Fsx Native DH-88 Comet !

[N2056]

I don't think the big picture is being seen here.

It has been demonstrated that you can take any model and use it as you will. Here's an example...when I was building the freeware Quickie I needed a pilot figure. I was provided one by a well intending party, but it turned out that it was not kosher according to the manufacturer of the software that the figure was made from. Upon learning about that I made my own. It took a fair amount of time, and he turned out pretty good.

With this program he could easily show up in someone's payware release. Could it be proven he was stolen? Sure, if I had the time & money. In reality I will lose because I have neither, and the laws are hosed about this sort of thing.

Again, I do not hold anything against 'full'. It's the ability to do this at all that I am worked up about.

 

[peter12213]

I do it all the time, I can't see the problem as long as its for personal use,as an aviation enthusiast, I constanty tweak the handling caracteristics of my aircraft but I do find on the most part its FS9 JETS I have to do it with and not the newest releases we've have, I think yes this aircraft is a bit well, how can I put this not to my taste, even if its an iconic one, but I love the fact that we can make an aircraft better or worse depending on what you think, but I can say from my point of view I think the dev's get it pretty well spot on most of the time! I always think well if you don't like it go and fly the real thing and if you can't well, try and make it how you imagine/dream it would be like, thats what I do! The Alpha Hunter being a prime example for this, in my humble opinion!

 

[warchild]

Of course i see the big picture. i'm a developer.. People may or may not use my work without me being able to say a darned thing over it, and i have to be ok with that. hell, who knows, maybe they can improve on it and i'll learn something new. it doesnt make it any less intimidating., and it doesnt make it any less demoralizing. I'm just glad i dont know about it most of the time.. Sometimes it seems that people dont think flight models are important enough to pay attention too, that since they can be edited freely and at will, that its ok.. They dont think about the fact that i spent almost 4000 man hours working on the B2 vulcan ( not to mention all the others). Believe me please when i say how i understand that this capability presents a whole new paradigm into the picture, but i can understand why its done. yes, your work and my work both may end up in someone elses payware. that sux, but it could have been done from any point onward from fs2002.
I dont have any answer for this all encompassing situation, but for this one release, all i can say is that the gentleman has been up front, honest and not pretending to be something or someone he isnt. The bottom line is that people can create any program they wish to do almost anything they wish and programs designed to extract models are legal to create and use, no matter what we may think or wish, and as long as there is honesty to the person using them, i have no complaint. Our ( the developers ) personal options are limited. we can either accept that some percentage of our work is going to be used by others; we can encode the mesh like some developers do making it impossible to use, or we can get out of the business..

 

[full]

Some might say whats the difference...

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?1576-Help-converting-a-Comet

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/wiki/index.php?title=ModelConverterX

Mdl material editor...

MDL Material Editor is a material editor for FS2002/FS2004/CFS2 MDL files.Lets you edit all the colours and values of the materials including the Specularity value.It is recommended that you always make a backup before editing a MDL.Works with any MDL that uses materials (including GMAX and FSDS2 models).

 

[Hurricane91]

Hi Craig, nice airplane. How is the Eastbourne comming along?

 

[stiz]

First off i have no doubt whatsoever that Craig ment any harm whatsoever in doing this.
However theres a few reasons that make me a bit uneasy about this release:

1, Its a defult fs9 aircraft, i've always been against people takeing the cfs1/cfs1/fs2002/fs9 planes and uploading them. At the end of the day its Microsofts property (even if aces doesnt exist anymore MS still owns the copyright) and some of the team themselfs said they didnt like it, but what could they have done?? if they had enforced their copyright (which they had every right to) they would have been branded as the big evil ms trying to stop developers ....

2, In comparison to all the other defult planes that have been "converted" .. this one really has been converted, the others where tweaked, they had new props, few changes to the airfiles etc but the actual model itself hadnt been touched and was exactl y the same as in the other sim. This one however has been ripped, meaning the mesh has been takeing from the sim useing a ripper which saves the mesh (and anything else on screen) and alows you to edit it in your 3d design studio of choice. As most other developers i've looked at the ripper and what it does, and knowing that it would have just been easier to make a new one i'm amazed craig had the pateince to do it!

Now most people think that just because its included in the sim itself its fair game, however if you read the Eula which is included in every MS sim and you have to agree to in order to install you'll find ...

6. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not

· work around any technical limitations in the software;
· reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
· make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
· publish the software for others to copy;
· rent, lease or lend the software; or
· use the software for commercial software hosting services.

the first 2 are precisly what the ripper does, it works around the otherwise locked model files and decompiles them into an editable format. So not only have craig done something that is technically illeagle, if they really wanted to MS could take him to court and most likely fine him. They probely never will but they could if they wanted ... just something to have in mind.

As i said at the start, i have no doubts craig ment any harm and just wanted to fly the comet in fsx without any problems, but its dodgy ground

 

[Hurricane91]

· work around any technical limitations in the software;
· reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software,...

As in "desktop application software".
A broad interpretation would prohibit any changes to aircraft, scenery, textures etc. but that does not seem to be the intent of the license.

 

[IanP]

No. That's simply not true, Hurricane. The license is very specific in what it does and does not allow. You can add to, replace and delete things from the application as much as you like (provided it is not directly prevented elsewhere, which I don't think it is from memory). The specific terms are reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble. The middle one could, possibly, be a nightmare as it is a well documented fact that the SDK never actually works the way the developers say it does and the only way to find out how it should is usually to decompile the default and look at the model/code. Technically speaking, the same as what has been done here, that is in breach of the license.

I don't think this is working around a technical limitation of the software. I mean good grief, we spend 99% of our lives trying to work around the bugs and "undocumented features" of FSX and FS9, but reverse engineering and decompiling is indeed exactly what the ripper does and yes, it does have very great implications indeed. Particularly for payware developers whose sole income is from developing meshes and models.

I agree entirely with stiz that in this instance. I very strongly suspect that no wrong was intended and a lot of work was put in to make the model work, but at the end of the day, it is still a breach of copyright and of the EULA.

Didn't someone ask for and get permission to modify one of the FS9 models to FSX and release it? Admittedly this situation is slightly different, because I believe the last one was the Jenny and its mesh was released as part of the SDK, but surely there's a precedent to at least ask?

 

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL]

The practice of adapting , modifying and adding fixes is part of this hobby and how most of the developers got their start as well, the methods used to achieve the modifications are to some extent beside the point insofar as they all require the source to be used and rearranged in some measure.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
I sent Paul ( P12-C ) a link in messenger to this thread and a request to express his views on the subject in hope of attaining some degree of clarity on what is and isn’t permitted so we can move forward with future projects without looking over our collective shoulders wondering if the axe is going to fall.<o></o>

 

[stiz]

Didn't someone ask for and get permission to modify one of the FS9 models to FSX and release it? Admittedly this situation is slightly different, because I believe the last one was the Jenny and its mesh was released as part of the SDK, but surely there's a precedent to at least ask?

think that was empeck, converted the jenny included with the fs9 sdk into native fsx, but thats different as the actually mesh was provided with the sdk, and yup, he did ask and get permission to do it.

 

[spotlope]

I'm not commenting on the ethics of ripping a 3D model here, so much as the practicalities of it... have you ever tried ripping a model? A couple of years ago, I did (relax, it was one of my own models, that I had lost the source for and was attempting to re-create), and what I found was that it was quite nearly unusable as a base to start from. There was so much work required to the mesh to not only get rid of all the unwanted parts that had been rendered, but to optimize and remap the model that I deemed it not worth the effort. Seems to me that if you have the skill to not only rip an aircraft model, but actually convert it for FSX use, you probably have the skills to just model it from scratch - and it'd be faster, too.

That's just a note for anyone here who sees this thread and thinks hey, maybe I could do that.

 

[heywooood]

we are still talking about an M/S model from an earlier version of an M/S flightsim being adjusted for use in a later version of the same M/S flightsim....yes?

and the technician giving full credit to M/S for the original model directly and forthrightly - yes?

and all repeat ALL M/S interest in the franchise - including but not limited to full dissolution of the ACES team that was responsible for the software from inception to demise - is gone...or can one contact M/S with any Flight Sim queries today and expect support or I have missed something..?

right

As to concerns about other or 3rd party models that are proprietary works of their originators who ARE still actively engaged with FSX or FS9 or what have you - which BtW were never broached by this person - I must assume some understanding, on his part anyways, of the difference

 

[Dain Arns]

I'm not commenting on the ethics of ripping a 3D model here, so much as the practicalities of it... have you ever tried ripping a model? A couple of years ago, I did (relax, it was one of my own models, that I had lost the source for and was attempting to re-create), and what I found was that it was quite nearly unusable as a base to start from. There was so much work required to the mesh to not only get rid of all the unwanted parts that had been rendered, but to optimize and remap the model that I deemed it not worth the effort. Seems to me that if you have the skill to not only rip an aircraft model, but actually convert it for FSX use, you probably have the skills to just model it from scratch - and it'd be faster, too.

That's just a note for anyone here who sees this thread and thinks hey, maybe I could do that.

Debil's advocate time...

Those were my thoughts yesterday reading this thread.
I understand and respect the concerns.
But how many payware developers are using this technique to transfer old FS2004 products to FSX now?
I'm beginning to wonder with some recent 'quick' releases...

Let's see. Craig has given credit due numerous times throughout the documentation:

"This model was made by Microsoft Aces Studios (FS2004), I have only made the model
and textures fully FSX compatible (Native) with minor improvements to the exterior and
interior models to add level of detail. Every effort has been made to make this model
accurately represent the original author’s model."

That was refreshing.

FS2004 was released, July of 2003. (Is FS2004 even supported by Microsoft anymore?)
That means this model was developed, originally, 7 to 8 years ago already.
Numerous port overs have been posted on this aircraft. Not a blink from MS.
So basically this is a freeware conversion from FS2004 to the next flight sim version, FSX, on an aircraft that is almost already a decade old.
How long is something "sacred'?

Is it that big of a curse, or really a blessing?

 

[SkippyBing]

How long is something "sacred'?

Rather depends on the copyright laws applicable in the territory it's considered they're broken. 'Sacred' is irrelevant if MS decide to take action as he has broken the EULA. As to whether MS want to take action is another question.

FS2004 was released, July of 2003. (Is FS2004 even supported by Microsoft anymore?)

MS don't support Win 98 anymore but I don't think it'd be wise to start offering a modified version for sale any time soon.

 

[stiz]

what skippy said .. also ACES wasnt a seperate business, they where part of Microsoft, which payed the ACES teams paycheck. Even though ACES no longer exists MS still holds the copyright to the software it payed to have made, no getting around that.

My turn to play devils advocate, if someone took one of Bill Lyons planes, ripped it and made it into a native fsx aircraft, they were relesed years ago as well and seeing as how he's no longer in the flight sim world is it ok to do it?? :mixedsmi:

 

[IanP]

There's no playing Devil's advocate required. Yes, FS9 is still supported - it's also still being sold, brand new boxed, as a Microsoft product, so Copyright is still very much intact and effective.

I quite strongly suspect, however, that Microsoft wouldn't pursue this too seriously, compared to someone who tried to rip and sell the entirety of FS9 as being their own. As has already been said, credit was given, there's no question of it being offered for profit. If it was me in Microsoft's shoes, I'd probably say "Oi! Ask FIRST next time, now here's written permission", but I'm not a lawyer whose sole job it is to protect Microsoft's property and they'll probably view it rather differently.

My personal opinion is that this costs MS nothing at all, so it's not worth pursuing, but it shouldn't have been done without permission in the first place, ultimately.

 

[cheezyflier]

frankly all of you who are complaining sound like a bunch of weenies to me. if you think it's wrong, don't use it. the truth is if you try hard enough you can find some reason anything anyone does to be wrong in some way. conversely, one can also justify nearly anything.

either way, one could argue obscure legalities written into the eula all day long and it wouldn't change the fact that all one is really doing is adapting one microsoft product to be compatible with another. no matter how many sanctimonious whiners want to cry foul, it is what it is. frankly, i don't fly the comet because i don't like it. but the idea of discouraging people from doing other fs9 models ticks me off.

 

[stiz]

frankly all of you who are complaining sound like a bunch of weenies to me. if you think it's wrong, don't use it. the truth is if you try hard enough you can find some reason anything anyone does to be wrong in some way. conversely, one can also justify nearly anything.

if i took a well known payware fs9 aircraft done by a 3rd party which is no longer around, ripped and converted it, then uploading it giving full credit all bloody mary would be let loose

 

[Roger]

I for one would love to see the Ford Tri-motor updated this way as the port-over is disappointing with some graphical anomalies.

 

[Brett_Henderson]

As far as Microsoft is concerned; I'd imagine that having someone update a small aspect from one of their older packages (already bought and paid for) for use in one of their newer packages (also bought and paid for)(making its users happy), is probably MORE than OK with them.. As mentioned.. they've all but asked us developers to improve things.

So long as it's never modified and then SOLD.. I think we're making something out of nothing.

As for payware developers worried about models being uncompiled.. that risk has always been there.. but is a miniscule threat compared to the hackers who remove copy-protection, and upload entire models for free distributiom on warez (is that what it's called?) sites.. The simmers who gladly pay good money for good payware won't be interested in hacked stuff.