Be sure to check the modded E.L.P. gauge when you rev up that Merlin.

Whoa, let's not turn this thread into a discussion about mod features - leave map names and gauges out of it.

We're talking about the decision on why SimHQ doesn't allow discussion about (get this) modified files for the IL-2 series.

One of the reasons I doubt we'll get a clear "go for it!" from 1C: Maddox is the lack of quality control by 1C: Maddox. 6DOF is a prime example of some of the problems with quality can arise.

The reason 6DOF can be enabled easily in the decompiled code is that the "hooks" for 6DOF were put into the simulation by 1C: Maddox - and then disabled. The horrible clipping due to aircraft being designed within the simulation before NaturalPoint did their magic looks crappy. They did not want to read "LOL, l00kz liek @ZZ wit holz n p1@N3!" in forums.

Likewise, 1C: Maddox will want to keep the content within hardware guidelines established for the simulation as developed. Some of the hacked maps are huge; now think back and remember the complaints about the Gulf of Finland map. "The box says it should run at XX specs on my computer! I should not have to upgrade RAM just to use a patch! Breach of contract! Breach of contract! If this was on a console, we wouldn't have to put up with this! I'm done with PC games and the bloatware we have to put up with! Etc., etc."

Again, folks, let's keep the discussion away from mod content and still on discussion in general. Or I have to lock it.

E.L.P. is Emerson, Lake and Palmer, who wrote the song they were singing.

Geez Dart, where you been?

LOL... I here ya Dart.... but be all that as it may be.. the bottom line is they are here.. and I have not tried the 6Dof on a lot of planes.. but the ones I tried it on I saw no holes... ie the P-51, P-47,F-6, F-4, P-39, P-40 thwere was a small gap in the La-5... but no show stoppers. I think it is good that 1C takes an "official" policy of not endorsing these mods... that is good business.. iot keeps them free from liability.. but as I said.. believe me.. these mods are not going anywhere but up.

I would assume the biggest problem would be the 109 with it's holey wings :?

Either way - the 'law' is the law ... why are we even discussing it?

Yes, but is a lack of quality control in some of the Mods a reason for banning their discussion...there are plenty of commercially released games with bugs and quality control issues...it doesn't mean that SimHQ should ban discussion of them...

Nor is discussion of other simulations modded in breach of their End User Licencing agreement banned on SimHQ - the list is legion, many games anti-modders call "open source" such as Silent Hunter III and LOMAC share exactly the same EULA as IL2 Forgotten Battles!!! Eexplicitily banning modification or tampering with or distribution thereof of the program (How that is open source is beyond me!!!)

Nor in the past has discussion about modification of games modded against the express wishes of their creators/publishers been banned (I am thinking explicitly of the Falcon 4.0 Mods that began with the eRazor files - which was actually based on stolen source code i believe)

Ah.. who cares.
We were 'online' last night with around 20 bods, cutting around the Pacific area with every mod known to man installed.. Went without a hitch or a flaw.... Just fantastic stuff

Assuming that SimHQ and Oleg have a "relationship" and further assuming that Oleg specifically asked that SimHQ not allow discussion or info dissemination of mods then it is completely understandable why they took the stance that they did. As has been pointed out by others, it's their playground and they can set whatever rules they like.

That was a nice mod! ..spent many hours sweating bullets in that one!

Kami, in fact that has been fixed...I know we're not supposed to get specific, so I'll say no more about it.
Offline I never use my unmodded version at all any more- online, I will always respect the wishes of the server host.

It's simple - this is SimHQ not JasonbirderHQ so they make the rules, not you and it don't matter how illogical or unfair you think it is. Simple really, innit?

"Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I can't change!" or whatever that quote is

Now, of course, we can influence the rules. Top down authority is unreliable and even dictators study public opinion. Its interesting how this thread differs from past ones that are closer to the date of the "event" itself.

I'm worried though, this thread looks like it has unusual quantum properties.

But it's a benevolent dictatorship!



While guod owns the site - and is ultimately responsible for it in all the meanings of the word responsible - understand that he seeks out advice and comment on a lot of site issues. The Staff isn't lockstep on most controversial things; but when the decision is made, we back the policy to the hilt. And it's not just flight sim guys and gals that have a say; the driving sim staff folks give their impression as well, which is really cool.

The mod/hack is small potatoes compared to some other issues. This forum is a bit further down the page than number two; but like all policies, it gets revisited from time to time.

And no, I won't tell you my personal opinion on the matter. So there.

Dude it's just a forum ... relax

I wasnt aware of this but you got a good point there, I wonder why do we get the special treatment

First they said modding will ruin online gaming, now since obliviously online gaming isnt ruined we should agree with a chinese type dictatorship lead by a ******?

chinese type dictatorship

Not guiwty

Ming

Gawd, these endless threads would be so much more tolerable if you guys would drop these "Robin Hood"-style rhetorics.

Let it go.........

I don't know for SHIII, but for LOMAC the situation is quite different, even if the EULA is the same.
LOMAC mods aren't based on hacked code, and the oppening of modding possibilities was driven by the development team.

I really don't want to speak about IL2 mods/hack (I switched allready to "SOW waiter" mode, so I don't care about the mod/hack noise)... but please, when you present facts, present them correctly.

How can the situation be different if the EULA is the same?

Same EULA = same situation by its very definition!!!

The EULA is what states legally whether modification of the code is allowed or disallowed…
It is ostensibly (though its legal enforceability has been shown to be questionable) the contract that regulates your use of the Software whose license you have purchased.

What it demonstrates is that like every other piece of simulator software that has been released over the years, the publisher and developer of LOMAC has taken a lenient interpretation of the EULA where it comes to community modification/addition/expansion for non-commercial purposes, and encouraged it rather than tried to throttle it at birth, Not that there is anything intrinsically different in the License or situation…