Ohio

[PL_husarz111]

Can I play Ohio submarine in Dangerous Waters? Is available any mod with ohio class submarine?

[OneShot]

Answers :

1.) No

2.) No (at least not a legal one, dont know if there is one - illegal - out where you can)

[Kapitan]

you be better off buying sub command and getting clive bradburys playable ohio.

[goldorak]

Can I play Ohio submarine in Dangerous Waters? Is available any mod with ohio class submarine?


There are many mods out there, some legal, some illegal (depending on who you ask) but there are none that give you a controllable ohio.

[OneShot]

There are many mods out there, some legal, some illegal (depending on who you ask) but there are none that give you a controllable ohio.
Thats not a question of whom you asking. SCS has often and quite clearly stated the guidelines for approved modifications to Dangerous Waters. And the inclusion of a new playable platform in a mod is a definite NO-GO. There was and still is no doubt about it. However certain individuals have choosen to ignore that fact and since they all appear to live outside the reach of the US Legal system they have so far gone unpunished (well at least as far as I know).

I hope that point is clear, otherwise I defer to ML our resident legal beagle who surely can put that (the illegality of certain mods) in more formal terms than I am able to.

Back on topic now ...

[Molon Labe]

You don't need a law degree to understand the EULA.

[goldorak]

You don't need a law degree to understand the EULA.

But the EULA is not exactly clear either.
For instance some mods actually swap out a controlable unit that is already present in dw for another one that is completly different. You're not increasing the number of playable units, and you're not actually modifying the dll's (because the weapon loadout is the same as that of the original swaped unit). So this kind of mod is ok.
Other mods do different things that are not ok so they are considered illegal. If thats the point then I've always wondered why SCS, or the publishers (european, asian etc...) have never taken action against those guys. :hmm:
To close the discussion, what SCS says and what the EULA states are 2 different things. SCS doesn't want new playables, so according to them the first kind of mod would be illegal even though it is not violating in any way the game EULA.
Just something to think about.

[Molon Labe]

This License does not provide you with title to or ownership of the software program "Sonalysts Combat Simulations - Dangerous Waters", (the "Software") but only a right of limited use of the Software, and ownership of the media on which a copy of the Software is reproduced. The Software, including its source code, is, and shall remain, the property of Sonalysts, Inc.

Is that clear enough? The software is their property. You can't tamper with it without their permission. They've given permission for DB and doctrine mods. They have expressly forbidden tampering with the .exe and .dll's, maybe other parts as well. A new playable class can't be made by changing things in the DB.

[goldorak]

This License does not provide you with title to or ownership of the software program "Sonalysts Combat Simulations - Dangerous Waters", (the "Software") but only a right of limited use of the Software, and ownership of the media on which a copy of the Software is reproduced. The Software, including its source code, is, and shall remain, the property of Sonalysts, Inc.

Is that clear enough? The software is their property. You can't tamper with it without their permission. They've given permission for DB and doctrine mods. They have expressly forbidden tampering with the .exe and .dll's, maybe other parts as well. A new playable class can't be made by changing things in the DB.

No, they have given permission for moddding that doesn't include modifying the exe and dlls. If you can insert new playable units within those constraints then SCS has no ground for complaining.

[Molon Labe]

This License does not provide you with title to or ownership of the software program "Sonalysts Combat Simulations - Dangerous Waters", (the "Software") but only a right of limited use of the Software, and ownership of the media on which a copy of the Software is reproduced. The Software, including its source code, is, and shall remain, the property of Sonalysts, Inc.
Is that clear enough? The software is their property. You can't tamper with it without their permission. They've given permission for DB and doctrine mods. They have expressly forbidden tampering with the .exe and .dll's, maybe other parts as well. A new playable class can't be made by changing things in the DB.
No, they have given permission for moddding that doesn't include modifying the exe and dlls. If you can insert new playable units within those constraints then SCS has no ground for complaining.

Yes, but like I said, it can't be done. You can't add playables without modding the verbotten files.

[Raptor_341]

why care? modding brings life - such a waste not to mod over a small rule. Just dont make money off it.

[FIREWALL]

What seems to be hard for anyone to say is ... Do what you want just, don't tell anybody about it.

[Raptor_341]

The things that expand DW need to be posted, all mods. - and SCS did a great job, but without the work of people to make things like LWAMI, i wouldnt use it. I am suprised they put a "ban" on modding some things, in the end they only limit the life of the simulation.

[GrayOwl]

EULA forbids any intervention in game.
I do not know where SA have permitted something to change (at inet, at newspapers ???? :D ).
In mine EULA such no.
Hence - even AI of model (j3d files, texture files) to change is already illegally.
From this that will be written in EULA: any of MOD - ILLEGAL.

[Raptor_341]

>> I do see the point, but its never stopped modders before, and it shouldnt. Ill stop my rant, im sure im not the only one who feels that way. Remember, its more like "guidelines" than actual rules. But thats just me. Signing off.

[OneShot]

The FAQ refers to various sources where SCS Representatives, namely Jamie Carlson, have explicitly given their Ok to change some things. Here is again a link to one hard source where SCS (by way of Jamie) gave his Ok to certain modding efforts

http://www.simhq.com/_naval/naval_019d.html

As you can see, more or less everything short of new/added playable platforms is Ok! To make it more clear, changes in the DB, new textures and models, new sounds and so on is alright. Only when you add a new playable platform regardless of how you do it are you stepping out of bounds. The only thing that is unclear (but I think SCS is Ok with it) is adding a different type of an already existing platform. For example an 688 Flight I or an Indian Kilo.

[Hitman]

From that interview:


In short, we can't allow modders to create new drivable platforms because our business model depends on us being able to charge for them, either for commercial customers or government contracts.


That makes me wonder if we would be allowed (It's a matter of asking, of course, because the current situation is a NO unless we get a positive reply) to add playable old cold-war era platforms, like the Knox FF, Sturgeon, Victor III, or even older ones.

If the real reason they forbid adding platforms is to secure their contracts with modern navies, I think that those navies would hardly be interested in such old boats, right? :hmm:

[GrayOwl]

The FAQ refers to various sources where SCS Representatives, namely Jamie Carlson, have explicitly given their Ok to change some things. Here is again a link to one hard source where SCS (by way of Jamie) gave his Ok to certain modding efforts

http://www.simhq.com/_naval/naval_019d.html

As you can see, more or less everything short of new/added playable platforms is Ok! To make it more clear, changes in the DB, new textures and models, new sounds and so on is alright. Only when you add a new playable platform regardless of how you do it are you stepping out of bounds. The only thing that is unclear (but I think SCS is Ok with it) is adding a different type of an already existing platform. For example an 688 Flight I or an Indian Kilo.

It not the legal document is simply conversation of two friends.
The legal document on a disk - EULA.

[GrayOwl]

From that interview:


In short, we can't allow modders to create new drivable platforms because our business model depends on us being able to charge for them, either for commercial customers or government contracts.


That makes me wonder if we would be allowed (It's a matter of asking, of course, because the current situation is a NO unless we get a positive reply) to add playable old cold-war era platforms, like the Knox FF, Sturgeon, Victor III, or even older ones.

If the real reason they forbid adding platforms is to secure their contracts with modern navies, I think that those navies would hardly be interested in such old boats, right? :hmm:

The modern fleet will never use out-of-date and primitive model of the engine of this game.
25 years of years back it could be used - but only not now.

[OneShot]

The FAQ refers to various sources where SCS Representatives, namely Jamie Carlson, have explicitly given their Ok to change some things. Here is again a link to one hard source where SCS (by way of Jamie) gave his Ok to certain modding efforts

http://www.simhq.com/_naval/naval_019d.html

As you can see, more or less everything short of new/added playable platforms is Ok! To make it more clear, changes in the DB, new textures and models, new sounds and so on is alright. Only when you add a new playable platform regardless of how you do it are you stepping out of bounds. The only thing that is unclear (but I think SCS is Ok with it) is adding a different type of an already existing platform. For example an 688 Flight I or an Indian Kilo.

It not the legal document is simply conversation of two friends.
The legal document on a disk - EULA.

Its an official statement in a public forum made by a representative of SCS in his capacity as such. While not a legal document per se its enough to work with and it doesn't contradict the EULA. I would guess ML could add a note on this too ...

[GrayOwl]

Its an official statement in a public forum made by a representative of SCS in his capacity as such. While not a legal document per se its enough to work with and it doesn't contradict the EULA. I would guess ML could add a note on this too ...

-"Its an official statement in a public forum..."

But not on an official site of the game developer.
Besides, it can be the individual point of view - JC.
From the legal point of view - that is on a disk and is first on the importance by the document.

[Raptor_341]

>> My only point was if it wasnt for sub sim and people with a comitment to realism that has made mods such as LWAMI possible, i wouldnt even use DW, end of story. I just find it so hard to believe that they would want stop the adding of new platforms, it makes no sence. What do they lose... nothing. The work of people to make more for DW should be a plus, and most of it is. Some people follow everything by the book i guess. But there is nothing more to say here, so we might as well close this.

[steeljackal]

I don't know laws matter, but i think:

-DW is property of SCS, then they can do what they want

-but wich they do have non sence, is stupid

For example SH3 lives with GWX (and a lot of games keep alive with mods)

[FIREWALL]

This is why I'm glad I only paid $8.19 out the door at Target for this sim.