• 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

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Fsx Native DH-88 Comet !

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have read the EULA for FS9

It should be noted that a breach of its terms is a breach of a contractual licence . If MS considered it worthwhile to do so, it has the right to to sue, injunct and claim damages for breach of the operative term of the licence. It also has the right to terminate the licence and to demand the destruction of copies of the Product.There is no criminal remedy I am aware of arising from the agreement itself for a breach of the licence agreement

A breach of the terms of the licence may also amount to a breach of someone's copyright .The question is, does such copyright exist and, if so who is the owner or owners?The next question is, has there been an infringement of that copyright or those copyrights? The next question is whether,if there has been an infringement of copyright ,the infringer can avail himself of any of the defences available in all jurisdictions under applicable copyright law. So, the process of pursuing a copyright action is far from straightforward.

It is far easier to assert rights under the licence than to prove the existence and ownership of and infringement of copyright.

All the EULA does is contain an assertion by Microsoft that the title and copyright in the Product are owned by MS and its (unnamed suppliers).It is no more than that.It is certainly not proof that copyright exists and is owned by them or their suppliers ,though well it may be.

Best

nio
 
Hey guys,

Craig contacted me via PM, and I simply said why I posted what I did.

I appreciate the chaps work, its clearly great, but did want to see him get into any trouble hence my comment. It is indeed a very grey area with some parts not so grey as red. Craig has done a grand job, it was only my wish for him to not get into any nasty trouble that prompted my comment.

I also had empecks jenny in my thoughts, which was gained through permission, and I believe to help with any issues you had to own FS2004 in order to install it into FSX.

Myself and stix who raised the intial concern were not having a go at Craig in any way simply voicing our concerns so that a fellow developer may look into it and avoid any trouble.

thanks,
Lewis
 
Lewis-A2A said:
Hey guys,

Craig contacted me via PM, and I simply said why I posted what I did.

I appreciate the chaps work, its clearly great, but did want to see him get into any trouble hence my comment. It is indeed a very grey area with some parts not so grey as red. Craig has done a grand job, it was only my wish for him to not get into any nasty trouble that prompted my comment.

I also had empecks jenny in my thoughts, which was gained through permission, and I believe to help with any issues you had to own FS2004 in order to install it into FSX.

Myself and stix who raised the intial concern were not having a go at Craig in any way simply voicing our concerns so that a fellow developer may look into it and avoid any trouble.

thanks,
Lewis
Click to expand...

Well i would like to say a BIG "thank you" for your & frankly incorrect ill fated concerns on something that i would have loved to have downloaded (& quite legally). I hope the files are restored for those who wish to download it, as for those who think otherwise, I'm in the middle of a night shift (0330hrs here) & my whole night has been ruined by reading this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The source files for this are provided with the SDK for further development as others have said. What would be dodgy is say A2A providing this file on their site - i.e. seen as advertising etc, in comparison to this bloke putting this up on a frewware download site.
THANKS a lot mate! :salute:
 
The source files for this are provided with the SDK for further development as others have said.
Click to expand...

Err.. don't think they are, otherwise it would have been done years ago, the mdl was decompiled and then converted to FSX which is a far more laborious process. It's bad enough modelling for two sims when you have the original model.

And if this has ruined your whole night you truly live a blessed existence...
 
The main difference between Jenny I've converted, and the Comet is that I've used source files provided in FS9 SDK (available for free from Microsofts site), asked guys from Aces for permission, and they gave me this address:

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/community/developer/rules.htm

My Jenny release is 100% legal. Comet is not, because it's 3d file is reverse engineered, and it breaks Game Content Usage Rules.

I believe Microsoft doesn't care as long as Comet is released for their title, but I wouldn't do such conversion (even though I know how to do it), because it's too risky.
 
SkippyBing said:
It's bad enough modelling for two sims when you have the original model.
Click to expand...

Actually it's not always true. If your aircraft uses only stock xml code, conversion is very simple. I've converted Jenny from FS9 to FSX in one afternoon. Every line of code that Jenny uses is already in FSX SDK. It's just a matter of attaching animation tags, and replacing FS9 materials to FSX ones. If aircraft is more advanced it require rewriting off all xml code, and that's time consuming task - of course I'm talking about FS9 to FSX conversion.
 
empeck said:
Actually it's not always true. If your aircraft uses only stock xml code, conversion is very simple. I've converted Jenny from FS9 to FSX in one afternoon. Every line of code that Jenny uses is already in FSX SDK. It's just a matter of attaching animation tags, and replacing FS9 materials to FSX ones. If aircraft is more advanced it require rewriting off all xml code, and that's time consuming task - of course I'm talking about FS9 to FSX conversion.
Click to expand...


True, I've only really done one FS9 to FSX conversion and then I scrapped the FS9 version as I couldn't be bothered with two sets of custom XML! I do also try and export models to Strike Fighters as well which is a bit more of a pain as it's a different logic.
 
cheezyflier said:
what happened to "let being helpful be more important than being right"?
Click to expand...

What happened to open discussion?

I have no problem with the release of this particular model for FSX, but I also understand why it's not legal and why there is an open debate here against this type of add-on. What I don't see anywhere is anyone knocking the person who worked on and made the Comet available for FSX, and as the add-on is still available to those who chose to use it, myself included, why everybody has got their knickers in a twist and started throwing mud?

Jeez, this place sometimes, god job I lurv you all...most of the time. :wavey:
 
Some developers are using the FS default air files for their payware addons and there is even a developer who sells the FS9 default Baron (it's available for over three years now). None of these developers has ever heard anything from a Microsoft lawyer...

So do you really think Microsoft takes the FS EULA so serious like most of you do? :kilroy:

Greetings
Tim
 
seeing as how this isnt getting anyone anywhere how bout we just move along and agree that people can either use it or not to use it and not bash anyone who choses one or the other? :engel016:
 
Am I the only one seeing -2lb of boost with WOT at sea level? That makes no sense to me.... unless I'm missing something, as I only had time to take a quick look at it....
 
OK, I can't help myself.....such a big deal about someone tweaking for Free. :mixedsmi:
What about all the people Selling Default Scenery Items "from FSX" and re-arranging them to enhance an airport? :isadizzy:
Talk about Copyright Infringement!:pop4:
 
empeck said:
The main difference between Jenny I've converted, and the Comet is that I've used source files provided in FS9 SDK (available for free from Microsofts site), asked guys from Aces for permission, and they gave me this address:

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/community/developer/rules.htm
Click to expand...
Hi
Thanks for the link very interesting reading (hadnt seen it before)
Also it gives freeware designer's a tiny bit more weight in dealing with
the ppl/sites that upload their files and charge for em ;)
Thanks
Wozza
 
I (and a great many others, both free and payware) use commercial and MS produced software to make airfields.

These usually include MS default objects, in a situation different to the original default scenery. These are just a bunch of textures and polys and everyone (including MS) seems to be happy. It expands the hobby and attracts possible new customers, if they see their local airport in detail.

Without this type of thing, MSFS will have died out years ago, if this model was up for sale, I would agree that it 'might' be a little iffy. But if mobody is benifiting except MSFS users, and if that is wrong........ THE LAW IS AN ASS!!!!
 
Old Crow said:
OK, I can't help myself.....such a big deal about someone tweaking for Free. :mixedsmi:
What about all the people Selling Default Scenery Items "from FSX" and re-arranging them to enhance an airport? :isadizzy:
Talk about Copyright Infringement!:pop4:
Click to expand...

Actually they don't sell default objects. Those objects are in theirs customers FSX in objects libraries. When you place an object with Whisplacer, or Object Placement Tool, small bgl file is created. This file tells where and which object should be placed.
 
I think the best example for reverse engineering in the FS community is the .air file. Microsoft has never released the secrets of the .air file. So how is it possible that we have thousand of different addon airplanes with different flighdynamics? Well, some smart guys like Ron Freimuth have decompiled the .air file, discovered the inner workings, collected the data and shared it with the community. That's reverse engineering at it's best! But this data is the base for every single addon plane. And I doubt that the FS community would be so big if we had only the FS default planes.

Or what about all the (payware) scenery addons that deliver a new terrain.cfg or a new default.xml. Did they really made these files from scratch? Or have they just decompiled the FS default files and made a few modifications...?

Just yesterday I have uploaded two new repaints for the FSX default C172. Like many other I used the white textures as a base. But when I think about it I doubt that these textures are excluded from the FS EULA. So by converting and modifying them I guess I have violated the FS EULA as well.

Finally I would say the FS community would not be where it is today without reverse engineering! And Microsoft knows that. They have profited from for years...

So actually it makes me sad that such a talented person like Craig - who wanted to share his great work with us for free - gets this kind of feedback.

Greetings
Tim
 
Wozza said:
Hi
Thanks for the link very interesting reading (hadnt seen it before)
Also it gives freeware designer's a tiny bit more weight in dealing with
the ppl/sites that upload their files and charge for em ;)
Thanks
Wozza
Click to expand...
I had not seen that either
very informative :guinness:.
Over the years i have seen a few things
uploaded or distributed that originated from MS
the biggest one is the exe crack
as you all know this is a big no no on this
site but yet i wonder how many people have used one :isadizzy:
in my opinion that could be helpful to pirate the sims
but most people have purchased the sims and just use them to keep
there cd drive clear
FSX is different because you do not need one
and then there have been uploads like the Maule that have not been
in the basic sim pack you had to purchase the deluxe version.
but in my personal opinion i believe Craig has not done anything wrong
he has never stated that it was his creation
he gave MS the credit
and is not selling it
MHB
 
but henry,.. Microsoft IS selling it.

And surely that is were the debate should end?

Tim, the comet isnt a default object, you have to own fs2004 to have it. Empeck's jenny for FSX requires you to own the default FS2004 jenny in order to use it.
 
I remember when FSX was new. One of the first things I did was put the stock FS9 planes in it. I wanted to know if the sound and gauges would work in it. I had the Tri-Motor, Vega, Comet, and several other planes running in FSX.



Bill
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top