No, they could have left the map file structure OPEN.

A MAPS folder like there is a PaintSchemes folder. It's not like the files structure isn't arbitrary. They could have chosen to make the maps folder open like paint schemes. There was nothing else required to import it into the engine. Put the files in the right place, and tell the engine to look for folders there (with a single text file that lists them, make a new map, add a line to an ini file. Done.)

Clearly this is true, or we would not have skinning. Skins don't have to be "imported to the game engine." Neither do maps if the map file structure is open (ie: pull the maps out of SFS like Paint Schemes are, that's pretty much the only difference). Maps do not need to be "imported" like the java stuff does. Really.

<S>

tater

I assume you refrain from giving me a thorough reply because a thorough reply would expose the holes in your logic...I can find No examples of commercial software publishers taking legal action to close down sites offering Mods of game software to legitimate software purchasers (Pirated Software is a different issue) ...
There are no examples of individual users being taken to court for breach of EULA's, though there are test cases in law that set the precedent that EULAs are non-enforcable contracts...
Ubisoft as a software publisher have always openly encouraged community modification of their software titles and i suspect are as baffled as the rest of us at the hostility a tiny proportion of the IL2 community exhibits to the many and varied improvements to the game a bunch of hard working and talented amateurs have created.

SH3/4 is actively modded, with the encouragement of that game's Devs. None the less, it is an Ubi product, and the same boilerplate EULA is in force, and I have seen no legal document proffered by ubi stating that "modding SH3 and SH4 is permissible under the EULA, now."

Short of that, modding SH3 and SH4 would be just as forbidden regardless of the position of the devs. Jason is correct, legally there seems to be nothing to see here. At the most I think you could argue that it is "impolite" to do so against the wishes of the creator, no more.

So yeah, it might be considered "rude."

tater

If I were an Online player I would probably have little or no perception about the AI performance. Afterall, the AI performance is based on probablistic responses to what humans would do in similar circumstances.

In IL2 if you get within a certain range of the six of any AI the AI will start jinking and stunting to avoid being hit. You can count on it happening 100% of the time. The AI constantly take to the vertical, which could have been devastating in war time, especially if the pilot didn't have enough E to climb and pull away from pursuing enemies.

I could probably create a huge list of things that are wrong with the IL2 series AI performance. Things, which really don't affect the Online game. THe players are human and do human things. The Online game is enhanced of course with Coops and planned missions/campaigns from dedicated squad groups. Otherwise, its T & B and every man for himself (unless you fly with a couple buddies).

------------------------------------

In BOB II if the player gets on to the six of the AI it may or may not start jinking, the AI may break hard left or right, start a rolling manuever, do a split S etc. That should give you an idea.

During the war if a plane got hits on it sometimes the pilot would bail, sometimes he would become even more aggressive, or sometimes just be dead in the cockpit.

With the AI performance engine in BOB II there is a randomness to what the AI will do, but it is based on sensible human responses. You really don't know what the AI will do, but they will do something and it's not often the same thing twice.

I didn't discuss how the AI pursue the player, but there is a terminator profile for a very competent and agressive AI performance. It will try the best of sim pilots ability to fly and stay alive.

You can kick some butt or get yours kicked. It's great waging war against the 1s and zeros (binary code) LOL:-P




I hope that helps

I could care less about the EULA business and all the hoopla about piracy,etc.

Don't read this wrong. I buy my software, because if you don't it's stealing. It's a fact, if you'll steal a quarter you'll steal anything worth more than a quarter... and you're a thief. I don't want to be a thief or a liar. It's darned easy to get anything you want off the web.. music, movies, software, etc. from P2P sites. I know where to go and how to do it, but it's wrong. It is important to live life with a clear conscience and best choices for the way we want to live and work with others.

The courts in America decide some of the craziest chit you can imagine. So, I'd say it aint over until the fat lady sings and the plaintiff has spent his fortune in a legal battle that is NOT worth the effort or costs.

People are just going to do things that aren't exactly upright. YOu can buy all kinds of expensive software off the Ebay and it's pirated. You think Ebay cares? I bought a software off an ebay seller once and the seller used all the promotional literature from the official software. Everything was explained just like I was getting the "FOR REAL SURE FIRE" all official software.

Nope... it came on a burned CD with a handwritten Marksalot name.

I contacted the Jerk and he said he had written authorization to do it.

No way, but I'm not the software police. I threw it in the trash and moved on with my life.

Life is about choices. Making good choices, makes me feel good about my life.

In terms of being constructive to SOW, I think it does matter. Having an indefensible (legally) EULA doesn't help 1C. It sounds like their "modable" model for SOW is a good one. Sure, people might try to mess with it to cheat, but a vanishingly small % of people will always try to do that.

By keeping the parts that the vast majority would LIKE to mod open, all those bright minds end up taking the path of least resistance.

Skins are a prime example. Look at the vast numbers of skins out there. Not just "by the book," but hacks as well (meaning the creative skinning of one plane to fill in for another that is missing).

Too bad in stock il-2 the default skins are not able to be changed. Instead of the community clamoring for changes, it could be as simple as installing a skin pack. Same for ships, tanks, etc. Or adding new ground objects.

Oleg is very smart to make such things easy to add in SOW, since the large majority of people interested in modding just want those kinds of changes.

Make doing what people want to do easy, and only the very very few will want to mess with anything else.

tater

Agreed!

Most people won't mess with mods, if they have to do them.

Maps should have been opened up for modification when FB came out.

IMO, I've always enjoyed having a level playing field on the aircraft. Oleg did a great job on FM, etc. It has always been a kind of relief knowing you had a decent aircraft to do the job at hand.

CFS2, not the case at all. There are so many thoughts on modified things it is confusion at best. LOL

I still do the CFS2, because I love the mission builder tool. You can create scenarios and battles that are exceptional excitement. IL2 FMB is so static you know what is going to happen all the time.

The way I understand it the FMB is set in stone so improvement is not really possible unless Oleg releases the core code. The Rowan's BOB core code was released and the Shockwave nor BDG have been able to do anything about producing a competent mission builder tool. There was a push for a mission builder last year, but I think the scope of building something really competent became a real issue. (too much coding)

Oleg may have thought the issues with ground objects was too much for most of his users. Look at the specs for BOB SOW. I mean they just won't pump that sim up to require tougher specs. The maps was always a FPS killer, especially when you consider the math and memory requirements of a CFS are so high as it is. (need lots of processing power). I still have a problem with the objects that only come into view... before you are right on top of them.

When I built missions I usually tried to bring my player aircraft over a hill or something, then when the town or other objects popped into view it didn't seem so... ghost like. Now you see it now you don't LOL

Hi Nearmiss
To me the AI doesn't have the same flight model as the player. They arn't effected by g-forces and have higher roll rates. They will hold a tight turn much longer than the IL-2 AI will. I have to use the Vertical when they are pulling tight turns to avoid blacking out. The IL-2 AI will break back or split S with usually gets them killed quicker than the BOB AI. I don't find the Terminator AI anymore difficult to outfly than any other setting, they just take alot more hits and never give up the fight until they are wingless, lol.

~Salute~
Chivas

Update:

In four days the number of viewers on the above mentioned thread concerning "The Slot" is now 53,000+ and 1,200+ replys (4 days since I posted the above)

Somebody needs to be paying attention to this. Users are making it very clear what they want in a sim.

Was it all it could be? No.... Bombed? Hardly....