Mods discussion, links, etc

[Mick]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

1C might had reasons not to pursue the violators, DT might have reasons to do so.

... what are you waiting for to do it then ...??

... on what grounds would you do it ? ... loss of profit ...???

... does the contract you (still ??) have with 1C entitle you to do so ...???

Can't you just admit once and for all that the modders that greatly revamped OUR (because we BOUGHT it) beloved sim and allowed it to still be alive 10 years after it was released are by no way the ennemies of IL2-46, on the contrary ...!!

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by Mick

Reading other people's posts usually helps to avoid being confused.

Originally Posted by Mick

on what grounds would you do it ?

Theft of property, copyright infringement.

Originally Posted by Mick

... does the contract you (still ??) have with 1C entitle you to do so ...???

Contract with 1C is irrelevant to the matter in discussion. If you have no idea what is being discussed, why you join the discussion in the first place?

[Mick]

... I see SaQSoN, you are a smart guy, and me and others are dumb ones that understand nothing ...

You are right at least for one thing, it is sunday and I am not going to waste my time anylonger arguing with you ...

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by bf-110

IDK if IL2 engine can be hacked (that's a strong,nearly perjorative word here,sorry) to the point that Mach 1 and 2 jets,heat and radar seeking missiles and countermeasures can be implemented on the game without making all of them cheesy.

Great model!I hope it can be used by TD,as I saw some awesome Graf Zeppelin and Aquila models in SAS that could make it's way to 4.11?

And I know what is "no way" to be ingame.

Two totally different types of mod are described here. The jets, released as the IL2 1956 Pack are superbly made authentic models with extensive new coding to make the various systems work. I cant comment on the accuracy of the FM and weapons performance but I know that the creators went into great detail to try and achieve a high level of realism. However this is clearly well after the WWII era so probably not likely to be adopted by TD, even if the originators requested it to be.

The "Graf Zeppelin" and "Aquila" carriers are not authentic new models. They are simply repaints of the existing Illustrious carrier. Certainly very well done repaints but only paint mods nevertheless. Paint Mods have existed for IL2 aircraft for a long time prior to the modding breakthroughs but no one ever expected them to be incorporated into the core game. Why should that change now? There is always a lot of interest in these carriers for "what if" type scenarios but you need to remember that they were never even close to being operational. They mainly contributed to the Allied war effort by tying up material and resources which would otherwise have been used for other things. It would be more useful to have more carriers (and other ships) which actually saw operational use. -- HMS Eagle, HMS Ark Royal, HMS Furious, HMS Hermes, to name just a few.

The counter argument is that 1C saw fit to label a repainted KGV as an IJN and USN BB so why not include repaints for other vessels. In my view it would be wrong to compound the original mistake. Its maybe about time that those USN and IJN generic ships were replaced with something more appropriate.

I would be interested in knowing the historical limits TD would put on new models.
I guess the Korean era is out, but would they consider the Spanish Civil War period to be in?

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

I would be interested in knowing the historical limits TD would put on new models.

1930-1946. Also, all Grumman-related projects (including ships) are out, even if they fit the timescale.

I don't think, anyone would be against SCW subjects.

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

1930-1946. Also, all Grumman-related projects (including ships) are out, even if they fit the timescale.

I'm not an expert on the Grumman corporate history.

Does that mean a restriction on including warships built at the Newport News ShipBuilding Yards only, or were other ship yards included in the agreement.

Note: I realise that Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet were all built at Newport News

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

Does that mean a restriction on including warships built at the Newport News ShipBuilding Yards only, or were other ship yards included in the agreement.

This means, all ships built, or designed by companies, which at some point become part of the N-G corp. So, if a certain ship class was designed and first laid at, say, Newport News and then it's sister-ship was built at some other factory, not owned by N-G, the sister ship is still under the restriction. If it was otherwise - then probably, not. But still, DT was asked to keep away from all US ships.