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.

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 :)

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.

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...

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.

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

Very very sad...
 

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

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 ??

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

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

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.

Two Looooooong years.

A shame! :(

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.

You just need to email or write to this guy :

http://www.northropgrumman.com/leade.../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 ?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why not?

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

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.

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". :-?

Of course I know that NNS built the ships.

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.

Read carefully:

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.

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! :-)

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

This is the bit I prefer to read

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.

List, please, or you are a deliberate liar

:-P

Such claims have NEVER happened with frankens.

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 ?

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.

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

There is always a solution, otherwise...
 

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

Read this thread from SIM HQ http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post3170621
Also this thread http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post3157494
Mr 426cid said on this thread that "maybe they asked" http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post3164955 Rising Sun is still going so maybe there is hope. :)

Interesting...
 

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

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 ;-)

Here we go...
 

Thanks Asheshouse!

These are good news.

batistadk

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.

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 ?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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

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


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

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

Do you really need to be calling people liars,
where are your manners


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

complain,complain,complain...

If this forum has rules,
it must have some basic rules of behaving in an adult manner

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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 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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

"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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 ..

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.

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.

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

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

dovete mangiarne di polenta :cool:

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

altro? :mrgreen:

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!

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

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

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

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-Aquil...NC90-wdeck.png
Carrier Graf Zeppelin
http://www.naviearmatori.net/albums/...n-1[1].jpg
BF109 T
http://padresteve.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=500&h=225

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

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.

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. ;)

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

RM. "Caio Duilio" BB - Posted at SAS
 

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

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph....msg176641.htm

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

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

Asheshouse this file KMZ for google map is for you:
Italian Navy losses in WWII.
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthread...II(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/ubbthread...me=janac-s.kmz

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

Corazzata CAIO DUILIO
http://www.portalestoria.net/CARRI%2...ilio_class.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/2vio5xg.jpg
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.c...zione_1942.jpg
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.c...Fotografie.jpg
NAVIGATION in the sea CAIO DUILIO
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.c...n0215-00bg.jpg
CAIO DUILIO mar piccolo port of TARANTO
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.c...n0215-00cg.jpg
CAIO DUILIO enter in mar piccolo port of TARANTO
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.c...n0215-00eg.jpg
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.c...uilio_1948.jpg
http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.c...alla_fonda.jpg

Nice!

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

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

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

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/planciac.../battaglie.htm

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

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