 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Simulators / Car Simulators / October 2005rFactor tracks
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 > 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 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. "Byron Forbes" <caramel@chocoalte.com.au> wrote in >> 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. 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 >"Dave Henrie" <daveBITEMEhenrie@comcast.net> 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.  Signature-- François Ménard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World... > >"Dave Henrie" <daveBITEMEhenrie@comcast.net> wrote >> And Imola was converted without asking the permission of the guys who [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So I say install that thing and enjoy the track. 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. "Byron Forbes" <caramel@chocoalte.com.au> wrote in news:4359ca96$0$13319$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com .au: > Well, I agree 100% about track "ownership". Why should they care - > more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > - 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 > "Byron Forbes" <caramel@chocoalte.com.au> wrote in > news:4359ca96$0$13319$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > dave henrie 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. >"Dave Henrie" <daveBITEMEhenrie@comcast.net> 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. Signature-- François Ménard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World... > >"Dave Henrie" <daveBITEMEhenrie@comcast.net> wrote >> That is the point. It is a courtesy issue. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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. >> >"Dave Henrie" <daveBITEMEhenrie@comcast.net> wrote >>> That is the point. It is a courtesy issue. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 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. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Byron Forbes" > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 >. 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. Signature-- François Ménard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World... >>. if the track maker has got written >> permission from the track owners to do the track. has written permission [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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. 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 >"Steve Whitty" <steve_w05@msn.com> 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. Signature-- François Ménard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World... > 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 >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. >>We shouldn't even be able to have the >>shape of a track [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > quite happily, some tracks had different names but the layouts were as > accurate as any sim. 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 > My knowledge of this area only comes from how Papyrus went after The > Uspits.com after they crafted Volusia raceway. it had zero licensed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > SEGA copyright expired. Dats alls I knows. > dave henrie 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. >"Peter" <pholt2@xxx.tpg.com.au> wrote > I've seen this said before and it isn't true. The shape of a piece of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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? There is a certain point where it becomes more than just similar and starts being something that promotes exactitude or its purpose is to replicate the layout to the point where you can evade licensing the original version. That's where copyright laws applies, it's a VERY large grey band. I suggest you start checking the internet for past cases, not about the simracing community but related issues about copyrighting and licensing. > 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, The law has made this case often the opposite of what you have said. > 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. No, they used a license from this Monaco association which gave them access legally to all the tracks. Signature-- François Ménard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World... >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > 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! >>> What might be good in future also is a website for the good and bad >>> of [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > arrogant whitty! 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 sh.t 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 sh.t. 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > back onto the subject of respect: 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? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > decent people. but it only takes a few bad apples to give them all a bad > name. 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! 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 > 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 >"Steve Whitty" <steve_w05@msn.com> wrote > were is the disrespect of saying no to someone converting someones work. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > editing and adding polys. making the track look like it was made for > rfactor, not simply converted. But in the end a track is a track. The layout makes or kill 90% of all tracks released. The rest 10% are "beautiful but useless" tracks that happen here and there for various sims. It'll be enjoyable whatever graphics there is. Shaders, colour palette, textures, it's all icing on the cake. If the 3d modeling is advanced (and rFactor/advances in computing gives us the possibilities to increase the poly count), it's all that is necessary. I mean people still racing original GPL tracks, even unmodified. They don't seem crude to me at all, Watkins Glen is excellent per example and is well enough for the needs of the people. 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? But hey rFactor WEEKS after its release, has a very few tracks and mods, and very few people racing it online. The clock is ticking. Signature-- François Ménard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World... > 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. >"jason moyer" <jmoyer@pair.com> wrote > When the interactions between the car and the road surface are based on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > underlying surface being used by the physics engine has more detail. > In most sims (ISI, RBR, etc) the detail isn't merely superficial. Immersion factor is surely important, but in the end all that truly counts, is how the track is raced. It's all about straights and corners, how the track modeling is done. Isn't it the reason why we do this? Racing a track, we don't race the buildings, the scenery or the grandstands (I surely hope not!!!!). Everything else is icing on the cake, beautiful icing though! Signature-- François Ménard <ymenard> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World... > 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. >> That's why I dislike the "its cruder therefore worse" whole thingy going >> on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > underlying surface being used by the physics engine has more detail. > In most sims (ISI, RBR, etc) the detail isn't merely superficial. 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 "Byron Forbes" <caramel@chocoalte.com.au> wrote in news:435b539f$0$13321$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com .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 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.