PDA

View Full Version : Fsx Native DH-88 Comet !



full
February 12th, 2010, 11:13
http://www.classicwings.net/freeplanes/comet/dhcomet.html

DX-FMJ
February 12th, 2010, 11:15
Awesome thank you!

Roger
February 12th, 2010, 11:16
Bloomin' Marvellous!!:icon29:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/rogera/comet-1.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/rogera/comet-2.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/rogera/comet-3.jpg

stiz
February 12th, 2010, 11:25
ooo aaaa eeeeeee as much as i love haveing a native fsx version, it is the defult fs9 comet .. now the only way i know of getting that model is to use the ripper ... i know credit is given in the manual but still ...

Rick_Piper
February 12th, 2010, 11:32
Great job Craig :icon29:

Sent you a PM mate

Regards
Rick

Flyboy208
February 12th, 2010, 12:14
Beautiful! , will see if I can do a prop mod for it ...

Mike :jump:

Daube
February 12th, 2010, 13:02
It's fantastic. Until now I was using the FS9 one, which was already beautifull. Now you've made it almost perfect. Thanks a lot Craig :applause:

http://sapdaube.free.fr/fsx/daube_image989.jpg

http://sapdaube.free.fr/fsx/daube_image990.jpg

Hurricane91
February 12th, 2010, 13:53
Another masterpiece. Thanks Craig.

warchild
February 12th, 2010, 14:46
thats such a sweet looking airplane.. Thank you :) :) ..

Lewis-A2A
February 12th, 2010, 14:54
very nice, but I echo stiz's concern.

Its MS property, I cant find anything that says anything else on the site? Without permission this is piracy and the chap clearly does great work but can get into nasty trouble.

Naismith
February 12th, 2010, 15:00
very nice, but I echo stiz's concern.

Its MS property, I cant find anything that says anything else on the site? Without permission this is piracy and the chap clearly does great work but can get into nasty trouble.

Don't lets tell 'em then, p'raps they won't notice.

Lewis-A2A
February 12th, 2010, 15:05
Well I believe this chap does have permission to use it, just a suggest he maybe place somthing to that effect on the site.

And if he doesnt, then at the end of the day piracy is piracy, if its ripping off one of us small devs or the bigger one that brought us all here in the first place!

Roger
February 12th, 2010, 15:19
Well Lewis,
I don't agree. To "rip-off" would imply making money from the product. This clearly is not the case. There are out there in "sim-land" many people who have offered "so-called" fixes for the default Fs9 aircraft to operate in FsX...otherwise known as port-overs...Full's version of the Comet for FsX just goes one step further to allow us to enjoy one of the Fs9 default aircraft in FsX without the anomalies usually associated with port-overs. I think your comments are ill judged and unnecessary and only MS will have the right to veto or otherwise, if they choose to do so.

N2056
February 12th, 2010, 15:26
The ramifications of this project being done at all go way beyond whether Microsoft approved it (which I doubt). I think this is the first obvious release of a "ripped" model, which implies that it can be reasonably done. Until now it was felt that although there are programs out there that grab mesh the end result was not really usable due to the amount of work needed to re-do all of the things the ripper program messed up.

full
February 12th, 2010, 15:37
this is the first obvious release of a "ripped" model Did i say that i created this from scratch ? I will pull the files from my server ASAP, And by the way it takes a long time to
re-do all of the things the ripper program messed up I was only trying to give the community a decent alternative and no harm was ment ! :pop4:

peter12213
February 12th, 2010, 16:00
Legendary!!

N2056
February 12th, 2010, 16:08
I will admit that I am working off of the appraisal made by Stiz, but I do so knowing his developing background. Perhaps you could clarify the whole thing for us? Understand that I feel your intentions were totally good. It's the fact that if this was "borrowed" mesh that was in fact converted then it means a lot to developers doing this for a meager paycheck. It's that it apparently can be done, not necessarily that you did it. I hope that makes sense.

warchild
February 12th, 2010, 16:46
I'm not one who can look at a model and say that it came from here or there.. simply not one of my great skills, so i thank you folks that can for being able to do so.. It seems fairly obvious to me that this project was started by this gentleman with a light heart, wanting to bring something wonderful from the past into the present. from a personal standpoint, i cant fault the motives, nor the effort involved. I wish i had those skills just so i could pull a few of my favorites into fsx for my own use, but i dont.. i'm just a number cruncher..
I cannot and will not judge the morality, ethics or legality of this action. After all, I WAS one of the team that completely reworked and changed the FSX default goose wilh the OzX team.. No one jumped on us, except to correct us on how they thought it should fly as opposed to what actual goose pilots said of it.. No biggy there..
there is definitely a fear factor there.. Modelers can now have their models used by someone else.. Indeed thats a concern, and one thats not too small.. As a flight model developer, its something i have to accept all the time. it takes months of sleepless nights to get a flight model right, but for someone else to use it, it takes copy paste and change a couple lines.. So you see, i know that fear well..
Normally, i wont use or download aircraftfrom one vendor that another vendor has created, but this was a default aircraft thats simply been updated and it is well known now, that it is. If i'm going to point a finger at this gentleman, then i have to point a finger at myself, because i completely took the MS flight model on the goose and completely re-wrote it.. Base line though, is that before i changed every nymber in there, before i put my name on it, it had MS's name on it, and it had MS's numbers in it..
Flight Sim, and the cultures interest in it, are diminishing. MS has abandoned us, and we are now faced with ... what???
There is nothing wrong with the colins organization, or maam, or the confederate airforce going out, finding a scrap of a plane and restoring it using parts they have milled themselves. Perhaps, we're beginning to see a similar thing in FSX. ???

Hurricane91
February 12th, 2010, 17:40
MS has abandoned us,...

Yes, I had the impression that Microsoft abandoned further developement several years ago and that the SDK and G-Max were included to encourage further developement by individuals. Since Mr. Richardson clearly stated that this is freeware and credited the original designers, I see no problem with his efforts to improve a default aircraft.
I think Microsoft created some great simulators. I became a member and donate to Sim Outhouse because of all the developement that goes on here not only for FSX but all the way down to the basement.

Spilot69
February 12th, 2010, 18:53
I don't see any harm in this as long as it's free. People update air files and make repaints of default aircraft. What's the difference with this? Again as long as he doesn't profit from this, there's no foul. He is just improving the default model. Thank you for your time making this nice model!

N2056
February 12th, 2010, 19:38
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
February 12th, 2010, 19:43
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
February 12th, 2010, 21:04
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
February 13th, 2010, 01:12
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
February 13th, 2010, 02:40
Hi Craig, nice airplane. How is the Eastbourne comming along?

stiz
February 13th, 2010, 04:12
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 :engel016:

Hurricane91
February 13th, 2010, 05:57
∑ 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
February 13th, 2010, 06:41
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
February 13th, 2010, 07:00
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-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
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:p></o:p>

stiz
February 13th, 2010, 07:36
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
February 13th, 2010, 07:40
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
February 13th, 2010, 09:09
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
February 13th, 2010, 09:12
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 authorís 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? :kilroy:

SkippyBing
February 13th, 2010, 09:20
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
February 13th, 2010, 09:42
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
February 13th, 2010, 09:53
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
February 13th, 2010, 09:56
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
February 13th, 2010, 09:59
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 :kilroy:

Roger
February 13th, 2010, 10:03
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
February 13th, 2010, 10:18
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.

robcap
February 13th, 2010, 11:49
I for one would love to see the Ford Tri-motor updated this way as the port-over is disappointing with some graphical anomalies.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.

IanHenry
February 13th, 2010, 11:59
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:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
Regards,
Ian.

CodyValkyrie
February 13th, 2010, 12:09
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.

ryanbatc
February 13th, 2010, 12:30
If someone from MS officially said something to me, I would have apologized up and down, then taken it offline. Simple as that.

This is where I stand. Just because certain users have issues with distributing this package doesn't mean they are right or wrong...

Roger
February 13th, 2010, 12:34
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.

IanP
February 13th, 2010, 12:41
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.

Roger
February 13th, 2010, 12:50
Will someone please close this thread...I'm losing patience with the thought police!

dougal
February 13th, 2010, 12:54
Will someone please close this thread...I'm losing patience with the thought police!

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'?

empeck
February 13th, 2010, 12:56
I've been asking guys from Aces (when Aces was alive) for sources of other planes than Jenny, I wanted to make the same conversion as I did with Jenny, unfortunately without luck :(

ryanbatc
February 13th, 2010, 12:59
I don't think we need to close the thread. Just because users aren't agreeing with each other doesn't mean the thread has to die. I actually like to read all the opinions on this matter.... since it's something specific.

bushpilot
February 13th, 2010, 13:04
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.


It's still available, they only renamed the file so... http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/icons/icon10.gif: http://www.classicwings.net/freeplanes/comet/Comet_123456.exe

and pluspack: http://www.classicwings.net/freeplanes/comet/Comet_Plus_Pack_123456.exe

Roger
February 13th, 2010, 14:59
[QUOTE=stiz;359731
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:[/QUOTE]

Bill Lyons has given his blessing in response to Full's request to convert some of his models to FsX native.

IanP
February 13th, 2010, 15:17
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! :wavey:

Roger
February 13th, 2010, 15:35
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! :wavey:

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?

Old Crow
February 13th, 2010, 16:54
I left Flight Simming and the Forums for some time due to stuff like this. I am not going to get involved in this discussion, except to say, it is sad to see that it seems to always follow the same path, to get ugly. :mixedsmi: :isadizzy:

robcap
February 13th, 2010, 17:03
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? 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.

Henry
February 13th, 2010, 19:15
i have been watching this and not commented
because i do not know what to say
its a fine line
but whats not a fine line is a few people getting personal
the next personal comment will be treated as a permanent ban
get my point
H:ichile::ichile:

Killbilly
February 13th, 2010, 19:30
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.


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.

Lionheart
February 14th, 2010, 00:01
I love that Tri-Pacer as well.

Awesome plane. Great flyer..




Bill

bushpilot
February 14th, 2010, 01:26
I love that Tri-Pacer as well.

Awesome plane. Great flyer..

Bill


Ooooh FSX Tri-Pacer I would love that.. how about it Bill? Your next project:icon_lol::salute:?

nio
February 14th, 2010, 01:54
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

Lewis-A2A
February 14th, 2010, 03:43
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

Guruswarmyoz
February 14th, 2010, 07:57
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

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:

SkippyBing
February 14th, 2010, 08:42
The source files for this are provided with the SDK for further development as others have said.

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...

empeck
February 14th, 2010, 09:17
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.

empeck
February 14th, 2010, 09:26
It's bad enough modelling for two sims when you have the original model.

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.

SkippyBing
February 14th, 2010, 11:03
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.


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
February 14th, 2010, 11:05
what happened to "let being helpful be more important than being right"?

Nick C
February 14th, 2010, 11:25
what happened to "let being helpful be more important than being right"?

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:

Tim-HH
February 14th, 2010, 11:38
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 (http://secure.simmarket.com/perfect-flight-fly-the-beech-baron-58-(de_1650).phtml) (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

stiz
February 14th, 2010, 12:46
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:

SolarEagle
February 14th, 2010, 18:42
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....

Old Crow
February 14th, 2010, 21:17
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:

Wozza
February 14th, 2010, 21:38
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


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

calypsos
February 14th, 2010, 23:19
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!!!!

empeck
February 14th, 2010, 23:52
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:

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.

Tim-HH
February 15th, 2010, 03:04
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

Henry
February 15th, 2010, 05:45
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 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

Lewis-A2A
February 15th, 2010, 08:20
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.

Lionheart
February 15th, 2010, 08:23
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

Henry
February 15th, 2010, 08:44
but henry,.. Microsoft IS selling it.


you do have a point
H

Daube
February 15th, 2010, 11:23
Well, all of the default FS9 planes are actually uploaded at one (if not more) of the most popular FS download sites, where the administrator is known to be very responsive on problematic uploads. So I think MS or ACES never told anything against that, else the files would not be there anymore, would they ?

Also, from a legal point of view, if you buy the most recent version of a given software,do you really need to buy the previous version ? I mean, if one would make such an addon for XPlane for example, then I guess it would be problematic, since the XPlane users do not have any version of FS (I mean, theorically. Of course a lot of them have their own copy of FS), but if you provide those files to FS users, who actually bought FS9 or FSX, then MS get the money, don't they ?

cheezyflier
February 15th, 2010, 13:34
it's just like mentioning the no cd crack. (henry brought it up first) the particular forum where you can get it is one where i had seen aces and even phil post all the time, and no one said anything about it. ever. yet still some places, like the fs9 forum here at soh, it's a forbidden topic because of all the shootings and stabbings that occur when it's discussed. microsoft clearly has no problem with it, but some folks who feel it's their job to be the eula police are somewhat vociferous on the subject.

with word and excel documents are automatically backwards compatible. when fsx was first released, the planes from fs9 were too. that didn't change until the service packs.

Lewis-A2A
February 15th, 2010, 14:06
I've been asking guys from Aces (when Aces was alive) for sources of other planes than Jenny, I wanted to make the same conversion as I did with Jenny, unfortunately without luck :(

kilo delta
February 16th, 2010, 02:33
For what it's worth, I managed to d/l this a/c and the addon pack before it was pulled. I've fully licensed copies of FS2004 and FSX Gold so my conscience will be clear when I load it up in the Sim.
Thanks for the addon, Craig :ernae: :)

Henry
February 16th, 2010, 06:53
it's just like mentioning the no cd crack. (henry brought it up first) the particular forum where you can get it is one where i had seen aces and even phil post all the time, and no one said anything about it. ever. yet still some places, like the fs9 forum here at soh, it's a forbidden topic because of all the shootings and stabbings that occur when it's discussed. microsoft clearly has no problem with it,
actually that is not correct it was MS that asked sites not too
not the Aces but MS, as far as i know it was only on one "legal site"
and i do not believe it is still there
that certainly is illegal
H

falcon409
February 16th, 2010, 07:08
For what it's worth, I managed to d/l this a/c and the addon pack before it was pulled. I've fully licensed copies of FS2004 and FSX Gold so my conscience will be clear when I load it up in the Sim.
Thanks for the addon, Craig
Same here Kilo Delta. . .much ado about nothing as far as I'm concerned. Craig did a beautiful job of moving a default FS9 aircraft into FSX, so what? Folks need to get over it and move on.:salute:

empeck
February 16th, 2010, 09:15
This is very strange. Everyone at SoH is very strict when comes to piracy in every thread but not in this one. I wonder why.

bushpilot
February 16th, 2010, 09:21
This is very strange. Everyone at SoH is very strict when comes to piracy in every thread but not in this one. I wonder why.

Yeah, it is strange. I bet if someone would have posted this particular Comet first to some torrent site it would have been considered as piracy quite easily. But now when it is accessible through a "legit" site...:pop4::pop4:

cheezyflier
February 16th, 2010, 09:25
actually that is not correct it was MS that asked sites not too
not the Aces but MS, as far as i know it was only on one "legal site"
and i do not believe it is still there
that certainly is illegal
H


the place i was talking about is fly-away simulations. i just checked, and the file for fs9 and fs8 are both still there along with several other games. i was an active member there before i came here. i don't know what your criteria is for "legal site" but if phil was posting there it would seem to me that they have microsoft's attention as a place to distibute information about flight simulator. i don't think aces would patronize a site considered to be doing anything illegal, or contrary to their own eula if it wasn't something they condoned. i guarantee anyone from aces would only have had to post a single warning and they would have removed it right away. aces worked for microsoft. so aces could not be publicly ok with it if microsoft had a problem with it.
otherwise any challenge in court would never hold up. employees of a company are generally expected to support the interests of their parent corporation. otherwise there is conflict of interest. it just doesn't wash.

guzler
February 16th, 2010, 09:27
While the debate continues, I downloaded it and fly it regularly :wiggle: Its a great addition to FSX and I would like to thank the chap who converted it for the time and effort he put into bringing an old favourite back to life. I've got greater things to worry about than the legalities of this small pleasure in life !!!

Henry
February 16th, 2010, 09:43
This is very strange. Everyone at SoH is very strict when comes to piracy in every thread but not in this one. I wonder why.
im not sure myself
H

Henry
February 16th, 2010, 09:48
the place i was talking about is fly-away simulations. i just checked, and the file for fs9 and fs8 are both still there along with several other games. i was an active member there before i came here. i don't know what your criteria is for "legal site" but if phil was posting there it would seem to me that they have microsoft's attention as a place to distibute information about flight simulator. i don't think aces would patronize a site considered to be doing anything illegal, or contrary to their own eula if it wasn't something they condoned. i guarantee anyone from aces would only have had to post a single warning and they would have removed it right away. aces worked for microsoft. so aces could not be publicly ok with it if microsoft had a problem with it.
otherwise any challenge in court would never hold up. employees of a company are generally expected to support the interests of their parent corporation. otherwise there is conflict of interest. it just doesn't wash.
so you are saying a cracked exe is legal
correct?
H

CodyValkyrie
February 16th, 2010, 10:19
Gentlemen, you are forgetting one thing. It isn't ACES that you really have to worry about, it is the lawyers. Most sane people would likely be OK with what has happened here. It is the lawyers and copyright infringement companies who act on behalf of their clients that you have to worry about.

This situation has in some ways already played itself out with Cessna and Textron. While Cessna itself has no issue with companies using their aircraft for FS, Textron has dictated via their copyright lawyers and investigators that anyone who uses the Cessna name compensate the company. We have in the past (I use "we" vaguely, but as developers in general) had Cessna employees imply that they simply do not care, and that likely the use of their name in FS products could improve sales of their planes.

While I do not agree with the premise of it, all it takes is one uptight lawyer or copyright chaser to make this a problem... and that is the core of what we are worried about.

The chances of that happening? Well, we don't know honestly. What's to say someone couldn't be made an example of? I do think the chance of problems however are relatively low... at least for now. Let us hope it stays that way. There is no reason to draw blood from a turnip.

Henry
February 16th, 2010, 10:23
Gentlemen, you are forgetting one thing. It isn't ACES that you really have to worry about, it is the lawyers. Most sane people would likely be OK with what has happened here. It is the lawyers and copyright infringement companies who act on behalf of their clients that you have to worry about.

This situation has in some ways already played itself out with Cessna and Textron. While Cessna itself has no issue with companies using their aircraft for FS, Textron has dictated via their copyright lawyers and investigators that anyone who uses the Cessna name compensate the company. We have in the past (I use "we" vaguely, but as developers in general) had Cessna employees imply that they simply do not care, and that likely the use of their name in FS products could improve sales of their planes.

While I do not agree with the premise of it, all it takes is one uptight lawyer or copyright chaser to make this a problem... and that is the core of what we are worried about.

The chances of that happening? Well, we don't know honestly. What's to say someone couldn't be made an example of? I do think the chance of problems however are relatively low... at least for now. Let us hope it stays that way. There is no reason to draw blood from a turnip.
Thank you Cody
H

Killbilly
February 16th, 2010, 10:56
This is very strange. Everyone at SoH is very strict when comes to piracy in every thread but not in this one. I wonder why.


I think part of the reason is that this case doesn't "feel" like piracy to those of us who own a legit copy of FS9. I used to fly the Comet and the Vega from FS9 in FSX when I first switched over. FSX claimed to be "backward compatible", so I gave my old FS9 birds a try (all very legal, right?). However, I soon found that MS hadn't really been honest about the whole compatibility issue. The FS9 planes gave me rotton performance and (apart from not having the nifty new eye candy like self shadowing) had lost some of their nifty eye candy (like the windscreen rain). I reluctantly removed the old FS9 planes and went FSX native only.

To me, then, what Craig did here was help MS keep their promise to me. I can now fly a plane I purchased and own in FSX with excellent performance and nifty eye candy. That doesn't feel like piracy to me. I wish he'd do the Vega (or even the Vimy or The Spirit of St. Louis) as well. I miss those.

Perhaps all he would need to do is leave everything out of the download except the model and textures. That way, those of us who have FS9 can get the missing files (guages and airfile etc,), but those without FS9 would have a much harder time. No issues there. Even if he ripped the model to make it FSX native, he really wouldn't be doing anything more to break the EULA than someone who distributes a repaint based on original textures at that point.

How about that Vega, Craig?

empeck
February 16th, 2010, 11:02
I don't care about lawyers, or anything. I'm not against FS9 Comet or Craig. I'm just curious why it's ok for some people to download a plane ripped from commercial game. Would be ok if someone ripped A2A's He219, updated MDL to native FSX and put it to download for free? Or MAAM's DC-3? What about our own Lionheart's Junkers W33/W34? These planes are not updated to FSX standards too. Where is the line?

falcon409
February 16th, 2010, 11:29
. . . . .I'm just curious why it's ok for some people to download a plane ripped from a commercial game. Would be ok if someone ripped A2A's He219, updated MDL to native FSX and put it to download for free? Or MAAM's DC-3? What about our own Lionheart's Junkers W33/W34? These planes are not updated to FSX standards too. Where is the line?
I find it a "no-brainer" for this reason. . . .If he had taken the Flight Simulator 2004 Comet, re-engineered the entire model to work in X-Plane. . .basically going from one Commercial product to a totally different Commercial product and then charged for it. . .I'd have a problem with that. What Craig has done is make a default aircraft. . .one already built to fly in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 and moved it ahead one generation to make it compatible with Microsoft Flight Simulator X and made it available to anyone for download. . .it's useless in FS9, you have to have FSX to be able to fly it.
Now you can disagree and that's yours or anyone elses prerogative as human beings, but I've got much bigger problems in my life to worry about than to sit and fret over whether a corporate lawyer somewhere is going to come take my computer because I downloaded an airplane and then use it as evidence in a case he's building against another guy who made an airplane for FSX that used to only be usable in FS9. That's my opinion and it's worth as much weight as anyone elses. . .which could be quite a bit. . .or actually nothing at all. . .life goes on. . .this is hardly worth the pages that have been dedicated to it in the end.

Ferry_vO
February 16th, 2010, 11:51
Perhaps it would have been better if the default Fs9 Comet was required to get the FsX version to work (Gauges panel, sounds, perhaps even the aircraft.cfg).

BTW if you think this is not good, check out the racing sims community where people are ripping 3D models from games like Need for Speed and TDU to use them in rFactor and GTR2/Evo..

Henry
February 16th, 2010, 12:36
Perhaps it would have been better if the default Fs9 Comet was required to get the FsX version to work (Gauges panel, sounds, perhaps even the aircraft.cfg).


to me that would be the perfect solution
H

Ferry_vO
February 16th, 2010, 12:39
Craig just told me he is going to recompile the installer so that the Fs9 Comet is required to get the FsX version working, and than he will re-upload it.

:)

Henry
February 16th, 2010, 12:42
Excellent!
:applause::applause::applause::applause:
H

Dain Arns
February 16th, 2010, 12:45
That is extremely good to hear. :applause:

falcon409
February 16th, 2010, 12:51
Perhaps it would have been better if the default Fs9 Comet was required to get the FsX version to work (Gauges panel, sounds, perhaps even the aircraft.cfg). . . . .
Ahhh, there ya go Ferry_vO. . .that would put the stamp of "legitimacy" on piracy and everyone would be happy then, lol, by the way, I'm not being a SA about your comment, just expanding on what the mindset seems to be here, which is "OMG, he's taken an airplane that was useless in FSX and made it better and then. . . ."made it available to everyone". Therein lies the problem. . .he went and opened his big mouth and let everyone know what he did, lol, lol. Sorry Craig, that was just to make a point. . .

So every individual who has FS9 can take the Comet, do some of the normal portover changes necessary to get it to work in FSX (Which I did for the England to Melbourne Race) and life goes on. But someone goes a bit further in updating and refining to have it work in FSX and then makes it available for download and the world stops spinning and he's labeled a pirate of the worst kind.

Sorry, Craig did a great thing, I appreciate his making it available to those who appreciate his efforts and shame on Microsoft for not making what was a very popular "default" airplane also available for the next generation Sim that is "X".

DX-FMJ
February 16th, 2010, 12:55
Thanks alot Craig! Awesome job on this.

Anyone know if Craig plans on converting the Vega, Tri Motor, and maybe a few more of the cool default fs9 planes? Spirit of St Louis etc.

Seems that this new way of doing this installer everyone is cool with it now? and he may continue to bring us the rest of the default planes now? :applause:

atf300
February 16th, 2010, 13:10
so what are people supposed to do who missed the original link ? like me for example?

guzler
February 16th, 2010, 13:14
So Craig is going to change all the work he did, not because of Microsoft, not because of lawyers but because of us, the flight sim community ?

Great work chaps ! Are we really helping ourselves here ?

I am lucky I have already downloaded it. I couldn't be bothered to dig out my FS9 game and search one of 4 discs to find the original plane.

If I was Craig, I would keep any further works to my self for my pleasure only.

Lewis-A2A
February 16th, 2010, 13:18
yes, very happy guzler, its that slight change that changes it from full on potential piracy to just a grey area of the law.

PS,
The best example i could think of is this

"I AM GOING TO MAKE LIONHEARTS KODIAK AVAILIBLE FOR FREE ON MY PERSONAL NONE A2A WEBSITE,...

...Ill just 'trust' you guys that you paid for it previously :mixedsmi:"

And thats it, end off. The chaps expressing concern like myself are not nazis, were not EULA red tape numpties, we just
a) dont want this site to look bad (this legal issue isnt only raised here by us)
b) expressed concern for Criag who did the conversion and wished to make him aware so that changes could be made or he is aware of ramifications

Dain Arns
February 16th, 2010, 13:22
Thanks alot Craig! Awesome job on this.

Anyone know if Craig plans on converting the Vega, Tri Motor, and maybe a few more of the cool default fs9 planes? Spirit of St Louis etc.

Seems that this new way of doing this installer everyone is cool with it now? and he may continue to bring us the rest of the default planes now? :applause:

Owning a valid copy of FS9 is a satisfiable enough hoop to jump through, IMHO.
I too would very much like to see the Vega and Tri-Motor go FSX native.
The ports are just not the same.

Thank you for all that you are doing, Craig! :guinness:

Roger
February 16th, 2010, 14:41
yes, very happy guzler, its that slight change that changes it from full on potential piracy to just a grey area of the law.

PS,
The best example i could think of is this

"I AM GOING TO MAKE LIONHEARTS KODIAK AVAILIBLE FOR FREE ON MY PERSONAL NONE A2A WEBSITE,...

...Ill just 'trust' you guys that you paid for it previously :mixedsmi:"

And thats it, end off. The chaps expressing concern like myself are not nazis, were not EULA red tape numpties, we just
a) dont want this site to look bad (this legal issue isnt only raised here by us)
b) expressed concern for Criag who did the conversion and wished to make him aware so that changes could be made or he is aware of ramifications

Nothing that couldn't have been done better by private messages or e-mails eh Lewis?

Lewis-A2A
February 16th, 2010, 14:54
Roger, this entire forum, as any other, could be achieved with pm's or emails.

The forum allows open discussion, with multiple inputs, from multiple users.

With hindsight it would have been better to do this with a pm, but thats the trouble with hindsight, ...and roger with hindsight would you admit that we were right to voice concerns given the examples and reasons we have provided?

Roger
February 16th, 2010, 15:02
I thought the forums were for heads up on new products, constructive citicism and generally expressing the love we all have for FsX...not semantics and laboured points of possible legal infractions. If you really only wanted to warn Craig you'd have kept it to messages or e-mails. This constant barrage smacks of something else.

Lewis-A2A
February 16th, 2010, 15:14
:banghead:

Daube
February 16th, 2010, 16:22
yes, very happy guzler, its that slight change that changes it from full on potential piracy to just a grey area of the law.

PS,
The best example i could think of is this

"I AM GOING TO MAKE LIONHEARTS KODIAK AVAILIBLE FOR FREE ON MY PERSONAL NONE A2A WEBSITE,...

...Ill just 'trust' you guys that you paid for it previously :mixedsmi:"

And thats it, end off. The chaps expressing concern like myself are not nazis, were not EULA red tape numpties, we just
a) dont want this site to look bad (this legal issue isnt only raised here by us)
b) expressed concern for Criag who did the conversion and wished to make him aware so that changes could be made or he is aware of ramifications

I get what you're trying to say.
However there's a difference here. A MAJOR difference:
- if you make the Kodiac available, that means that people who never gave any money to Lionheart will be able to get the plane, and Lionheart won't get a single penny.
- if somebody makes the default Comet available, people will need FSX in order to see it, so Microsoft gets the money, not like Lionheart.
See the difference ?

falcon409
February 16th, 2010, 16:33
so what are people supposed to do who missed the original link ? like me for example?
I won't even suggest the possibilities there but only say that without the original download, you'll have to go with what has been dealt here. . .I don't agree, but I am the minority.:salute:

Henry
February 16th, 2010, 16:37
ok gentlemen
im gonna close this now
it seems to be finished for all intents and purpose
just the bitching left
H