Thanks Jim I have only tried 1 F1 mod and T3 seemed fine it was T11 and T12 that gave me issues. Tintops seem to work fine. Anyway I think I have found someone to help with the AIW file so next version will be better.
Would that friend maybe help the two little niggles with AI on that (cough, ahem) other track? Thats close to being all it needs. {move along... nothing to see here....}
With ai set at 120% they are still 2 or 3 seconds off the pace Nib and plenty over shoot t3 into the sand.
Thanks for your work on this so far I'd prefer to use and enjoy updates to this old conversion rather than a ripped version from an available modern game (to the extent that I don't use them). As a result, it was good fun to roll out an F1 car on Albert Park for the first time in years As for the missing tree issue around turn 6, I noticed that they were there in a race session, but not practice. It seems there might have been a hiccup in setting the vis groups.
Nice work. One thing that could be improved a bit are reflections, they are generally lacking, especially direct sunlight (specular) ones seem missing. Curbs should be quite a bit brighter when at maximum daylight sunny conditions in my opinion.
It's a curious thing the morality 'tailor-made' flowing through here. This version (which was not the first conversion of Melbourne, by the way) is based on the GP4, but it seems that when it comes to an older game, even without permission, now becomes "authorized", or perhaps it is because it is a conversion of a conversion and then is 'legal'. How much hypocrisy. In addition, if you don't have noticed, this "legal" conversion contains multiple objects extracted from the Codemasters game (garages, pitwall and more). I am not against conversions, but try to make believe that something is legal when it is not, is lie and deceive.
+1 There are a thousand examples of this on the forum. People even think it is the end of the world if someone works on an upgrade of an illegal track without checking with and getting permission from someone who previously released an also-illegal version of that same track that they didn't have permission from owners to release. Everyone should live by their own morals. Personally, I think that if I own a legal copy of a track (i.e., I purchased the original game that it came in, even if I never use it or even install it), I am entitled to use a conversion of it in another sim. It's still not legal, but my conscience is clear. I would buy track packs if Codies or Sector 3 or others wanted to offer them, which they do not and never will. If we want to be puritans, then no car or track should be used other than ISI's. No other ones, besides rare and unusual historic exceptions like Longford 1967 that isn't a "real" track, have proper licensing or permissions that I am aware of. That's why ISI was able to include Longford. Don't expect many more in that category. Even ISI's no-name versions of real tracks are borderline appropriate/legal from the perspective of track owners who are selling the rights to produce 99% of the same thing to other game makers for real money. I am not party to these transactions, but it must be real money or else ISI would license it like the others. There are no legal conversions. Only ones that squeeze between the cracks of legal attention, temporarily or permanently, often due to the small size of our rF2 community. We can thank the original creators by buying their product, or not. We can't ever justify one versus another without dancing on the head of a pin.
Well there is a software term "abandonware", which pretty much describes GP4 in my view. I'm not an expert in these legal things, but relatively speaking a 13-year-old video game is a bit same as a music piece 100 years old, which is naturally not under copyright either.
Well... no. Copyright does vary, but I think you're usually looking at date of publication + 50 years at a minimum, through to author's death + 70 years on most. A 13 year old game is nowhere near it, but in practical terms it comes down to whether the author/publisher is going to chase you down for it. But it's certainly not legal in the same sense as making a recording from a Bach composition, for example. *There's also a tendency to say "well I tried to contact the author and didn't have any luck, so I'm taking that to mean I can do what I want with it", which is probably the same premise as 'abandonware'. I'm not a lawyer either but I suspect that wouldn't stand up in court
Well.... this is sure getting awkward. I think I should reform myself and quit driving any sim that has a car in it, especially if it runs on a track.
Since you've said you're curious I thought I ought to try to account for my comment. Well, I didn't notice there were any assets from the Codies versions, mainly on account of not having played the games, so that's the fault of my own ignorance. I'm definately not here to lie or mislead anyone either, relating to copyright law, IP, the history of a work, or anything else. There are credits given in the OP, none of which mentioned Codies assets, so I assumed there were none. Perhaps a classic case of incomplete information + assumption = argument. It's true that I could have searched back versions for information, or compared screeshots from Codies games, but I did not. I doubt I remember what the GP4 assets looked like either, so I concluded that anything that wasn't original GP4 was the work of the author(s). I also didn't notice that there were other versions around (again, apparently my own ignorance). I do own and did play GP4 which is why I'm a little more relaxed about GP4 conversions for myself. And also because it's a discontinued product from a disbanded studio/publisher, but there's no doubt for me that it's still copyright infringement, based on my basic understanding of copyright law. In a limited simracing sense (as opposed to a legal/law sense) for me my ownership (as in license to use the original work - i.e. play the game) of the original game does put it in more of a grey area in terms of whether or not I see it as OK for me personally to use a GP4 conversion. As for how much hypocrisy, a certain amount particularly in a black/white law sense, but it's more a matter of subtlety relating to my own circumstance (having owned GP4 (grey area) but not Codies F1 games (black/white)). Now that I'm told it has Codies stuff in it I'm less enthused, and by my own standards I'll ban myself from using it. However, you can do whatever you're comfortable with. I'm not trying to tell anyone what they ought to do. As someone who doesn't want my own work ripped and abused unless I say it's ok, I have to die by that sword too. Since Crammond/Microprose aren't active these days I'm not expecting them to come swinging at me so I'm taking a chance, but if they did my only defense is holding up my boxed copies of GP1-2-3-4, which I don't think would impress their hypothetical lawyers. I could expect Codies/FOM to swing, and I have no defense against that, so that's not a fight I'm prepared to wander into. So, for me and my own circumstances GP4 Melbourne is not a black and white situation within the bounds of my private simracing. IP Lawyers would probably see it differently. But GP4 Melbourne + Codies assets takes it into black/white territory for me and my circumstances. In the end this does put a big restriction on the number of cars and tracks I have installed, but I can live with that. Keep in mind that this is me and my circumstances and standards, which I'm not enforcing on anyone else. However, I do request people ask permission before they convert any of my own work, at least as a courtesy towards a single human. I concede that it sounds extremely hypocritical for me to require my works be protected but not those of GP4's creators/publishers, but I'm relying on a distinction in the activity of the author to suggest so. Note that I am also respecting the protection of a work of an active publisher who's work I haven't previously purchased (Codies). At a level of Copy/NoCopy, yes it is hypocrisy, and by law it's probably enough of an infringement. At the levels of the activity of the publisher and whether or not I've purchased the original works, that's where I make my case to have my own work protected. Hopefully that is enough of an explanation of why I would rather play a GP4 conversion than a Codies conversion. It might have been useful if it was in my original post, or if I hadn't have said anything at all. It's also possible that I've not considered every perspective of the situation, which may change my decision making process and/or actions depending on the available information, at anytime and without notice. Now that I've done all this blabbering I've decided I'm only going to use fully legit content. If nothing else it means I shouldn't get into these discussions in future Not trying to preach. In the interests of re-railing this thread, if anyone feels the need to further pick apart my personal stance(s) on the issue it might be better to do it by PM.
Unrelated to above, the Codies conversion, as do all, suffer from bad FPS in gMotor engine, it is not very usable for online league. Plus their tracks have worse design of curbs than these 13 year old tracks. For some reason they make the elevation so low that curbs can barely be called "curbs".
woochoo, your position is very reasonable and ethical. I am only disappointed in it from the perspective that it means you will only ever be able to work on unlicenced, unowned race venues. Longford is an incredibly impressive piece of work and you continue to polish it to this day. Your talents could do so much more, but just about everything out there is owned by someone to some extent.
I agree the kerbs tend to be rather unimpressive. FPS can be improved, but it sure takes some work. Same goes for avoiding terrible wall collisions. For private league use obviously As for the 'current issue', when you're not asking money for it I doubt you'll get in too much personal trouble, but if you know it could have some questionable stuff in it I'm guessing ISI would prefer you didn't release it here. Avoiding any real venues completely is probably a step too far though, ISI can probably advise more (especially on what they'd be happy with) but there's already a lot of scratch-made stuff that you couldn't release commercially without potentially attracting some unwanted attention. Bit like printing fake branded t-shirts... if you do it for yourself I doubt anyone's going to sue you for it, but if you open up a shop you'll be in trouble.
I spent some thought on the ethical side of using "ripped" tracks recently. I don't, unless they are from Codemasters. They still owe me a working F1 title (since they blatantly refused to patch their mess in 2010) and for that this is the one exception I'll make...
Ha ha good one, I still buy though just like many others as we all know a nice sochi is round the corner etc
The point you are missing is that software distributed over the Internet is not the same as t-shirts. You can do something "for yourself" and suddenly thousands or even millions have it at zero cost to you. Not the same as a manufactured product or any other tangible. Most companies are not going to risk the bad PR to sue a hobbyist who is giving away an electronic facsimile of their "product," especially to such a limited audience as rF2. But if sales enter into the equation, look out. If misrepresentation enters into the equation, look out. If it's the FIA, look out. Fortunately we have the beginnings of a hopefully growing number of series, car and track owners who realize these simulated "products" are free publicity for them. If they pay attention and actually help make sure the final product is accurate, it better return on marketing dollars than almost anything else they can do. We should all be co-ordinating to make sure that trend continues and accelerates.
