Anyone tried out the new tracks? I downloaded Suzuka last night and
ran a few laps. It looks pretty good. The web site I found also had
Hungaroring and one other. A race at Imola was showing up on Racecast.
Is that track available yet?
Pat
Converting tracks to rFactor without permission
A question about new rFactor tracks such as Suzuka and Imola led to debate over conversions made without the original authors' consent. Dave Henrie and track maker Steve Whitty argued creators' wishes should be respected, while ymenard and Byron Forbes argued unlicensed tracks were illegal anyway and public work belongs to the community. Later posts discussed how track mesh detail affects rFactor physics and the legal status of track layouts, citing Papyrus's action against The Pits over Volusia.
Automated summary.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Imola is available but has an invisible object just past the pit exit on
the other side of the track. These things are all unknown quantities.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Anyone tried out the new tracks? I downloaded Suzuka last night and > ran a few laps. It looks pretty good. The web site I found also had > Hungaroring and one other. A race at Imola was showing up on Racecast. > Is that track available yet? > > Pat >"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in
And Imola was converted without asking the permission of the guys who
upgraded it for F1c.
I tend to avoid work that is questionable. I have the track dloaded,
but I doubt I will ever unzip it.
dave henrie
Quoted text (10 lines)
>> Pat >> > > Imola is available but has an invisible object just past the pit > exit on > the other side of the track. These things are all unknown quantities. > > > >>"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote
> And Imola was converted without asking the permission of the guys who
> upgraded it for F1c.
Who cares, anyway the guy that modeled the track is in the illegality, he
made the track without the permission or the licensing of the track owners.
That's the thing, people who whine about their work being "stolen" or
"worked into another version", yet they are illegal to start with (3d models
of cars without the approval of the manufacturers, paintschemes that have
all logos unlicensed, etc..).
So I say install that thing and enjoy the track.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:A7h6f.12704$[email hidden]...
Well, I agree 100% about track "ownership". Why should they care - more
fame for them anyway. So long as they're given credit and it's done right, I
see no drama. I hate nay sayers!
As for the rest, there is no licensing issue at all. No money made - no
license issue. Simple as that.
Quoted text (19 lines)
> >"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote >> And Imola was converted without asking the permission of the guys who >> upgraded it for F1c. > > > > Who cares, anyway the guy that modeled the track is in the illegality, he > made the track without the permission or the licensing of the track > owners. > > > > That's the thing, people who whine about their work being "stolen" or > "worked into another version", yet they are illegal to start with (3d > models of cars without the approval of the manufacturers, paintschemes > that have all logos unlicensed, etc..). > > So I say install that thing and enjoy the track. >"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:4359ca96$0$13319$[email hidden]
.au:
That is the point. It is a courtesy issue. There was no credit given,
there was no permission asked. They didn't say they used the RH04 Imola as
a base, they just said..'here's our version of the track.'
It wasn't 'done right.' What is going to happen, as it has countless times
in the past, is that some very talented folks will go away. And we all
will suffer in the end.
Guys are converting RSDG cars without permission or credit. Guys are
converting tracks willy nilly. I'll pass.
dave henrie
Quoted text (12 lines)
> > Well, I agree 100% about track "ownership". Why should they care - > more > fame for them anyway. So long as they're given credit and it's done > right, I see no drama. I hate nay sayers! > > As for the rest, there is no licensing issue at all. No money made > - no > license issue. Simple as that. > > >
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Yes, there is no doubt that a lack of respect and proper manners and
procedure are skipped in many of these cases. On the other hand, many of the
creators go MIA or no one know how or where to contact them so what then?
I would think that if the creator sees someone upgrading/converting his
work then he should simply insist that a readme gives him due credit and
also obviously the opportunity to be a part of the process if he so wishes.
Quoted text (30 lines)
> "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:4359ca96$0$13319$[email hidden] > .au: > >> >> Well, I agree 100% about track "ownership". Why should they care - >> more >> fame for them anyway. So long as they're given credit and it's done >> right, I see no drama. I hate nay sayers! >> >> As for the rest, there is no licensing issue at all. No money made >> - no >> license issue. Simple as that. >> >> >> > > That is the point. It is a courtesy issue. There was no credit given, > there was no permission asked. They didn't say they used the RH04 Imola > as > a base, they just said..'here's our version of the track.' > It wasn't 'done right.' What is going to happen, as it has countless > times > in the past, is that some very talented folks will go away. And we all > will suffer in the end. > Guys are converting RSDG cars without permission or credit. Guys are > converting tracks willy nilly. I'll pass. > > dave henrie >>"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote
> That is the point. It is a courtesy issue.
Courtesy takes a ditch to start with when at the start all they are doing is
illegal. Talented people or not, I'm sorry but if you take the risk to do
such thing, you assume all consequences.
It's like a thief asking somebody for a permission to steal from him.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:3zE6f.14770$[email hidden]...
Though I think this idea is extreme, i think there is merit in the idea
that once something is made public it belongs to the sim community - and
legally that is certainly the case. It is obviously poor form to take
someone else's work, upgrade/convert it and give no credit to the creator.
The creator should probably be consulted to see whether he intends to do
anything with it anyway to prevent wasted work if nothing else.
My personal view is that if you ask a track creator if they mind you
upgrading/converting and they say no for no reason, you simply ignore them
and go ahead anyway. In this case I'd say don't bother giving them any
credit either.
What might be good in future also is a website for the good and bad of
the modding community. Have a "Nay Sayers to be ignored" category and a "I
put up my hand to do it but never did or took an eternity" category also.
Quoted text (11 lines)
> >"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote >> That is the point. It is a courtesy issue. > > > Courtesy takes a ditch to start with when at the start all they are doing > is illegal. Talented people or not, I'm sorry but if you take the risk to > do such thing, you assume all consequences. > > > It's like a thief asking somebody for a permission to steal from him. >
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:435b539f$0$13321$[email hidden]...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Byron Forbes"
well stuff you mate. with your reasoning, why bother asking if you can
convert it. arrogant (insert expletive of choice here)
some track maker makes every texture map. every 3d object in the track. if
the track maker has got written permission from the track owners to do the
track. has written permission from the photographer of the intro screen, to
use that copywrited photo, he literally owns every part of that track. if he
has put in a read me that it is not to be altered or converted without his
permission, you have to abide by his decisions. if he doesn't give you a
reason why you can't convert it , you're saying you'll go and convert it
anyway. If you are going to bother asking some one, expect one of two
possible answers. yes or no. If the answer is in the negative, there
doesn't need to be a reason, and none has to be given. and you have to
respect that. important word there. Respect. do you know the meaning of
that word. find an online dictionary if you don't own one.
you expect track editors and mod editors to give you everything for nothing,
and then don't respect their wishes in regards to conversions. grow up.
stop acting like a spoilt kid that wants everything his way.
its this attitude in the community that drives a lot of editors out of the
community.
when some one spends many many many hours doing a mod or a track. spending
their own money in some cases to obtain the correct info, elevation maps,
vehicle info. talking to race teams, etc. they get no finacial reward for
it. it is given to the community to use. the one thing that the community
can do in return is respect their wishes in what can and can't be done with
track or mod.
Steve
Quoted text (34 lines)
> > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3zE6f.14770$[email hidden]... >> >"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote >>> That is the point. It is a courtesy issue. >> >> >> Courtesy takes a ditch to start with when at the start all they are doing >> is illegal. Talented people or not, I'm sorry but if you take the risk >> to >> do such thing, you assume all consequences. >> >> >> It's like a thief asking somebody for a permission to steal from him. >> > > Though I think this idea is extreme, i think there is merit in the idea > that once something is made public it belongs to the sim community - and > legally that is certainly the case. It is obviously poor form to take > someone else's work, upgrade/convert it and give no credit to the creator. > The creator should probably be consulted to see whether he intends to do > anything with it anyway to prevent wasted work if nothing else. > > My personal view is that if you ask a track creator if they mind you > upgrading/converting and they say no for no reason, you simply ignore them > and go ahead anyway. In this case I'd say don't bother giving them any > credit either. > > What might be good in future also is a website for the good and bad of > the modding community. Have a "Nay Sayers to be ignored" category and a "I > put up my hand to do it but never did or took an eternity" category also. > > >Quoted text (10 lines)
> My personal view is that if you ask a track creator if they mind you > upgrading/converting and they say no for no reason, you simply ignore them > and go ahead anyway. In this case I'd say don't bother giving them any > credit either. > > What might be good in future also is a website for the good and bad of > the modding community. Have a "Nay Sayers to be ignored" category and a "I > put up my hand to do it but never did or took an eternity" category also. > >"Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote
>. if the track maker has got written
> permission from the track owners to do the track. has written permission
> from the photographer of the intro screen, to use that copywrited photo,
> he literally owns every part of that track. if he has put in a read me
> that it is not to be altered or converted without his permission, you have
> to abide by his decisions.
That never happens. Perhaps 1 track out of 100.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:435b539f$0$13321$[email hidden]
.au:
>
> My personal view is that if you ask a track creator if they mind
> you
> upgrading/converting and they say no for no reason, you simply ignore
> them and go ahead anyway. In this case I'd say don't bother giving
> them any credit either.
and sooner or later, each and every guy who creates content for us will
quit and take up Flight Sims. And we will see less and less material. In
fact, one might say the Iracing types might pay folks to do this so as to
drive off competition.
My PERSONAL view is this:
I cannot build or edit or texturize a track or a car. I am 100% dependant
upon others. The more their work is hacked, the more their work is
exploited, then in the long run, the less will be available to ME.
So go use the track...enjoy...have fun...just don't expect to see me
there.
It's not like this is a theoretical discussion, the net is littered
with broken links and whole teams that have left the field and taken their
toys. Piss-off RH and we lose someone who has put MASSIVE efforts into the
mod community. Who do we piss-off next?
dave henrie
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Q4P6f.2452$[email hidden]...
still doesn't change anything. if someone has said that his work is not to
be converted, you RESPECT that decision.
If people don't respect the track editors decisions, do you expect them to
respect the community, and to continue to make tracks. I don't think so.
so in the end, you get very few new tracks, making use of the new graphical
technologies and processes. you get ugly looking track conversion from
games years old. just rehashed over and over. now thats something to
really look forward to. original gpl graphics in a new sim in 3 or 4 years.
aren't the masses going to happy about that.
cheers
steve
Quoted text (14 lines)
> "Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote >>. if the track maker has got written >> permission from the track owners to do the track. has written permission >> from the photographer of the intro screen, to use that copywrited photo, >> he literally owns every part of that track. if he has put in a read me >> that it is not to be altered or converted without his permission, you >> have to abide by his decisions. > > > > That never happens. Perhaps 1 track out of 100. > > >>"Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote
>> That never happens. Perhaps 1 track out of 100.
>>
> still doesn't change anything. if someone has said that his work is not
> to be converted, you RESPECT that decision.
But it's illegal work to start with, that invalidates everything that person
has to say about his own creation.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:_9X6f.2841$[email hidden]:
> But it's illegal work to start with, that invalidates everything that
> person has to say about his own creation.
>
We are not talking legalities, but respect of effort. Nothing in a mod
community is technically legal. We shouldn't even be able to have the
shape of a track let alone the name or billboards, etc. But here are
people who have put long hours in giving us somehting. And you all want to
spout about the 'legalities'? Respect. Courtesy.
Since we cannot pay them, we can show them the consideration due their
efforts. Not scavenge their work and pawn it off as our own. Or accept
another's blatant illuse and justify it by saying "EVERYONE DOES IT."
I'm here to say: I'd love to have every track for every sim all in top
notch splendor, but I realize the limitations of our world and will accept
that work which is not justified. Those that pillage others work will not
gain my respect or trust or use.
The creators of tracks do not legally own their work, if it's a
commercial track being built or converted. But they do own their time and
money and effort. And we should PAY them for that expenditure by standing
by their wishes. If a track creator has a readme that says no other use
but this mod, the by golly, we should respect his wishes. Otherwise go out
and begin where the other builder did and produce your own.
What about Tantra who works now for a developer? Do we, against his
wishes, import his tracks into the sim that is a direct competitor with his
current company?
Didn't your MAMA's teach you all about sharing when you were a toddler?
Dave Henrie
"Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:L2J6f.25633$[email hidden]...
Steve, you rave on about respect but then imply that if someone asks to
take your work to a new level that you have the option to just flat out say
no - where is the respect in that from you? I assure you that in the
dictionary under respect it does not say "something that only Steve Whitty
gets the benefit of".
arrogant whitty!
Quoted text (45 lines)
> > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:435b539f$0$13321$[email hidden]... >> >> What might be good in future also is a website for the good and bad of >> the modding community. Have a "Nay Sayers to be ignored" category and a >> "I >> put up my hand to do it but never did or took an eternity" category also. >> >> > > well stuff you mate. with your reasoning, why bother asking if you can > convert it. arrogant (insert expletive of choice here) > > some track maker makes every texture map. every 3d object in the track. > if the track maker has got written permission from the track owners to do > the track. has written permission from the photographer of the intro > screen, to use that copywrited photo, he literally owns every part of that > track. if he has put in a read me that it is not to be altered or > converted without his permission, you have to abide by his decisions. > if he doesn't give you a > reason why you can't convert it , you're saying you'll go and convert it > anyway. If you are going to bother asking some one, expect one of two > possible answers. yes or no. If the answer is in the negative, there > doesn't need to be a reason, and none has to be given. and you have to > respect that. important word there. Respect. do you know the meaning of > that word. find an online dictionary if you don't own one. > > you expect track editors and mod editors to give you everything for > nothing, and then don't respect their wishes in regards to conversions. > grow up. stop acting like a spoilt kid that wants everything his way. > > its this attitude in the community that drives a lot of editors out of the > community. > > when some one spends many many many hours doing a mod or a track. > spending their own money in some cases to obtain the correct info, > elevation maps, vehicle info. talking to race teams, etc. they get no > finacial reward for it. it is given to the community to use. the one > thing that the community can do in return is respect their wishes in what > can and can't be done with track or mod. > > > Steve >
"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:435c594d$0$13316$[email hidden]...
were is the disrespect of saying no to someone converting someones work.
the disrespect is in not abiding by the persons decision. do you know how
much work is involved in converting a track. Put it this way, to convert
one of my tracks from n2k3 to rFactor, even with noonans tools. To bring in
all three levels of dx shaders in to the track,(n2k3 only operates on 1
level of materials mostly) each material can have up to 6 individual
colour, spec, bump, and additive tga or dds files. optimising the polys.
editing and adding polys. making the track look like it was made for
rfactor, not simply converted. to make the track look good, it would be
quicker to start from scratch than to convert, and the converted track will
never look as good as an original built. now if someone does a conversion
of one of my tracks into rfactor, and does a shit job of it. it will
reflect back onto me, even though I didn't do the conversion, as people
would know the original as being made by me. then to complete the track you
still need the aiw files. the other ea/isi tracks are getting converted
quite easily. very similar file structure. going from papy to isi way is
much harder and takes a lot of modifying to do it. unless you know what
you're doing, a converted track will look like shit.
back onto the subject of respect:
put it this way, if you ask to drive my real car, and I say no. what are
you going to do. steal it and drive it anyway, because I didn't respect
your wishes of you wanting to drive it. same thing, man.
I'd really like to see you do some conversion work in the sim community.
converting people work with out permission. you would have very few friends
in the sim editing community. trying to get your converted tracks (without
permission) onto the mainstream sites would be hard. you see, the track
editors respect each others decisions. its some of the track convertors
who think they can do what they want. mind you, most are decent people.
but it only takes a few bad apples to give them all a bad name.
I really can't see why I'm arguing this with you. whats that saying, never
argue with an idiot..........
respectfully
steve
Quoted text (63 lines)
> > "Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:L2J6f.25633$[email hidden]... >> >> "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:435b539f$0$13321$[email hidden]... >>> >>> What might be good in future also is a website for the good and bad >>> of >>> the modding community. Have a "Nay Sayers to be ignored" category and a >>> "I >>> put up my hand to do it but never did or took an eternity" category >>> also. >>> >>> >> >> well stuff you mate. with your reasoning, why bother asking if you can >> convert it. arrogant (insert expletive of choice here) >> >> some track maker makes every texture map. every 3d object in the track. >> if the track maker has got written permission from the track owners to do >> the track. has written permission from the photographer of the intro >> screen, to use that copywrited photo, he literally owns every part of >> that >> track. if he has put in a read me that it is not to be altered or >> converted without his permission, you have to abide by his decisions. >> if he doesn't give you a >> reason why you can't convert it , you're saying you'll go and convert it >> anyway. If you are going to bother asking some one, expect one of two >> possible answers. yes or no. If the answer is in the negative, there >> doesn't need to be a reason, and none has to be given. and you have to >> respect that. important word there. Respect. do you know the meaning >> of >> that word. find an online dictionary if you don't own one. >> >> you expect track editors and mod editors to give you everything for >> nothing, and then don't respect their wishes in regards to conversions. >> grow up. stop acting like a spoilt kid that wants everything his way. >> >> its this attitude in the community that drives a lot of editors out of >> the >> community. >> >> when some one spends many many many hours doing a mod or a track. >> spending their own money in some cases to obtain the correct info, >> elevation maps, vehicle info. talking to race teams, etc. they get no >> finacial reward for it. it is given to the community to use. the one >> thing that the community can do in return is respect their wishes in what >> can and can't be done with track or mod. >> >> >> Steve >> > > Steve, you rave on about respect but then imply that if someone asks to > take your work to a new level that you have the option to just flat out > say > no - where is the respect in that from you? I assure you that in the > dictionary under respect it does not say "something that only Steve Whitty > gets the benefit of". > > arrogant whitty! >
"Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:V9%6f.26193$[email hidden]...
Thank XXXX for that!
> put it this way, if you ask to drive my real car, and I say no. what are
> you going to do. steal it and drive it anyway, because I didn't respect
> your wishes of you wanting to drive it. same thing, man.
>
What a garbage analogy! Did you abandon the car? Did you plan to drive
it again. Same thing? - one's illegal theft, the other is not?
This is very simple.
Let's say I did a track but then decided I didn't want to do any more
modding. Someone emails me asking if they could convert/upgrade my work. I
have 2 options -
a) Not a problem - just give me my due credit as track creator - they're
still my pixels afterall. This way my work lives on rather than just dying
on the scrap heap.
b) I can be a complete arsehole and just say "No" - no reason supplied.
> I really can't see why I'm arguing this with you. whats that saying,
> never argue with an idiot..........
>
For someone who is, by their own confessions, without "reason", that's
pretty funny. Though looking at the first paragraph there does seem to be
reasons????
Simple question Steve - is it respectful to say no without reason or
isn't it? Just to be clear on this, that's a simple, unqualified "No" - as
opposed to that 1st paragraph of yours. Looks like you've shot yourself in
the foot!
Quoted text (22 lines)
> > were is the disrespect of saying no to someone converting someones work. > the disrespect is in not abiding by the persons decision. do you know how > much work is involved in converting a track. Put it this way, to convert > one of my tracks from n2k3 to rFactor, even with noonans tools. To bring > in all three levels of dx shaders in to the track,(n2k3 only operates on 1 > level of materials mostly) each material can have up to 6 individual > colour, spec, bump, and additive tga or dds files. optimising the polys. > editing and adding polys. making the track look like it was made for > rfactor, not simply converted. to make the track look good, it would be > quicker to start from scratch than to convert, and the converted track > will never look as good as an original built. now if someone does a > conversion of one of my tracks into rfactor, and does a shit job of it. > it will reflect back onto me, even though I didn't do the conversion, as > people would know the original as being made by me. then to complete the > track you still need the aiw files. the other ea/isi tracks are getting > converted quite easily. very similar file structure. going from papy to > isi way is much harder and takes a lot of modifying to do it. unless you > know what you're doing, a converted track will look like shit. > > back onto the subject of respect: >Quoted text (9 lines)
> I'd really like to see you do some conversion work in the sim community. > converting people work with out permission. you would have very few > friends in the sim editing community. trying to get your converted tracks > (without permission) onto the mainstream sites would be hard. you see, > the track editors respect each others decisions. its some of the track > convertors who think they can do what they want. mind you, most are > decent people. but it only takes a few bad apples to give them all a bad > name. >Byron,
as I said, I'm not going to continue to debate this. we have differing
views on the situation. lets just agree to disagree. and no, I'm not
conceding your points. just useless to take it any further.
cheers
steve
Quoted text (10 lines)
>"Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote > were is the disrespect of saying no to someone converting someones work. > the disrespect is in not abiding by the persons decision. do you know how > much work is involved in converting a track. Put it this way, to convert > one of my tracks from n2k3 to rFactor, even with noonans tools. To bring > in all three levels of dx shaders in to the track,(n2k3 only operates on 1 > level of materials mostly) each material can have up to 6 individual > colour, spec, bump, and additive tga or dds files. optimising the polys. > editing and adding polys. making the track look like it was made for > rfactor, not simply converted.ymenard wrote:
> That's why I dislike the "its cruder therefore worse" whole thingy going on
> with rFactor. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to add all these things, but
> is all the meticulous effort trully necessary when the basis is already well
> enough?
When the interactions between the car and the road surface are based on
the same polygons rendered by the graphics engine, it does matter how
detailed the tracks are. We aren't dealing with GPL or N2003 where a
track can be graphically simple and still drive well because the
underlying surface being used by the physics engine has more detail.
In most sims (ISI, RBR, etc) the detail isn't merely superficial.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote > When the interactions between the car and the road surface are based on > the same polygons rendered by the graphics engine, it does matter how > detailed the tracks are. We aren't dealing with GPL or N2003 where a > track can be graphically simple and still drive well because the > underlying surface being used by the physics engine has more detail. > In most sims (ISI, RBR, etc) the detail isn't merely superficial.
"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
exactly
in rF the underlying structure also dictates the look. the specular
lighting is govenerd by the length of the polys and how many there are in
track width. if you don't get the spacing correct, the light reflecting off
the track will tend to "flash" as you're driving. done bad enough, it gets
quite noticable and distracting.
earlier games, due to the power of pc's and graphics cards, had to mindful
of the number of polys in the track construction,so they tended to use less.
rF when compared to f1c, can use a lot more polys for a track, in that way,
getting bumps or more elevation changes along a track section then you could
previously.
so yes you can bring a conversion into the game, it'll look acceptable,
mainly from other isi/ea games. but when porting over from others like papy
based games, it gets harder to get them to look good. they may drive well,
but I like my tracks to look good as well.
I've seen JP's conversion of gpl Adelaide circuit into n2k3, by madcowie.
it doesn't look to bad. but to convert that over to rF, graphically, it
will look totally out of place, and it would take an extreme amount of time
for someone with the talent to make it look good.
cheers
steve
Quoted text (16 lines)
> ymenard wrote: > >> That's why I dislike the "its cruder therefore worse" whole thingy going >> on >> with rFactor. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to add all these things, >> but >> is all the meticulous effort trully necessary when the basis is already >> well >> enough? > > When the interactions between the car and the road surface are based on > the same polygons rendered by the graphics engine, it does matter how > detailed the tracks are. We aren't dealing with GPL or N2003 where a > track can be graphically simple and still drive well because the > underlying surface being used by the physics engine has more detail. > In most sims (ISI, RBR, etc) the detail isn't merely superficial.
"Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:GXd7f.26879$[email hidden]...
> Byron,
> as I said, I'm not going to continue to debate this. we have differing
> views on the situation. lets just agree to disagree. and no, I'm not
> conceding your points. just useless to take it any further.
>
>
I don't think we do have differing views at all - i think you simply
jumped the gun and took words to mean something they simply did not mean.
I am glad to have been the spark to help you get all that off your chest
however! LOL
ymenard wrote:
> Immersion factor is surely important, but in the end all that truly counts,
> is how the track is raced.
I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with you. Immersion is why,
I'd imagine, most of us became interested in sims in the first place.
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:45:33 -0500, Dave Henrie
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>We shouldn't even be able to have the
>shape of a track
I've seen this said before and it isn't true. The shape of a piece of
bitumen is not protected by any legal principle that I'm aware of, It
certainly isn't copyright. And if it were, would that extend to all
racetracks? What about those that are public road most of the time?
Would it extend to the whole layout or would it protect individual
parts? Could a track owner sue because someone builds a new track
with a corner that is the same radius as one on an existing track? Or
a straight that is the same length as an existing one?
As to the name of a circuit, if the name is unique to the track, it
could be a trademark but a lot of tracks are named for their location,
eg, Albert Park in Melbourne, Phillip Island, those are all
localities, you can't trademark a name like that,
It's possible for someone to CLAIM that they have some form of legal
right, it doesn't necessarily follow that they do.
If anyone remembers Ubisoft's Monaco Grand Prix 2, that was made
without any form of licencing at all and they used the track layouts
quite happily, some tracks had different names but the layouts were as
accurate as any sim.
Peter <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
My knowledge of this area only comes from how Papyrus went after The
Uspits.com after they crafted Volusia raceway. it had zero licensed
graphics, but since it obviously was the Daytona layout, Papyrus went after
the Pits with nasty Lawyers with Cease and Desist Court orders. There was
a fully built Daytona for ICR/N2/N99 but we didn't see it til AFTER the
SEGA copyright expired. Dats alls I knows.
dave henrie
Quoted text (29 lines)
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:45:33 -0500, Dave Henrie > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>We shouldn't even be able to have the >>shape of a track > > I've seen this said before and it isn't true. The shape of a piece of > bitumen is not protected by any legal principle that I'm aware of, It > certainly isn't copyright. And if it were, would that extend to all > racetracks? What about those that are public road most of the time? > Would it extend to the whole layout or would it protect individual > parts? Could a track owner sue because someone builds a new track > with a corner that is the same radius as one on an existing track? Or > a straight that is the same length as an existing one? > > As to the name of a circuit, if the name is unique to the track, it > could be a trademark but a lot of tracks are named for their location, > eg, Albert Park in Melbourne, Phillip Island, those are all > localities, you can't trademark a name like that, > > It's possible for someone to CLAIM that they have some form of legal > right, it doesn't necessarily follow that they do. > > If anyone remembers Ubisoft's Monaco Grand Prix 2, that was made > without any form of licencing at all and they used the track layouts > quite happily, some tracks had different names but the layouts were as > accurate as any sim. > >Quoted text (9 lines)
>"Peter" <[email hidden]> wrote > I've seen this said before and it isn't true. The shape of a piece of > bitumen is not protected by any legal principle that I'm aware of, It > certainly isn't copyright. And if it were, would that extend to all > racetracks? What about those that are public road most of the time? > Would it extend to the whole layout or would it protect individual > parts? Could a track owner sue because someone builds a new track > with a corner that is the same radius as one on an existing track? Or > a straight that is the same length as an existing one?
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Probably one of the problems there is the relative location - U.S. Pits
too accessible to Papy. Maybe we need some deals between continents if
something like this happens - make the bastards work at least! :) Different
laws in different countries = huge headache for them.
