All need to be reworked for the skining rules you set, but the meshes should be fine, now that you adjusted your limits, which you should have done years ago when I first offered the stuff to you, btw. Yet I would start with these torpedos first IF they can be part of 4.12 and the Kate that way.

Please ZORIN give all your stunning ordnance work to TD!!! I used to put them in the MOD folder everytime you uploaded something new on the SAS site and thanked you for it, then UP3 contained it (or most of it) and everyone could enjoy it more easily.

But because UP3 got stalled many people switched to HSFX 6, myself a couple of weeks ago.....oh the horror today when I did my first sortie on a JU-88 in HSFX and I went to see from a gunner position my first drop (2XSC250) effectivity/explosion on target and I looked to the sides to check if I didnt dropped too many bombs and still on the wings, OH God, those remaining black and yellow abominations were again on my wings!!!!......BREATH....BREATH....BREATH

Seriously tought everything I saw from you is a work of art, like this other guy VPMEDIA, between you two alone the past SEVERAL years of 3D and TEXTURE improvements for il-2 has been great. Now I only need to kidnap you, VPMEDIA and this other guy remodelling all the engine cowlings and then......BUUHAAAHAAHAA

the hawk75 will have also manufacturers cockpit?

The videos of the Hawk 75 show a new, correct cockpit for it, not a P40 cockpit spliced in .

yes but the hawk sold to Finland with cockpit in Finnish language or in English

Many, many thanks for native wide screen support, it will be great to finally have the full FOV back especially the top and bottum parts of the screen, its all been a bit like using and APS-C camera as apoosed to using a full frame camera (not that I can afford a full frame that is).

And thanks for all the other surprises and goodies as well.

Any news on any other tweaks and fixes to existing cockpits like holes and tears (Ju-88 for example)?

Will The P-40 get updated cockpit?

nice upgrade... lot of necessary and interesting things... катюша especially...

Its planned.

Sweet, so it won't make it for 4.12 or will it be 4.13?

Cheers for the reply?

Not for 4.12.

It's my understanding that we are using the old P-40 cockpit with the new 3D model for 4.12?

What other P-40 versions will we get in 4.12 as flyable/AI?

This interested me, too, would like to add at least P-40 N / F / K which were made ​​a thousand and put it to use in a large number of maps.

Any updates on the P-47 cockpit and etc?

Is in work by 3rd party. We don't know the current status though.

Very impressive amount of worthy features.
Why not putting a switch to allow only in cockpit padlock ?
Disabling padlock online causes complains by people lacking tracking devices because They feel handcapped compared to track ir or freetrack users.

Any news on the forthcoming maps?

only now looked "User interface changes" update...

well, lot of necessary things for online (long waiting of this), and, in total, sometimes looks very very promising...


sorry, you talking about when (in external view) you can follow by enemy if you press Fx button (oh, forgot name)? well, it's= track ir effect...

well, anyway, i think what this option (when using in cockpit, not only in external views) can be very useful for users without free track, on servers without external views etc (i understood long time ago, what TI or FT not for me)...

I mean leaving f4 and disabling f6.
With cockpit always on track ir users can easily follow enemy A/C without using padlock.
No track ir users rely on their mouse and this is much more difficult.
Actually if you disable padlock you disable both F4 and F6. There's no way to enable F4 (internal padlock) and disable F6 (external padlock).

Is there no-way that the server can check what button is mapped to Padlock External and just disable it (the button that is)?

That's temptingly good news. Is there anyone who can get in touch with the '3rd party' and ask where progress is at? Seriously, the P-47 is/has always looked a little sad internally?

Just one more question regarding the P-47. Is there a chance of seeing an 'N' model one-day?

Cheers and thanks for all the work...it's much appreciated ;)

Or the "Hot Rod" M version ;)

New Maps and Planes
 

Great work TD you guys are awesome. Just wondering if a BOB map can be brought out featuring England, channel and western France. Also is it possible to bring in a spitfire mk1 and a BF-109E3 like the old BOB planes. Also can you guys make some of the pacific torpedo planes available like the TBF and the Jill's or Kates.;)

B5N2 Kate is in the process of creation (as seen in the recent video). On the rest of your questions the answer is no. Any BoB content has been ruled out for 1946 due to the gentlemen's agreement between TD and Oleg. Any Grumman-related aircraft or ship (such as the TBF) is out, too, because of license issues. We won't touch any of them with a ten-meter-pike.

But hopefully this doesn't mean a ban on any future western Europe maps, like France or Low Countries? Or Battle of France aircraft like Fairey Battle or French fighters/bombers?

Always pleased to see and hear news of the original
http://www.gqth.info/01.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/7.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/8.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/9.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/0.jpg

Having the FW187 would rock.

Hey Barry:

I don't think they (Mods) are going to do it that way anymore, I think they are just going to take what they can and incorporate it into their current package i.e. DBW 1.8, UP3/4, and HSFX is a different story, they are not as wide reaching where getting every mod you can jammed into an install. So I think what I'm hearing is it will be DBW 1.8v.xxx drawn from 4.11.1 content. In other words they will adapt the patch to their package instead of vice versa.

Do you guys have an eye on your eMail inbox?

What I meant by that was that 4.12 will be released most likely as 4.12 with totally new content. Meaning nothing from 4.11.. I was under the impression that the poster a feew posts above the post you quoted was asking if 4.12 could be issued as a sort of combined patch with everything prior to it, which I don't think will happen..

Does this mean that TD can't do anything associated with BoB, or just that they can't do a 1940 map of Southwest England/Normandy?

It seems quite artificial to not allow the Bf-109E1 and E3 variants, since both were used for campaigns other than the BoB, starting with the Spanish Civil War!

Likewise, the Spitfire MkI was in service from the beginning of the war and was used during the Battle of the Netherlands and the Battle of France.

Does the fact that N-G subsequently spun off its shipbuilding business as a separate entity make it possible that further U.S. ships could appear in the game?

Would there be any possibility of getting a separate license from Huntington Ingalls Shipyard to model these craft?

Yes, that means anything BoB-related (including a Channel Map, Spit I, Bf 109 E-1, E-3 etc) is out.

Not at all, since 1C and Ubisoft have accepted NG's claim by signing an agreement. That agreement still stands and includes anything that was built by companies now or previously owned by Grumman.

You can wriggle like the mother of all cans of worms but it won't change the basic fact that there is something that keeps TD from doing NG-related aircraft/ships and that there is an agreement between the TD core people and Oleg which excludes further things.

The agreement for the Battle of Britain should have to be cancelled by 1C considering how is going on with CoD. Is a nosense considering we'll never have the BoB from 1C.

Do you guys have also planned some restyling for the German aviation, 109 e Stuka cockpits for ex.?

Great surprise the Kate.

I'm still interested to know if Western Front 1940 campaign stuff (maps of France and Low Countries, some aircraft like Fairey Battle or French fighters/bombers) is considered "BoB-related".

NG stuff is untouchable, BOB content is negotiable but like everything else it all comes down to personal interest when it comes to adding new things to the game.

So can I ask in relation to that;

There is apparently a '3rd party' redoing /improving/making good/'givin a little lovin!' to the Cockpits of the P-47? Is this allowed because the model already exists...or is the P-47 really never going to get that kiss and cuddle it really needs?

AFAIK we can change whatever we want on NG planes already in game, we can't add new NG stuff without paying to NG which is obviously out of question.


BTW is/was Republic part of NG ?

No.

See one of the posts above. It became part of Fairchild/Dornier, then went out of business.

So... When do we get the P 35? :cool:

Or P-43 Lancer, like those used in China...

http://www.456fis.org/THE%20P-47/P-43acomp.jpg

http://www.warbirdforum.com/p43_war.jpg

Dude, we so need a China map :) And a P-43... and a Ki-44... and a Ki-48... oh :)

So disappointing that we cant use any NG stuff

Indeed, but there is still the Douglas TBD Devastator : This is a Douglas torpedo plane, not a NG.

http://imageshack.us/a/img842/9088/tbdb5n.jpg

That's true, But I would of like to have seen a beautiful TBF cockpit from TD.

True but sadly off the table... another Navy strike plane we could have would be the SB2C Helldiver. That would be very interesting to have as a flyable. Depending on the model it had a full range of bomb carrying capabilities (stored in the internal bomb bay), HVAR rockets on the wings, and twin 20mm Hispano cannons. One of the few US aircraft to mount such weapons.

Built by Curtis wasn't it?

Correct. So it should be open.

So depressing that NG stuff is off limits. What about the P-82 Twin mustang? It was made by NAA.

Not sure... NAA was sold to Rockwell and from there to Boeing.

P-82 isn't really a WWII aircraft. I'd rather see a focus on types that fought over later models (as interesting as the Twin Mustang is). As far as Mustang models go... the initial RAF Mustang Mark I, the P-51A, and the A-36 Apache are all interesting types that'd be interesting to see. Not sure if NAA aircraft are off limits or no.

What about planes from Consolidated ie: Privateer and Coronado?

A P-51K would be nice and include some improvements to the current P-51s in the game.

I'd wondered about the exact restrictions on BoB content, since it appears that TD will be releasing a Wellington. I guess the Wellington variant will be a version produced after 1940.

As a quibble, I can see the Spit I being off limits, since it's THE iconic Battle of Britain plane, but it's a bit strange that the early E variants of Bf-109 aren't available, since they were used all through the Blitzkrieg, not just during the BoB. You've got most of the Bf-109E1 or E3's foes - PZL.7, Fokker D.XXI, MS.406, Hawker Hurricane Mk I and Hawk 75 - but not the early "Emils" themselves. It pretty much cripples any early war expansion of IL2.

That's what I figured. N-G seems to have had Satan himself as their contact attorney. So, there's no possibility of dealing with Huntington Ingalls, even if you wanted to.

If there's a cockpit being built for the B-24, it would seem logical that the other Consolidated aircraft are fair game.

Also, there are no restrictions on making the PBN Nomad flyable, since it was a) built by the U.S. Navy (not a contractor), b) modified by the Soviets.


The only danger is that Consolidated didn't go out of business like Curtiss. It merged with Vultee to become Convair, then that merged with McDonnell-Douglas. Then, M-D merged with Boeing.

While Boeing doesn't seem to be an evil trademark troll like Northrop-Grumman, they are still a multinational defense corporation and could hypothetically be ***holes if they really wanted to be.

I'd like to see the A-36 myself, but late block production of the P-51D/K variants would be welcome.

That's what I figured. N-G seems to have had Satan himself as their contact attorney. So, there's no possibility of dealing with Huntington Ingalls, even if you wanted to.[/QUOTE]

I had an thought how to get around the NG issue but it sounds a little outrageous.

You can stop trying to find a way around it. There is none. There is an existing contract between the publishers and NG and that is the fundment for what is not possible. No amount of wishful thinking or thinking around uncounted corners will move that contract one bit. So please give it a rest.

My bad... :(

oh yes JU87 cockpit needs restyling!
 

+1

would like to see new 109 and Ju87 cockpit too! The latter especially is one of the oldest looking of them all, along with MiG3, P47 and Me109, which look somewhat better.

As for the 109 pit, would be interesting to restrict view with better detailed cockpit, adding the dessicant device on the low right side of the windshield and also the top part of the panzer galland armor, which is not modelled in IL2 and that should restrict rear high view.

As is now the IL2 109 offers marginally more visibility than what was on the original machine.

Keep in mind that computer monitors offer by far less visibility than what was on the original machine. For example, I hate to fly the 109 F-4 because of that external armored windscreen which obstructs the view. I doubt it was so obstructive in a real-life cockpit.

Questions about what isn't possible due to the NG agreement and the contract with 1c are a recurring theme.

It might save time in the long run if TD were to make an official statement on the issue and then make it a sticky, locked post on this forum.

Further questions/whiners about the NG agreement could be referred to the sticky post.

No flyable Avenger in this game. Ever. Keep on dreamin' flyboy!

:grin:

[...]

:(

Such a shame that one the most important aircraft in US inventory can not have a cockpit.

Just to have a last beat on the rotting carcass of a horse, no options for Kickstarter or Indiegogo for a community based purchase of rights from G.?

Or that would stir up the big boys too much?
(Maybe it would also be against the policy of TD not to ask money for their work in any form...)

Oh well.
C'est la vie.

Buren

Methinks you don't grasp just how expensive it would be.

Or the potentially slippery slope it could invite...

Got to love the death grip on aircraft that have been out of production/ service for the better part of a century, anything for a penny though.

Was not Michael Jackson who had the rights for the Avenger? No... wait. :confused:

So....What coming up in the next update ? :P

Well, I would say it's an easy case.
If they don't want their stuff in this (or any) Game, they can keep it...I think there are much more other planes which would be nice or interesting.
Off course it's a sad to not have a original cockpit for the Avengers, but I must admit I don't care if it's the original or just a modded cockpit, because I don't know how it looks anyway...
And I wouldn't spend a Cent for a cockpit of a plane I rarely use in a nearly 12 years old game, other than CloD where I would pay for some more flyable planes, especially bombers.

Just enough to know that it'd never happen.

I admit that it was perhaps a bit ill-considered notion considering the sensitive nature of the affair.

Just as Hartmann above said, there are still a lot of other stuff to work on, so I concur that there's really no reason to get into trouble for a few stuff many people would at most only try out in a QMB and let it rest (and thats without actually funding it).

I'll leave it at that.

Carry on,
Buren

It might be cheaper to create a Kickstarter campaign to:

1) Hire attorneys to fight the issue (or possibly get someone like the Electronic Frontier Foundation interested) - assuming that 1c/UbiSoft is willing to revisit the issue and/or there is another case where the people involved in the suit can show "legal standing" (i.e., the right to bring the lawsuit).

2) Buy a lobbyist to buy U.S. lawmakers so that they change the law regarding patent and copyright trolling.

3) Buy the IL2 Franchise.


The ONLY ways to overturn the N-G agreement are:

A) N-G goes out of business. (We can hope! There are many reasons to wish it dead.)

B) Ubisoft/1C goes out of business. Whoever buys the rights to the IL2 1946 franchise isn't necessarily contractually bound by previous agreements. If nobody buys the rights, then it falls into the legally ambiguous area of "abandonware." In that case, N-G's interest in the case is nil, since there are no obvious targets to sue and no money to be gained by doing so.

C) UbiSoft/1C sells the IL2 1946 franchise. Whoever buys the rights isn't necessarily bound by the previous agreement. This, of course, would also invalidate TD's contract with UbiSoft/1c, which would be very bad.

D) The U.S. government passes laws to either specifically invalidate the N-G/UbiSoft agreement or to invalidate contracts like it. What N-G did is called "copyright trolling" or "trademark trolling" and it should be illegal under U.S. law. If you're a U.S. citizen, contact your congresscritters and/or favorite civil liberties organization and complain.

E) U.S. legal precedent overturns the agreement and UbiSoft revisits the case. That is, if a judge in another, similar case, rules that another company which did like N-G did acted improperly, and that precedent is allowed to stand (i.e., not appealed to a higher court, or sustained by higher courts), then UbiSoft's lawyers could easily get a court to declare the contract void.

F) An international treaty, signed by the president and ratified by the U.S. Senate, overturns the agreement or agreements like it.

Without somehow voiding the contract, it might be possible to fight the agreement in court.

I Am Not a Lawyer, but my ignorant opinion is that N-G's legal case is built on sand and they only got away with what they did by bullying 1c/UbiSoft into signing an ill-advised contract.

I AM NOT DISPUTING THAT 1c AND TD ARE CONTRACTUALLY BOUND BY THEIR AGREEMENT, but:

* N-G's claim to control visual representations and names of ships and planes built by the U.S. government is ridiculous. Unless the U.S. government says otherwise, anything it prints or produces is copyright and trademark free. This means that ships like the U.S.S. Arizona, which were produced by U.S. Navy shipyards, are in the public domain.

* Names and designations assigned to planes, ships or other equipment by the U.S. military, such as the "TBF Avenger" are usually in the public domain. (There are exceptions, such as the Jeep - which the government allowed the Willys-Overland Corporation to trademark in 1943, even though the term "Jeep" was slang for the vehicle before it was trademarked.)

* Typically, products designed by private companies specifically for the U.S. government go into the public domain. Unless the company's contract says otherwise, the U.S. government takes over patent, copyright and trademark rights along with the rights to modify or use the product as it sees fit. That means that, once the government no longer uses that equipment, all IP rights also go into the public domain.

Given the state of intellectual property law and the relationship between ship and aircraft manufacturers and the government in the U.S. during WW2, it's very likely that Grumman, and all the other companies that eventually got absorbed into N-G, probably were happy to give the government all IP rights to their products.

* Even if it was possible to claim trademark rights, courts require the plaintiff to prove continuous use and defense of those rights. Since there was no attempt by N-G or its precursors to defend its trademarks for at least 50 years, it wouldn't be that hard to prove them void. After all how many models, books and movies have been produced over the years which feature representations of the U.S.S. Arizona or the TBF Avenger?

* Additionally, copyrights once weren't as long-lasting as they are now, so copyright protection on names and images of planes and ships from the 1940s might have expired some time before 2005.

* Trademarks generally apply only to a specific product or class of product. For example, before the debut of the Ipod, for 20 years, Apple Computer and Apple Records coexisted peacefully, since Apple Records didn't make computers and Apple Computer wasn't involved in the music business. It would be easy to claim that a video game representation of a plane or ship was a different product than the actual hardware.

* Historically, U.S. courts have been lenient about "artistic representations" of commercial products. For example, Andy Warhol sold lithographs depicting cans of Campbell's Soup, but didn't need to pay royalties to the soup company, because he sold artistic representations of their products, not reproductions of actual soup cans or copies of their label art.

If 1c had actually been building and marketing a replica of the TBF Avenger, and calling it that, then I'd agree that N-G might have a valid trademark infringement case, but an "artistic representation" of that plane in a game is a totally different matter.

The only problem with the preceding thought exercise is that fans of the game don't have "legal standing." That is, we can't prove that we're in any way "materially damaged" by the N-G/Ubisoft contract.

And, no, not having our favorite ships and planes in the game isn't "materially damaged" since we incurred no financial losses or personal injury. Any competent judge would say, "This is a private deal between two companies. If you don't like it, go develop your own game."

Note to TD members: If you found any of this essay helpful, feel free to edit it or use it as you see fit as a sticky post discussing the N-G agreement.

Nice post

Pointless actually.

Pretty much, since none of the things I suggested is like to happen.

I'm just trying to bury the damned horse before people start beating it again.

G) Four years ago, someone should have handed a copy of Il-2 to George Bush, Sr., and then let him browse the list of flyables, just to hear him say "What the..." before his son, George W. ;)

I've always thought we should create characatures of NG planes--really ugly, waddling, nasal-sounding ones. When you fire the guns, the wings fall off.

Maybe possums for nose art....

From the Northrop Grumman web site

Maybe those that feel strongly about these things should make their feelings known.

It may be interesting to note that they claim Trademark rights on the name Enterprise.

USS Enterprise CVN-65 is still in commission. "Enterprise" is the name of the class of ship, not the individual ship.
They don't claim trademark rights for "CVN-65" or the name "USS Enterprise". Captain Kirk might have something to say about that if they did :)

Hmmm, interesting :cool:

It's piss in the wind. The only things those bastards respect are money and lawsuits. We're talking about a company as amoral and vicious as Vickers was in the early part of the 20th century: people who will sell weapons to dictators and pay bribes to do it. They'll laugh at a few fanboys trying to shame them into proper behavior.

Anyhow, TD and 1c/Ubisoft don't want to mess with N-G and I respect their decision.

Let's not make this about one political personality or party. The issue is copyright and patent trolling, which cuts across political lines.

I am of the opinion that N-G's trademark claims to any product produced for the U.S. government before or during WW2 is unsustainable, for a number of reasons I've already mentioned.

It also appears that their IP policies are inconsistent. They allow trademark free use of pictures of their past products, but not 3d computer images or simulations? How is a 3d image not art? Why should use of that art in a video game be any different from a static picture of that object in an old-school tabletop game?

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not sure how one would start a campaign to overturn crap like N-G is doing. There are a number of petition sites, which could be used to bring attention to the issue, but I'm not sure how to frame it.

Although I can't speak for Dux, I imagine his comment about George Bush Senior was the tip off that this probably wasn't a political statement but rather a personal one. George Bush Senior was a TBM Avenger pilot. He was even shot down in one.

The first two out of most likely four Type 91 torpedos. Completely new meshes due to the loss of all Japanese ordnance work by means of a faulty HDD.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...Render_pub.jpg

Zorin, send me the models for review. And please let's keep this thread related to 4.12 dev. updates. If you want, start a new thread for loadouts modelling or keep the information flow over PMs / emails.

Rgr that.

Thanks for the work on this Zorin.

Not only that this issue with NG has been going on since ... 2003-2004 hasn't it?

At least...

There were lawsuits against plastic model makers, die cast makers, and the latest one I know about was launched against EA for the inclusion of the AH-1Z Viper helicopter in Battlefield 3.

It's not just N-G but it applies to us because of what went on in the past.

Folks have suggested implementing facsimiles like "Gormann Revenger" to get around the litigation wall. Unfortunately, that would compromise IL-2's reputation and responsibility to serve as an educational tool.

As far as I am aware, there's nothing stopping other modders from making pits to some of these aircraft. It would be nice if they were of the same consistency and quality as DT's stuff.

Exactly. The best argument for mods is that "crowd-sourced" copyright violations defeat unjust copyright/trademark laws since there are no obvious players or "deep pockets" for the corporate lawyers to take down.

The only problem is that TD is arguably the best modding team out there, so it's hard for other modders to reach their standards.

Not always. DT often work with other individuals and groups in order to get content included in the official release.

Any news/updates for 4.12?

I think the case was actually a pre-emptive one by EA against the manufacturers to cease their trademark claims. I wouldn't be surprised if it was subject to an out of court settlement to prevent a precedent being created.
But perhaps a precedent already exists?

Actually, the case you cite isn't as applicable, since it concerns an individual's right to control his own image as opposed to a company's right to control its trademarks (and "trade dress" - basically, the appearance of a product or packaging, like the yellow border around the edge of National Geographic magazine).

In the current U.S. political climate, courts are more protective of corporate trademarks than images of public figures. If you think about it, if any public figure could sue to get images of them removed, it would completely shut down political satire among other things.

The people who are screwed by this precedent are the estates of famous dead people, like Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe - and just as well since they're the original "trademark trolls."

I think that you're right that Textron settled out of court with EA to avoid losing the case and setting a precedent. EA is big enough that it can go toe to toe in a trademark fight and Textron isn't as big a company as N-G.

Anyhow, it's moot as regards N-G/Ubisoft agreement. Also, even if there were a precedent overturning the sort of trademark trolling that N-G engages in, I doubt that either 1C or Ubisoft would want to waste legal billing hours trying to overturn an agreement for a 10-year-old game.

So, still no N-G products for IL2!

Wow, someone with a sense of irony! ;)

Bring on 4.12 !!! :)

Hi people.

Time after time, this NG question comes to light. Again, as a lot of people, including guys from the TD said, there's no way to change this situation.

After all, I don't think it's a good idea mess with those people. They have strong ties with the US Goverment, and, well, their business is... basically, sell weapons that kill lots of peoples every year. I won't touch this.

I'm with TD in this question; give it a rest. Besides that, there are so many stuff that can be created to IL2 yet. We could really focus on that.

Best regards.

batistadk

Always ;)

I totally agree with you!

Like the most produced aircraft ever?
I just love this aircraft, it is a amazing piece of machine which had a good role during the war.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8434/7...2a0a815d0e.jpg

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/9...ckpit20101.jpg

Whatelse can we expect to see in 4.12?

Bugs?

Most likely lol

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachmen...0&d=1346005669

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachmen...6&d=1346005663

do you mean this aircraft?))

Ah!!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek:
I love you Sita!!
your work is so awesome!! thanks you so much!!!
many many many thanks,
1000 thanks!!!
you made my my day!
I hope it will be in the 4.12! I can't wait to fly this gem!

too bad but i think most likely in 4.13 ie we will be lucky...

Oh , why not? I mean,thanks to your wonderful work, the cockpit is finished, so what prevents the po2 to be flyable for 4.12?