Mods discussion, links, etc

[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]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

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

Oh, how mature

Grow up!

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

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]

Originally Posted by Maori

Grow up!

Talking to yourself? That's a bad sign.

Originally Posted by Maori

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.

Originally Posted by Maori

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.

Originally Posted by Maori

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

No, you may not.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

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

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

... 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]

Originally Posted by Mick

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

Originally Posted by Mick

on what grounds would you do it ?

Theft of property, copyright infringement.

Originally Posted by Mick

... 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]

Originally Posted by Hans Burger

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 ...

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

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]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

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