PDA

View Full Version : If no more development........



Airmail109
12-17-2004, 11:01 AM
If there is no more development: we need to ask oleg to make the code open and gather a band of moddlers, programmers, designers, and aviation historians together.......the more the merrier! So we can make every single **** american aircraft from world war 2, so we can stuff it up Boeing and that lots arses.

Breeze147
12-17-2004, 11:03 AM
If I understand the issue, you still wouldn't be able to model copyrighted aircraft, no matter who had the code.

Airmail109
12-17-2004, 11:04 AM
there not exactly going to chase a band of merry 3rd part moddlers living in different countries are they.....REBEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DarkCanuck420
12-17-2004, 11:16 AM
they wont sue people with no money http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

VW-IceFire
12-17-2004, 11:18 AM
I'm still not for open development on this...Il2 and FB have integrity of software that open source would destroy. This is one of the few times I'd argue for it.

Plus, Oleg already quashed that...said it'd take alot of money to build a public release kit.

Airmail109
12-17-2004, 11:20 AM
okay...it would take money to develop a kit..(that is a problem)...but couldnt we have some sort of centeral control. Cmon im sure we could build an underground Il2 society which could monitor the quality. If you dont want the extra aircraft you dont have to install them if your afraid that thier poor quality or over moddled.

TheJackalx2k
12-17-2004, 11:34 AM
I'm not too sure what the hell is going on but I have scanned a few threads about aircraft companies asking to pay for liscences etc. blahblah. So excuse me if this thread has nothing to do with it hehe.(but that other thread I was reading seemed to have magically disapeared) I'm not quite sure if anyone has mentioned this yet but...

I've noticed that in some racing games the developers have changed the names of the cars. I'm not sure if they did this to avoid paying for the liscenses but if it is a way...Then how about we just look forward to these?

F4U Boar's Hair
P47 Lightning Bolt
P51 Horse
P38 Thunder

I think that valve had to do this to the weapons in Counter-strike. But there was a .txt file that you can just rename them back. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif *wink wink*

I must admit I really don't know much about this subject so excuse me if I sound like an idiot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RedDeth
12-17-2004, 11:52 AM
only a moron would open the code for this game. it would be like cfs with spitfires having jet engine power and 20 cannons.

oleg isnt a moron so it wont happen

Airmail109
12-17-2004, 11:53 AM
ok only a suggestion sheesh, i just thought if it was done properly and made "selectively open" it could be possible.

StellarRat
12-17-2004, 12:51 PM
Once we know all the facts about this (which we don't) why don't all of us that are sitting *****ing about this write a nice letter to Northrup explaining the situation and asking them to reconsider? I'm sure some low level manager over there is responsible for this notice to Oleg and doesn't realize the what he is doing to Northrup's standing with the flight sim community. Trust me, these big companies care about what the public thinks. If they lose one real sale of a plane because of this they'll probably lose more money then anything they'd make from Oleg or UBI to use their plane names. And quit picking on the lawyers, they only do what the company tells them to do.

tsisqua
12-17-2004, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
only a moron would open the code for this game. it would be like cfs with spitfires having jet engine power and 20 cannons.

oleg isnt a moron so it wont happen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was once shot down by a Spit mounted with a Howitzer.

Why can't Oleg pass the IL2 Engine on to another team to continue development while he moves on? Seriously, I was looking at some tracks this morning, and it looks fresh, still, after all this time. When I know that the video card makers are still trying to perfect drivers for features that are available in PF, it tells me that there is alot more life left in the game. Please don't throw the whole ball of wax to the 3rd party guys yet. That seems to have been the death of Jane's WWII Fighters.

Last night, I installed the original IL2 Sturmovik game, and I am still simply stunned at the beauty of it. It is a great piece of code. The programming language, C++ (which was used to create the IL2 Series, BTW), is a great piece of code. It has stood the test of time, and has been around for years. The reason? Stability, learning curve low, whatever, it is still being used (I can't comment alot, I am not a programmer). I can see the IL2 engine entertaining me for many years, yet to come.

For The Love Of God!!!
<span class="ev_code_RED">NOT YET, PLEASE</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
Tsisqua

BuzzU
12-17-2004, 01:45 PM
How about we fly the planes we have? Is that so bad?

triggerhappyfin
12-17-2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheJackalx2k:
I'm not too sure what the hell is going on but I have scanned a few threads about aircraft companies asking to pay for liscences etc. blahblah. So excuse me if this thread has nothing to do with it hehe.(but that other thread I was reading seemed to have magically disapeared) I'm not quite sure if anyone has mentioned this yet but...

I've noticed that in some racing games the developers have changed the names of the cars. I'm not sure if they did this to avoid paying for the liscenses but if it is a way...Then how about we just look forward to these?

F4U Boar's Hair
P47 Lightning Bolt
P51 Horse
P38 Thunder

I think that valve had to do this to the weapons in Counter-strike. But there was a .txt file that you can just rename them back. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif *wink wink*

I must admit I really don't know much about this subject so excuse me if I sound like an idiot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of ways around this problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Also there is a lot of AI planes to make flyable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

French and Italian planes too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

This virtual slap in the face of community wasnt funny...soon beeing cristmas and all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

But lets turn the other cheek and let them slap that one too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

My only hopes is that Oleg wount let IL-2 series go yet. Too good of a game for that.

Heck I´ll order the russian version via internet if I can http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

FoolTrottel
12-17-2004, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
How about we fly the planes we have? Is that so bad? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope.
It's perfect....
(Well, nearly, using a TI-4200 ;-)

-HH- Beebop
12-17-2004, 07:15 PM
Maps and Objects. That's the code I want open. I love the fact that wheather you like or dislike the FM and/or DM we all fly the SAME planes. No need for a 1% club or anything like that. I don't want "AirQuake" aircraft.
It would be nice if the hard work in modelling the PBY could be turned into a flyable as well as the Ju-88, Mosquito, B-17 & 24, a Lancaster etc., etc.
But if we could get more maps and more objects such as a variety of ships, REAL Japanese battleships, different kinds and sizes of merchant ships, sub and seaplane tenders, Atlantic Raiders, THAT would really add life to this sim.

(my 2 kopecks and 2 yen worth)

Bull_dog_
12-17-2004, 07:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
only a moron would open the code for this game. it would be like cfs with spitfires having jet engine power and 20 cannons.

oleg isnt a moron so it wont happen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some people just get emotional over the littlest things...

Actually, if I were a software developer and building a new sim I would write protect/hard code aircraft but allow offline 3rd party aircraft to be developed and put into the sim CFS style, but online servers would only allow aircraft and objects that were in the base game. Then third party modellers could model away freely and any of the good ones could be submitted for inclusion in a future, official patch. This would allow for the development of third part fm's, dm's etc while still protecting the integrity of the online community as well as the integrity of the game designer...but hey its just a thought.

Now obviously that wouldn't do FB/aep/pf any good but BoB could be done that way. I doubt all the free lance developers in CFS series are getting sued.

lkemling
12-17-2004, 08:11 PM
This reminds me of a recent decison by the Union Pacific Railway to take a small model railroading company Athearn to court over copyright infringment because modelmakers were using the U.P paint schemes and heralds on H.O scale train equipment.
The absolute greed of some company over such trivial issues just absolutly astounds the s**t
out of me.....we're not exactly talking millions and millions of dollars of lost profits here...........good godamighty these people need a serious reality check!!!

triggerhappyfin
12-18-2004, 04:53 AM
Its a real pity the IL-2 series, the best sim ever, is so darned shortlived http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

|CoB|_Spectre
12-18-2004, 05:43 AM
Reading this and other threads generated by the unpleasant news regarding aircraft company property issues, there are some things that many of the "newer" posters may not be aware of. As you can see by my registration date, I've been with this sim series from the outset even though I haven't generated large numbers of posts and you need to know some things.

When you talk about making source code open, you need to know that unless you were already deeply involved in the writing of that code, you probably would have no earthly idea what you were looking at nor what-was-where. 1C:Maddox chose purposely to deeply embed their coding to secure their work against tampering. You will not see SQL files and such more typical of other products. You will not see folders identifiable as FM or DM. Even though Oleg's company contracted with Ubi for distribution rights outside the former Soviet Union, he still owns the code.

I've lusted after map tools, but very experienced guys like Luthier who have a longstanding relationship with Oleg has stated he had no idea how difficult the map tools were to work with. It took much consultation and correspondence with Oleg's team for Luthier to make the first map for his licensed addon.

I've seen posts saying there should be a letter writing campaign to urge Northrop Grumman into reconsidering. We don't know the facts and, besides, who are you going to contact?...at what facility? One post really made me chuckle by proposing "we" don't buy anymore airplanes from Northrop Grumman. Unless you are in charge of purchasing for the United States Navy, the threat is laughable. Grumman is no longer the aircraft manufacturer it once was. To my knowledge, the only aircraft the Grumman division is still building is the E-2 Hawkeye. They stopped building general aviation aircraft long ago. The last F-14Ds rolled off the assembly line in the early '90s and the EA-6Bs, not long after that. When **** Cheney was SecDef under the first Bush administration, he pulled the plug on the A-12 program and also ordered the destruction of key fixtures required to build anymore Tomcats. Along with the spate of post-coldwar corporate realignments, Grumman merged with Northrop and bears little resemblance to its historical past, but their registered trademarks are still their property.

Someone posted that it's a shame the IL-2 series was so short-lived. On the contrary, measured against other software, it's had a rather long and active life. Besides, all this ado over some cryptic posts is way too premature to sound the death knell. I agree with Tsisqua, BuzzU and the others, what we've got is still the best WWII air combat sim available and, even on a worst case scenario of PF being the last, I shall continue to play it until something better comes out and I'm sure a significant number of people will as well. Remember back in the late '90s when a flood of WWII air combat titles hit the market? Janes WWII Fighters, Microsoft Combat Simulator, European Air War, Screaming Demons Over Europe and so-on? Within a year or so there were predictions that we had seen the last of the genre and that pc-based games were going to dry-up because it was so much more profitable for game developers to make console-based games. Their reasons were sound, no tech support needed to address issues like "your sim is not working with my video card". Out of the bleak forecast emerged a new developer. Out of Russia, of all places, who had the audacity to offer a sim based on Russian aircraft! The screenshots tantalized us, early beta reviews mesmerised us...we couldn't wait to get our hands on this beautiful new sim. The August release of a flyable demo cemented our "gotta have this" determination and we've watched it grow, often not without some pains, but grow it has. Me? I'm going to enjoy my early Christmas present, Pacific Fighters, and see what's coming down the pike. I'd imagine the aircraft that is to be excluded from the patch was probably the TBM Avenger, being a Grumman trademark. Too bad, we needed a naval torpedo bomber, but life goes on. The translated post by Oleg in the French forum left the door open to possible US aircraft in the future. We have no idea what has transpired. Could be that Ubi, being responsible for sales and distribution outside Russian, was notified by Northrop Grumman of the trademark issue. Could be Ubi has balked at the thought of paying any licensing fees due to the slim profit margin. Could be Northrop Grumman's demands were unreasonable. Could be anything. Let's go with what we know and hope for the best as the situation unfolds. Now...gentlemen (and ladies), start your engines and prepare for takeoff.

tsisqua
12-18-2004, 07:13 AM
~S~ Spectre!

Beautiful post, Mate.

One more thing: If/when 1C moves completely away from the IL2 series, I will still be flying it. I will be using the last patch released for the game officially by 1C. I flew WWII Fighters for as long as I could, even after it had "run its course". Jiri at the Hyperlobby helped with this by adding a feature that only allowed the stock game and flight models to go online at HL. If he continues to host HL, I would hope that he would do the same thing for IL2/FB/AEP/PF. If not, then I will still fly offline with it as Oleg meant it to be . . . like I said, for years to come . . . even after the release of BoB (which, you better believe . . . I will buy BoB, or anything else developed by this crew of hard working artists. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif.)

Tsisqua

Willey
12-18-2004, 06:04 PM
Never open it. They must publish it themselves then. Pay & DL or something like that.

Cherry!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
12-19-2004, 10:05 AM
"only a moron would open the code for this game. it would be like cfs with spitfires having jet engine power and 20 cannons."

There's a difference between open architecture, open source, and security models for open architecture. Technically it is possible for an open architecture sim to be very secure for online play. Closed source in this sense does not guarantee security any more than Windows being closed source ensures that it has no vulnerabilities.

Airmail109
12-19-2004, 10:27 AM
ahem........im not a newcomer...ive been playing this sim and reading these forums only...since its release.