

Why? Because it was supposed to be an action of love towards the game, not vandalism (as some seem to see it). All this of course without any aim of profit. Also to mod is just a customization of the game. Everybody takes for granted and knows the stock game is what allows MODS to exist (let us put aside the guys that everywhere exist and like to just stirr conflict, those shouldn't count in this discussion).

So my question is: are you modders or are you the official game? Begging for permissions reminds me some petty modders. I understand the wish of a respectfull use (most reasonable people does follow such use).

In any case, if you are official, you are BEYOND and ABOVE that discourse. You are the CORE of IL2 and as such, you'll be probably modded as were other parts of the game. If you see it as disrespect, I think you are on the wrong track.

[dFrog]

List, please. Otherwise - you are a liar.

Don't worry. Waiting for some PM's with answers to my questions.

[nearmiss]

Sorry but this is absurd.

Modders just mod on top of the official stock game. Have they asked permission to Oleg and 1C to do so? well, no.

Why? Because it was supposed to be an action of love towards the game, not vandalism (as some seem to see it). All this of course without any aim of profit. Also to mod is just a customization of the game. Everybody takes for granted and knows the stock game is what allows MODS to exist (let us put aside the guys that everywhere exist and like to just stirr conflict, those shouldn't count in this discussion).

So my question is: are you modders or are you the official game? Begging for permissions reminds me some petty modders. I understand the wish of a respectfull use (most reasonable people does follow such use).

In any case, if you are official, you are BEYOND and ABOVE that discourse. You are the CORE of IL2 and as such, you'll be probably modded as were other parts of the game. If you see it as disrespect, I think you are on the wrong track.

DT has licensing permissions with IL2 developer to make changes throughout the entire IL2 application source code. That means DT updates in every situation I am aware have also made changes in the programming, not just applying some new aircraft, object or editing some other graphic elements.

The DT updated versions should be looked upon as the CORE IL2 application, because core changes are usually part of the updates. Therefore, other 3rd party mods should be installed after DT updates and configured accordingly.

Applying mods directly to the IL2 1946 pre-DT updates might work and may never be a problem, that is dependent upon the type of mod I suggest.

It is important to understand the above distinction, and not to look on the TD as just another mod.

In practical terms... TD updated versions of IL2 are the IL2 application.

[nearmiss]

After reading some of the earlier posts I think I must post an apology for having spent the morning acting as an "irresponsible modder". I'm sorry this is all I have to show for it.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/image13-2.jpg

Nice, very nice. I congratulate you on a great looking project!

[Maori]

It is important to understand the above distinction, and not to look on the TD as just another mod.

In practical terms... TD updated versions of IL2 are the IL2 application.

I am glad we agree, that is exactly what I mean :)

[Hans Burger]

OK, Nearmiss, I understand your definition between you and modders, but it is just definition and not what is done on FB...

Modding is not limited to change aircraft, maps, effects but also modding change IL2 core by adding/modifying new java class and sometimes new dlls... I suppose, as an example, that adding triggers, AI visibility,… are done by this way.

For me, distinctions are not so evident and in any case, do not reflect present situation.

[nearmiss]

OK, Nearmiss, I understand your definition between you and modders, but it is just definition and not what is done on FB...

Modding is not limited to change aircraft, maps, effects but also modding change IL2 core by adding/modifying new java class and sometimes new dlls... I suppose, as an example, that adding triggers, AI visibility,… are done by this way.

For me, distinctions are not so evident and in any case, do not reflect present situation.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, because there are competent mod programmers.

I'm saying for best course of action to avoid issues the TD versions are the authorized licensed versions. That always provides a starting basis that will have consistency as updating progresses.

I wouldn't dispute other mod programmers ability to work with the core programming. I'm just saying for good communication and less problems in working with modified versions of the original IL2 the TD is licensed by developer to work with core (no one else is, that I know of).

If users stick with TD updated versions as core then 3rd party modifications would work appropriately, if the 3rd party developers make sure their mods work with the respective authorized updated versions of IL2 (*TD updated versions).

It would be terrible for users to try to work around all the different modified versions of Il2 that would be available otherwise.

There has to be some basis for the core application that is maintained consistently and competently as IL2 is updated and modified, which was the original developer's reasoning for licensing permissions to TD.

The TD isn't compensated for their work, and I'm sure if a core or update code change by a non-TD member shares his/her work it would be scrutinized by TD and applied to updates.

No one or group of persons has a corner on good ideas... just not possible.

[bf-110]

IDK if IL2 engine can be hacked (that's a strong,nearly perjorative word here,sorry) to the point that Mach 1 and 2 jets,heat and radar seeking missiles and countermeasures can be implemented on the game without making all of them cheesy.

Great model!I hope it can be used by TD,as I saw some awesome Graf Zeppelin and Aquila models in SAS that could make it's way to 4.11?:rolleyes:

And I know what is "no way" to be ingame.

[SaQSoN]

Don't worry. Waiting for some PM's with answers to my questions.

So, you say, you put forth an acquisition on public without having any proof, but a foul rumor? How nice of you...

Sorry but this is absurd.

Modders just mod on top of the official stock game. Have they asked permission to Oleg and 1C to do so? well, no.

Sorry, but in game models, textures, or program code is an intellectual property of it's developers, or respective copyright owners. Distributing them, or portions of them in a projects, other, then original one without original copyright owner permission is illegal in EU, North America and most of the CIS countries (at least).
1C might had reasons not to pursue the violators, DT might have reasons to do so.

[Hans Burger]

1C might had reasons not to pursue the violators, DT might have reasons to do so.

I am a little bit surprised by the logic and the purpose:
1) a new topic on 1C forum is open to discuss mod,
2) after 4 or 5 pages, we are at level of menace ...

?????
Strange to go in this way since 1C do nothing about this and DT also after 4.09 and 4.10 versions. Strange to go in this way since up to now new releases are free and put international pursuit for something which is free is not very understandable. Except if next versions will be done as payed addons for example.
This kind of menace is not done to continue to discuss about mods on 1C forum nor, for modders, to collaborate with DT.

[bf-110]

It's something you will get used.If you open a polemic thread here,someone comes trolling and then in retaliation,a second person comes beating everyone.

[Maori]

1C might had reasons not to pursue the violators, DT might have reasons to do so.

Oh, how mature :rolleyes:

Grow up!

You talk like all those dick-lawyer heads that have made so much harm to this world. :mad:

Mods are not like stealing intellectual property because:

1) they are installed on the same game they come from
2) they do not generate any profit except for the original makers of the game since it sells more
3) they are just a customization of the game, which ONLY works on those PCs that have the LEGITIMATE STOCK game already installed. They are NOT a standalone thing.

Also, may I add that "intelectual property" is a very VERY suspicious entity. You may have contributed original work, OK, I agree, and you should certainly be recognized for it in a fair way... now you did so by using a LOT of knowledge given by human culture, which is NOT of YOUR property. How dare you now claiming 100% property on intellectual products? Highly offensive pretension.

Some highly egoistic companies have genetically modified corn to then claim property over it, when corn was develloped by mesoamerican cultures thousands of years ago. Now these very same people that developped the corn FOR FREE have to pay to a private company for something a stupid lawyer claims they own? Criminal and shamefull attitude if you ask me.

I am really sad to see you are showing a similar attitude.

[SaQSoN]

Grow up!

Talking to yourself? That's a bad sign.


Mods are not like stealing intellectual property because:

1) they are installed on the same game they come from

Absolutely correct. Until you do it, using genuine developments (which are: built by you 3D models, painted by you textures, designed by you program code, etc.). You can also distribute freely this mods and it would be absolutely legal.

But, if you take someone's else development (3D models, textures, program code, etc.), from another game, or another mod for the same game and distribute it as your own creation, without original author (or copyright owner) permission - now this is copyright infringement, is not legal and can be pursued by original copyright owner with any available legal means.
This stands up, even if you used only a portion of someone's else work without authorization from this person.

2) they do not generate any profit except for the original makers of the game since it sells more

Profitability is irrelevant to the matter.

Also, may I add that "intelectual property" is a very VERY suspicious entity.

No, you may not.

[Mick]

1C might had reasons not to pursue the violators, DT might have reasons to do so.

:confused: ... what are you waiting for to do it then ...??

:rolleyes: ... on what grounds would you do it ? ... loss of profit ...???

... does the contract you (still ??) have with 1C entitle you to do so ...???

Can't you just admit once and for all that the modders that greatly revamped OUR (because we BOUGHT it) beloved sim and allowed it to still be alive 10 years after it was released are by no way the ennemies of IL2-46, on the contrary ...!!

[SaQSoN]

:confused:

Reading other people's posts usually helps to avoid being confused.

on what grounds would you do it ?
Theft of property, copyright infringement.

... does the contract you (still ??) have with 1C entitle you to do so ...???

Contract with 1C is irrelevant to the matter in discussion. If you have no idea what is being discussed, why you join the discussion in the first place?

[SaQSoN]

I am a little bit surprised by the logic and the purpose:
1) a new topic on 1C forum is open to discuss mod,
2) after 4 or 5 pages, we are at level of menace

I'll try to get things clear (once again) for the people, who don't care to understand what is it all about through reading other people messages.

DT has nothing against mods for the IL-2 game. DT does not care, if people want to produce their own mod packs. UNTIL this mod packs do not contain models, textures, or program code portions, designed by DT and included into those mod packs without DT's permission.

Certain persons in the mod community, however, openly declare, they will include components, created by DT into their mod packs and do not feel themselves obliged to ask the permission.
DT will not tolerate such happenings.
That is all I am talking about.

[Mick]

... I see SaQSoN, you are a smart guy, and me and others are dumb ones that understand nothing ...

You are right at least for one thing, it is sunday and I am not going to waste my time anylonger arguing with you ... :grin:

[Asheshouse]

IDK if IL2 engine can be hacked (that's a strong,nearly perjorative word here,sorry) to the point that Mach 1 and 2 jets,heat and radar seeking missiles and countermeasures can be implemented on the game without making all of them cheesy.

Great model!I hope it can be used by TD,as I saw some awesome Graf Zeppelin and Aquila models in SAS that could make it's way to 4.11?:rolleyes:

And I know what is "no way" to be ingame.

Two totally different types of mod are described here. The jets, released as the IL2 1956 Pack are superbly made authentic models with extensive new coding to make the various systems work. I cant comment on the accuracy of the FM and weapons performance but I know that the creators went into great detail to try and achieve a high level of realism. However this is clearly well after the WWII era so probably not likely to be adopted by TD, even if the originators requested it to be.

The "Graf Zeppelin" and "Aquila" carriers are not authentic new models. They are simply repaints of the existing Illustrious carrier. Certainly very well done repaints but only paint mods nevertheless. Paint Mods have existed for IL2 aircraft for a long time prior to the modding breakthroughs but no one ever expected them to be incorporated into the core game. Why should that change now? There is always a lot of interest in these carriers for "what if" type scenarios but you need to remember that they were never even close to being operational. They mainly contributed to the Allied war effort by tying up material and resources which would otherwise have been used for other things. It would be more useful to have more carriers (and other ships) which actually saw operational use. -- HMS Eagle, HMS Ark Royal, HMS Furious, HMS Hermes, to name just a few.

The counter argument is that 1C saw fit to label a repainted KGV as an IJN and USN BB so why not include repaints for other vessels. In my view it would be wrong to compound the original mistake. Its maybe about time that those USN and IJN generic ships were replaced with something more appropriate.

I would be interested in knowing the historical limits TD would put on new models.
I guess the Korean era is out, but would they consider the Spanish Civil War period to be in?

[SaQSoN]

I would be interested in knowing the historical limits TD would put on new models.

1930-1946. Also, all Grumman-related projects (including ships) are out, even if they fit the timescale.

I don't think, anyone would be against SCW subjects.

[Asheshouse]

1930-1946. Also, all Grumman-related projects (including ships) are out, even if they fit the timescale.

I'm not an expert on the Grumman corporate history.

Does that mean a restriction on including warships built at the Newport News ShipBuilding Yards only, or were other ship yards included in the agreement.

Note: I realise that Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet were all built at Newport News :(

[SaQSoN]

Does that mean a restriction on including warships built at the Newport News ShipBuilding Yards only, or were other ship yards included in the agreement.

This means, all ships built, or designed by companies, which at some point become part of the N-G corp. So, if a certain ship class was designed and first laid at, say, Newport News and then it's sister-ship was built at some other factory, not owned by N-G, the sister ship is still under the restriction. If it was otherwise - then probably, not. But still, DT was asked to keep away from all US ships. :(

[II/JG54_Emil]

Yet there are a load of Japanese ship you could work on.

Officially there are no IJN Cruisers in game etc.

[Asheshouse]

But still, DT was asked to keep away from all US ships. :(

Well that leaves no room for manoeuvre at all. --- at least officially. ;-)

At the risk of being quickly shot down - cause I'm no copyright lawyer.

I understand the legal position in the US to be along these lines:

For works published between 1923 and 1963, provided they were published with a copyright notice, the works had copyright protection for a term of 28 years. At the end of the 28 year period an extension of an additional 67 years could be requested, a total of 95 years.

If there was no copyright notice on the original work then they immediately became public domain.
If no extension was requested then they became public domain after the initial 28 years.

Plans of USS Yorktown held by HNSA (Historic Naval Ships Assoc) prepared by Newport News Ship Building Co are not copyright marked, therefore appear to be Public Domain.

Either way after 2041 all work produced up to 1946 becomes Public Domain, so not long to wait. :-)

For any of the early BB's originally built in WWI the 95 years has already lapsed.

[Hans Burger]

We can discuss days and days on the subject without finding any compromises. One thing that DT can do to improve the game and without conflicts with external "moders", since tools are available and capacity also, is to update graphic engine and proc engine (multicore proc, sli,...).
This will be a big step forward and I am sure all FB community will recognize your leadership in this domain.
For the remaining, I am convinced that, all around the world, there are enough moders able to handle Java/C++ programing language, 3D, flight dynamics and knowing
enought about IL2 structure to improve, in these domains, this game.
At the end, all users will be satisfied and happy to have a game at 2011 standards. Moreover, each parts will work in a domain without interference with the other part.

[Mick]

I totally agree with you Hans Burger, that would just be great to have an updated graphics engine and multicore capability, and also the possibility to increase the number of slots available for map makers ... :grin:

Nobody needs a war between the DT and the modding communities, on the contrary ...

I can hardly imagine what IL2/46 could be if both "camps" worked in the same direction ...

[nearmiss]

The IL2 sturmovik - Forgotten Battles source code was hacked.

Third party mod programmers have taken liberties with intellectual property and violated all manner of laws in the process.

The TD made arrangements with Oleg to license the source code. The improvements in IL2 we enjoy from TD are what resulted. Someone had to "take charge" or the mods "hodge-podge" would eventually make IL2 a mess.

We did experience that when mods were first released. There were conflicts and issues constantly between different mods as they were applied to the IL2. Anyone that used mods can describe examples.
It wasnt' a nightmare, but it was close to insanity.

The purpose for licensing with TD was in part to insure stability in IL2 further development.

Mod programmers have the source code, afterall it's hacked. The mod programmers can do as they will with the code in so many words.

If Mod programmers go it alone, which they can do since they have the source. They can develop independently from the TD. If they ignore the core, which is updated by TD it will mean there will be a degradation of the core base for IL2 Sturmovik. This will over time make updates and mods a nuisance. There will be all kinds of issues between mods and the IL2.

The TD has made improvements in the core of the application and usually does some type of improvement with each update release. If mod developers will continue to use TD updates as a basis for applying their mods the consistency of IL2 can be preserved.

I am not apart of the TD, nor am I affiliated with them in any way. Like everyone else that appreciates the IL2-FB I want it to remain a good success.

We need the TD, and it was a smart move to preserve the integrity of IL2-FB by licensing a community minded group of programmers. TD is cooperative and open to suggestions, as we all know.

A team like TD can ad new members and members can drop out, but the integrity of the IL2 core programming can be maintained.

Several attempts to unify mod programmers have been tried, and success was dubious. Yes, there are a few successes, but will they have the staying power?

I'm not knocking anyone or group of mod consolidators by any means. IMO, Every mod developer can hold a place, if we just embrace one development group for maintaing IL2 core integrity as it is updated.

[SaQSoN]

At the risk of being quickly shot down - cause I'm no copyright lawyer.

Well that's an interesting point, but the problem is not in how much NG claims are legitimate. As far as I understood from what Ilya and other people from 1C told me, 1C, back in PF days, was forced to make a contract with NG, under which 1C obliges to pay a certain amount of money for inclusion of any NG-related subject.
So, even if suddenly the copyrights will be stripped from NG, 1C still will be restricted under this contract.

This is what I know about it. I may be wrong though, since I never saw this document and have no idea what is in it actually. Nevertheless, there was clear and strict order from Ilya and earlier by Maddox, that DT should not touch any US ships, or NG related planes and cockpits.

[bf-110]

And the Martin stuff?Why it can't be used ingame?Is it part of them now too?

And IDK why all that fuzz about the modders.If wasn't because of them,IL2 would be still on 4.08 and probably already loosing part of its fans.It gave the old good IL2 a second youth.I know that there are modders that take DT work and label as theirs,the ones that does s... work and maybe even some that used the code in the early days to cheat,but labeling modders as criminals is exaggerating a lot,isn't it?

[SaQSoN]

If wasn't because of them,IL2 would be still on 4.08
No sht! Really?! :eek:

And the Martin stuff?Why it can't be used ingame?Is it part of them now too?
I don't know about Martin history, but it seems to me, that they do not have any relation to NG. This should be researched separately. However, I didn't see any official statement that Martin products are restricted like the NG ones.

but labeling modders as criminals is exaggerating a lot,isn't it?
And why do you suddenly think, someone labels all modders as criminals? :eek:

PS I'd rather separate the discussion of DT issues and DT-related work from mods discussion and do all DT-related talks in the respective forum section. I kind of feel uncomfortable by hijacking this thread from poor modders. :D

[Aracno]

And the Martin stuff?Why it can't be used ingame?Is it part of them now too?

And IDK why all that fuzz about the modders.If wasn't because of them,IL2 would be still on 4.08 and probably already loosing part of its fans.It gave the old good IL2 a second youth.I know that there are modders that take DT work and label as theirs,the ones that does s... work and maybe even some that used the code in the early days to cheat,but labeling modders as criminals is exaggerating a lot,isn't it?

We never labelled modders as criminals.
Most of us started as modders.
I was a modders and a noob 3D modeller, still I am, and the guys of the team helped me to grow in my skill, released my model in their patch and finally accepted me in the group.
Still we have a 3rd party forum were "modders" can cooperate with us making features for the patch .....
Some of my best friends are modders.
Why the hell I should be against them?


Aracno
TD 3d modeller and, as member of an online squad, happy user of one great modpack (dont ask wich one).

[Pursuivant]

Fantasy repaints and frankenstuff = lame!

I really don't understand all the fuzz about mod packs.
Only real benefit is the different sound IMHO.

Yeah, mod packs are so lame. All you get are:

1) All planes flyable, albeit many with "borrowed" cockpits and gunner stations.

2) Scads of new maps.

3) New variants of existing planes - some quite well researched.

4) Complete historical loadouts for existing planes.

5) Small fixes to mistakes on stock planes.

6) Loads of new planes - some with new 3D models, DM and FM. Yeah, some are "frankenplanes" but even then, they're often quite well done.

7) Lots of new ground objects.

8) Corrections to AI which fix "sniper gunners" and engines which never overheat.

9) Improvements to AI which make enemy planes tougher, more aggressive opponents.

10) Additions to AI which allow you to control up to wing-sized formations of bombers and give additional commands to wingmen.

11) Additions to AI which allow forward observers, target marking, ground controlled radar.

12) Better default skins.

13) Lots of little corrections to things which 1C was too busy/lazy to fix over the years. Like better sounds, better smoke and fire effects, better ground textures and corrections to dumb mistakes in FM coding well before the "official" fixes.

Basically, modders are telling 1C and DT where they want the sim to go and are taking steps to make it go there. If mods were junk nobody would use them.

If DT is smart, they would do what computer security companies do - recruit the best hackers to work for the "good guys." In this case, recruit the better modders onto their team, or ask to use their mods.

Also, DT's web presence has been minimal, to say the least. You guys need to communicate better, and not just on inherently "mod unfriendly" sites like this one. Set up a web page that lists formal requirements for mods (i.e., polygon counts, areas that are off limits) and tutorials on how to add objects, planes, ships, etc. to the game. Maybe have an "official" TD presence on mod forums to steer promising modders towards contributing to official patches. Basically, encourage people to work through DT and to build stuff that is up to official standards.

[Pursuivant]

1C might had reasons not to pursue the violators, DT might have reasons to do so.

I didn't know that DT had its own multinational legal team. Anyhow, I wish them best of luck.

[WWFlybert]

SaQSoN

With respect sir, you are mistaken regarding copyright, intellectual property regarding game mods, at least regarding USA law

In USA, to sue you must show monetary damages, so while if anyone were to take 1C or UbiSoft copyright material and resell it without permission, 1C and Ubisoft would certainly be damaged .. if anyone were to distribute the core game and it's files, even for free, that would indeed be theft and damage 1C and Ubisoft

Mods as distributed, do not work without the player having a copy of IL-2 1946, presumably legally purchased .. if anything, an argument could be made that many more copies of IL-2 1946 have been sold because of mods, than if the game had not been cracked and modded

If game mods could be stopped through legal process, then why did not 1C - UbiSoft do so at the first chance ? ..

I will tell you why .. because this issue has existed since at least 1996, and no software company to my knowledge, much less a PC game company, has successfully sued to prevent distribution of mods or additions to a software. Since Half Life was modded to become CounterStrike, quite a few Game companies have encouraged modding and distributed the tools to do so, because it increases sales and can sometimes allow the company to acquire new content inexpensively and increase sales .. sometimes those mods become a *new* game like CounterStrike

TD does not own the rights to IL-2 1946 .. UbiSoft and 1C do .. if you have not been properly compensated for your work .. you can not sue modders over it .. in fact ...

I find it odd that TD claims it gains no compensation from 1C - UbiSoft for their work, that would likely be against labor laws in all 50 states in USA

I presume you get permission for any unique user content added "officially" to IL-2 1946, any unique textures, 3d models .. anything .. and permission from any user created hacking tools you may have used .. because not to do so would clearly be a violation of those authors' copyright

And while I'm not giving a legal opinion, I have protected authors' rights in another flight sim / game, and have lead 2 mod groups that dealt with IP rights of flight sim / game rights holders ..

I both greatly respect developers rights and software user / modder rights , so please don't misunderstand .. I greatly respect 1C and TD and the work you have done that is IL-2 1946 today

However I can say with complete confidence that TD would get nowhere attempting legal action against mod groups for adding or changing content of IL-2 1946, and to make threats accomplishes nothing except alienating most of those that read this forum

I am not, BTW, an IL-2 modder, however as a player of the game, I find your attitude objectionable, despite greatly enjoying the work TD has done for the game.

I also find it objectionable that the UP 2.01 splash screen does not included the TD logo .. 4.09m includes your work, and I always believe full credit should be given in any compiled work, and thanks given to all authors' work in readme files

[SaQSoN]

SaQSoN

With respect sir, you are mistaken

Thank you for your advise. We are not concerned about 1C or Ubi-soft financial losses due to piracy. And this is not a topic of this discussion. May be, you should read my posts more carefully to find out what it is about.

If game mods could be stopped through legal process, then why did not 1C - UbiSoft do so at the first chance ? ..

Because no one, including 1C, Ubisoft, or DT doesn't care about mod existence. Obviously, this is the reason why no one would do anything to stop them. I can not even imagine, what a crazy idea makes you think, DT wants to destroy unofficial modding. :confused:

I find it odd that TD claims it gains no compensation from 1C - UbiSoft for their work, that would likely be against labor laws in all 50 states in USA

TD does not work for 1C, and is not it's subcontractor.

I presume you get permission for any unique user content added "officially" to IL-2 1946, any unique textures, 3d models .. anything .. and permission from any user created hacking tools you may have used .. because not to do so would clearly be a violation of those authors' copyright

You don't have to presume that. Everything, that is added into official add-ons, produced by DT, is added with permission from the respective authors. There was a small misunderstanding with author of flares, which has been settled long ago.
All tools, DT is using, are either created by DT members, or licensed from 1C.
Any person, that may tell you different story - is a deliberate liar.

And we know, there are certain people in the "unofficial mod community" who spread this lies with only aim to discredit DT's hard work. I wouldn't be surprised, if this is the same people, who did stole our work before and threaten to do that in the future.

[SaQSoN]

Yeah, mod packs are so lame. All you get are:

I could go through each of your points and explain in detail, why each of them is lame. But I will not. Because a) I know, that if not you, then most of the mod users will not listen to any reasons, so it would be a pure waste of time and effort; b) I respect your preferences and your desire to use mods - in no way I will try to prevent you from having and using them.

I just say, that all that lame stuff will never get into the official add-ons. That's all. At the same time DT is happy to cooperate with people, who produce really high quality stuff and are willing to include it into DT releases.
The IL-4 cockpit, shown in one of the DT updates, is a good example of such cooperation. You may also ask Sita (one of the SB cockpit authors) on this forum: I bet, he would have a lot's of good words for us.

[Viikate]

If wasn't because of them,IL2 would be still on 4.08

Perhaps is time for a little IL-2 history lesson, because many new players probably have no idea how the sim was developed. I've seen many people saying that 1C MG did stupid thing by not utilizing the works of modders and not making the IL-2 moddable in the first place. Well little do they know that there was a long period of so called 3rd party development. Sort of "legal modding". It started right after the very first IL-2 was released. Here is little blast from the past:

http://replay.web.archive.org/20021120091301/http://www.il2center.com/
http://replay.web.archive.org/20011202072704/http://il2center.com/
http://replay.web.archive.org/20021127121338/http://www.il2center.com/

Anyone could make a reservation of some plane for himself and model it according to the sim specs. If it was done properly and sent to MG, it appeared later in some free patch or commercial add-on. If it was in add-on, the modeller got paid for his work.

My estimation is that probably half of the currently existing plane external & cockpit 3D models were made by the community members. The "first generation of modders". Called 3rd party members back then. The whole initial idea of TD was to gather these 3rd party guys back together and continue the old style quality development and ask some of the most talented modders to join.

This means that TD has many guys that were these old 3rd party guys and these guys have created just huge amount of 3D content for this sim. Planes, cockpits, ships, ground objects and even maps. I find it always pretty funny when some modder speaks crap about TD without realizing that is was some guy in TD who actually made his own mod possible.

Without the 3rd party guys (including several TD guys) there would be about 50% less raw materials for the "new" mod planes and lot less ships & ground objects, etc. So I think that it is pretty big middle finger aimed towards the old 3rd party guys if the 3rd party efforts are ignored and mods are raised on pedistal because they have made hundreds of "new" planes (from which the most of are variants of the existing planes). It takes 5 minutes to put wrong cockpit to old AI planes. It takes easily 6 months to model a historically correct pit.

I would even say that 4.09 & 4.10 was pretty much nothing compared to the full efforts of 3rd party. But at least TD is trying to maintain the same standards set by the best 3rd party work such as Tempest & Gladiator. Which means that TD won't put wrong cockpits to AI planes to make it flyable or release CR.42 as Hs 123, etc.

Bottom line: Thanks to the 3rd party efforts long before any modding, IL-2 now has huge amount of raw material that modders can recycle as new planes and use as objects in their maps. And not a single mod has ever given credits to a 3rd party guy who made the mod possible in the first place. These guys are all mentioned in readme files, but the average modder just doesn't care.

[|ZUTI|]

I much prefer to be passive observer but I have a simple question: why do you, TD members, argue here, in MODS section? Don't you have your own section one forum above this one? Make your statements there and leave this forum for mods discussion. But I guess that some of you just need your voices heard, no matter what. And argue till your fingers bleed. What a shame. Instead of being a true beacon for the IL2 community, you are here just to stir things up, it would seem.

If you are so much better than modders, this does not show that. I know why the TD was ORIGINALLY started and I am 200% sure that it was not for this purpose. Some of you might know, some of you know for sure. Not what your mission statement is NOW, what it was AT THE BEGINNING. Some members on your team surely have the knowledge, but their attitude... in a lot of eyes it just hurts you. And promotion of paid projects... absurd. Perhaps the best way for you guys to go would be paid add-ons. It would make you so desirable money and would also bring you much desired legal advantage.

And for the conclusion, I would like to ask something of you, TD. I read in your forum here that the old RRR thing was brought up once more. While some of your members are telling community that it was left out because it was flawed and was missing for that reason and others were arguing that it was arcade(ish) (while refly is so much more realistic...), would you do me one last favor and not include it at all? Since that is your opinion about it. The catch here is, naturally, that you can implement it on your own, sure. But then again, modders can also implement what you do on their own also. A nice loop. Specially since coding is such a wonderful world where one thing can be done on so many different ways.

Thank you.

[Sita]

At the same time DT is happy to cooperate with people

confirm ... from the DT we get a lot of support, advice and materials! and clearly see a desire to cooperate with us and help us)

[_1SMV_Gitano]

@|ZUTI|:

It has been asked if mod will get into official patches. The given answer clearly states what kind of material will never be in. You can like it or not. You can still mod your game.

Promotion of paid projects? Where?

RRR? Again, where?

[Pursuivant]

[QUOTE=SaQSoN;283630Nevertheless, there was clear and strict order from Ilya and earlier by Maddox, that DT should not touch any US ships, or NG related planes and cockpits.[/QUOTE]

So, what does this leave on the table? Is it possible to mod the smaller or older U.S. ships that weren't built by NG corporate precursors.

Personally, I don't really care about the big capital ships. I'd like to see more smaller, cargo and coastal craft which made up the bulk of the various national fleets and which accounted for most of the shipping sunk during the war.

If I'm flying a strike fighter/light bomber over the Bay of Biscay, Port Moresby or Norway, I'm going to stay the heck away from anything with serious guns on it and try to take out something that will sink if it takes a single torpedo or bomb hit, like a coastal steamer or frigate.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

So, what does this leave on the table? Is it possible to mod the smaller or older U.S. ships that weren't built by NG corporate precursors.

Personally, I don't really care about the big capital ships. I'd like to see more smaller, cargo and coastal craft which made up the bulk of the various national fleets and which accounted for most of the shipping sunk during the war.

If I'm flying a strike fighter/light bomber over the Bay of Biscay, Port Moresby or Norway, I'm going to stay the heck away from anything with serious guns on it and try to take out something that will sink if it takes a single torpedo or bomb hit, like a coastal steamer or frigate.

There is no doubt that a more varied cargo/steamer fleet would be welcomed by most players, provided the models are made according to specs and do not violate any copyright.

[Maori]

Bottom line: Thanks to the 3rd party efforts long before any modding, IL-2 now has huge amount of raw material that modders can recycle as new planes and use as objects in their maps. And not a single mod has ever given credits to a 3rd party guy who made the mod possible in the first place. These guys are all mentioned in readme files, but the average modder just doesn't care.

Sorry, but you're a bit incoherent there. :-P Or to use someone's favourite words, you're a "deliberate liar".

Parts used from stock game is always credited GLOBALLY as coming from the stock game (so more precise credits are to be found in the corresponding readmes).

That is NOT omiting credits. Now if a particular modeller or coder desires a bit more personal attention, they are fully free to go to modding sites and ask for such more precise-explicit credits be there for a particular reutilization of their excellent work.

If you don't, means you're a grown up person that undertsands the way crediting is done via referring the user to stock readmes. Otherwise you're a child that doesn't go there to ask more personalized crediting but yet go in tears here about it.

[Pursuivant]

I could go through each of your points and explain in detail, why each of them is lame.

I'm not saying that all the mods out there are flawless, but some of them are very good. Technically, they might not be up to the standard that
TD/1C expects, but they're "good enough." More importantly, they point the way to where a large portion of the IL2 community wants to go. If DT is smart, they'll run to catch up.

I just say, that all that lame stuff will never get into the official add-ons. That's all.

Of course. I wouldn't want it any other way.

But I also get very skeptical about arguments that 1C/DT add-ons are flawless, while all mods are dreck. There's a continuum of mods from lousy to great.

Likewise, there are also plenty of places where 1C's work has been shoddy and modders have fixed it. Cases in point: the screwed up dihedral on the Hawk 81/P-40B and the messed up length of the P-51D (which, in turn, screwed up CG and made the plane fly strangely). Fans of the game were complaining about those problems for years and 1C did nothing. After the game was cracked, within a year modders fixed those problems.

In a few places, modders have even fixed DT's mistakes, although DT has been much better about quickly releasing patches to fix bugs.

DT should go out of its way to recruit the more talented modders. Not necessarily add them to the team, but supervise them as "outside contractors." For the less talented guys with good ideas, DT should contact them and say, "can we use your idea" and do the work yourselves.

There should also be formal standards set and tutorials to help modders get up to DT standards. Currently, there's no way to do that.

Yes, you guys occasionally recruit folks like Sita, but it seems like you ignore or alienate lots of other talented modders. There are a lot of sensitive egos in the IL2 modding world, but everyone shares a passion for the game. Obviously, you can't work with the guys who are taking the game in directions which are off-limits (e.g., Korea, high poly cockpits), but that still leaves lots of folks who could be allies if you just approached them correctly.

Being a bit friendlier and using a bit more diplomacy would help everyone (including me). :)

[_1SMV_Gitano]

DT should go out of its way to recruit the more talented modders. Not necessarily add them to the team, but supervise them as "outside contractors." For the less talented guys with good ideas, DT should contact them and say, "can we use your idea" and do the work yourselves.

There should also be formal standards set and tutorials to help modders get up to DT standards. Currently, there's no way to do that.

Yes, you guys occasionally recruit folks like Sita, but it seems like you ignore or alienate lots of other talented modders. There are a lot of sensitive egos in the IL2 modding world, but everyone shares a passion for the game. Obviously, you can't work with the guys who are taking the game in directions which are off-limits (e.g., Korea, high poly cockpits), but that still leaves lots of folks who could be allies if you just approached them correctly.

There is a lot of cooperation between DT and modders, much more than you can imagine. It is just not publicized on forums. ;)

[Pursuivant]

There is a lot of cooperation between DT and modders, much more than you can imagine. It is just not publicized on forums. ;)

Good to hear it. But, what I'm saying is publicize it more!

You guys need a website or something like it, with tutorials, restrictions, a "wishlist" of add-ons, and ideas on how folks can help.

[Maori]

There is a lot of cooperation between DT and modders, much more than you can imagine. ;)

Actually that is the kind of things we, IL2 lovers, want to hear :)

Not arrogant or threatening posts like Mr SQN.

Friendly goes better for everybody always (and same sort of things I've said in modding forums to those few that keep throwing rocks at TD)

Thank you for showing the right way.

[MicroWave]

Sorry, but you're a bit incoherent there. :-P Or to use someone's favourite words, you're a "deliberate liar".

Parts used from stock game is always credited GLOBALLY as coming from the stock game (so more precise credits are to be found in the corresponding readmes).

That is NOT omiting credits. Now if a particular modeller or coder desires a bit more personal attention, they are fully free to go to modding sites and ask for such more precise-explicit credits be there for a particular reutilization of their excellent work.

If you don't, means you're a grown up person that undertsands the way crediting is done via referring the user to stock readmes. Otherwise you're a child that doesn't go there to ask more personalized crediting but yet go in tears here about it.

If I were to take someone's car, I would make sure to ask owner's permission FIRST. I would not just take it and send a thank you note LATER.
As far as I know "stock" Il2 content (in whole and in parts) is not released with a priori permission to be modified and re-distributed as part of another "application".

[SaQSoN]

they're "good enough."

There is no such thing, as "good enough". It is either fits technical requirements and "political" restrictions (like NG issue), or not.

From the point of "fitting official requirements" view, one could divide all mods into 3 category:

1. Those that don't even close (90% of all).
2. Those that almost fit.
3. Those, that fit exactly.

In the category Nr1 goes all the franken-stuff. No exceptions.
The category Nr3 mostly consists from mods, that are being developed by people in close cooperation with DT (like IL-4 and SB cockpits, Ki-44 by JapanCat, Ki-45 by Kashiide, etc.). All those authors either contacted DT themselves, or were approached by DT members and agree to work in cooperation with us.
The category Nr2 are mods, made by really talented people without any help from outside. Often those mods have small flaws, that can be relatively easy fixed. In most cases, DT members approach authors of this mods and suggest cooperation. If the author agrees to include his creation in the oficial add-on, we ask him to fix the problems. If the authors agrees, his work automatically goes into cat.Nr3.
But, unfortunately, some authors of this high quality mods either do not want their creations in official add-on, or do not want to make the said modifications to their work. In this case, such mods are left out as well.

But I also get very skeptical about arguments that 1C/DT add-ons are flawless, while all mods are dreck.

Being skeptical is your right. No one would argue with you about it.

it seems like you ignore or alienate lots of other talented modders.

When something seems to you, it doesn't mean, it is how it actually is.

lots of folks who could be allies if you just approached them correctly.

And what exactly would be this "correct approach"?

We see it exactly, as we do: a person is being politely asked, if he/she wants his/her creation to be added into official ad-on. Basically, there is only 2 possible replies: yes, or no. If the reply is "no", then well, we go away. Why should we bother this person any longer, after all?

[SaQSoN]

If I were to take someone's car, I would make sure to ask owner's permission FIRST. I would not just take it and send a thank you note LATER.

Most of the modders don't even bother with the "thank you note", no matter, what someone tries to imply here. So why we should be gentle or polite with them?

[SaQSoN]

So, what does this leave on the table? Is it possible to mod the smaller or older U.S. ships that weren't built by NG corporate precursors.

For official add-on - nothing, which looks like actual USN ship, or called like it. Which mean, we can make some generic looking WWII battleship, or destroyer, or whatever and call it "generic US battleship", or "generic US destroyer", etc. But we can not add anything, that looks close enough to the real thing.

As for the smaller generic vessels, well, what Gitano said.

[MicroWave]

...
In USA, to sue you must show monetary damages, so while if anyone were to take 1C or UbiSoft copyright material and resell it without permission, 1C and Ubisoft would certainly be damaged .. if anyone were to distribute the core game and it's files, even for free, that would indeed be theft and damage 1C and Ubisoft

Mods as distributed, do not work without the player having a copy of IL-2 1946, presumably legally purchased .. if anything, an argument could be made that many more copies of IL-2 1946 have been sold because of mods, than if the game had not been cracked and modded
...

I would just like to comment on this part. One could argue that mods are damaging 1C/UbiSoft profit because distribution of even new content for free in form of mods hurts sales of potential patches/addons with same or similar content. Furthermore, mods (could) negatively reflect on user perception of the official product by creating incompatibility between different versions, bugs unrelated to official product, etc. Finally, I'm pretty sure that re-distribution of software in whole or in parts without permission is illegal in good ol' USA too.

I just want to make clear that I think that those legal arguments are purely academic in context of Il2. I don't think that there is money left in Il2 worth more than a cup of coffee for everyone involved. Mods for Il2 are out there for quite some time. Most users understand what they bring in terms of content and risks. The situation is more complicated because Il2 was not designed to absorb mods while the game is still being officially developed. However, installation of Il2 is very simple and there are 3rd party tools which enable switching between different versions (including the official one). DT cannot guarantee that mods will work after new releases of the official product. I think this is understandable, because AFAIK different mods are not compatible between each other either.

[Oktoberfest]

Hello Saqson,

well, I just want to share a bit about intellectual properties in 3D models as I have (had) the same problem at the moment. I work for a big hardware company that provide a lot of stuff for aicraft companies, and we are planning to release an application with 3D modelling for the Paris Air Show in June.

We needed an aircraft to show where exactly the components are placed in the aircrafts we equip, however we don't have the money to pay fees to any company to have the right to use their aircraft in our promotion. So we took an existing 3D model of an aircraft and modified it to be a 'generic' aircraft. It's totally legal and we will have that on public display on the biggest Air Show in the world.

I tell you 100% sure that you can model a ship that looks like an american BB and call it 'Generic BB' or 'Generic Cruiser' without having legal issues as long as :
-You make enough changes to be able to prove that NG never designed this ship EVEN if it has some ressemblance with US WWII ships. For example, put 15 - 20 meters more hull. Put or remove additionnal turrets, change the place of the catapults, etc... Changes that wouldn't change the general feeling that the ship is an US BB, but enough to put you out of reach of NG.

- You don't put any name related to a NG ship. So you'll just have to find new names or change them a bit like : Essex > Essecs... That would be enough.

Obviously, those modifications cannot be made to aircrafts, but so many designs were made in ships in WWII that nothing can stop you to create a ship that looks real and credible enough.

To help mission editors, I would even suggest to not give a name to those generic ships, but to put, in the FMB, the ability to name a ship that would then appear on the hull of the ship in the mission, a bit like the aircraft markings.

No more legal issues :)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

why do you, TD members, argue here, in MODS section? Don't you have your own section one forum above this one?

Because there are lies and wrong informations, that get told here and on other places. And more and more DT is put into the dirt. Sometimes it just better not to be silent.

[SaQSoN]

Hello Saqson,

well, I just want to share a bit about intellectual properties in 3D models as I have (had) the same problem at the moment.

Thanks, yes, I know this approach. This is what Ubi did with SH5. I was discussing this once with Ilya (I still have Yorktown model, built for PF and not included in the game because of NG, so I suggested to modify it in a similar way, as you proposed). But he just said, "better to keep away from them completely". :(

[Oktoberfest]

Thanks, yes, I know this approach. This is what Ubi did with SH5. I was discussing this once with Ilya (I still have Yorktown model, built for PF and not included in the game because of NG, so I suggested to modify it in a similar way, as you proposed). But he just said, "better to keep away from them completely". :(

Sad because it's just impossible to get sued for doing this. Just moving the superstructures a bit would do the trick.

For your info, on my aircraft, we changed the engine nacelle and put a cargo door...

[Asheshouse]

Sad because it's just impossible to get sued for doing this. Just moving the superstructures a bit would do the trick.

For your info, on my aircraft, we changed the engine nacelle and put a cargo door...

Unfortunately I think what you mean to say is that it is impossible to be successfully sued. It is always possible for a corporation to commence legal proceedings, even if their case is weak. Then the party being sued is liable to incur significant costs simply to get the case dismissed. Grumman have deep pockets and huge resources.

[csThor]

Grumman have deep pockets and huge resources.

But, unfortunately and obviously, no common sense. :-?

[batistadk]

My post will not be exclusively about mods, but it fits on the subject anyways, indulge me people.

Just a sad complain about NG Corp. attitude. I'm following this discussion, and already done it in many others, about this copyright problem with this Corporation. With this attitude, NG is excluding an important part of US WWII history, as planes and ships that gave the victory to their own country.

It's a shame they are doing this for so many time now, and we can't do anything to try to change this situation.

I think NG Corp. could think in a more patriotic way, or, at least, give the real valor to enterprises like this sim, that tries to mantain alive the memories of important and hard times that had already gone.

It's probably very sad for the americans, that got a scar in the middle of their own history, thanks to evil corporations and seemingly endless money interests.

About the deep pocket, I agree completely. NG Corp. could realize that IL-2 is not anymore a high-profitable product, and probably no one will get a huge amount of money with sales anymore, because CloD, for example, and because it's already a 10 years old software.

This is a huge comunity. Together, I think we can change this situation, or at least, make them listen us, in a LEGAL way. But it depends on a lot of factors, and I'm being too much romantic right now.

Anyway, I have hope that someday this issue will be solved, and we will fly NG aircrafts :grin: and sunk their ships :cool: with their own approval. It's possible because the size and the power of this community, that I'm proud of being part.

Again, I'm sorry about being a little off topic, people.

Cheers...

batistadk

[Asheshouse]

Batistadk, you are right. The only result of this is a loss of a small but significant part of US history.

So if you are from the US get out an old fashioned pen and paper and write to the Chief Executive of NG to complain. The worst that can happen is that you are ignored, but who knows, cutting out the lawyers and going straight to the top sometimes fixes things like this.

Ashe

[Oktoberfest]

Batistadk, you are right. The only result of this is a loss of a small but significant part of US history.

So if you are from the US get out an old fashioned pen and paper and write to the Chief Executive of NG to complain. The worst that can happen is that you are ignored, but who knows, cutting out the lawyers and going straight to the top sometimes fixes things like this.

Ashe

That's a great idea ! If he receives like a hundred mail about this, maybe this could get the things to move. I always wondered if the CEO knew about that history with IL2 and I suppose that if it's the case he might give orders to let go... But maybe I'm dreaming... However, did anybody try ??

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

If the patriotic method doesn't work with the NG chiefs, you still can talk to Mr. President! When are next elections? :D

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

You guys need a website or something like it, with tutorials, restrictions, a "wishlist" of add-ons, and ideas on how folks can help.

That would surely be helpfull. Unfortunately we do not have the ressources to set up such a place. :(

[BadAim]

I think it's a shame that our nature is not to forget who "fired the first shot" and get about the business of cooperating for the greater good. Much pain could be avoided. Much good could be done. Oh, well....Such is the human condition.

[BadAim]

If the patriotic method doesn't work with the NG chiefs, you still can talk to Mr. President! When are next elections? :D

Two Looooooong years.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

A shame! :(

[Asheshouse]

The Northrop Grumman position on intellectual property rights.

From http://www.northropgrumman.com/ipm/tmpolicy.html

In summary NG claims trademark rights on the names of its "products" but does not claim any rights to images, drawings etc, provided the name is not used.

Trademark Licensing Policy

TRADEMARK LICENSE
FOR USE WITH PHOTOGRAPHS, ILLUSTRATIONS AND PAINTINGS
NOT OWNED BY NORTHROP GRUMMAN

Background: Northrop Grumman Corporation recognizes that the copyright in a photograph, illustration or painting of a vehicle is owned by the photographer, illustrator or artist, respectively (absent a contractual arrangement otherwise). At the same time, Northrop Grumman, as the manufacturer, owns the trademarks (e.g. "F-14", "Corsair") in the vehicles it makes. Under the trademark laws of the United States and other countries, a trademark owner risks losing trademark rights if others use those trademarks without permission.

Purpose: Northrop Grumman respects and appreciates the creative talents of the photographic and artistic communities. Northrop Grumman desires to promote the use of its trademarks with photographs, illustrations and paintings by granting a free license to photographers and artists so that Northrop Grumman can maintain its trademark rights while at the same time being minimally intrusive.

License Terms:

Northrop Grumman hereby grants a free license to photographers and artists to use Northrop Grumman’s trademarks with his/her photographs, illustrations or paintings, including with any that are sold.
The photographer or artist agrees that the quality of his/her photographs, illustrations or paintings that use Northrop Grumman trademarks will: (a) be at least equal to the standards commonly used by the professional artistic and photographic community for illustrations, paintings, and photographs, (b) display the correct name of the Northrop Grumman vehicle(s), and (c) not disparage the name or reputation of Northrop Grumman or violate any laws.
The free license does not apply to the use of Northrop Grumman’s trademarks in books, posters or calendars in runs that exceed 5,000. Likewise, the free license does not apply to use of Northrop Grumman’s trademarks for any form of merchandise such as toys, models, clothing, coffee cups, notebooks, electronic or video games, etc. Licenses for such uses are available from

Director, Intellectual Asset Management
Northrop Grumman Corporation
1840 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067


But from previous comments made here it seems 1C may have made specific agreements which extends these terms in order to avoid legal conflict over Pacific Fighters.

I am surprised that they claim specific rights to the trademark "F-14". I thought that was a USAAF designation. However the term "Corsair" is understandable as a trademark. Perhaps you would be ok using "F14" :-)

When it comes to ships it seems unlikely that NG would claim any rights to "CV5" but they might claim trademark rights to "Yorktown". --- Even though I expect it is the USN which decides on names of ships, not NG.

PS: I have e-mailed NG to clarify the last point. --- Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply.

[Oktoberfest]

You just need to email or write to this guy :

http://www.northropgrumman.com/leadership/bios/wes_bush.html

Better agree on a common text first. As I'm not a native english speaker, I'm no sure I have the skill or the subtility to write a good letter.

Who's wanting to try ? Then everybody downloads the text, sign and send it to NG CEO Wes Bush.

Do you think it's a good idea ?

[Asheshouse]

Since SaQSoN said he has a Yorktown Class model gathering dust I thought it would be worth trying to get a specific answer to this first. This is what I've sent.

Could you confirm to me that you do not claim trademark rights for the the following names:

"CV5"
"USS Yorktown"

Regards


If there is a negative response, or no response, then this can be used in any letter drafted to the CEO.

[Pursuivant]

There is no doubt that a more varied cargo/steamer fleet would be welcomed by most players, provided the models are made according to specs and do not violate any copyright.

That's excellent news, since most of the U.S., U.K., German, Italian and Japanese civilian shipbuilders are out of business and have been for some time. Anyhow, there can't be any copyright issues with Axis equipment, since those would have fallen by the wayside as "spoils of war." As for the Soviet stuff, that's all in the public domain because it was government designed and planned.

I did a tiny bit of research on this, and there are a whole bunch of U.S. auxiliary ships, such as the Liberty Ship and C2 "Victory Ship" variants, which were specifically designed by the U.S. Maritime Commission for war use. They look to be copyright free, since they were government designed and produced by shipyards which went out of business after the war. That opens up a lot of minor U.S. types.

[Pursuivant]

There is no such thing, as "good enough". It is either fits technical requirements and "political" restrictions (like NG issue), or not.

My point about mods being "good enough" wasn't meant to imply that they're up to DT standards. Rather, they're good enough that people will overlook their obvious flaws because of what they bring to the game. Right now, mods fill niches which DT hasn't yet filled. That points out obvious directions in which DT should work.

For example, if "frankenplane" German nightfighters and British heavy bombers seem to be popular, then DT should beat the modders at their own game by doing the RAF night bombing campaign properly. Basically, beat the modders at their own game.

But, unfortunately, some authors of this high quality mods either do not want their creations in official add-on, or do not want to make the said modifications to their work. In this case, such mods are left out as well.

Based on what you, and other DT members have said, it seems that you are proactively contacting the better modders and trying to recruit them. That's extremely encouraging. I'm just sorry that more modders can't, or won't cooperate.

[Pursuivant]

But, unfortunately and obviously, no common sense. :-?

And, it's maddening, because I don't think that NG has that great a legal case, either. Unless they've bribed the U.S. Congress into giving them some special legal rights, I think that they're just "copyright trolling."

I wish that some advocacy organization like the Electronic Frontier Foundation would go after them, but I don't think it's going to happen. I don't blame Ubi for backing off, and I don't blame 1C for being very cautious about risking liability issues, though.

It's just nuts that NG can claim IP rights over ships and aircraft designed during the 1940s or before. At the time, copyright law was different (only something like 20 years, renewable for another 20) and I don't think that many design firms actually copyrighted their designs. After all, they were designed and built, fully or partially in cooperation with the U.S. government, to government specifications.

For example, the USS Arizona was laid down in 1916 at the Brooklyn Navy Shipyard (a U.S. government institution). Even if she wasn't built by the government (thus, copyright free), according to copyright law at the time, her original design would have been out of copyright for good by 1956. Even with refits, her Pearl Harbor design would have been out of copyright by 1981, well before the latest extended copyright law came into effect.

[Pursuivant]

That would surely be helpfull. Unfortunately we do not have the ressources to set up such a place. :(

Why not?

Is there any chance that one of the fan sites, like Mission 4 Today or SimHQ could host?

[Verhängnis]

The Northrop Grumman position on intellectual property rights.

From http://www.northropgrumman.com/ipm/tmpolicy.html

In summary NG claims trademark rights on the names of its "products" but does not claim any rights to images, drawings etc, provided the name is not used.



But from previous comments made here it seems 1C may have made specific agreements which extends these terms in order to avoid legal conflict over Pacific Fighters.

I am surprised that they claim specific rights to the trademark "F-14". I thought that was a USAAF designation. However the term "Corsair" is understandable as a trademark. Perhaps you would be ok using "F14" :-)

When it comes to ships it seems unlikely that NG would claim any rights to "CV5" but they might claim trademark rights to "Yorktown". --- Even though I expect it is the USN which decides on names of ships, not NG.

PS: I have e-mailed NG to clarify the last point. --- Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply.

But did it ever occur to you that perhaps NG built the damn ship!
You should really do your research before making such claims:

"Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS), originally Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company (NNS&DD), was the largest privately-owned shipyard in the United States prior to being purchased by Northrop Grumman in 2001."

So, yes for a matter of fact, they do own the rights to many ships, including the Yorktown and CV-5 model.

[csThor]

Still ... regardless of the actual copyright situation the contract between Ubi/1C and NG is the crux here. Like Luthier told SaQSon - "better leave it alone". :-?

[Asheshouse]

But did it ever occur to you that perhaps NG built the damn ship!
You should really do your research before making such claims:

Of course I know that NNS built the ships.

So, yes for a matter of fact, they do own the rights to many ships, including the Yorktown and CV-5 model.

If you read the rest of the thread you might realise that they do not have any intellectual rights to photos, drawings, paintings or any other representation of the ships, as they themselves have acknowledged, but they may have rights relating to the use of trademarked names.

If you are going to declare something as "a matter of fact" you might explain the basis of your statement.

Ultimately though the problem may be not in copyright/trademark law but in the terms of the agreement between NG and UBI/1C as csThor says.

[SaQSoN]

The Northrop Grumman position on intellectual property rights.

In summary NG claims trademark rights on the names of its "products" but does not claim any rights to images, drawings etc, provided the name is not used.

Read carefully:

...the free license does not apply to use of Northrop Grumman’s trademarks for any form of merchandise such as toys, models, clothing, coffee cups, notebooks, electronic or video games, etc.

And it is not about names. It is also about external appearance.
Which means, people can not use objects which called, or look, like NG products, or both in the electronic or video games.

This free license allows people to make photos, or paintings of the NG products and label them with their real life names. That's all.

[SaQSoN]

For example, if "frankenplane" German nightfighters and British heavy bombers seem to be popular, then DT should beat the modders at their own game by doing the RAF night bombing campaign properly. Basically, beat the modders at their own game.

Well, if DT owned, like 200 Chinese slaves, trained to do 3D modeling, texturing and Java programming, then DT could easily produce a high quality replacement for each franken-plane, cockpit, or object that modders ever put out, in no time. :grin:

Unfortunately, DT does not posses such labour resources, while producing a high quality model, accurate to the real-life prototype takes a lot more time, then putting out not-so-well-fit-together franken-stuff.

Not to mention some funny modder-guys, which, every time DT produces a high-quality model of a plane, or cockpit, that have been out before as franken, start lamenting, that DT stole their idea and did not include them into credits! :-)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Ah yes, SaQSoNs postings are like your first beer ever! Bitter.

Ask yourself: How was your first beer? And how is it today?
You get first used to it, then you like it, then you never want something different. :D

[Asheshouse]

This is the bit I prefer to read

Northrop Grumman Corporation recognizes that the copyright in a photograph, illustration or painting of a vehicle is owned by the photographer, illustrator or artist, respectively (absent a contractual arrangement otherwise). At the same time, Northrop Grumman, as the manufacturer, owns the trademarks (e.g. "F-14", "Corsair") in the vehicles it makes.

You can make an illustration of an NG product provided you don't use the Trademark.
The reference to video games also specifically restricts the use of the Trademark not the digital illustration of the product.

--but I guess the section "(absent a contractual arrangement otherwise)" may include the NG UBI/1C agreement.

[Maori]

Not to mention some funny modder-guys, which, every time DT produces a high-quality model of a plane, or cockpit, that have been out before as franken, start lamenting, that DT stole their idea and did not include them into credits! :-)

List, please, or you are a deliberate liar

:-P

Such claims have NEVER happened with frankens.

[Oktoberfest]

I prefer to keep the discussion on NG stuff guys. I'm sure there's a way to go through this in a more or less accurate way. We are I don't know how many brains on this forum, start to think to find a solution.

I'd like to read that contract between 1C and NG. That would allow to find the wek spots and what is allowed or not to do in future patchs. Can't anybody at TD get a copy of the contract ?

[Asheshouse]

Example of NG Trademark from US Patent and Trademark Office USPTO

Note: F4F Wildcat filed for trademark in 2006. Wasn't Pacific Fighters released 2004?
NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "F4F"
Seems that the list of trademark applications relating to US WWII planes was made after the release of Pacific Fighters.
NG claimed that the term was in existing business use. How many F4F's did they sell in 2006?

I think -- but I'm by no means certain -- that those in the US can register an objection with USPTO to NG's continuing use of the trademark on the basis that a) They did not have a continuing business use when it was registered and b) They do not have a continuing business use now. c) When it was registered the term was already in the public domain and in common use.

Mark Image
Word Mark F4F WILDCAT
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Video games for use with televisions. FIRST USE: 19881001. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19881001

IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: Toy airplanes; scale model airplanes; arcade games; and stand alone video game machines. FIRST USE: 19881001. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19881001
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Trademark Search Facility Classification Code LETS-1 FF A single letter, multiples of a single letter or in combination with a design
NUM-4 The number 4 or the word Four
Serial Number 78884021
Filing Date May 15, 2006
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition May 15, 2007
Registration Number 3522645
Registration Date October 21, 2008
Owner (REGISTRANT) Northrop Grumman Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE 1840 Century Park East Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 90067

(LAST LISTED OWNER) NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION CORPORATION DELAWARE 1840 CENTURY PARK EAST LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90067
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record Bruce B. Brunda
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "F4F" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE


Other names registered by NG include:

P-61 Black Widow
P-47 Thunderbolt
F6F-5 Hellcat
Corsair
Enterprise // I wonder if Star Trek paid royalties to use the name?
B-2
Cobra
F14 Tomcat

[batistadk]

There is always a solution, Oktoberfest, but, in this paticular case, it isn't in our hands.

Ok, there is an agreement made between 1c/Ubisoft and NG Corp. I think it was good, because no one wanted to hurt each other that time (PF release, probably). Taking in account how NG Corp. is jealous about 'their' stuff (not the american people stuff too), that agreement was the only way Ubisoft could release the game with planes that Oleg was looking for, with no problems related to NG copyright issues.

But, and now I'm talking just on my opinon, NG Corp. got angry at some point, and started to difficult things. I don't have any idea why it happened, or if it really happened.

Well, about my solution? I little fantasy of my part, but here we go. Someone of the original development team, would be better Oleg himself, schedule a meeting with some big guy inside NG Corp. Then, could find a nice solution to this issue, that could make both sides happy (or at least resigned). If Oleg could show how important this sim is for a lot of people around the world, and the force of the community, that, even 10 years from the release, continues growing, I think someone inside NG Corp. could see the question with our eyes, at some moment.

It's real clear to me, that if I could pilot a P-61 in IL-2 :rolleyes:, I probably woulnd't sell it, or make any money with this fact. But, to things happen, all the community would need to agree. To me, it would be like no more pay add-ons, or charged patches, whatever. It already happen, but would must be discussed in a general way throughout the whole community. And of course, give NG Corp. a guarantee that everybody would respect the terms.

Beautiful, for sure, but almost impossible. I could speak with NG Corp. CEO personally :!:, but it's the kind of thing will never happen. Oleg could do it, but he is solving problems with CloD, with his mind in another project. Everybody knows his love for this sim, and it's a dream that come true for him (as it is for all of us too), but we can't ask too much things from him. Then, looks like we we'll take the hard and longest way to solve this problem.

What I can say is: count on me. But, unfortunately, I'm not the kind of guy that can make many things too solve a question. About the letters, good idea, but I'm not north-american at all (just a brazilian bartender living in Guarujá), then, it's up to you guys, to get your papers and pens.

But, I think the first step, IMO, would creat a EXCLUSIVE thread to take this subject ahead, and of course get the attention of Oleg, Ilya, and other important people around IL-2. If we don't have their approval, we can't go further, neither put their names or 1c/Ubisoft labels, in a international rebelion.

It can start right here, just depends on us.

batistadk

[DD_crash]

Read this thread from SIM HQ http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3170621/Re_new_OLD_topc_TBM.html#Post3170621
Also this thread http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3157494/Have_they_payed_anything_to_Gr.html#Post3157494
Mr 426cid said on this thread that "maybe they asked" http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3164955/How_did_they.html#Post3164955 Rising Sun is still going so maybe there is hope. :)

[batistadk]

Interesting, but not so much, at the same time...

My discussion about NG Corp., and the right to use names, and stuff appearence built by them during WWII, is exclusively on IL-2 Sturmovik. There are some personal motives on this, but others that involves all of us.

First of all, a SoW PTO (or whatever the name used on it), will take a long time till release, and we can take CloD as example. The sim was in development for at least for 6 or 7 years, what is a long time, and even when released, showed a lot of development problems. It isn't a criticism about Oleg or the development team. To me, they could take 10 years more, and I will wait (anyway, they already give us the best WWII simulator of all times, it's not difficult to wait at all). We can put some time until a PTO themed pack in SoW appear.

This fact gives IL-2 a huge advantage. IL-2 is an extremely tested sim already, and there are just minimal flaws to be corrected. If NG Corp. authorization come up today, by tomorrow we already could expect releases of NG Corp. related stuff.

Another advantage is Team Daidalos. They are, IMHO, the best development, non-profitable team related with games. In a really short time, I believe they could start adding NG Corp. stuff to the IL-2, without bothering Oleg, that is working in CloD project.

Finally, and that's is my case, a new PTO sim, even if released today, wouldn't run on my computer at all. I was very excited about CloD release, but when I read the first PC requirements, I got very sad. And, after the release, I saw people with top notch PC complaining about fps and other stuff, I couldn't believe. I don't have money to change my computer right now, and I think thats the case of some people out there too. But the fact is: I already have a awesome sim installed in my computer, with an unchallenged content, that any sim would take some years to be equal; this sim has a good graphic content, and even this way don't abuse from older computers (thats is my case); the already existing content is, at least, huge, considering about planes, maps, ground objects, effects, etc.

Then, my fight is to make possible NG Corp. 'copyrights' appear in IL-2, first, and of course, try to keep a good relation with this company, thinking about future releases. The threads DD_crash linked us is a kind of mind blower, I know. But I still have hope that we can make IL-2 even bigger, adding NG Corp. related stuff.

batistadk

[Asheshouse]

Info from US Patent Office http://www.uspto.gov/

At the moment NG have not registered trademarks for:

Yorktown
Hornet
CV5
CV6
CV8

They have trademarked the name Enterprise, specifically for use in toys, not video games.

For works produced between January 1, 1923 and March 1, 1989, copyright notice is required.
The drawings of USS Yorktown, dated 1939, which are in the Public Domain are not copyrighted.

These are what are called "matters of fact" Verhängnis ;-)

I still have Yorktown model, built for PF and not included in the game because of NG, :-(

[batistadk]

Thanks Asheshouse!

These are good news.

batistadk

[csThor]

But unfortunately irrelevant. As SaQSon said there is a contract between NG and Ubisoft/1C which includes said things. Which means we can wriggle and squirm as much as we like - NG-related stuff won't be touched by DT.

[Oktoberfest]

The best would just be to have a look at said contract. I work on international contracts and I have experts in copyright and international regulation in my company I could ask to have a look about that contract too.

Dunno if TD could get an example of that contract. After all, it's not top secret, isn't it ?

[csThor]

Last I heard Ubi considers it secret (or whatever passes for that in the corporate world).

[Asheshouse]

In terms of IL2, there is no need for 1C to waste any time on the matter when they have lots of more pressing issues to deal with. Particularly when, as we all know, there are other non official ways to get content into the game, which are not bound by past agreements.

Ultimately when the SoW Series progresses to the Pacific, as it must, the issue will need to be addressed, but by then the position in law may have changed. Either way I suspect a smart copyright lawyer could blow holes in any existing agreements, but this could be costly if NG were to fight it.

NG is not the only problem in the US. Organisations like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have both caused similar problems in the past. In the UK things seem more relaxed but in theory there could be issues. Do you know for example that the term RAF is a registered trademark of the Ministry of Defence, as are the RAF roundels. I'm not aware that this has ever caused any restrictions to model makers or sim creators though.

The RAF museums in the UK sell branded products, like mugs and tee shirts. I guess they are just protecting this, and the proceeds go back into the funding for the museums, which is all good stuff.

Contrary to what has been said earlier the UK still has some old ship builders still exist or are now owned by new companies. Armstrong Vickers and BAe Systems come to mind. However those companies have not sought to claim trademark rights over names of historic ships.

[Ibis]

Fantasy repaints and frankenstuff = lame!

I really don't understand all the fuzz about mod packs.
Only real benefit is the different sound IMHO.
------------------------------------------------------

You are joking?????? The maps alone are worth the mods, brilliant work brilliant!!
They allow mission makers a broad canvas on which to place their work and most are just a joy to fly over.
I wont even touch on the great cockpits, sounds, extra aircraft, and Zuti's
work is just mind blowing.
Where have you been for the last couple of years? Man is your education lacking.
cheers,
Ibis.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

------------------------------------------------------

You are joking?????? The maps alone are worth the mods, brilliant work brilliant!!
They allow mission makers a broad canvas on which to place their work and most are just a joy to fly over.
I wont even touch on the great cockpits, sounds, extra aircraft, and Zuti's
work is just mind blowing.
Where have you been for the last couple of years? Man is your education lacking.
cheers,
Ibis.


I've been right at the source for the last years and beyond. And my education is at least no based on what's written in forums only and my oppinion is not only based on subjective, superficial impressions.

Maps are no aruments for me towards mods.
Because:

1st: 3rd party map building have been possible before the free and wild modding was existant. 1CM even shared the official maptools with 3rd party.

2nd: as with all other themes in modding, the map building has produced good and bad results, with the bad ones in majority. The good ones have the possibility to come into the stock game (as it was possible already back then). A first example was the Solomons map others will follow.

And the other things you named...
'Great cockpits'... like Ranwers maybe or the 150MB(!) texture approach on P-47 (where 8MB would be enough!)... 'Freddy's texture raping orgy'?
'Extra aircraft'... like the 100 versions of Bf109 or the horrible Frankenplanes?
Zuti's work isn't perfect, a lot of server guys can tell you this. However, it was impressive enough, that it was included in to the stock version as far as it was possible.

Sorry, I don't really need and don't want this. There is so few, regarding mods, that I would say, I do like it and see, that its well done... so that it is in fact in summary not worthy to install a new game version for it.

Go with your oppinion and do like it as much as you want.
I know, you are not knowing, what alot of scrap you do install there beside the few good things.
But that doesn't matter anyway.

[Oktoberfest]

Well, Caspar, if people made 100 variants of 109 it's because they wanted it. Why did you release 20 more versions of Spitfires in your last update if you thought you don't need so many planes from one type, then ?

About new cockpits, well, if you take for example new 190 cockpits from Claymore, you can forget about any standard you have in IL2. At least, his cockpits look like 2011 cockpits. Sure, they are heavy in size, but they look WAAAAY better than standard ones.

About Ranwers, sure it's not always perfect but he's improving and except his cockpits I really dislike, external models are rather good.

Modders also brought great things :
- better looking bombs and rockets,
- New loadouts,
- Weapon corrections, you know, like uneven bomb blasts for bombs of the same type & size...
- etc..

I support TD's work but man, what's with the perpetuous bashing you and Saqson are doing on this board ? If you have too much free time and don't know what to do, go finish that 4.11 instead of trolling about other modders (some of them amateurs but not all of them) doing mods for free, fun, and on their spare time too !

Don't think you guys are the only one to have the talent. That's overly pretentious from you.

[KaBoom]

My first post here at 1C
May I start by quoting AndyJWest,who's thread everyone is posting in

I see Nearmiss has posted a sticky saying that discussion of mods is now permitted on this forum. Can I take it that it is ok to post links to the mod sites themselves? If so, another sticky with the leading ones (Ultrapack, SAS etc) would be useful.

As Nearmiss says, we shouldn't misuse this so can I make a personal request that everyone tries to avoid negative comments on mod pack FMs etc, and on all the other issues that have led to so much acrimony. Regardless of past issues, 'Classic' IL-2 modding is here to stay, and shows real signs of reaching a more stable and consistent state. Cliffs of Dover seems to have been designed right from the start to be more 'open', so the difference between 'stock' and 'mods' becomes largely an online server issue, rather than anything more fundamental. I think all this suggests that we can put past debates behind us, and work towards producing better sims.

Here I would like to quote a small section of AndyJWest's first post

As Nearmiss says, we shouldn't misuse this so can I make a personal request that everyone tries to avoid negative comments on mod pack FMs etc, and on all the other issues that have led to so much acrimony.

I assume Nearmiss is a Modertor,
and if so I do wonder why this thread has been allowed to go on like it has.
Especially when a lot of posts are in direct conflict with what was asked by the author

These are just a few of the posts I feel have nothing to do with this thread,
and should have been followed by some Moderation

It seems that certain individuals can carry on however they please...


Le0ne, frankly I really do not believe, I give a sh.t about you, or Hades (whomever that is) or your lame opinions.
If you do not care,why then be so vocal and opinionated

calling peoples opinions lame,
because they do not follow your ideals is rather.... well, lame

The truth is that, all the available IL-2 ModPacks give an unfinished/experimental/buggy/hobby/arcade feeling to IL-2. And this becomes more apparent the more you play them.


More complaining about Modpacks,
against the direct wishes of who started this thread,
you don't seem to follow any rules or guidelines in posting



There isn't a single ModPack out there, that is conservative, that acts "like" an official patch. Improving/adding only what is really needed and only with very HQ stuff.

Instead all the ModPacks have loads of unnecessary changes that mess up the game and destroy the good old IL-2 feeling that we are all used to, while also introducing rookie bugs and incompatibilities.


More complaining of Mod packs,
I wonder why you would even want to be apart of a discussion on Mods
Can you not just ignore something that you do not like,yet others do
Or is it that others like something ,that you do not

Absolutely. Who says, they can not? If someone wants 1956, or 1966, or 2366 martian frankenstein invasion - the can have it all in their mods. But not in the official add-on. That's the point of this discussion.
More complaining of Mods,
yet you say they can have it like you don't mind

franken plane modders do not expect there frankenplanes to be in any official add on,so why even think they do

List, please. Otherwise - you are a liar.
Do you really need to be calling people liars,
where are your manners


I could go through each of your points and explain in detail, why each of them is lame. But I will not. Because a) I know, that if not you, then most of the mod users will not listen to any reasons, so it would be a pure waste of time and effort; b) I respect your preferences and your desire to use mods - in no way I will try to prevent you from having and using them.

Then why be so vocal complaining so much about Mods,Packs ete ete

shitty franken-stuff; models, stolen from other games; dubious FM changes
complain,complain,complain...

So, basically, the changes in rules of this forum have nothing to do with DT or 1C:MG vision of the further game development.
If this forum has rules,
it must have some basic rules of behaving in an adult manner

Well, if DT owned, like 200 Chinese slaves, trained to do 3D modeling, texturing and Java programming, then DT could easily produce a high quality replacement for each franken-plane, cockpit, or object that modders ever put out, in no time. :grin:


Why do the slaves need to be Chinese,
rather a rude and racist comment IMHO

I've been right at the source for the last
Sorry, I don't really need and don't want this. There is so few, regarding mods, that I would say, I do like it and see, that its well done... so that it is in fact in summary not worthy to install a new game version for it.

Why post in this thread then,if you do not need or want

This was my first post at this forum,and it may very well be my last!
I suggest that if Mods,Modpacks,Franken planes or whatever else your problems are...that they should be left out of any Mod related threads!

Regards
KaBoom

[csThor]

If you read a bucket of downright nonsense poured over you would you stay out just because you haven't used mods? ;)

Everyone's got an opinion and you are absolutely entitled to have yours. But whoever opened these boards to such discussions must have known what was to come.

[Oktoberfest]

What ? Lame troll by DT members ? Go work on 4.11 instead of doing this.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I support TD's work but man, what's with the perpetuous bashing you and Saqson are doing on this board ?

There is generally only one thing, that we want to show: That many mods (not all) are bad made (either by the lack of knwoledge or the impatience of the authors), and that we are annoyed by the repeated requests to us to include such bad mods into the stock game, and that we are sick of being told to be arrogant, if we state, that we won't do it. Thats basicly all.

I admit, that there have been some picky habitus sometimes and ugly words are spoken. But thats not just us at least.

And its not only about talents... its also about knowledge and how you get it.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Why post in this thread then,if you do not need or want

This was my first post at this forum,and it may very well be my last!
I suggest that if Mods,Modpacks,Franken planes or whatever else your problems are...that they should be left out of any Mod related threads!


I didn't read anywhere that this was only a 'Mods save the world' forum.
So why I'm not supposed to write my oppinion about mods here?

[KaBoom]

Do I need to remind you again,with a quote from the author AndyJWest...
what the thread was suppose to be about

The thread was not a "state your opinion" thread on Mods
Why would you assume it was

I suggest go and reading what I posted and quoted to begin with,
more thoroughly this time before posting

Also,go read the authors first post

BTW,nobody said or posted anything about it being a save the mods world thread... let alone let's bad mouth mods and those who have made any

It seems no matter what is posted,it is either to lay blame,insult or for some to defend

I find it all a little bit absurd to say the least
Quite humorous to see how offensive Mods are to some people

I didn't read anywhere that this was only a 'Mods save the world' forum.
So why I'm not supposed to write my oppinion about mods here?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I will not let anyone forbid me to say my oppinion... nowhere! Especially in a place, where so much people expressed their oppinion too. Why should I keep quiet then, huh?

I'm sorry for the author, who's kind request was for nothing. But I will not take that on my head, boy!

[Azimech]

I have the feeling a lot of modders may have wanted their stuff to be included but if it's rejected due to sub-standard work, it may hurt the ego.
On the other hand stuff that's looks good but is much more complex and would cause a huge fps drop on old machines, isn't it time for some users to upgrade?

And I understand the position of Maddox Games/1C/TD, lowering the standards for inclusion of mods will make some people happy, it will piss off a huge amount of people, and will start a new endless discussion. Where would it stop? It's a slippery slope. Better to accept certain parts of the game that are outdated but at least familiar and characteristic, than to suddenly change something on a fundamental level that could divide the community again.

But I would like, and please read "like" not "demand", to read what the difficulties are for inclusion of some mechanism that looks inside a folder with custom, user installed, sounds. If they're not there, stock is used. That way it would be the user's own responsibility, no-one would have to pay royalties or provide tech-help. I used to play Doom II with "NI" coming out of my handgun, monsters sounding like John Cleese and other Holy Grail sounds. Hilarious.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

[...]
On the other hand stuff that's looks good but is much more complex and would cause a huge fps drop on old machines, isn't it time for some users to upgrade?[...].

The game has to be able to run on machines with the minimun specs reported on the box. I guess a 100 MB cockpit would turn the game into a slide show even with minimun settings.

[Azimech]

The box... I have the DVD here that was printed in 2006.

Pentium III or Athlon 1 Ghz. 64 MB 3D Card. 512 MB memory.

That *severly* limits development, these values were common 10 years ago.
I know of no-one who uses such ancient crap for playing IL2 (the ones who do, should get themselves a foam baseball bat and hit themselves on the head with it). I see dual core machines placed on the sidewalks as garbage nowadays.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I know of no-one who uses such ancient crap for playing IL2 (the ones who do, should get themselves a foam baseball bat and hit themselves on the head with it). I see dual core machines placed on the sidewalks as garbage nowadays.

What an arrogant attitude that is.
I occasionally play it on a Mobile Athlon 64 with a ATI Radeon 9700 And I don't want to miss that possibility.
Ist still remember very well that day, as 1CM introduced the 'new clouds' and I wasn't able to play it on my 800MHz P4 with Geforce 4 anymore. I was quite upset. And did you know, there are still people playing it via 56kb modems!

You should know, that the world isn't everywhere as shiny as at your home.

The stock standards won't change. Period.

[Artist]

My 2 cents for the two discussions:

- Quality of Mods: many a thousand dillettantes are required for one or two true masters to emerge. You cannot have the latter without the first.

- System requirements: Many more people simply cannot afford what is just ordinary standard to many.

I am glad about all the modders, glad about the quality-filter provided by TD and glad about TD's "The stock standards won't change" policy: If offers me and everybody else the freedom of accessibility and choice.

Artist

[ocococ]

I suggest that if Mods,Modpacks,Franken planes or whatever else your problems are...that they should be left out of any Mod related threads!

So posts that are related to "mods" should be left out of "mod related" threads?

[Azimech]

"640 KB ought to be enough for anyone"

Sure, progress should be limited to facilitate the lowest common denominator.

Let's upgrade the car by adding rubber mats, so the farmers can step in the car with their muddy boots, instead of upgrading the suspension so it has a smoother and faster ride, but the farmer has to walk a little because the car won't go through the mud anymore.

With the abundance of ultra-cheap PC parts *above* the minimum reqs everywhere on the planet, I think it's arrogant that the game should run on a few old laptops with all the settings on ultra, when after installing the *optional* patch, you could also lower some settings somewhat.

And no, I don't have money or a modern machine. The specs of my machine were high-end in 2005.

One more thing ... the fact that a huge amount of people are limited by 56Kbps has nothing to do with relative personal wealth or the availability of parts. It's about the costs of providing a long cable to distant rural areas. It shouldn't influence online play (and if you really plan on visible moving control surfaces for online games, it will).

[Pursuivant]

Well, if DT owned, like 200 Chinese slaves, trained to do 3D modeling, texturing and Java programming, then DT could easily produce a high quality replacement for each franken-plane, cockpit, or object that modders ever put out, in no time.

This gets back to my point about giving modders official standards to work from, and trying to recruit less skilled modders as "apprentices" or "outside contractors." I think that a lot of folks who are currently doing sub-standard mods would be happy to work with DT, and work up to DT's standards, if they only knew how.

[Pursuivant]

'Extra aircraft'... like the 100 versions of Bf109 or the horrible Frankenplanes?

But what's wrong with 100 versions of the Bf109?

It was the major German fighter of WW2 and was in production from 1936 to 1958 (including the S-99, S-199 and the Hispano Buchon). The current lineup of Bf-109s only covers a fraction of total variants.

Given how many people have a love affair with the hardware of the Third Reich, and how it seems like every fourth person playing IL2 wants to pretend to be Erich Hartmann, why not give them what they want?

DT could easily make a whole bunch of mods obsolete by tweaking existing FM, DM and 3d models to produce the following:

1) Models or production blocks of existing planes not currently included in the game, which had significant weaponry and performance variations. Examples: P-38E, P-38F, P-47B, P-40M, B-25B, Hurricane MkIIId & MkIV.

(BTW, the modded P-38E & F series was done by Gibbage, who built the original P-38 model for IL2. Hardly sub-standard work)

2) Western Allies planes with performance modeled on 100 octane gas.

3) Allied planes with theater/role specific ammo loadouts (i.e., more API rounds for U.S. Pacific theater fighters, no tracers for nightfighters.)

4) Full historical ordinance loadouts for the more popular planes. (e.g., rockets on P-40s and later Hurricanes, Cargo loadouts for cargo planes.)

5) Eastern Front variants of U.S./U.K. lend-lease planes (e.g., A-20C with Soviet dorsal turret and ordinance).

6) Captured, Lend-Lease or export variants of existing planes. (e.g. Romanian variant of the PZL-7, Yugoslavian variant of the Hurricane Mk I)

7) Realistic hypothetical loadouts and other features, especially those tested as prototypes or produced as field mods. (e.g., P-38 Lightning with torpedo loadout, nightfighter variants of Me-262, Mosquito, Bf-110, etc.).

8) Carrier-based versions of existing planes: Sea Hurricane, Sea Gladiator, ETF-51D Sea Mustang.

9) Realistic hypothetical planes. Not "Luftwaffe 1946" crap, but variants of existing planes which were tested or seriously considered. e.g., Hurricane MkI with Hercules or DB601 engine, IAR 80 with BMW 801 engine, Ju-87C (carrier version).

[JtD]

Instead of all that bitching and moaning back and forth, could modders who produce good quality please simply contact TD in order to have their work included in one of the next official updates? That would really help the community.

It doesn't help if people take offense over the fact that several types of mods (that may be contents or quality related) will simply not find their way into an official add on. Neither does it help to argue and offend over personal preferences. You like Frankenplanes, good for you. Other folks don't. Doesn't mean they're wrong. It just a matter of different opinions.

[IceFire]

This gets back to my point about giving modders official standards to work from, and trying to recruit less skilled modders as "apprentices" or "outside contractors." I think that a lot of folks who are currently doing sub-standard mods would be happy to work with DT, and work up to DT's standards, if they only knew how.

If they contact DT they can get all sorts of help. I've seen this process at work and it seems to be a very mutually beneficial relationship. There are some high quality MODs out there that I'd love to see become official in a future update... the Me410 for example is high on my list.

[Hans Burger]

This way seems, for me, a little bit obvious. If someoders want want to have mods integrated inside DT stuff, or DT wants to integrate some stuffs from moders, I imagine contacts taken since a long time...
So, if it is not, there are probably good reasons and what I have read here do not open any doors to change something in this situation: few participation from moders and DT has not changed any behavoir with regard to moders...
Moreover, there are alternate choice about mod packages and it seems that this package uses, or will use, same format as native one, so, where is the difference and the fact that a lot of server use these package and not DT release as stand alone.
Choice is not done by a fact that a version is official or not, but by majority of users which are connected.
At to conclude, I imagine that on other web side, all needed helps can be found in multiple areas of moding, since, with regard to number of people involved, it is always possible to found a specialist either this specialist has found methods, utilities, by itself.

[WWFlybert]

What an arrogant attitude that is.
I occasionally play it on a Mobile Athlon 64 with a ATI Radeon 9700 And I don't want to miss that possibility.
Ist still remember very well that day, as 1CM introduced the 'new clouds' and I wasn't able to play it on my 800MHz P4 with Geforce 4 anymore. I was quite upset. And did you know, there are still people playing it via 56kb modems!

You should know, that the world isn't everywhere as shiny as at your home.

The stock standards won't change. Period.

you must mean 800mhz PIII .. P4 started at 1.4Ghz in November 2000, though those were worse that even 733 mhz PIII 133 FSB

by Summer 2002, there were some nice P4 machines up to 3.06ghz and DDR RAM rather than the original RAMBUS only P4 / 423 socket

I run a 2.4ghz P4 that has 512MB RAMBUS with a 7600 GS 512MB AGP 8x card (4x on my machine ) and need to run 1024 x 768 res and not highest settings to get playable framerates and only occasional drawing pauses .. I'd add RAMBUS but it's terribly expensive .. so ..

Just got a used 3.2 HT (and can get a 3.6 HT P4 cheap for it too ) P4 with 2GB DDR, new 500GB HDD and a 1GB PCI-X x16 nVidia 430 card (less than $80) .. whole deal cost me $300 .. this is nearly a 6 year old machine

RECOMMENDED specs on IL-2 1946 box is 2.4ghz processor, 1GB of RAM and 128MB video memory (which, IMO is absurd spec these days)

so while I am quite poor, I think holding to stock minimum specs of machines 8-10 years old for official releases is unnecessary and makes for lower quality, considering that if a person is still interested in flying IL-2 1946, they most likely have a computer and graphics card exceeding the recommended specs .. even 5 year old laptops designed for gaming have recommended specs and I suspect very few would be left out if IL-2 1946 no longer run acceptably on PIII systems .. Win98 being now unsupported and PIII, except perhaps 933 or 1ghz 133mhz FSB not very able to run WinXP .. which itself will be unsupported in less than 3 years

just my opinion of course, however I'd prefer some things in IL-2 be higher quality, or have some large aircraft, gunner cockpits and pilot cockpits that might moderately exceed current poly and texture limits, than to cater to such low minimum specs

56k modems ? .. must be very tough for those people to even download the updates ..

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

56k modems ? .. must be very tough for those people to even download the updates ..

Thats why there was a plan to burn 4.09 onto CD's to be recieved by such players (in russia) for a production price. That plan was abandoned anyway.

My 800MHz was P3? Alright, maybe. It was however not '46, that I was playing on it, must have been from IL-2 to FB or so. I'm sure, minimum specs on boxes must have changed from release to release.
However, as '46 is the latest official pay release, we have to stick to that specs, since players still buy that game and then have the right to patch it.
Wouldn't be nice for them, if the specs, they trust in, get obsolete with patching.

I'm not sure, if that might even make law-side issues.

[bf-110]

Just came to the topic to see if the things got slightly better,but I see already that there are some hands on some throats.
Greed Wars is reaching it's peak.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Hm... no. Where? I don't feel strangled.

[Azimech]

Yeah I too feel we're having quite a civilized discussion here.

[Radar]

dovete mangiarne di polenta :cool:

[_1SMV_Gitano]

polenta... check!
vinello... check!
grappa... check!

altro? :mrgreen:

[Radar]

ciao Git
dopo questa scellerata trasgressione un sonnellino non ci starebbe male ;)

pensando alle cose più serie: va che non mi sono ancora fatto sentire perchè
purtroppo per impegni/problemi personali di ognuno (anche miei) sono un po' indietro sugli impegni che ho preso

Nibbio mi ha quantificato il progresso su quello di cui parlavamo:
cca il 90% del lod0 dovrebbe essere pronto (condizionale d'obbligo :evil:)
appena abbiamo sistemata la libreria mi faccio vivo

S!

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Ok, vada per la pennica...

scusami ma la vecchiaia fa brutti tiri, non ricordo l'argomento della chiaccherata (quanti anni sono passati? due?) Mi rinfrescheresti la memoria?

thx

[Radar]

Ok, vada per la pennica...

scusami ma la vecchiaia fa brutti tiri, non ricordo l'argomento della chiaccherata (quanti anni sono passati? due?) Mi rinfrescheresti la memoria?

thx

forse il problema è più mio che tuo :)

in effetti non era con te che ne ho parlato, ma un altro utente del tuo stesso gruppo.

nessun problema, scusa il fraintendimento/empasse
se passa e legge sa di che parlo ;)

sogni d'oro

[Asheshouse]

Just for a change, here is another image of a mod in development.
Sorry to go off topic :-)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/image18-2.jpg (http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/image18-2.jpg)

[bf-110]

Great model!Do you have plans for a true Graf Zeppelin and Aquila?

[Asheshouse]

Great model!Do you have plans for a true Graf Zeppelin and Aquila?

No. I prefer to spend time on subjects which had real historical significance. Missing carrier models for ETO include Ark Royal, Eagle, Furious, and others including some from the USN such as Wasp. There is plenty to go at before turning to subjects which never became operational.

Ashe

[Xilon_x]

Reggiane 2001 for the Carrier Aquila.
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/6857/re2001gf1.jpg

Portaerei (carrier) Aquila.
http://www.icsm.it/regiamarina/images/Aquila_70.jpg
http://www.icsm.it/regiamarina/images/Aquila_78.jpg
http://www.icsm.it/regiamarina/images/Aquila_80.jpg
http://f.imagehost.org/0524/CV-Aquila1943-NC90-wdeck.png
Carrier Graf Zeppelin
http://www.naviearmatori.net/albums/userpics/12630/Graf-Zeppelin-1[1].jpg
BF109 T
http://padresteve.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/messerschmitt_bf_109t-0-1.jpg?w=500&h=225

[Xilon_x]

Another model of Carrier Aquila
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-1.jpg
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-2.jpg
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-3.jpg
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-4.jpg
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-5.jpg
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-6.jpg
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-7.jpg
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-8.jpg
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-9.jpg
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-10.jpg
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-11.jpg
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-12.jpg
http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/aquila-13.jpg

[Pursuivant]

If they contact DT they can get all sorts of help. I've seen this process at work and it seems to be a very mutually beneficial relationship. There are some high quality MODs out there that I'd love to see become official in a future update... the Me410 for example is high on my list.

Why doesn't DT actively recruit modders whose work impresses them? That is, you contact them and ask if they'd be interested in cooperating. Many of the better modders seem to be very approachable.

[csThor]

Because we do have a real life, too? Means we don't spend our free time browsing various sites, wading through pages upon pages of threads to sift what could fit the bill and what not ... DT is a freetime thingy and not a way of life. ;)

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Why doesn't DT actively recruit modders whose work impresses them? That is, you contact them and ask if they'd be interested in cooperating. Many of the better modders seem to be very approachable.

What tells you that we did/are not doing so?

[Xilon_x]

Airplane for carrier aquila and graft zeppelin.

Reggiane 2001(Falco2)Re2001, produced by Flakwalker (3D model), Abraxa (texture) - to the outside (cell) and Pippz (3D modeler) and Casper (texture) - in the cockpit.
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/9186/1347.jpg
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/6681/1348.jpg
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/369/1350.jpg
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/5738/1352.jpg
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/8289/1353.jpg
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/7999/1349.jpg
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/7880/1355.jpg

Ju87 C1
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/ju87c/ju87c-1.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/ju87c/ju87c-4.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/ju87c/ju87c-2.jpg

[Asheshouse]

Nice images, particularly of the Aquila model, but it does not alter the fact that both Aquila and Graf Zeppelin had no impact at all on WWII apart from the strategic benefit to the allied forces of tying up considerable material and resource which could have gone into other more important projects. Neither of the carriers came anywhere near to being completed.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Airplane for carrier aquila and graft zeppelin.

Reggiane 2001(Falco2)Re2001, produced by Flakwalker (3D model), Abraxa (texture) - to the outside (cell) and Pippz (3D modeler) and Casper (texture) - in the cockpit.



Interesting, where did you get that information? Its quite old stuff.
However, the extern model is incomplete, same as the cockpit, which is almost not worth to list here. It must made from scratch. BTW, to complete your information, Flakwalker had his hand on the cockpit too.

And... its Caspar... ;)


EDIT: Man, this was 2004!!! I feel nostalgic...

[bf-110]

Bravissimo,Xilon!

Very good info,do you know exactly what planes where intended for those AC?I know there was going to be the G.50,Re 2000,Ju87T (C?),Me-262T an Arado plane and BF-109T.

And why they can't be included?Aeronaval battles are awesome,european ones would be even better for a change.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

If you have two things with the same efforts needed, one displaying real history, the other alternative history, priority goes to the first. If efforts are low for second choise, priority goes there. But this is not the case with the things mentioned here.

[Asheshouse]

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/image22-2.jpg

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,16437.msg176641.htm

[Xilon_x]

UAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Asheshouse BELLISSIMA uaoooooooo.
very very master piece. FANTASTIC. CORAZZATA CAIO DUILIO(WAR SHIP CAIO DUILIO).
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/image22-2.jpg

TANK YOU Asheshouse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfHTbW_iyBA

[Xilon_x]

Asheshouse this file KMZ for google map is for you:
Italian Navy losses in WWII.
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=664380&filename=1118274-ItalianNavyLossesofWWII(ByType).kmz
USN losses WWII.
713011-USNavyLossesofWorldWarTwo.kmz
German warship losses WWII.
794775-GermanWarshipLossesofWorldWarII.kmz
IJN losses in WWII.
984636-IJN_WWII.kmz

Japanese Navy and merchant losses in WWII to US subs, broken down by sub.
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=883010&filename=janac-s.kmz

loock this link:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2583727

[Xilon_x]

Corazzata CAIO DUILIO
http://www.portalestoria.net/CARRI%20ARMATI/duilio_class.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/2vio5xg.jpg
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.com/images/phocagallery/regiamarina/duilio/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l_Caio_Duilio_mimetizzazione_1942.jpg
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.com/images/phocagallery/regiamarina/duilio/RN_Caio_Duilio_Fotografie.jpg
NAVIGATION in the sea CAIO DUILIO
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.com/images/phocagallery/regiamarina/duilio/n0215-00bg.jpg
CAIO DUILIO mar piccolo port of TARANTO
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.com/images/phocagallery/regiamarina/duilio/n0215-00cg.jpg
CAIO DUILIO enter in mar piccolo port of TARANTO
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.com/images/phocagallery/regiamarina/duilio/n0215-00eg.jpg
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.com/images/phocagallery/regiamarina/duilio/Caio_Duilio_1948.jpg
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.com/images/phocagallery/regiamarina/duilio/Caio_Duilio_alla_fonda.jpg

[II/JG54_Emil]

Nice!

Are you working by any chance on some Japanese cruisers?
These are really being missed in game.

[Asheshouse]

Progress on HMS Eagle CV, for MTO. Appearance is as on Operation Pedestal, Malta Convoy, August 1942.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/image15-2.jpg

[Xilon_x]

Operation Pedestal=operazione mezzo agosto. important also OPERATION HARPOON AND OPERATION VIGOROUS. we italian call OPERAZIONE MEZZO GIUGNO and OPERAZIONE MEZZO AGOSTO.
TANK YOU ASHESHOUSE i loock the CARRIER HMS EAGLE is very impressive uaoo FANTASTIC.
this is ITALIAN OPERATION IN MEDITERRAIN LOOCK FOTO AND SEARCH HMS EAGLE PHOTO.
http://digilander.libero.it/planciacomando/WW2/battaglie.htm

[Xilon_x]

FIRST ITALIAN AEREONAVAL BATTLE VS ENGLAND IS "BATTAGLIA DI PUNTA STILO"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Calabria