I dont think so at all. ISI should be able to do their changes to the versions they want at their pace and not be manipulated by someones impatience.
Deliberately releasing using ISI version numbering of ISI official content is about as stupid as you can get. Lucky to get a warning before a ban I think. Do what you like but change names and version numbers so they don't conflict with official content which don't take a genius to figure out.
what is a problem to official released named v1.42 (one number next), will be more confused if this next number will have less updates than my updates my packages has different names in game, and different names of packages
i was testing the maruissia... unistalling and reinstalling like i said resolve the problem. but its a bit frustrating!!!
anateus... this afternoon i'll try your work. now i got only the marussia and c6...and a couple of traks. whit this i can make same offline games easly i hope! change the name like tim said! could be confusing
simply add a "edited by Antaeus" to the filename should be ok, so everybody knows that you did some changes to original ISI content...
If you ensure you have naming that in no way resembles the official content. Then you may as well add more skins to beach car package which would be use full for people racing AI especially with cars like the gtr where they only have 2 skins.
What are you trying to prove? All of us who have read ISI's rF2_Packaging_Tutorial.pdf can do that. BTW, as you are messing with ISI's intellectual property, did you ask ISI politely to do that and are allowed to publish this? Otherwise you just did a crime in your hopefully very very young age. Better you remove everything as quick as possible and pray ISI didn't get too angry!
I would think about it again. Each mod has to be registered, if you want to keep your account, i d be careful.
well personally if ISI are threatening forum bans over how someone names a mod...its just another thing proving how bogus there system is. wouldn't a friendly PM explain why its not a good thing be a much better approach or atleast put in the forum rules what you can and cant name if that's the path they want to take
Its not just any mod its repackaging the original ISI content, with your own mods you can do as you like. If someone's doing what the OP is doing its simply going to cause issues for many users by confusing them thinking this is official ISI content. If this is allowed we can end up with 20 versions of the same original content named and versioned the same or very similar floating around the net doing nothing but causing issues. If this is the sort of thing you think is OK then just realise ISI's best way to combat it in the future if they allow this to go on is to encrypt all the original files and nobody will have any access to them. This will hurt the modding community very badly and this is all by someone trying to prove some stupid point because he is impatient. Now think again if you think what the op is doing here is OK or not.
And you don' think than Antaeus should have made this friendly PM to ISI team if they know or think he know something which can help them to go faster and do it better, instead of coming here creating a thread to show "how incompetent" they are and "how smart and quicker" is it ? That's what I will have do if I was thinking I'm able to help. And if I really want to show to the community how smart I am I can always made the same kind of thread using another tone, providing hints, without changing ISI files, and without putting the ISI team down in my post, no ? I found Tim and Gonzo pretty nice to just say to him to be careful (and I appreciate they did it like this). Anyway, changing the ISI data without approval and saying you're smarter is not a gentleman way to proceed IMO Just my opinion, don't flame me please
+1 It's kind of ungrateful and shameless... I think of all hard work ISI devs have put down on what rF2 is right now, and maybe have some more important to work on at the moment, or maybe they are even having some rest on the holiday (omg shame on you devs!!). And then this guy comes and release 'updates' with 1.4 names because they are too slow... I'll patient and wait for ISI to update their own content (please priortize 1960's stuff )
This isn't even the worst scenario. Thinking about ISI is forced (because of too much stupid damaging mods) to inspect every new mod before getting registered to protect their customers, like Apple does it right now in their App Store.
I work like this for Apple like Vittorio said, and for pCARS. Note I don't blame them (I'm also part of the pCARS project), it's 2 different philosophies. saying that, nobody want ISI to go this way for sure Edit: and instead closing data, and if I wasn't so shy suggesting something far from my skills and responsibilities, to people who know far away better than me what they have to do as they did it right so far, and because they could feel offensed, I'll suggest to close this thread...but I'm not this kind of guy you know
