Wayne...
You post is offensive to me and has no basis in fact.
I'm not going to hash this out all over again because it was done nearly 3
years ago. I suggest you do a Google search and find the facts. Then, an
apology would be in order.
For the rest of you who were not around three years ago:
Mr. Bradley is referring to "Bulldozer." This was a project we created,
assisting Sears Point Raceway in re-designing the Winston Cup Chute - using
the N3 racing simulation of the track. The configuration of that part of
the track today is a result of this work which spread over an 18-month
period....a "story" that is well-documented. Papyrus management was
informed (and to some extent, involved) every step of the way. In the
"eleventh hour" all of the Papyrus managers we were working with were let go
(unrelated to Bulldozer). When the dust settled, those who were left had
either no knowledge of Bulldozer, or no inclination to follow through with
what had been started. We were directed to contact and negotiate directly
with Havas. We did that, but the talks did not bear fruit. We offered to
pay Papyrus on several occasions, each time it was turned down. Tim
McArthur, an ex-Papy employee, was involved with us on this project in the
early development, but Tim had nothing to do with the inception or idea of
Bulldozer. Tim provided some programming work on the track
configs...nothing else. Very early in the project (about 6 months into it),
we let Tim go. This was for personal reasons and as I said back three years
ago, under no circumstances will I ever reveal publicly what they were.
Period. As can be the case, Tim got vindictive and made some pretty
outlandish claims over the next several months.....none of which were ever
proven, nor were they even reasonable. An article on "Operation Sports" was
written about the entire "Tim McArthur" affair, Tim was invited to speak and
when he was told that any claims he made would be required to have some kind
of supporting evidence....he "no-showed" the interview. As far as I know,
the only statements he has ever made are on newsgroups such as this, and
these venues are notorious for statements lacking proof or supportive
information. Mr. Bradley's post above is a classic example. Under no
circumstances did Pabst-Racing, Searsgroup (the work group formed for the
Sears Bulldozer project) or any individual connected with either, ever get
paid one dime by anyone, let alone Sears or SMI, for any of this work. Its
pretty clear that Havas would have sued us if that had been the case. They
were satisfied that it was not.
Tom
Footnote: There was nothing "unique" about Papyrus' N3 sim that was used
for this Bulldozer "experiment." We could have used any racing simulation,
even one that did not already include a version of Sears Point. We used N3
because the management at Papyrus we contacted were willing to work with us
if we proved the concept. Unfortunately, they were not around when we did.
> To stop ***s like you from hiring someone else to alter PAPY's game
code
> and then claim that you (Tom Pabst) developed it, etc. And also probably
to
> stop people like you from starting a side business using mostly PAPY's
code
> to make money. It is one thing to alter graphics/tracks for the better of
> the sim community, but to start a company using mainly someone else's
> intellectual property, come on Tom!
> So in short.... To stop Tom Pabst from making money off of their software.
> Are you truly this stupid Tom or do you just act that way while on the
net?
> > It seems odd to me why Papyrus seems to take steps to make it so hard to
> > alter/modify the graphics in their NASCAR series sims. Encrypted mip
> files?
> > What the heck is that for?
> > I understand that "license restrictions" and Papyrus policy with regard
to
> > not advertising *** and tobacco related products. But, does the
> > language of those "licenses" say that Papyrus must go to "extraordinary
> > steps" to prevent any "third party" form being able to alter the
graphics?
> > I doubt it very seriously.....that would be an onerous term of a legal
> > contract.
> > This sim racing community has demonstrated many times, over a
substantial
> > number of years now....the ability to breathe fresh life into stale
sims,
> > and to make more interesting some of the "flat" graphics produced by sim
> > developers restricted by "image and likeness" product licensing
> > restrictions. It stimulates product sales, not retards them!
> > So, why do you guys think Papyrus does this?
> > Tom