Unfortunately, he already withdrew the DH-88 files from his server, I doubt he will put the same effort in updating the Tri-motor, after all this fuss over rather nothing....
R.
-
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
Fsx Native DH-88 Comet !
- Thread starter full
- Start date
- Status
R.
IanHenry
Charter Member
I think it's sad that this guys well intentioned effort has been derided so much and has now been withdrawn (before I had the chance to download it, I think it was withdrawn yesterday).
We really should be celebrating anyone who spends the time and effort to help our hobby especially if they are doing it for no personal gain to themselves. That's my view anyway.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o> </o>
Regards,
Ian.
We really should be celebrating anyone who spends the time and effort to help our hobby especially if they are doing it for no personal gain to themselves. That's my view anyway.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o> </o>Regards,
Ian.
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
This thread is very disappointing to me. There are good points on all sides, but I err on the side of it is better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission, specifically in this regard. I would have enjoyed having that plane.
Seriously though, if this was my plane, I simply would have distributed it. If someone from MS officially said something to me, I would have apologized up and down, then taken it offline. Simple as that. But until then, I would have given it to the people that wanted it. In a way, I find it a form of flattery that someone invested the time to convert the original person's work to the new simulator. Damned be copyrights. Sadly, I am in the business of this, as are many of you, and we know the repercussions of these things, and our hesitance in doing so which is well founded.
Tough situation indeed.
Seriously though, if this was my plane, I simply would have distributed it. If someone from MS officially said something to me, I would have apologized up and down, then taken it offline. Simple as that. But until then, I would have given it to the people that wanted it. In a way, I find it a form of flattery that someone invested the time to convert the original person's work to the new simulator. Damned be copyrights. Sadly, I am in the business of this, as are many of you, and we know the repercussions of these things, and our hesitance in doing so which is well founded.
Tough situation indeed.
ryanbatc
Charter Member
This is where I stand. Just because certain users have issues with distributing this package doesn't mean they are right or wrong...
Roger
Senior Administrator
There's some great finger-pointers on this site. Should have kept the release info on the Old Hangar forum, then the chattering classes would have missed it altogether! I am very disappointed with some of the comments made here today; enough to make me consider my presence here at the SOH.
Craig pm me at TOH if you read this please.
Craig pm me at TOH if you read this please.
Isn't it a little hypocritical for those who will vehemently oppose anyone removing copy protection or making commercial products available for free, to then defend someone who has, unintentionally or for the best of reasons, taken a commercial product (admittedly only a part of one) and made it available for free. The former is the usual stance of the vast majority (not all) of those who post on this forum.
Yes, I do know and understand that there is a difference between the two, but actually, how big a difference is it, except in the reasons why it was done?
In my opinion, the current law on copyright is incorrect and unworkable in the digital world we now live in. This is but a small proof of that. The problem is that, as my boss is very fond of saying whenever we point out that the current situation is a total mess, "We are where we are". I'd love to have this - and all the other FS9 models that aren't already available as FSX native replacements - rebuilt and recreated by enthusiasts like this one has. Unfortunately, doing it without permission is not legal.
I still say contact them, show them what you have done, show them that you are not trying to rip them off or pass off their "intellectual property" (I hate that term) as your own and don't waste all your effort.
On the other hand, I very strongly suspect that Microsoft will make absolutely nothing of this, if they even notice. It's simply not worth their time and I really don't think that there was any intention here to do anything more than provide the community with a package that most people would thoroughly enjoy.
Or do people really believe that copyright should only apply when you want it to and can be ignored when you don't? That's an honest question.
Yes, I do know and understand that there is a difference between the two, but actually, how big a difference is it, except in the reasons why it was done?
In my opinion, the current law on copyright is incorrect and unworkable in the digital world we now live in. This is but a small proof of that. The problem is that, as my boss is very fond of saying whenever we point out that the current situation is a total mess, "We are where we are". I'd love to have this - and all the other FS9 models that aren't already available as FSX native replacements - rebuilt and recreated by enthusiasts like this one has. Unfortunately, doing it without permission is not legal.
I still say contact them, show them what you have done, show them that you are not trying to rip them off or pass off their "intellectual property" (I hate that term) as your own and don't waste all your effort.
On the other hand, I very strongly suspect that Microsoft will make absolutely nothing of this, if they even notice. It's simply not worth their time and I really don't think that there was any intention here to do anything more than provide the community with a package that most people would thoroughly enjoy.
Or do people really believe that copyright should only apply when you want it to and can be ignored when you don't? That's an honest question.
dougal
Charter Member 2016
My thoughts exactly! I used to like SOH. It USED to be very easy going.
For goodness sake guys - lighten up. Since when did SOH forum members become 'the law'?
It's still available, they only renamed the file so...
and pluspack: http://www.classicwings.net/freeplanes/comet/Comet_Plus_Pack_123456.exe
Roger
Senior Administrator
And you've made our point for us, Roger.
They asked first and got permission.
This all boils down, ultimately, to theory versus practice. It is, unquestionably, in breach of the EULA and Copyright to do what was done with the Comet. However, in practice, MS has ignored far worse, has ignored many uploads of complete aircraft from previous versions of the sim and it is highly unlikely, regardless of what the theory is, that their lawyers will hunt Craig down and prosecute him for thousands of dollars in compensation for what he's done.
Now... As Rob has told us that this is "fuss over nothing", what would peoples' opinions be if this DH88 was a certain DC-2?
P.S. You might like to read 1984, Roger, and correct your references, they're a long way out of context.
G'night all!
They asked first and got permission.
This all boils down, ultimately, to theory versus practice. It is, unquestionably, in breach of the EULA and Copyright to do what was done with the Comet. However, in practice, MS has ignored far worse, has ignored many uploads of complete aircraft from previous versions of the sim and it is highly unlikely, regardless of what the theory is, that their lawyers will hunt Craig down and prosecute him for thousands of dollars in compensation for what he's done.
Now... As Rob has told us that this is "fuss over nothing", what would peoples' opinions be if this DH88 was a certain DC-2?
P.S. You might like to read 1984, Roger, and correct your references, they're a long way out of context.
G'night all!
Roger
Senior Administrator
And you've made our point for us, Roger.
They asked first and got permission.
This all boils down, ultimately, to theory versus practice. It is, unquestionably, in breach of the EULA and Copyright to do what was done with the Comet. However, in practice, MS has ignored far worse, has ignored many uploads of complete aircraft from previous versions of the sim and it is highly unlikely, regardless of what the theory is, that their lawyers will hunt Craig down and prosecute him for thousands of dollars in compensation for what he's done.
Now... As Rob has told us that this is "fuss over nothing", what would peoples' opinions be if this DH88 was a certain DC-2?
P.S. You might like to read 1984, Roger, and correct your references, they're a long way out of context.
G'night all!
Ian it's time to stop this.
I don't know what motivates your out-bursts but you never seem to realise when it's time to stop?
Hi Ian, the developement of the DH88 was abandoned 7 years ago by MS, as stated earlier. That's a long time ago in this electronic age. The developement of the DC2 wasn't. But, suppose it was, and I had lost interest to make a FSX version. I think when it would be released as freeware, I would not make a point. If people were charging money for it, I would. It ofcourse would be appreciated if permission was asked and granted.
Anyway, I had a hell of a job redoing the FS9 Gmax files (which I had) into a FSX Gmax file.
All animations have to be redone, all textures have to be remade to FSX SDK standards, and remapped. The mesh has to be updated, since the FSX SDK is much more accurate. Not to mention more advanced system modelling and gauge features.
If someone would like to "rip" the mesh from the FS9 model, and redo it to a native FSX version, I wish him all the luck. Don't think lightly about converting a FS9 plane to FSX standards.
Therefore I applaude Craig for his effort in redoing the DH-88, which must have been quit some work, and with which he didn't cause any harm to anybody or anyone.
I know he "might' have breached some copyrights. But he also credited the original authors, and released it as freeware to the community.
I agree, he should have asked MS's permission, to keep things clean, but I don't know if he did or didn't do that. I cannot judge that. I know he clearly states which was his doing, and which is others work.
I'm glad that Bill Lyons, the master of all times in FS modeling, gave his blessing to rework some of his planes to FSX standards. I'd love to see the Tri-pacer in FSX.
Again, my 2 €cents.
Oh, and Bushpilot, thanks for sharing the links.
R.
Killbilly
SOH-CM-2025
You got that right. I loved that little tripacer. That was my Emma Field favorite. It would be incredible to have it in FSX with the new Emma coming.
Ooooh FSX Tri-Pacer I would love that.. how about it Bill? Your next project
:salute:?- Status