-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Alphasim EB-57E goes native FSX
- Thread starter hschuit
- Start date
morpheusfz
Members +
Is there a chance to get this?
Some of Alphasim's models readme's say
"These files are freeware. Please amend/distribute as you see fit.
The MDL files must not be back-compiled. This is forbidden under the MicroSoft EULA."
is the second line nonsense, or irrelevant anyway?
I may be showing my naivete' here but since when does Microsoft, who no longer supports it's Flight Simulators, have anything to say about a 3rd party developers "mdl" files or how they're used?
Wayland
Charter Member
I believe there was something in the recent copyright rules decision by the Library of Congress that had something to do with Abandonware, but the article wasn't very clear (I don't speak Legalese). Something about no longer supported software. I don't know where the actual ruling is posted, but if someone that speaks Legalese can find it, maybe we can get a layman's translation.
Steve
Steve
Firekitten
Charter Member 2016
Microsoft do not have propitiatory control over a file format. So with a third party... it depends on permission given. Considering it is offered as freeware/abandonware and the changes also offered as freeware... its a grey area, but I'd lean to acceptable.
Microsoft's EULA refers to their MDL files in the stock sim, ie, don't reverse engineer our stuff. They still control the copyright to their products, supported or not. If anything, there's a whole landmine debate on the legality of payware products...
End of the day, if Alpha/Virtavia are happy, I'd be pretty happy to say its probably ok.
I'm interested in the process. While I've been able to update all animations to FSX, the rudders and nose wheel steering come out reversed. How'd you beat that?
Modifying files...most of us repaint by moding an existing texture sheet. Piracy? I used to build plastic models way back when I still liked airplanes. I went to the hobby shop, and bought a kit. The kit is now mine. I would get it on the bench, and say, hack that heller mk XV into a mk.22 through severe surgery, and kit bashing other kits.
Is that piracy? I had a lazy boy once that I quite liked. I had it re-upholstered and the cushions modified. I looked or felt nothing like the factory model.
Piracy? Is lazy boy or heller or frog going to send lawyers to sue because I 'decompiled' the product into something else? Is viking or DHC going to send attack lawyers because I modded several DHC-3's with 1000 hp Shevetsov's?
So why when I buy a piece of softwear does the maker seem to want to retain total control of that softwear untill the end of days? Files are drastically modified from one sim to another format often; fs9 to CFS2, FSX to flightgear, and Xplane, to civ 2 and three and nothing is said.
Modify an FSX file and...
OMFG!!!THE WORLD IS ENDING! PIRATES! BANDULU! MASH DOWN!
Why? What's the difference? In this light, hardly-durpedson should be suing the hind legs off OC cycles, and levis should hammer anyone who ever cut off a pair of 501's
Am I missing something here? (Puts gun to head with this post...
)
Modifying files...most of us repaint by moding an existing texture sheet. Piracy? I used to build plastic models way back when I still liked airplanes. I went to the hobby shop, and bought a kit. The kit is now mine. I would get it on the bench, and say, hack that heller mk XV into a mk.22 through severe surgery, and kit bashing other kits.
Is that piracy? I had a lazy boy once that I quite liked. I had it re-upholstered and the cushions modified. I looked or felt nothing like the factory model.
Piracy? Is lazy boy or heller or frog going to send lawyers to sue because I 'decompiled' the product into something else? Is viking or DHC going to send attack lawyers because I modded several DHC-3's with 1000 hp Shevetsov's?
So why when I buy a piece of softwear does the maker seem to want to retain total control of that softwear untill the end of days? Files are drastically modified from one sim to another format often; fs9 to CFS2, FSX to flightgear, and Xplane, to civ 2 and three and nothing is said.
Modify an FSX file and...
OMFG!!!THE WORLD IS ENDING! PIRATES! BANDULU! MASH DOWN!
Why? What's the difference? In this light, hardly-durpedson should be suing the hind legs off OC cycles, and levis should hammer anyone who ever cut off a pair of 501's
Am I missing something here? (Puts gun to head with this post...
)
hschuit
SOH-CM-2024
Lazarus, with the standard SDK ModelDef.xml file many FS9 animations are borked. The trick is to add new animation code into your ModelDef.xml file to make those animations work properly in FSX. I learnt a lot from the FSDeveloper forum, some of the code I needed I found there and I write my own now. If you want a copy of my extended ModelDef.xml then sent me a PM.
tommieboy
SOH-CM-2025
Is it possible to also solve the clouds in front the prop issue too? Seems many of my older FS9 models work just fine in FSX Acceleration, except for the clouds in front the prop issue.
Tommy
Jafo
SOH-CM-2024
Piracy aka breach of copyright is not so much about what you do...but about what you do NEXT.
No-one is going to chase your arse if you alter/reverse engineer/fornicate with/whatever product in 'the privacy of your own home'. What gets the lawyers is the AFTER....when you distribute the product to a third party [distribution of copy] under the pretext of it being yours to do so.
Copyright Law isn't a black art. It's quite simple but pirates will always manage to dismiss such with absurd example.
Microsoft never bothered to chase the 'reverse engineers' of the uxtheme.dll which is pivotal in providing the Windows GUI [msstyles] however they had exactly zero qualms breaking people's "creativity" with subsequent MS updates....and did so every time.
When people rework another's graphics/paintkit/etc for subsequent distribution whatever limitations of copyright inherent in the original are required to be respected/adhered to in the derivative. IE...if the original stipulates no commercial skins to be created/derived...then that's that - it prevents you from charging for your input.
People generally should educate themselves about the limitations of their art/craft and regulations regarding its dissemination....
No-one is going to chase your arse if you alter/reverse engineer/fornicate with/whatever product in 'the privacy of your own home'. What gets the lawyers is the AFTER....when you distribute the product to a third party [distribution of copy] under the pretext of it being yours to do so.
Copyright Law isn't a black art. It's quite simple but pirates will always manage to dismiss such with absurd example.
Microsoft never bothered to chase the 'reverse engineers' of the uxtheme.dll which is pivotal in providing the Windows GUI [msstyles] however they had exactly zero qualms breaking people's "creativity" with subsequent MS updates....and did so every time.
When people rework another's graphics/paintkit/etc for subsequent distribution whatever limitations of copyright inherent in the original are required to be respected/adhered to in the derivative. IE...if the original stipulates no commercial skins to be created/derived...then that's that - it prevents you from charging for your input.
People generally should educate themselves about the limitations of their art/craft and regulations regarding its dissemination....
I'm interested in the process. While I've been able to update all animations to FSX, the rudders and nose wheel steering come out reversed. How'd you beat that?
Modifying files...most of us repaint by moding an existing texture sheet. Piracy? I used to build plastic models way back when I still liked airplanes. I went to the hobby shop, and bought a kit. The kit is now mine. I would get it on the bench, and say, hack that heller mk XV into a mk.22 through severe surgery, and kit bashing other kits.
Is that piracy? I had a lazy boy once that I quite liked. I had it re-upholstered and the cushions modified. I looked or felt nothing like the factory model.
Piracy? Is lazy boy or heller or frog going to send lawyers to sue because I 'decompiled' the product into something else? Is viking or DHC going to send attack lawyers because I modded several DHC-3's with 1000 hp Shevetsov's?
So why when I buy a piece of softwear does the maker seem to want to retain total control of that softwear untill the end of days? Files are drastically modified from one sim to another format often; fs9 to CFS2, FSX to flightgear, and Xplane, to civ 2 and three and nothing is said.
Modify an FSX file and...
OMFG!!!THE WORLD IS ENDING! PIRATES! BANDULU! MASH DOWN!
Why? What's the difference? In this light, hardly-durpedson should be suing the hind legs off OC cycles, and levis should hammer anyone who ever cut off a pair of 501's
Am I missing something here? (Puts gun to head with this post...
I know what you mean. I tend to view most of the 'piracy' hysteria with amusement/amazement-microsoft was founded on what could be defined now as 'piracy'
But, the computing world is weird, anyway. By computing standards of usage of a purchased product, revell and monogram should be suing the asses off lucasfilm for all the saturn V and panzer IV model kits used to make, and define the form in fact, of it's filming models...it gets a little silly, compounded by the fact that the 'softwear pirates' have usually had to buy the article in question at least once, meaning, your own customers are the bandits. Then go have a look at the gargantuan size of the south east and west asian 'chinese copy' market. Not just for softwear, but for everything under the sun-those bogus C-130 avionics bits come to mind, or anything with a designer label...
Which causes little fiasco's for the paying in good faith customer to suffer through from ridiculous attempts to Canute back the sea with some truly awful 'key protection'- I've bought a number of expensive and cheap bits of softwear whose 'anti-piracy' rendered it impossible to activate or neutered the proggy somehow, then I have to 1972 it anyway and write a ucfk'in grungyscript to short out what ever PPS they've put on it that won't work out in the world.
so I can use the 'product' I 'bought'- which is all to often a beta state crock, anyway sigh.
Back to our muttons! Abandon-wear-freeware, freeware tooling, free-use, elbow-grease and SDK at work here is all I see, not some vast, sinister plot. Lets get some of those old fav's brought up to the start of the last decade's standards, at least!
Yes, certainly, Hschuit; I would love a copy of the XML defs. I've just started getting serious about the coding on the monster, a lot of untapped potential, and the documentation on this thing is worse than the readme files I half-assedly provide.
The Model looks fantastic in sim, runs like butter. Nicely done, the old chestnut looks great!
But, the computing world is weird, anyway. By computing standards of usage of a purchased product, revell and monogram should be suing the asses off lucasfilm for all the saturn V and panzer IV model kits used to make, and define the form in fact, of it's filming models...it gets a little silly, compounded by the fact that the 'softwear pirates' have usually had to buy the article in question at least once, meaning, your own customers are the bandits. Then go have a look at the gargantuan size of the south east and west asian 'chinese copy' market. Not just for softwear, but for everything under the sun-those bogus C-130 avionics bits come to mind, or anything with a designer label...
Which causes little fiasco's for the paying in good faith customer to suffer through from ridiculous attempts to Canute back the sea with some truly awful 'key protection'- I've bought a number of expensive and cheap bits of softwear whose 'anti-piracy' rendered it impossible to activate or neutered the proggy somehow, then I have to 1972 it anyway and write a ucfk'in grungyscript to short out what ever PPS they've put on it that won't work out in the world.
so I can use the 'product' I 'bought'- which is all to often a beta state crock, anyway sigh.Back to our muttons! Abandon-wear-freeware, freeware tooling, free-use, elbow-grease and SDK at work here is all I see, not some vast, sinister plot. Lets get some of those old fav's brought up to the start of the last decade's standards, at least!
Yes, certainly, Hschuit; I would love a copy of the XML defs. I've just started getting serious about the coding on the monster, a lot of untapped potential, and the documentation on this thing is worse than the readme files I half-assedly provide.
The Model looks fantastic in sim, runs like butter. Nicely done, the old chestnut looks great!
DaveWG
Charter Member
Yes, but it takes a fair bit of extra work compared to converting a jet aircraft.
fsafranek
SOH-CM-2024
Freeware is not Abandonware. Something once Commercial but now Available At No Cost is not Abandonware. Interestingly enough even the spell checker here doesn't recognize the word as legit.
You might call something declared as "In the Public Domain" (like Chuck Dome used to say about everything he released) as abandonware.
But something hosted at the original developer's website is by no means "abandoned" no matter where else it can be downloaded from.
You might call something declared as "In the Public Domain" (like Chuck Dome used to say about everything he released) as abandonware.
But something hosted at the original developer's website is by no means "abandoned" no matter where else it can be downloaded from.
fsafranek
SOH-CM-2024
I think that's an alpha channel issue. Applies to canopy glass sometimes as well if it was shiny in FS9. Could possible be fixed (canopy anyway) if the material was changed to handle alpha channel as effecting opacity rather than reflectivity. Perhaps?
fsafranek
SOH-CM-2024
No one is reading this thread anymore but I'll type it anyway.
Referencing a higher authority is an attempt to add credence to one's own request that people don't
reverse engineer ("back-compile") the intellectual property. At the time that was written and Alphasim
started releasing the older files as freeware, or having me upload them everywhere, MCX didn't have the
capability to convert MDLs to other formats.
Someone said above
Is Alphasim/Virtavia happy? I've written to Phil to try and get his opinion/blessing on this but haven't heard
back yet. The statement sounds like someone has heard from Phil. If so, please post his reply. Perhaps his
original feelings on the matter have changed?
That second line is very sincere and originally written at a time when MS did still support the sim.
Referencing a higher authority is an attempt to add credence to one's own request that people don't
reverse engineer ("back-compile") the intellectual property. At the time that was written and Alphasim
started releasing the older files as freeware, or having me upload them everywhere, MCX didn't have the
capability to convert MDLs to other formats.
Someone said above
Is Alphasim/Virtavia happy? I've written to Phil to try and get his opinion/blessing on this but haven't heard
back yet. The statement sounds like someone has heard from Phil. If so, please post his reply. Perhaps his
original feelings on the matter have changed?
tommieboy
SOH-CM-2025
tommieboy
SOH-CM-2025
I think that's an alpha channel issue. Applies to canopy glass sometimes as well if it was shiny in FS9. Could possible be fixed (canopy anyway) if the material was changed to handle alpha channel as effecting opacity rather than reflectivity. Perhaps?
fsafranek, DaveWG,
Thanks for the replies....
Tommy
MCX has had significant improvements made to it recently, so this should now be much easier.
DaveWG
Charter Member
Yes, I know, but it's still not a 5 minute job. I've done a fair few conversions for my own use.