Outerra forum
User mods, screenshots & videos => Aircraft => Topic started by: Uriah on February 28, 2015, 07:42:34 pm
-
Conversion for Outerra Anteworld of Pjedvaj's Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II for Flight Gear, with a modified version of the JSBSim Flight Dynamic Model created by Erik Hofman. These works are covered under the GPL/GNU (General Public License) and give praise to their original creators.
http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/fgaddon/HEAD/tree/trunk/Aircraft/F-35B/
I cannot release the F-35B publicly until I receive permission from Pjedvaj.
The current version demonstrates smooth transition between VTOL mode and forward flight with pitch and roll hold using thrust vectoring and thrust differential control. The flight controls use a fly-by-wire system to simulate the experience of flying the advanced 5th generation Joint Strike Fighter.
Regards,
Uriah
EDIT: P.S. The video features Cape Canaveral Air Force Station scenery thanks to Acetone! 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEcAdyYedno (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEcAdyYedno)
-
Coolness!!
-
This is a weird déjà vu / premonition; just last night I was thinking to ask Levi if he could get a Harrier...
Harrier.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/AV-8B_VMA-542_HMS_Illustrious_2007.jpg/800px-AV-8B_VMA-542_HMS_Illustrious_2007.jpg)
F-35B
(http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/F-35B-Yuma.jpg)
-
Find me a decent Harrier McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier model with permission to convert it for Outerra and I'll do it! The FDM will be easy to convert for different VTOL/STOVL aircraft. In fact the one I'm currently using for the F-35B is actually a modified version of the F-16 FDM included with the JSBSim library, so I'm working on the new FDM already.
Regards,
Uriah
-
It can be just my impression, but the take-off looked to me a little too "smooth" ? Cant really say, the most VTOLs i ewer saw were mostly from the yak-38s footage. They wiggle a little at touch-off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyhmrunQPA0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyhmrunQPA0)
Or seen even on the F-35ves engines "father" (yak-141) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23ohOKthO18 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23ohOKthO18)
There is some way to control slightly the difference of the power of the front and back turbofans just some fly-by-wire math extension on the joystick movement (at the 38-ter trough some mech. adaptation). Also, dependent on the angle of the back-engines exhausts, during VTOL to/from H-flight switching. I think they even completely shut-down the front engine during normal flight and had to start it additionally when landing. But as said, i have no detailed idea about the F-35, but is probably a lot similar to that. Interesting was, the 38-yakovlev were even in action few times during soviet-afgan war and it didn't perform quite well in tropical conditions (just couldn't take off with full armament, there was some power loss due to the high temperatures and high humidity). Id like to see, what the F-35 and harrier has a power loss like compared to some exploitation regions like Europe ...
... anyway, looking forward for the great plane !
-
Actually the F-35 is extremely smooth, watch a video of the F-35B landing in VTOL mode and you'll see it is actually smoother than my landing in the video. Being a 5th generation fighter, the flight controls are insanely easy in VTOL mode, so much so that it is said helicopter pilots don't like flying it because it is too easy. I have a fly-by-wire system helping to stabilize the aircraft during forward flight, and thrust vectoring/thrust differential stabilizing pitch and roll during VTOL mode. That is why the F-35 is able to operate so smoothly, it is a revolutionary design utilizing a lift fan with a clutch and drive shaft from the main engine. This prevents hot gas from entering the intake which will kill the thrust and make the aircraft unstable near the ground when hot gasses bounce of the ground and into the intake. It was Lockheed's pivitol choice in the JSF program, to go with the lift fan design which had never been attempted in that configuration before. During the JSF competition between Lockheed and Boeing, both aircraft demonstrated amazing agility during VTOL. Flying the aircraft is not unlike flying the F-35 simulator. There are a ton of videos on YouTube.
Funny you mention takeoff weight. There are four tanks in the F-35, and I have to set two of them to 1600 lbs each in order to perform VTOL maneuvers. Once we get extended controls for aircraft I can bind that to be able to dump fuel before landing in VTOL mode. I can dump fuel now by setting a jsb property, but with no keys to do it, you just get a shorter flight with less fuel.
Regards,
Uriah
-
Well, i can tell why they wouldn't fly it ... most heli-pilots have developed a sense of the aircraft's momentum movements and back-effects on the joystick. They need to be fast-acting in various situations in proper way, else, just a split second may be their death (rescue missions in hills whyte nu-predictable air circulations). Having to sit in a smooth plane is just invoking a well known effect, that have cells too - un-commonly calm information/influence from the environment - kicks up a sense of fear (kinda like narcotics users kept off the drug - its a very similar way the brain works in these situations). I personally had just a single flight, on a calm day, and the Cessna had me a lot on its joystick movements, when i tried it from a previous basic simulator-game joystick experience (would be interesting to have some kind of simulation of the vibrations and external forces influence's on a joystick someday). Big n heavy planes probably doesnt have that problem too much i suspect.
Interesting way to cope whyte the bad effects - didnt know it was on a drive-shaft. I like getting interesting news like this.
Thanks Uriah !
-
Now vibrations would be a great feature, I've been thinking about the best js method to call and on which jsb property to call it. It would be great to get the JSBSim FDM to output force feedback signals to joysticks which support FFB. That can be done, I've been looking into it. However, making an aircraft fly in a simulation in all the different domains of its flight envelope, (velocity, AoA, alt, pitch, yaw, roll, etc...).... that is more of an art than a science.
I'll looking into adding vibrations to the actual aircraft, just enough to be noticeable in the cockpit.
Thanks!
Regards,
Uriah
-
slowly and with good lyrics
http://youtu.be/4MDQdSRWLcQ
-
.... that is more of an art than a science.
Thats how science supposed to be used. =D
... aerial refueling - nice thing, crashed a few Li-78s till i got it right back at LoMac. :D
-
"Harriettt"!! We meet again!! Oh, i used to call "her" like that when i was using it on GTA or on FSX years ago.. It was some kind of love relation with a machine.
I also had a déjà vu seeing that because just yesterday i was testing a free harrier model (would be necesary just refine a bit the interior, but i can do it).
The model is from grabcad, and as my knoweledge, the models there are free to use. right? But for commercial purposes or retouch it, i think you need the permission of the author.
I think warehouse can be used or retouched even without that permission.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
PD: Just i dont know if a mod in outerra is considered commercial purposes (but the model go public without earning money from it).
Also for retouch the model maybe this permission is needed.
-
Well, i can tell why they wouldn't fly it ... most heli-pilots have developed a sense of the aircraft's momentum movements and back-effects on the joystick. They need to be fast-acting in various situations in proper way, else, just a split second may be their death (rescue missions in hills with nu-predictable air circulations). Having to sit in a smooth plane is just invoking a well known effect, that have cells too - un-commonly calm information/influence from the environment - kicks up a sense of fear (kinda like narcotics users kept off the drug - its a very similar way the brain works in these situations). I personally had just a single flight, on a calm day, and the Cessna had me a lot on its joystick movements, when i tried it from a previous basic simulator-game joystick experience (would be interesting to have some kind of simulation of the vibrations and external forces influence's on a joystick someday). Big n heavy planes probably doesnt have that problem too much i suspect.
Interesting way to cope with the bad effects - didnt know it was on a drive-shaft. I like getting interesting news like this.
Thanks Uriah !
(https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11041792_1439527189672594_2067089947285987567_n.jpg?oh=f77d55f4409dd5dcefb75e0b73e45fa3&oe=5549B273)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf0XAEl_9Ek
:)
the video is relative to the F35 Rino Cattaneo, model free downloadable (http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/fslib.php?searchid=34425556), very well done and detailed, you may request permission to conversion for outerra .....
present all three models A-B-C
-
Konaone, I've already asked Dino Cattaneo for permission to port his beautiful aircraft, but most of his models contains copyrighted content which he has proper license, but cannot be used in third parties unfortunately.
-
Noooo ... that misfortune is a beautiful model :'(
-
Noooo ... that misfortune is a beautiful model :'(
Beautifully made indeed ... doe, would like to see the licensed material stuff in detail ... is it something about the on-board (cockpit) equipment ( ... well, it is still a secret project in many aspects till maybe 2050 in the real world ... ), or just selective project participant work ?
-
do you think you could try asking the granting of model parts? ...
-
http://www.rikoooo.com/en/downloads/viewdownload/65/580 ????? =|
-
I simply cannot use it, I wish I could. =| Levi contacted Dino Cattaneo for me specifically in regards to that model and the answer was that he is the only one with a license for the content.
I believe the model used is this one: http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-f-35b-jdam/877169
The license is for All Extended Uses, it can be released publicly since the 3d model cannot be extracted or recovered from the package file once imported to OT, therefore it does not violate the terms of use. If someone wants to put up the $99 dollars usd, I can purchase it and convert it as a mod for OT, but I'm a little short of money right now. I would also have to be the owner of the produce to produce the mod for OT, just like Dino Cattaneo has done.
Regards,
Uriah
-
http://www.rikoooo.com/en/downloads/viewdownload/65/580 ????? =|
I've already have permission for this one, it's only a matter of time until I start working on it. :)
-
Me head hurts! So which is it? =D
-
Really!? Well then, I just have to build the FDM! 8) Perfect!
Regards,
Uriah
-
Yep, but that F-22 is just like the F-117, it uses hundreds of textures that have to be baked into just a few, so there is quite a lot of work to be done if I want to be well optimized.
Besides that, it's a really nice plane that is worth the effort. :)
-
Yeah that many draw calls is bad. Wait, F-22 or F-35, I am confused?
-
The aircraft from the link HiFlyer posted is an F-22A Raptor. I was referring to that plane.
-
Ah gotcha, well in that case JSBSim already has a F-22 FDM. No F-35 though huh?
Regards,
Uriah
-
Konaone, I've already asked Dino Cattaneo for permission to port his beautiful aircraft, but most of his models contains copyrighted content which he has proper license, but cannot be used in third parties unfortunately.
That's a bummer :( Dino's F-35 is amazing and a true beauty.
-
It seems to me that the F35 is pleasing to many.
launch an idea that I do not know if it is easy to implement.
why not think to raise the money for the purchase of the model? 1 Euro each, also 50 cents always depends on how much they want to help .... I repeat, it is an idea that came to me and I posted without much reasoning. :facepalm:
-
If there is a way to transfer from Paypal, whoever you choose, i'm in.
-
If there is a way to transfer from Paypal, whoever you choose, i'm in.
http://www.gofundme.com/
Maybe some system like that?
Or maybe we can use Crypto-coins hehe
-
If there is serious interest in raising money to purchase a model I would also be able to contribute. However, I would be looking at a far more detailed one for somewhere in-between $500-900, and in a month or two I would be able to pitch in $300-400 of that. I say this because I have seen the ones in the $99 to $200 range, and they are relatively low poly, low detail.
We are looking for VTOL/STOVL variants (USMC/USNavy), not the CTOL variant (USAF).
Here are is a range of options with Royalty Free Licenses for All Extended Uses. The first one is the cheaper but lower fidelity model, the second is an extremely high fidelity model for $800 more. I would go with option two, and would buy it right now if I had the money.
($ = usd)
$99 http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-f-35b-jdam/877169 (http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-f-35b-jdam/877169)
$899 http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-f-35-bf-1-lightning-ii-model/423769 (http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-f-35-bf-1-lightning-ii-model/423769)
-
I dunno.........
I spent some quality time looking at the two models posted, and while the $899 version is nice and all, I wonder if its a bit of overkill for an in-game model for Outerra.
The $899 seems more like movie quality.
So provisionally my impression is: I could see the Titan people needing something that hi-poly, but does Outerra need it? I would be interested in hearing what the devs think about the potential framerate tradeoffs of these models.
-
Actually Titan should normally use simpler models, since they usually have simulations with many vehicles involved and they must care about their poly and texture budged much more. They also often use simplified AI control of the planes following waypoints and do not deal with precise simulation of the vehicles.
Noticed this: *Conversion of this model for commercial FSX add-on is unauthorized and is in violation of End User License Agreement and U.S. copyright laws.
-
Ouch, they hid that one all the way at the bottom! =| Good eye cameni!
You may be right, something that well done may be overkill, but as long as your textures are optimized for minimum draw calls, and the poly count isn't too insanely high, the frame rate impact shouldn't be terrible. Many games have two levels of detail, one extremely high for the player piloted aircraft, which there is only one of, and a low poly version for AI controlled aircraft, which there can be many of. As long as you don't spawn 50 of the high poly aircraft, even Acetone's scenes sacrifice performance for detail.
I might just purchase the first option. It is well made, although slightly below the detail level I would like. I'll contact TurboSquid to confirm the status of the license for non-commercial end uses.
Regards,
Uriah
-
The $99 aircraft has a very nice and detailed exterior model, but I wonder how the cockpit looks like. Is it detailed enough? Judging by this: "highlights: accurate fuselage, realistic full interior,..." in theory it should be, but why there are no close up renders of it?
-
As long as you don't spawn 50 of the high poly aircraft, even Acetone's scenes sacrifice performance for detail.
I had to do several adjustment to maintain decent perfs, mostly stop using high poly buildings :) That's why I'm mostly switching to World2Xplane for LFNA, I want to keep Outerra nice framerate as good as possible :)
The high poly model seems to be insanely detailed, but the other model seems to be better fitted for real time rendering.
The $99 aircraft has a very nice and detailed exterior model, but I wonder how the cockpit looks like. Is it detailed enough? Judging by this: "highlights: accurate fuselage, realistic full interior,..." in theory it should be, but why there are no close up renders of it?
I guess it will be easy to ask few additionnal screenshots to the model maker.
Also, be warned, the Turbosquid Royalty-Free Licence is not really open files friendly:
b. Access to Stock Media Products. You must take all reasonable and industry standard measures to prevent other parties from gaining access to Stock Media Products. Stock Media Products must be contained in proprietary formats so that they cannot be opened or imported in a publicly available software application or framework, or extracted without reverse engineering. You may NOT publish or distribute Stock Media Products in any open format, or format encrypted with decryptable open standards (such as WebGL or an encrypted compression archive).
-
Levi, my thoughts exactly. The lack of close up images may reflect a lack of detail in the cockpit. One detail I noticed, the internal weapons bay has lot of details and an excellent texture, I just hope the cockpit is the same. Logically if the weapons bay is detailed, the cockpit should be as well, or better.
I opened a support ticket for the model, we'll see what they say. Since the 3d mesh cannot be extracted from .pkg file without a sophisticated attack that reconstructs it from the GPU, that is considered a "reasonable and industry standard measures to prevent other parties from gaining access to Stock Media Products". However there are other concerns, so we'll see what TurboSquid says.
Regards,
Uriah
-
Reading the Turbosquid FAQ's makes it seem like these models are surrounded by lots of Caveats and legal dodging and weaving. Appears to be a definite case of buyer beware.
May I include the actual Stock Media Product of a 3D Model in software or a game?
Stock Media Products of 3D Models published under the Royalty Free License may be used in software and games if the software or game satisfies these additional conditions:
1. The 3D model is reasonably required to produce an interactive experience for the user.
2. The 3D model is contained in proprietary format that cannot be opened in a publicly available software application and from which the TurboSquid Stock Media Product cannot be extracted or decompiled without reverse engineering.
3. The software or game has no functionality for end users to import any open 3D file format or export any 3D model.
-
3. The software or game has no functionality for end users to import any open 3D file format or export any 3D model.
That is very perplexing. Outerra does allow 3d files to be imported, but only the .pkg format to be exported.
The only safe way to do it is for the individual artist to grant written permission to use their content and to give them credit for it.
Regards,
Uriah
-
You might take a glimpse at this. They seem a bit less persnickety. http://www.creativecrash.com/3d-model/lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii-3d-model
http://youtu.be/TD_ZT3GRwTY
-
http://youtu.be/vjY0X_1w314
the video shows the model f35, extracted from version for FSX, just to figure out how to result in outerra (not intend to use it without permission and are not able to animate).
of course you have to see if the model for sale (99 euro) is identical to this. models for FSX are divided into internal and external, the video of the exterior. the internal model has detailed the cockpit. if I can post the video 3ds max interior
http://youtu.be/NMWVqafi6wA
-
HiFlyer, great model but it is the CTOL variant, not the STOVL/VTOL variant.
(http://www.creativecrash.com/system/photos/000/413/289/413289/big/aF35_Lighting_II_0012.jpg?1418229976)
kanaone, It looks like the same one. I'm waiting on a reply to my TurboSquid support ticket.
Regards,
Uriah
-
I just noticed the paint job is different from the FSX F-35B and the one on TurboSquid. This could be re-done, but the TurboSuid model does not say it comes with the Photoshop file making it possible to make other skins, so it is unlikely they are the same model. If anything the TurboSquid model looks to be higher poly count than the one on FSX.
Regards,
Uriah
-
Just one point. If I would have to choose a model, I would look at the screenshots searching for detail, but specially at the wire frame, for optimization.
A high poly count can mean greater detail, but also modeling vicious, like to much subdivisions without cleaning the mesh.
Could be the case (not sure) in the $899 model. Definitely looks better, but that amount of loops along the longitude of the wings, for example, seems unnecessary to me.
-
So ??? and how? and how they want it? and how to pay? Who collects? ... many questions.
I think we must, once identified the model.
donate a low part, $ 1.
Reached the amount stop collecting.
Distribution always free.
... maybe administrators can suggest a method .....
-
Nothing new about this? $5 here.
-
Also I am there, but we are a bit short in two ..... we wait adhesions
-
Also I am there, but we are a bit short in two ..... we wait adhesions
What?
-
not talking about buying the model to $ 99?
-
Ok, sorry, I did not understand that first statement.
I Guess we are all waiting to find out about the plane.
-
Products under the Royalty Free License may be used in games or software under these conditions.
1. The TurboSquid material is contained in the interactive experience provided for the user of the software or game, and not made available to users outside of such use of the software or game.
2. The TurboSquid material is contained in proprietary format that cannot be opened in a publicly available software application and from which the TurboSquid material cannot be extracted or decompiled without reverse engineering.
3. The software or game has no functionality for end users to import any open 3D file format or export any TurboSquid material.
http://support.turbosquid.com/entries/29237436-Royalty-Free-License-FAQ#softwareorgame
However, please be aware that there is a restriction to keep in mind that could prevent you from using certain products. Under the Royalty Free License, if the product depicts an outside party’s product design (e.g., a Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft), you are ultimately responsible for determining if you need to clear rights with another party (e.g., with Lockheed Martin) to use any depiction in the product that may be protected by the proprietary rights of the outside party. If you need further assistance for this legal determination, we recommend seeking counsel from a lawyer.
http://support.turbosquid.com/entries/29237436-Royalty-Free-License-FAQ#editorialuse
Very truly yours,
REDACTED
Designated Agent
LICENSING & IP | TURBOSQUID, INC.
I am still unsure what to think about number 3, but do not think Lockheed Martin can file a lawsuit for a 3d representation of their aircraft. I find that statement to be questionable, as I am sure all the people making aircraft for games are not contacting Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed, or any other manufacturer for consent.
Like to hear your thoughts.
Regards,
Uriah
-
Well, 3 sounds like a blocker to me, the way it's worded. End users clearly can import open formats, and there's or, not and, between that and "export any TurboSquid material". The rule as such doesn't make sense though. What are they trying to achieve with it?
-
Products under the Royalty Free License may be used in games or software under these conditions.
1. The TurboSquid material is contained in the interactive experience provided for the user of the software or game, and not made available to users outside of such use of the software or game.
2. The TurboSquid material is contained in proprietary format that cannot be opened in a publicly available software application and from which the TurboSquid material cannot be extracted or decompiled without reverse engineering.
3. The software or game has no functionality for end users to import any open 3D file format or export any TurboSquid material.
http://support.turbosquid.com/entries/29237436-Royalty-Free-License-FAQ#softwareorgame
However, please be aware that there is a restriction to keep in mind that could prevent you from using certain products. Under the Royalty Free License, if the product depicts an outside party’s product design (e.g., a Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft), you are ultimately responsible for determining if you need to clear rights with another party (e.g., with Lockheed Martin) to use any depiction in the product that may be protected by the proprietary rights of the outside party. If you need further assistance for this legal determination, we recommend seeking counsel from a lawyer.
http://support.turbosquid.com/entries/29237436-Royalty-Free-License-FAQ#editorialuse
Very truly yours,
REDACTED
Designated Agent
LICENSING & IP | TURBOSQUID, INC.
I am still unsure what to think about number 3, but do not think Lockheed Martin can file a lawsuit for a 3d representation of their aircraft. I find that statement to be questionable, as I am sure all the people making aircraft for games are not contacting Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed, or any other manufacturer for consent.
Like to hear your thoughts.
Regards,
Uriah
There are several case in the past where planes manufacturers asked for a royalty fee for the use of some models. I'm not worried too much for the F-35, but more for the Cessna. The most recent case is the Microsoft Flight failure, wich was undirectly created by that according one of the devs. Apparently, they started making cockpit-less and free to play non-sense after having to drop several already finished planes, because constructors were asking for insane royalties (that's what happens when you see "Microsoft" printed at the top of the letter).
But I agree with Cameni, number 3 seems really restrective, especially the fact that they use the term "any Turbosquid material", wich means that not only 3D models are under restricted use, but textures might be too.
The rule as such doesn't make sense though. What are they trying to achieve with it?
Covering their backs. Note how they insist on the fact that they are not responsible for the proprietary rights of the model. They put a clean line where their responsibility is. The rest is between the client and any third party right owner.
-
Well I guess it's covering their backs, but for what exact purpose in (3)? Possible third party proprietary design rights are understandable, but this clause is in section where they try to ensure the model cannot be redistributed or reused by other parties, affecting TurboSquid business. But I fail to see how the first part of the third clause would harm either TurboSquid or the original author, so it makes no sense in that context to me.
-
Well.. my thinking is that basically all games you can mod, in fact people have hacked Grand Theft Auto and many other games in ways that are not intended but not protected against. However a game company like Rockstar probably does all their modeling in-house to avoid dealing with IP laws.
A lawsuit against Microsoft by an aircraft manufacturer in their commercial game is plausible, but non-commercially should be a different story you would think.
The import open 3d format terminology and the or operator are definitely the biggest concerns. But I'm extremely puzzled as to why so many games can and are using TurboSquid materials. I've asked for clearification, but I'm basically leaning against using any 3d content from TurboSquid and going directly to the artist.
Also there is no doubt the texture is protected under IP laws just as much as the model. Like a certain person who held the IP rights for an aircraft Levi wanted to use noted on a thread somewhere, every polygon and every pixel is their intellectual property. If you re-texture the model, it is still theirs, if you make a model and use the texture, it is still theirs, if you modify both the texture and the model and they discover it, it is still theirs. The laws are very unforgiving if you have money for them to file suit for they will, like in the case of Microsoft. Usually if someone is infringing on someone else's IP but not making money from it, they will get a cease and desist letter, but if they are making money and/or have disclosed IP in a manner that it puts their product at risk or discloses it, they will file a serious law suit.
Like I said, I'm about at the point where it isn't worth the risk even if TurboSquid says "Go ahead", that is why acquiring assets directly from artists is the way to go.
I do think it would be possible to crowd-source funds to purchase a model from an artist, but the artist and product would have to lined-up ahead of time, and there would need to be significant interest in the aircraft in question before hand. We could easily run the fund raising campaign on Kickstarter. However we would be talking in terms of thousands of dollars for high end products, even with a non-exclusive license agreement. I don't think thousands of dollars is out of the question, but that is why I say significant interest.
Just to be honest with you guys, I am far more interested in the JSBSim flight model and functionality behind VTOL/STOVL. That is why "I am here" after all, is to pioneer functionality "for those to come". I really do want to get a model for the F-35, specifically so I can release a VTOL/STOVL aircraft for OT, but I am not sure when/if/how that will happen.
Regards,
Uriah
-
Well I guess it's covering their backs, but for what exact purpose in (3)? Possible third party proprietary design rights are understandable, but this clause is in section where they try to ensure the model cannot be redistributed or reused by other parties, affecting TurboSquid business. But I fail to see how the first part of the third clause would harm either TurboSquid or the original author, so it makes no sense in that context to me.
... not sure if it is to protect TS or the original autor ... remember such brainer cases as suing that bar named Hobbit ? They had that name a long time, but once some --- had the rights, he started a crack-down on it. So its more about legal tender holder rights than creators or resselers/forwarders.
Some digital producers were even to change names of certain real-life vehicles to fantasy-names too, cause of such brainer issues. -- id say, the world has gone mad. Ya know, the great roman empire fell not cause of theyr expansion policy, or economics, but cause of all that required paperwork n administration personell. Well, kinda what our times do. :P
Also, few others are interesting too :
May I use TurboSquid products in virtual worlds?
Generally, no. While we greatly respect Second Life and related communities, TurboSquid’s artist community does not believe the IP protections for their work are sufficient in these worlds.
The specific exclusion in the Royalty Free License is based on the virtual world being open for importing/exporting and the potential for use as a conduit for piracy for TurboSquid models. If a virtual world is more like World of Warcraft or a closed MMO, then that should be allowed. Please check the Royalty Free License for the specific language.
May I print a 3D Model to create a physical object for personal use?
You may make up to five physical units of a TurboSquid 3D model (by 3D printing or other means) for personal use, gifts, or donations.
No modding open virtual structure ... and how does one keep track of someone printing more than 5 models ? =D =D =D
Uriah has right - right from autor system should be promoted and some more, better sharing/trading places created, where such legal-nonsense would be kept aside. Stupid is, aether digital forwarding (that means the sites) have to live somehow too (funds for existence on servers) and even a single dollar this way (or creators way) makes it to bend ower the legal monsters. But i hope some of the "whatewer-coins" may bring some change in the future, when much more people world-wide start dumping national curencyes ...
Uriah, i dont think you would wait for a snail like me to model a Yak-36/38/141 ? :D :D --- actualy, i wouldnt really mind if its some box with a window if it is a fully functional VTOL script, ready to be used for custom models for the future. Doe, flight characteristics ... just dont put that box ya stole from the neighbours cat into a wind tunnel. :D :D (that is, if its a mere siluette of a F-35 in modeling terms, slapped some partially functional cockpit inside, no biggy - someone will come with a better model sooner or later).
-
Good words Pyton, good words.
I'm optimistic! 8)
Regards,
Uriah
-
You now know why so many flying games either use fictional vehicles or vehicles for which there are essentially no possible copyright issues, like WW2//WW1 fighter planes.
-
Ah ha! I have a solution, but it doesn't include the F-35 sadly.
For the past several years I've been designing a small VTOL/STOVL aircraft that I intend to build. I thought it might be interesting to import the CAD model for Outerra and build a detailed FDM based of my real flight test data. This would produce an extremely accurate FDM for this type of aircraft and there are NO copyright/IP laws because it is all my original work. I'll post detailed information about the aircraft and document how the FDM is built so that others can more easily use the FDM as an example to build their own. Also, I can use jsbsim to model the autopilot which will eventually fly the real aircraft.
In concept, the aircraft will be able to autonomously takeoff and land like a quadcopter and fly like a plane. Its quad tilt rotor design, integrated into a conventional airframe, was borrowed from a design sent to me by Ron D. St. Clair. I've had to develop solutions to a number of critical problems, including prop efficiency in both vertical hover and forward flight. Since a different propeller pitch angle is required for optimal efficiency in forward flight than in hover, I've designed a variable pitch prop almost the limit of miniature scale, borrowing from other designs used for RC helicopters and similar aircraft with variable pitch props at the RC scale. The problems with finding them commercially is the materials they are made of don't withstand the rotor velocity for vertical take-off, and the pitch control linkages usually fail. I'll have my variable pitch prop assembly CNC cut from a Titanium plate, and precision welded together. It sounds exotic, but no materials I've tried. The composite fuselage and one piece wing will have mounting brackets for attaching/detaching propulsion and control linkage systems so I can build several variants of different configurations on the same airframe, which will accelerate my development cycle overall.
I would be thrilled if I could use OT/JSBSim as an integrated conceptual design platform for real world applications! That would be something. Look out for an upcoming thread: Outerra X-Prize!!!
Separate Lift and Thrust design configuration. This configuration will be used to test the airframe, control system and flight characteristics before integrating the tilt rotor system. I'm using what is called a Spiral Development Cycle, which tests the flight envelope in phases, expanding the envelope with each test and design variant.
(http://i.imgur.com/L5m2iBh.png)
-
Whats the dimensions and weight of that thing if ya need Ti-nium pitch prop assembly ? ... are those RC-things really so badly in vibration-induced damage props. ? And !! ...are those VTOL-purpose propellers retractable for horizontal flight mode, adding in power ?
Ya know what ... dont bother with answering such puny questions, i just want a two seater, person-carry capable version for romantic sight-seeing in OT Multiplayer. =D
-
Caameni, I understand 3)
And by definition Outerra is in compliance with it...
What it's talking about is the original file format, basically how would anyone feel (this has happened to me) if you spend hundreds of hours on a texture and then find that it's being used on a pay to play "wings over Dover" game or similair... Artists don't like that.
But Outerra distributes the 3d in OTX file format.... and the 2d in DDS format, neither of these means that the player has the original artwork on their hard-drive.
Also Outerra doesn't allow you to once you've loaded the game, export the 3d or 2d into a working 3d file format..
Outerra is covered...
Simon
BTW... is there any chance that the jsbsim FDM files could be subsumed into the OTX format... this is not for that same reason (ie copyright) but to stop players from 'hacking' the flight model into an Uber plane...
-
Well, technically the dds format is open, only with slight compression loss.
I'm still waiting for further clearification from TurboSquid, and I also contacted a friend who has experience with this kind of IP.
Exporting 3d mesh, sure OT is covered. But the way that is worded, I'm not sure what the importing clause means.
Simon, what do you think on manufacturers filing lawsuits for using their aircraft in a game, albeit commercially or non-commercially...?
Regards,
Uriah
-
BTW... is there any chance that the jsbsim FDM files could be subsumed into the OTX format... this is not for that same reason (ie copyright) but to stop players from 'hacking' the flight model into an Uber plane...
How would that be done?
-
No DDS isn't... a complex 2d texture uses multiple layers and 'in application' blending techneques... the DDS format is flat with no way of getting back to the original.
Importing.... flightgear uses .ac file format for it's 3d, so every users has 'master' files of all planes on their hard-drive.
I believe Grunman filed law suits... image rights are an issue but there are different understandings of it through out the world, for instance the UK laws are very different to the US. (see the latest ruling on Rhiana and topshop)
I'd suggest that all splash screens use some disclaimer " this vehicle doesn't not represent the manufactuer blah blah blah"
-
Which bit the 'hacking' or the including into the OTX file...
AS for how the later could be done.... well the jsbsim .xml files are only read on vehicle initialisation into the JSBsim C++ program.... so what I'm hinting at is could there not be a step inwhich Outerra lets JSBsim to look somewhere else ie the OTX file, line xxx
-
Locking up the FDM could actually be necessary for certain purposes, however in general I would never want to see the FDM become a closed access, or any measures to prevent people from modding any aircraft in anyway they see fit. Besides obfuscating intellectual property of an FDM, which I strongly don't agree with, I do not see a need to prevent tampering with the FDM, it is the whole idea behind making a 'mod' or modding. I think if someone want to make an anti-gravity helicopter that shoots flowers, they can do what they like to the FDM and script on their own computer. For multiplayer, there are techniques for making sure people aren't cheating.
Regards,
Uriah
-
I'm only interested in people not cheating in a multi-player combat sim environment.... so I'm not against people having access to the fdm files only for finding a working solution/techneques to prevent people from cheating, and the first idea I came up with was to use the OTX file when on a multi-player server.
After 8 years of flying on Targetware and being told how uncheatable is was, I knew it wasn't. Now when a fellow flyer accused others of cheating and this pilot was then castigated and told it was impossible I simply showed them how easy it was online to fly a WWII capital ship.... trust me nothing brings cheating home than coming across the bismark at 10,000ft.
So for a combat sim this subject has to be NAILED to ensure 100% trust, otherwise players will simply not fly.
-
... bismark at 10,000ft.
(http://www.cruise.co.uk/cruise-blogs/sarahsgetaways/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/01/jet-cruise-ship.jpg)
-
Locking up the FDM could actually be necessary for certain purposes, however in general I would never want to see the FDM become a closed access, or any measures to prevent people from modding any aircraft in anyway they see fit. Besides obfuscating intellectual property of an FDM, which I strongly don't agree with, I do not see a need to prevent tampering with the FDM, it is the whole idea behind making a 'mod' or modding. I think if someone want to make an anti-gravity helicopter that shoots flowers, they can do what they like to the FDM and script on their own computer. For multiplayer, there are techniques for making sure people aren't cheating.
Regards,
Uriah
Pretty much agree. In a pure gaming environment, I could see the need more, but Outerra is meant to be a sim, yes? Which means enthusiasts with the knowledge are always going to want to be perfecting and tweaking those files. Including purple polkadot VTOL giraffes.
Or borrowing one for a Veritech fighter.........
So in principle, I would prefer something that simply confirmed the unaltered nature of files, rather than locking files totally.
-
Locking up the FDM could actually be necessary for certain purposes, however in general I would never want to see the FDM become a closed access, or any measures to prevent people from modding any aircraft in anyway they see fit. Besides obfuscating intellectual property of an FDM, which I strongly don't agree with, I do not see a need to prevent tampering with the FDM, it is the whole idea behind making a 'mod' or modding. I think if someone want to make an anti-gravity helicopter that shoots flowers, they can do what they like to the FDM and script on their own computer. For multiplayer, there are techniques for making sure people aren't cheating.
Regards,
Uriah
Pretty much agree. In a pure gaming environment, I could see the need more, but Outerra is meant to be a sim, yes? Which means enthusiasts with the knowledge are always going to want to be perfecting and tweaking those files. Including purple polkadot VTOL giraffes.
Or borrowing one for a Veritech fighter.........
So in principle, I would prefer something that simply confirmed the unaltered nature of files, rather than locking files totally.
... scooping the files for matching the servers one and when not, replacing (maybe best if it would even automatically save the olds somewhere, to not loose someones work, if he tweaked it in the right sim spirit) ... how does nowadays something like that work ? Do such games just look at the file-size/creation date, or are they capable of going trough the antire script line after line ?
... maybe textures could be an exeption there. Paint-personalization was heawy ever since IL2.
-
So in principle, I would prefer something that simply confirmed the unaltered nature of files, rather than locking files totally.
Agreed, only it was this approach that I hacked with 30 secs of thinking.
-
Locking up the FDM could actually be necessary for certain purposes, however in general I would never want to see the FDM become a closed access, or any measures to prevent people from modding any aircraft in anyway they see fit. Besides obfuscating intellectual property of an FDM, which I strongly don't agree with, I do not see a need to prevent tampering with the FDM, it is the whole idea behind making a 'mod' or modding. I think if someone want to make an anti-gravity helicopter that shoots flowers, they can do what they like to the FDM and script on their own computer. For multiplayer, there are techniques for making sure people aren't cheating.
Regards,
Uriah
Pretty much agree. In a pure gaming environment, I could see the need more, but Outerra is meant to be a sim, yes? Which means enthusiasts with the knowledge are always going to want to be perfecting and tweaking those files. Including purple polkadot VTOL giraffes.
Or borrowing one for a Veritech fighter.........
So in principle, I would prefer something that simply confirmed the unaltered nature of files, rather than locking files totally.
... scooping the files for matching the servers one and when not, replacing (maybe best if it would even automatically save the olds somewhere, to not loose someones work, if he tweaked it in the right sim spirit) ... how does nowadays something like that work ? Do such games just look at the file-size/creation date, or are they capable of going trough the antire script line after line ?
... maybe textures could be an exeption there. Paint-personalization was heawy ever since IL2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PunkBuster
And of course, after spending a zillion dollars, even punkbuster gets punked occasionally so its an ongoing war of the program against the cheaters, which can be an expensive proposition and honestly, probably a losing war.
Good luck deciding if its worth it, or not.
-
Does punkbuster use checksums?
I'll have to look into that.
But regardless, people won't be able to cheat. I was in a multiplayer combat game and one of the guys got called out because he had no recoil on his rifle. It is possible to cheat but you can just implement something that patches the vulnerabilities people use to cheat and ban them for antigravity!
However, there are reasons you might want to protect an FDM's content in a commercial game.
Regards,
Uriah
-
Does punkbuster use checksums?
I'll have to look into that.
But regardless, people won't be able to cheat. I was in a multiplayer combat game and one of the guys got called out because he had no recoil on his rifle. It is possible to cheat but you can just implement something that patches the vulnerabilities people use to cheat and ban them for antigravity!
However, there are reasons you might want to protect an FDM's content in a commercial game.
Regards,
Uriah
Check through the published features. One of which is:
PunkBuster Servers can be configured to instruct clients to calculate partial MD5 hashes of files inside the game installation directory. The results are compared against a set configuration and differences logged, and optionally, the client removed from the server.
-
Exactly, MD5 hashes are checksums used to verify the player is not using different files than the ones recognized by the host server.
Regards,
Uriah
-
Right, for a game mode the package signature would be checked against the server to verify it hasn't been tampered with, and if it was, the server copy will be silently used.