Ship length in Recognition manual [Nasty Hack]

[deadok]

What:
sh4.exe, fixed to include ship length in addition to mast height (edit: forgot to mention, sh4.exe version = 1.5 )

http://i28.tinypic.com/290trh3.png


How:
Small code chunk, which reads value from ship's .cfg file and adds it to "base height" string before actual height (values divided by '/' symbol).
Since it doesn't change any config data it should be compatible with any mod (as long as mod doesn't change .exe file by itself).
Should work in metric system as well ( both values for len/height would be in meters).

What should i do:
Replace original sh4.exe with one in archive (don't need to remind that backup of original .exe is always a good idea, right?)

Optional, but recommended:
Fix position of the string, since it would be longer than before and can be truncated.
It can be done by editing menu_1024_768.ini in /data/menu folder.
should be smth like this
[G25 I37]
Name=Mast Val
Type=1029;Static text
ItemID=0x25070006
ParentID=0x25070000
Pos=429,-22,100,22
Zone= 615 305 100 22 0 1 0x25070007 1 -0.5 0x25070006 0.1 0.5 0 0
Color=0xFE
Font=19
Text=955
TextFlags=0x4
Totally optional:
Fix 'Base Height' string in menu.txt - obviously it should be 'Len/Height' now.

Where:
Link removed...

ps/
feel free to re-upload/adapt to mod of your choice/ask a question/etc.

[Frederf]

Sort of unrelated but isn't the little black/white -----======------- bar on the bottom calibrated to be 50yds per bar (150yd total for black white black)?

[deadok]

Sort of unrelated but isn't the little black/white -----======------- bar on the bottom calibrated to be 50yds per bar (150yd total for black white black)?
Well, at 1920x1200 this bar placed somewhat outside of manual and kind of unusable (might worth fixing though)
But even at 1024x768 according to this bar elco torpedo boat is longer than 50yds, and wiki and .cfg files says it ~80ft.

[Frederf]

My memory is extremely hazy on this but I swore that the bar had meaning, even if it had 2 or 3 different scales depending on ship class. Next time I play I'll make note of what various ships are in terms of "bar lengths"

[AOTD_MadMax]

@ deadok

did i read right ? You hacked the SH4-exe ?

Greets

Maddy

[vanjast]

@ deadok
did i read right ? You hacked the SH4-exe ?

you've been a busy boy!! - Did you use IDA .. ??:DL

[deadok]

you've been a busy boy!! - Did you use IDA .. ??:DL
it took one evening, tbh.
ida made it easier and much longer (sometimes ida is too smart;))

[Rockin Robbins]

I'm not sure hacking the sh4.exe file is considered modding. If we start doing that we have really stopped modding and started vandalizing Ubi's property and I don't think we want to go there.

Modding is a permitted activity within certain mandatory guidelines. This is outside reasonable modding. We can never forget that SH4 and other games are moddable only by permission of the game manufacturers, who could easily shut us down for all future games if we misbehave in this manner.

It would be child's play for Ubi to build an integrity checker within the game program and refust to run if modifications were found. More of this type of vandalism will result in that.

Not only that, but you are distributing a copy (modified) of the sh4.exe file. That is illegal.

[deadok]

Modding is a permitted activity within certain mandatory guidelines.
Could you give me example of such permission?

From license.txt

It is not permitted:
...
- To modify the Multimedia Product or create any derived work,
- To create or distribute unauthorised levels and/or scenarios,
- To decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble the Multimedia Product.
...


ps/
2-nd part + included level editor = fun

[vanjast]

TBH.. If it enhances the game, UBI would benefit from continued sales.

It generally only becomes a problem if this 'mod' stole potential sales from UBI, which I'd think they have a very difficult time proving this. If this was followed up then why not 'hit' the whole modding community - Nope this would not be in UBIs interest at all, besides UBIs onto SH5 now.
:arrgh!:

[irish1958]

Why should Ubisoft get pissed off because somebody (at no expense to them) fixed a glaring mistake which they had no intention of fixing?
I don't think even a Philadelphia lawyer could make a case for this.

[irish1958]

Great advice, thanks.
Moderator please note.

[fireship4]

Would it be a bad thing to have people's opinions? I guess you can't answer yes to that as you would be giving yours!

Maybe its not a good idea to start going on about it, but the point above still stands. You had to be able to give your opinion in the first place to say it! But I do know how internet threads can get.

Anyhow it is a complicated argument on ownership of a product vs. licencing. I initially felt very against the idea of someone presuming to say what I can do with what I own (heh good luck to me in this day and age) but then again, if it is a condition of sale - isn't that their choice?

I don't know if its worth discussing it here as you said, interesting anyway that the point of the discussion and whether it should be had at all both rest in similar areas (freedom).

[vanjast]

I'm goin' down's POV here seems to be a general lawyers POV. We have to ask whether this is a Financial, Legal, Copyright, Patent, etc.. type of lawyer. Your speciality indication would be appreciated.
As a lawyer I'm sure you are aware of international agreements, most of which
do not agree with the USA.
If the 'offendant' resides within the USA you have a case, otherwise it might be difficult, unless the offendant resides in the puppet state 'UK' :D Then this person may be extradited for making the Pentagon/DOD look stupid, as they aways are :har: Sorry just a good joke :)

[vanjast]

There is a simple patent law..
If you introduce your product onto the market before patent rights are signed, It's a 'free for all'.

UBI has been grossly stupid in advertising, as anybody who can grab their whole development code, or movie for that matter, and produce the same game, can lay claim to originality - it's just a matter of proving time spaces.

So if I had super-game-developers, I could whack UBI, and they could do zulch about it, except 'bad mouth' my product...

You lot think about it..
:D

[ReallyDedPoet]

Great advice, thanks.
Moderator please note.

It has been on the radar here :yep:

[Rockin Robbins]

Not only is he copying the exe file, property of Ubi, who expressly forbid deconstruction, but he is distributing it freely on the Internet. We're not talking about a gray area here, it's as black as the inside of a closet.

Whether it results in something useful or not has nothing to do with whether it is right. This is wrong on several levels and permitting it to continue in a Subsim forum puts Subsim on the line as endorsing pilferage.


It is not permitted:
...
- To modify the Multimedia Product or create any derived work,
- To create or distribute unauthorised levels and/or scenarios,
- To decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble the Multimedia Product.So this is in clear violation of two thirds of the above, plus he is distributing Ubi's product for free after illegally modifying it. If I were a Subsim potentate, I'd deep-six this two weeks ago and delete the entire thread.

"And WHAT do we do with witches?????"
"BURN!!!!":yep:

We who mod can do so only because Ubi lets us live. The only one who needs to be consulted is Ubi. If they don't like it, whether it's legal or not, we shouldn't permit it. If we refuse to be resolute, then Ubi will prohibit any modding of future products. THAT is something we don't want to see. I advise sterilization with great prejudice.
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/shootingsmilie.gif

[Rockin Robbins]

First of all, with respect for any lawyers who may be present :D, and not to disrespect the law itself in any way, I really don't give a rip what is or is not legal here. That is not even an issue.

After all, for any alleged laws to be enforced, the potentially aggrieved party, Ubi, has to object. And if Ubi decided something was improper (such as posting a modified SH4.exe file on a free public website, that would set ME off to be sure) they will only resort to using expensive and uncontrolled legal processes if they do not think they have the means to handle the problem themselves.

In this case Ubi has the ultimate hammer and the legal system can go pound salt. If Ubi decides that modders are confused and no longer realize that modding consists of editing textually based configuration files in the /data directory and that analyzing and modifying exe, dll and other executable files is outside their intent when they allowed the game to be modded, then they can just unilaterally shut us down. No court need ever be involved at all. So even if the hack is perfectly legal and Ubi doesn't like it enough, we're all toast.


I think this is VERY clear in the three rules the OP quoted, plus his use of the word "NASTY" reveals that he believes that what he is doing is wrong. I believe he has evaluated correctly that he is clearly offensive.

So Ubi looks at Subsim and sees:


Look, there's a thread where the mother of all SH4 exe files has been reverse engineered and hacked, then distributed without our permission for free.
Look, the Subsim modders can't decide whether that is right or wrong. The predominate opinion is just to ignore it.
Subsim itself has noted that they are monitoring the item, but do not think it is necessary to protect our property. Subsim represents the defacto conscience of the modding world for our products..
Clearly things are out of hand and not working to enhance the value of our product, Jerry, shut 'em down.


Then Sh5 is released with an embedded, encrypted routine hooked into just about every function of the game. What it does is, continually as you play, it scans all game files, comparing its MD5 checksum with the real one. If it finds a single altered file, the game deactivates and never plays again on that machine. Or it just crashes. Or it issues a warning to the user that the game must be reinstalled and must never be modded in any way, calls home with your personal information and the nature of the modification (to see if distribution of the mod has taken place to others) and then quits.

Whatever, the legal status of this infraction is not important. The ONLY thing that matters is what Ubi thinks of what the OP did. If they do not like it, we and what we love to do is in danger. They have the ability to enforce their opinion without the interference of the unpredictable and unreliable legal system(s).

Once upon a time there was a company named Sony. Sony decided to infest its audio disks with an unannounced and unwanted "feature" called a rootkit. When played on a PC, this rootkit did a number on that PC:


Installed itself without notice, without consent of the computer owner. In fact, the computer owner could not even find evidence that a drive-by had even taken place. No installation files, no icons, no directories, no uninstall routine, this thing hid all aspects of its existence.
Deactivated all ability to copy CDs forever on that PC unless full operating system reinstallation was performed.
Hooked itself into Windows itself, so that it automatically was always resident and running whenever the computer was running.
Hid its processes from the user so the computer user was unaware of the rootkit and could not shut it down or reinstall it.
Opened up a huge place for viruses and worms (some of which appeared within weeks) to hide and not be able to be found by any virus scanner or other Windows process.

In other words, Sony's rootkit was more harmful than any virus or worm to date. A man by the name of Mark Russonovich found this piece of malware and publicized it, costing Sony dozens or hundreds of millions of dollars, exposing the company as the arch-pirates that they are, and costing them all future purchases from me and a significant portion of the public. Sony was not amused.

Then Sony ended up on the losing end of court proceedings, forced to provide tools to remove the rootkit from affected people's computers (fat lot of good that does, most people just know their CD burner doesn't work, they'll never connect it to that Sony CD they played a year ago), and agreeing never to be a computer hacker again. Sony was mad.

One of Sony's products is SecuROM, the copy protection system used in Silent Hunter U-Boat Missions. Although they claim that SecuROM does nothing once SH4UBM is installed, they are wrong. SecuROM, Sony product, scans your running processes every time SH4 starts up, looking for a blacklist of processes it will not allow you to run. Among them are the Microsoft products created by Mark Russonovich. Yes, they have made me and you and all users of Silent Hunter 4 pawns in a personal grudge where Sony was the pirate and Mark Russonovich was the British Navy. Here's their gotcha screen:
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/SecuROMSH4UBMmessage.jpg

That'll pop up right now if I try to run SH4. I can close down Process Explorer, run SH4, alt-tab out of SH4 and run Process Explorer though:
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/ProcessExplorerSH4UBMprocesseslist.jpg

See Silent Hunter 4 on the bottom of the running processes list? Sony is not only dishonest, they are stupid. A little batch file that closes Process Explorer, starts SH4 and restarts Process Explorer is all you need. Note that Process Explorer is an official free product of Microsoft. It has no connection with illegally copying anything. If it did, would Microsoft, who stands to lose more than any corporation by distribution of piracy tools, hire a software engineer to produce this? No, we're simply victims of a personal, extra-legal grudge between a company with defective morals and the man who caught them with their hands in all of our cookie jars.

So what I warn of is not without precedent. Modders exist because Ubi allows them to. We exist because Ubi sees mods as mostly enhancing the value of their product. If we feel free to mod executable files within their property and then to distribute that derivative product without charge, we are clearly injuring them. They will get their way, through the legal system, or outside it. We need to respect their wishes. We need to realize our position in the food chain here.

Deadok, you need to remove your exe file from filefront. You need to remove your link and edit your posts so as not to encourage others to commit piracy. You reveal that you know you have done wrong, even in the title of your first post. Subsim moderators, you'll be responsible for the outcome if you don't take decisive action to clearly define modding as the editing of configuration files, not the disassembly, reverse engineering and modification of executable game files. This is dangerous. It can ruin all future Ubi products in all game genres for those of us who like to mod legitimately and respectfully of the game company who produces the game we love.

[vanjast]

I'm sure you people know the story about IL2 been hacked and modded.
Oleg at 1C did not agree with it, but AFAIK did nothing about it as it breathed new life into the sim, extending its life.

So yes it a balance which has to be weighed up and the question is:
"Did the modder do this mod to the games detriment, or did he/she do it to enhance the game"

The answer is obviously the latter... and if UBI wanted the links and files removed, let them do the talking to this webstie owner - I'm sure a simple request would be complied with.
:D

[Rockin Robbins]

If I were Neal, I'd be contacting Ubi before they contact me. I wouldn't want Ubi thinking that I would endorse theft and mutilation of their property. They should have confidence that if anything seems slightly doubtful, Subsim will be answering questions before they are asked.

Waiting for Ubi to react is endorsement of the act and may be dangerous to what we do. Ubi deserves to know that we support them and seek to follow whatever modding rules they see as reasonable. Again, right and wrong are not decided by utility or usefulness. They are decided by the one to whom the act is directed, in this case, Ubi.

We do not have the right to say "This act enhanced the game so it is permitted." The game is Ubi's property, not ours. It is wrong even to enhance it without their consent.

[makman94]

...moding rules ? where is that list written ? come on guys.... there are no moding rules....only money rules.as long the created mods are for free you have nothing to worry about . if someone hacks .exe or simply editing a .tga is exactly the same thing as long no money needed to get it.imagine someone (very talent) to hack everything and create a revolutionary expansion FOR FREE,well i think that ubi would be the happier of all of us.why? becuase i would go to buy the original game (more money to ubi) in order to patch it with the 'revolutionary' expansion
plus that ubi ,is more than sure, will offer to this person (said that is very talent?) the possibility to work for them in a high post
BUT, if you try to sell it (just the simple edited .tga) you will see this forum to be closed with the speed of light!
now, my opinion for all these stories about ''don't touch the executables'', is that nobody (ok,maybe one or two) here in subsim KNOWS how to tweak them ...all the others just pretending that they ...don't WANT becuase it is ....illegal.

[Rockin Robbins]

This is definitely going to the dark side. Crazy stupid talk like that is just what we need to ensure that no game is ever allowed to be modded again.

Modding is, with prior permission, altering game configuration files, not executable machine code, not redistributing executable machine code. These game configuration files are entirely contained withing the /data subdirectory, as are ALL of the hundreds of mods so far made available through Subsim. This is clear and undeniable. It is easy to understand.

This thing is not a mod. It is vandalism of Ubi's property. They, not we, have the right to disregard that and loose the dogs of alteration of their executable code and free distribution of the derivative product. We have no right to make that decision. Any action like that must be taken only after Ubi gives prior permission.

If you guys persist in redefining what modding is to include vandalism, if Subsim doesn't jump in and resolve the issue with Ubi, and then eliminate this thread and all links to the illegally distributed Ubi property, everything we do here will be gone. There will be no difference between console games and computer games. What you get will be what you get.

Using the stupid logic put forth so far, it's just fine to rob a bank because you can use the money to buy a car. And cars are good! So robbing banks is good!:D Come on guys, use your brains!

[makman94]

Makman, you have an interesting set of mods. Are any of them popular? If so, which ones?

And by the way, been to the famous caves? (You are on Crete, are you not?)

hello I'm goin' down,
i don't know which ones are popular becuase i had no feedback...maybe none of them!
for caves: about what caves you are talking ? (there are many here in Crete.yes i am on Crete)

....

Modding is, with prior permission, altering game configuration files, not executable machine code, not redistributing executable machine code. These game configuration files are entirely contained withing the /data subdirectory, as are ALL of the hundreds of mods so far made available through Subsim. This is clear and undeniable. It is easy to understand....


From where came these 'permissions' ? can you show me ? relax Rockin Robbins... as i said is exactly the same thing .if ubi decide not to edit its .tgas then you can be sure that you will not! your logic about the car ....is ...no comments!

ps: i NEVER named something 'stupid' of your words ...you can disagree, if you want with me, but it is better to do it with a....polite way

[Armistead]

Oh no.....now we will have no more mods.....:har:

[Skyhawk]

Shakespeare wrote a play that exemplifies this "issue" which RR has raised. It is called "Much Ado About Nothing". :har:

This illegal act, as RR is trying to describe it, is simply another mod whose intention and purpose is to enhance a legitimate end user's enjoyment of the game. This is precisely the same intent and purpose behind all the other mods posted here and elsewhere for SH4.

If the "hack" (and I use the term with much reservation) was to circumvent copy protection so as to allow illegal would-be end users to steal this product, that would be something altogether different, but is in fact not that at all.

The method of the mod may be different but the spirit behind it is precisely the same, end of story. Nobody is stealing from UBI or aiding software piracy with this mod in any way.

C'mon, you've got to be kidding us RR right? :yep:

. . . and just when you thought it was "safe to go back into the water", ROFL!!!:D

[Mikhayl]

Most of the artistic (models, textures, particles, you name it) content of SH4 has been ripped off and redistributed in free mods for SH3, that can be used by people who don't have SH4 at all.

Adding a couple of lines to an .exe seems like a fairly minor "offense" compared to the above.

RR, if you think that this mod is "piracy" and is still alive because Neal is somehow unaware of its existence, maybe you should contact him directly to sort this out with the UBI devs & subsim members.

[Rockin Robbins]

Done. Thanks Mikhayl!:salute:

Again, ALL mods up to this point have been editing game configuration files contained with the /data subdirectory. Exe and dll files have been off-limits for hundreds of SH4 mods and many hundreds of SH3 mods. There is a clear precedent that modding does not include hacking the executable game code of a program. And not one non-banned member has ever distributed Ubi executable code on a free download site.

I believe this is also true for other games as well. In other words, this is something new which has to be approached with a "if it hasn't been done up to now there must be a good reason for that" approach.

In view of that you see no difference between this and Better Scopes? I understand that theft is a daily way of life for the majority of computer users now, and that the majority sees nothing wrong with that. I realize that today right and wrong is merely a shortsighted and self-serving question as to whether the result is useful to yourself. But the truth is that just because you can doesn't always mean you should.

Weasel words: I just thought of an exception to the red ALL above! MultiSH4 actually changes three bytes in the SH4.exe file. However, the author didn't distribute an altered SH4.exe on filefront for anyone to download. You must have purchased the SH4.exe file in order to use the mod.

[Mikhayl]

There is a clear precedent that modding does not include hacking the executable game code of a program.
No, it just shows that the vast majority of people can edit simple text files, but that only very very few of them can edit .exe and .dll files.

Case in point, it's easy to add the ship length after the ship name in englishnames.cfg, that's why it has been done several times by several people (me included). Making the feature actually work like it should in a elegant way is a different matter, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.


And again, you can extract an encoded 3D model from SH4 and make it available for use in SH3 or even another game. People who haven't bought SH3 are playing with U-boat models that were "stolen" from SH3 encoded .dat files. People who haven't bought SH4 are sinking ships that have been "stolen" from SH4 encoded .dat files.
All these extracted 3D models can even be used in other games.
SH4.exe can't be used in any other game, so how is the latter "theft" and the former "legit"?

Imagine if someone like you had jumped on Skwasjer (S3D) or Sansal (Pack3D) because "hey, you're not supposed to extract artistic content (3D models) that is encoded in .dat files, that's THEFT".

Think about it the next time you fancy going publicly after the unique "guy that could" with your insults.

[theluckyone17]

I think what RR's trying to say is that there's a line drawn, at least in his mind: altering configuration, texture, and model files is fine; altering executable files is not.

It's an interesting situation, technically (computer technically). I'm fairly sure Ubi's got the standard "cannot distribute the product in part or whole" clause in the EULA. You can't run SH4 with just the distributed files in a "normal mod". You can't run SH4 with just the modified executable, too. Put the two together, and you still don't have the stock config's, models, and textures (those left unmodified by any mods).

Obviously, Ubi will tolerate the creation & distribution of config's, textures, and models. Will they tolerate the creation and distribution of manipulated executables? I don't know. Might better ask 'em.

Up 'til now, Ubi's been very reasonable concerning mods. Are they likely to shoot the gift horse in the mouth by shutting down *all* mods because they object to a distributed modified executable? I doubt it. If they take offense, it'd probably be centered on the executable.

That being said, I'm with RR on this one... modifying the executable for such a simple feature, knowing that it might cross the line into territory Ubi finds objectionable... I'm not sure it's worth it.

[Skyhawk]

"Up 'til now, Ubi's been very reasonable concerning mods. Are they likely to shoot the gift horse in the mouth by shutting down *all* mods because they object to a distributed modified executable? I doubt it. If they take offense, it'd probably be centered on the executable.

That being said, I'm with RR on this one... modifying the executable for such a simple feature, knowing that it might cross the line into territory Ubi finds objectionable... I'm not sure it's worth it. "

What you and RR are failing to acknowledge is that the intent behind this mod is the same as any of the other mods that you and RR think UBI finds acceptable. Again, the methodology is the only difference between this mod and any of the other mods which are much more contractually objectionable and which are already being used by thousands while being distributed both here at subsim and elsewhere.

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

vandalism - the willful or malicious destruction of public or private property , especially of anything beautiful or artistic.

Nobody is destroying anything with willful malice by editing an executable to create a mod which is by it's very nature is intended to increase the entertainment value of SH4 for LEGITIMATE customers. This edit of an executable is not done with any more intrinsic intentional malice than any other mod that is posted on this website.

Anyone can fail to acknowledge this fact if they choose to do so, but that doesn't make the premise of this mod being illegal and a dangerous precedent any more valid by virtue alone. At the very least the OP doesn't deserve to be treated like a software pirate or "vandal". That is simply absurd and being condescending for no reason whatsoever except to "fire for effect".

If you want to tell the guy you think his idea is good but his methodology is wrong that is one thing, but there is no need to accuse him of "vandalism" any more so than any other of the much appreciated mod contributors to this community.

I interpreted the intention behind the use of the terminology "nasty hack" to mean that the edit was very difficult to achieve, not that it was a kind of subconcious clue by the OP that his mod was illegal. There is more than just a single, negative, perspective to be taken on the question at hand.

Ignore logic, reason, and established precedents all you like to make your arguement, that doesn't add any validity to the negative perspective at all.

Perhaps someone is even owed an apology, and I don't mean UBI. :hmmm:

[Captain America]

This is a nice find...I'll use it. :up:

With all due respect, I think this is being blown out of proportion. Its true what mikhayl said about most people not having a clue about how to edit .exe's and .dll's..thats why its so "taboo". He's not altering the code by bypassing any protection mechanisms. He's just simply fixing something that was broken and I thank him for it.

Now he's been scared away...he probably could have ended up fixing a hard coded problem or two.

:ahoy:Deadok..If you are still out there, come back.

[theluckyone17]

Skyhawk, I think you misunderstand me. All I'm saying is that up 'til now, all the SH4 mods have affected textures, models, and config files. As far as we know (and we don't, for sure, 'til Ubi makes a statement), there may be a line drawn there.

I can see some PHB at Ubi going "OMG, they modified the executable, and they're DISTRIBUTING it! SHUT THEM DOWN!". Is it likely to happen, IMHO? Not really. Can I see why RR is concerned? Yep.

Is it outright piracy? Heck no. Is someone vandalizing SH4? Heck no.

So, what am I advocating? A bit of caution. Talk to Neal, talk to someone at Ubi, pull a CYA move. Begging forgiveness isn't always better than asking for permission.

[Rockin Robbins]

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

vandalism - the willful or malicious destruction of public or private property , especially of anything beautiful or artistic.

...

I interpreted the intention behind the use of the terminology "nasty hack" to mean that the edit was very difficult to achieve, not that it was a kind of subconcious clue by the OP that his mod was illegal. There is more than just a single, negative, perspective to be taken on the question at hand.

Ignore logic, reason, and established precedents all you like to make your arguement, that doesn't add any validity to the negative perspective at all.

Perhaps someone is even owed an apology, and I don't mean UBI. :hmmm:
You ignore my intent in favor of a straitjacket dictionary definition but choose to inventively interpret "nasty hack." Yeah, I see where you're coming from: consistency in reasoning!:har:

Look, the EULA, like all similar contracts, would prohibit everything we do if strictly applied. All similar agreements are written so that they can be abused by the entity with the most power, and that ain't us. If Ubi doesn't like it, legal or not, useful or not, genius or not, we're toast. Therefore such actions as performing a "nasty hack" on executable files should be taken with prior permission only. Anybody want to bet what Ubi's reaction to "how about I modify your game code and distribute it on the Internet. It's a useful mod!!!!!" would be? I think every one of us knows the answer.

There are none so blind as those who WILL not see. There is significant danger here, not only to modding of future Silent Hunter games, but all PC based games.

If I were trying to establish the legitimacy of modified executable files, first of all, I would not offer those files to everyone on the Internet. I would offer a program, similar to MultiSH4, which performs the modification on the game file you bought. I would contact Dan and discuss with him that I had a routine, similar to MultiSH4, which made a however many byte change to a data area within the SH4.exe file (doesn't add any machine instructions), demonstrated exactly what it does and ask if it could be permitted under the same logic as MultiSH4. I don't think that would set off the burglar alarms. I think that would have at least a 50% chance of success.

Ubi could still choose to say no. "How do you KNOW that is a data area and not an instruction area. You analyzed and deconstructed our game code in violation of the EULA." And things could go downhill from there. Under the EULA, Ubi has the perfect right to abuse you if for any reason they don't like what you've done. That includes declaring all existing mods illegal and forcing their demise through legal action. I just don't think it's worth the risk and it shows disrespect for Ubi's position as the company who makes the games we love and who deserves all the protection we can offer. I realize mine is a most unreasonable and unpopular opinion. Too bad.

[makman94]

..... If Ubi doesn't like it, legal or not, useful or not, genius or not, we're toast......

now ,this is exactly the part that we all ....agree ! so, i think that everybody must wait the answer from ubi (what Neal said ? will he ask them...:hmmm: ? )

[Rockin Robbins]

PM was sent to Neal yesterday.

[ReallyDedPoet]

PM was sent to Neal yesterday.

Actually a few days ago ;)

[ReallyDedPoet]

Can this be espionage? We are in the midst of fighting the Japs. Where will be imprisoned. I hear they are making a prison on Cuba. At least the weather is nice there.:)

:D:D

[Rockin Robbins]

The weather is nice but they take away your sunscreen and make you stay outside all day.:cry:

[Blood_splat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psTUiQzNoxw
:haha:

[Skyhawk]

@ "theluckyone17

I understand exactly where you are coming from now. I had thought that you agreed with RR not only in exercising some caution going down this road but in his rhetoric directed at the OP as well. That was an over assumption on my part and I apologize to you for that. It was my bad. No sarcasm intended, I am being sincere.



"You ignore my intent in favor of a straitjacket dictionary definition but choose to inventively interpret "nasty hack." Yeah, I see where you're coming from: consistency in reasoning!" :har:

-RR-


The repeated use of the words vandal and/or vandalism in a negative context does not leave much room for subjective interpretation. Please enlighten us - If a "straightjacket" definition isn't correct, then exactly what was your intention and meaning behind using those terms if nothing less than to imply the OP deliberately and with malice did something both morally and legally criminal?

Perhaps instead of playing semantics and demonstrating your proficiency at "keyboard karate" you should try using your perceptiveness to take my comments in context.

As far as the term "nasty hack" goes, I think most would agree that my interpretation makes much more sense and has more plausibility than yours.

Do you honestly think the OP came here to proclaim that he has done something illegal and tried to share it with the rest of the subsim community? Not too mention the fact that he thought he'd get away with same? Ludicrous. Oh yes, that's right, you never implied or suggested such a thing.

I have presented an opposing point of view in disagreement with yours. You respond to me in typical fashion with semantics instead of sound reason.

Good for you. I can assure you that I found it very amusing to say the least.

You really should try to quit taking yourself so seriously.

For me, I'm out as I have better things to do with my time and know better than to try and reason a differing point of view with you. It has the same chance as you apologizing to the OP for your false accusations about his intent when creating this mod which are based soley on YOUR subjective assumptions and interpretation.

The only reason this topic became an "issue" at all is because you did your best to make it one, period.

I can assure you, the sky is in fact, NOT falling.

Have a nice day! :up:

[theluckyone17]

@ "theluckyone17

I understand exactly where you are coming from now. I had thought that you agreed with RR not only in exercising some caution going down this road but in his rhetoric directed at the OP as well. That was an over assumption on my part and I apologize to you for that. It was my bad. No sarcasm intended, I am being sincere.

Ah, no worries. My apologies for not communicating well enough, leaving you hanging (heh. After five years of marriage, maybe something my wife keeps harping at me is starting to sink in :o. That sounds like something she'd want me to say).

The internet as a communication medium leaves a lot to be desired. Toss in a topic that we all undoubtedly feel strongly about, and a few different opinions, and things are bound to get misinterpreted, and then hot.

:sunny:

[Rockin Robbins]

OK, I guess by lack of response from Subsim and Ubi and negative feedback by members, Ubi relinquishes all right to their property, simply by virtue of publishing it. You know it's a similar situation to grafitti, where some contend it's art and others vandalism.

I say if you come over to my house and "improve" it without my permission you are a vandal. Your intent to help by spending $1,000 of your own money and painting it while I was on vacation doesn't matter. The fact is, you had no right to paint my house.

In the case of game code, the same reasoning makes sense. It is in all respects the property of Ubi, and "improving" it and then distributing the improvement is the same thing as vandalizing my house by giving it a "much needed" paint job. Sorry if it offends you. That doesn't matter a bit as you have no power to help or hurt me. However, Ubi has plenty of ability to hurt me, you, Subsim, Neal's pocket. Additionally as they are the whole reason we're here, respect for their rights should be our number one priority.

It's obvious that my opinion is a lone one. Too bad. I get all kinds of approval from my family and don't need it (or want it) from people who don't respect the rights of others.

But I see that I am living in a looter civilization and will let everyone continue biting the hand that feeds us, even though I can well be one who will be sharing the consequences. Hope the results entertain everyone.

[tomhugill]

If this was distributed as a program which altered the exe automaticly , rather than an exe its self would that be ok?

Also making the analogy between adding acouple of lines of code to an exe and vandalising your house is not one that hold true at all. Ubi arnt forced to distribute this or use it , it doesnt affect them. This is more like some offering theyre services to slightly improve your house for free.

Im sure that using encoded models from other ubi products (ie sh3) would be a greater offence than this. As your obtaining a part of the game that you havnt paid for. Where as this is replacing something that everythign who has bought the game has.

[Mikhayl]

vandalism...vandal...vandalizing...people who don't respect the rights of others...looter civilization...biting the hand that feeds us

How about you keep your insults and nonsense to yourself and quietly wait for an "official" response from Neal or Ubi?

[theluckyone17]

I don't think it's quite that clear cut, RR. Your analogy has one big fault... when somebody paints your house, your old paint is gone.

Hacking the executable... well... that's more like you designing your house in some unique way. Somebody else comes along, grabs your copyrighted blueprints, modifies one of the rooms without your permission, cuts the room out of the blueprints, then starts handing out copies of the modified room's blueprints around the neighboorhood.

Yeah... that didn't work out so well. It made sense in my head, at least. :03:

From my viewpoint, hacking the executable isn't all that different from modding the other game resources. The game itself isn't the executable. It's not the textures. It's not the models. It's the sum of all the parts. If you don't have all the parts, you can't play the game. Therefore, if someone downloads just the modified executable, they still can't play.

Are they one step closer? You bet. Download a bunch of other mods, and they can piece together the resources. I don't think they'd be able to grab everything... besides, it'd be awful tedious. I'd sooner work a couple extra hours, grab my paycheck, and pay Ubi :D.

Is it vandalism? I don't think I'd go that far. The OP just wants to improve the game, from his standpoint. That's what all of us want to do... improve the game. We've all got different ideas on what and how to improve. Just look at TMO and RFB and FOTRS, for example. If everyone had the same ideal vision of the game, we wouldn't need three different supermods. Luckily, his local copy of the game doesn't have any impact upon yours... he can mod his installation, and it won't alter your installation.

That being said, I see two issues being brought up here...

First, the modding commmunity at large (I'm talking outside SH3/4 here, too) generally alters textures, models, and other data. They don't modify executables. Game publishes/producers/developers generally don't have problems with modified game data. They do have issues with modified executables, for a variety of good reasons.

Second: the distribution of the executable, without the permission (or willingness to look the other way) of Ubi.

How do we resolve it? In my ideal world, Ubi examines the OP's idea, says "Gee, that's a good idea", and releases an official patch that modifies the executable, cleanly adding the lengths to the recognition manuals. Or, even better, Ubi releases the source code under a public license, and we can modify the executable "properly" to our heart's content, while requiring that gamers purchase the game to retrieve the original data.

It ain't gonna happen, though.

So we've got two camps, one that wants to modify the executable and distribute it. The other says no. Both want to improve the game, with differing concepts of improve. Ubi has the final veto, but Neal's opinion is weighted in there, too. 'Til we hear from either, I'd recommend laying back and relaxing a bit... right now, the change made to the executable was made with good intentions, and did not make sweeping changes to the gameplay. I doubt Ubi's gonna get irritated over that... I'd much sooner think they'd get irritated over the distribution of the executable.

Anyway it goes, I think the world need a drink :D.

[peabody]

It's obvious that my opinion is a lone one. Too bad. I get all kinds of approval from my family and don't need it (or want it) from people who don't respect the rights of others.


I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself I don't consider you opinion as a lone one. I don't agree with all you have said, more specifically the wording, but I do agree with what I consider to be the "meaning": that the .exe should not be distributed (modded or not).

I understand your use of 'vandalizm' but don't agree with it. At least by a legal definition there MUST BE malice involved on the part of the perpetrator and I feel there was not. I could go with copyright infringement or something along those lines. But to be considered vandalizm there must be intent and malice. I don't believe he intented to do any harm (He may do harm by messing with the .exe but the harm was not intended, therefore no vandalizm) , and I don't feel there was malice.

Using the paint the house example: It's could be possible to damage your home with a coat of paint by filling the pores in the wood with paint and then a 'stain' could not be properly applied even after stripping the paint off. So damage was done, he would be liable for the damage. But I don't think the charge would be vandalizm since there was no intent to do harm, and no malice involved. If he painted purple bunnies all over the house that would make it a totally different story.

I totally agree with you about not distributing the .exe. I also agree with Mikhayl "Let's wait and see what UBI says". In fact every single thing we do in here is violating the license agreement. They include a mission editor but if you use it and distribute the missions, it violates the agreement. So we can do what UBI allows us to do. And I think the distribution of the .exe has stepped over the line, but it's not my decision to make, nor, with all due respect is it anyone elses other than UBI.

You comment his "MOD/Hack" violates 2/3rds of what "is not permitted". Our Japanese Campaign will violate all them, without ever touching the .exe.

Peabody

[Rockin Robbins]

If this was distributed as a program which altered the exe automaticly , rather than an exe its self would that be ok?

Also making the analogy between adding acouple of lines of code to an exe and vandalising your house is not one that hold true at all. Ubi arnt forced to distribute this or use it , it doesnt affect them. This is more like some offering theyre services to slightly improve your house for free.

Im sure that using encoded models from other ubi products (ie sh3) would be a greater offence than this. As your obtaining a part of the game that you havnt paid for. Where as this is replacing something that everythign who has bought the game has.

It would be OK to alter the exe that you bought with permission from the publisher. Just as it is OK to paint my house with my permission.

Actually, Ubi owns the software that resides on your machine. Altering their product necessarily affects them. They have the right to determine the fate of their property, not us. We can offer and they can accept or not, but we do not have the right to decide what is right or wrong in this.

It is possible that they would also object to transportation of objects from game to game, especially outside the Ubi family of games, or from a game you do not own. There has been extensive discussion on Subsim as to whether that is permissable. Dan has weighed into some of those threads and not expressed any problem with it. However, at any time, Ubi can reverse their earlier decision and prohibit modding their game, putting mod sites out of business.

Ubi designed this game and intended for modding to take place. But it is still their call what the boundaries are. As people who benefit from their having created the game I believe it is just common respect, when extending the boundaries of what modding has been so far, to ask Ubi if they think it is proper. Your first question would be one of the first important questions to ask.

I stand behind my inflammatory language, including looter, vandal, biting the hand that feeds us, etc. It is the height of impudence to interfere with property of another in any way, including enhancing it at your expense, without respecting their opinion. We can only mod because Ubi produces a game we willingly paid our money to use.

They produced it in a moddable state, and they can produce unmoddable games easily in the future. Dan has already warned that they were very close to a decision not to allow modding in the future.

Why do we have to feel entitled to automatically use or alter someone else's property? I'll proudly say we have no such right and take whatever abuse comes my way. I take the abuse as validation of my position, so fire away. A sense of entitlement accompanies all wrongdoing.

Ubi has earned, with the money we voluntarily paid, the the sole and absolute right to determine, reasonably or unreasonably, the rules for using their product. They have to power to enforce their position and there's nothing we can do about it. Shouldn't that engender a bit of caution?

[theluckyone17]

*snip*Actually, Ubi owns the software that resides on your machine. Altering their product necessarily affects them. They have the right to determine the fate of their property, not us. We can offer and they can accept or not, but we do not have the right to decide what is right or wrong in this.
Just a warning. I'm gonna rant a bit here.

I realize Ubi's position (and most software distributors/producers/developers) is that they've sold me a license to use the software. Specifically, I have not purchased the software itself. Oh, yeah... and I have to follow their terms to use the software. It's almost as bad as Disney telling me to rush out and "buy the DVD today", when I can't... I buy a license to view the DVD (again, following their terms and conditions).

I call bs. It's my computer. That's where the line's drawn. I installed software on my PC, it's my right to do with it what I want.

Note that this doesn't mean I can distribute it. It doesn't mean I can copy it and hand it to a friend. Cracking it and uploading it to The Pirate Bay is off limits. That's crossing the line, between my computer and everything else.

I've got an analogy of my own. I own a '97 Subaru Outback wagon. The engine's from a '95 Impreza (dropped 0.3 liter, but I gained a non-interference design). The rearview mirror is from my ol' 92 Loyale. The ECU is from a '97 Legacy GT.

Now, if Subaru imposed the same terms and conditions upon that vehicle as most EULA do on software, none of the above modifcations would have occurred. I'd have to bring the car into the Subaru dealership for all maintenance, scheduled or otherwise (no modifying, reverse engineering, decompiling, etc. the software by a third party).

I'm expected to simply roll over and let whoever owns the rights to a piece of software do whatever they want, as long as it's in the EULA, including limiting my use of their software? Yeah, right. *sarcasm*

Now I'm probably wrong, from a legal standpoint. Quite frankly, I don't give a darn. Someone wants to stand up and sue me 'cause I altered software on my PC, that wasn't distributed, that did not interact with any other software/computers, they can go right ahead and do so. I'll be martyr. A darn vocal one, at that.

Oh, and if Ubi wants to cut off the modding from future products, they can go right ahead. They'll cut off my funding. I've always considered myself a loyal Ubisoft fan. I've followed the Il-2 Sturmovik series, buying every expansion up to and including 1946. I've bought every Silent Hunter product except the first (including Destroyer Command). They want to put out a SH product that prevents modding, when they've allowed it in the past, they can go right ahead. I'll take my cash and go home. That's my official position.

Ok, I'm done ranting.

[karamazovnew]

Good one Lucky, it was more common sense than ranting :O:. I've avoided to say my thoughts about this issue so far but...

I can't understand why we are not allowed to mod anything outside the DATA folder but at the same time change anything in that folder. S3D editor was made by analising the act files and, altough I'm not sure about it, GWX also seems to do things outside the Data folder. I've said it before, that we're not interested in changing the game's engine, and I can very well understand why Ubi would want to protect it's technology from backwards engineering (including the complier). But their decision to include the game's scripts, including AI, commands, cameras and interface behavior into compiled files was a mistake and a huge blow to modding. I hope that they have realised the benefits in having a modding community and will try to improve on it by giving us more choice, maybe even tools.

However, there are particular files that are indeed offlimits to any game. Those are the files that are resposible for copy-protection. You can't make a mod that includes (or changes) the exe file. That's a very big nono. And I don't understand while the file is still available for download.... :nope:

[miner1436]

I don't know what I would do if SH5 turns out to be un-mod-able.
:wah::wah::wah:

[Skyhawk]

@ "deadok":

On behalf of all those here WHO DO APPRECIATE the effort you made to both create and share with us this well intentioned mod for our favorite sub-simming software, thank you very much.

Although there may be reason for caution with regards to the method you used to accomplish your mod, it's value, your intentions, and your talent do not deserve to be treated in an offhand or negative way any moreso than any other mod/modder has been or should be.

While most here would expect that you would willingly comply with the desire of UBI and/or Neal should either directly indicate that this type of mod - as opposed to other mods effected by different means - is unacceptable, we none-the-less appreciate your work and attempt to help make a great product even better for all of us.

@ "theluckyone17":

Cool beans. I'm glad that we understand each other now and thank you for the mature, personable, and constructive feedback. The truth is we pretty much agree with each other! :yep:

"OK, I guess by lack of response from Subsim and Ubi and negative feedback by members, Ubi relinquishes all right to their property, simply by virtue of publishing it. You know it's a similar situation to grafitti, where some contend it's art and others vandalism . . ."

Blatant sarcasm directed squarely at Subsim, UBI, and all the subsim members who have either replied in this thread with a differing point of view or not at all.


". . . But I see that I am living in a looter civilization and will let everyone continue biting the hand that feeds us, even though I can well be one who will be sharing the consequences. Hope the results entertain everyone . . ."

A negative by nature, and thinly veiled insult, directed at everyone with a differing point of view.

". . . I stand behind my inflammatory language, including looter, vandal, biting the hand that feeds us, etc. . ."

A direct admission of the intention (inflammatory) behind his remarks with specific examples of deragatory labels (looter, vandal) used to characterize the OP - which by any standard amount to a personal attack.

". . . A sense of entitlement accompanies all wrongdoing."

Quite right, and this truth is applicable to all, including the self-righteous.




While it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone in an intelligent and meaningful discussion, it is not acceptable to purposely make personal attacks against some and generalized attacks against groups of other people just because they remain silent or disagree with you.

"We run the forum with as few rules as possible but we aim for a civil tone, so no personal attacks. You may have noticed other Internet forums are filled with aggression, insults, and general immaturity. Check that at the door here, this forum is different. Our members appreciate thoughtful discussion and a mature tone. Please adjust accordingly."

It doesn't matter if you consider yourself a martyr or how self-righteous you feel about something, doesn't even matter if your point of view is "correct" or not, two wrongs don't make a right.

Isn't it about time this thread got locked? Or does the OP and the rest of us really need to be subjected to more of the same? If this thread isn't going to be locked, then isn't it about time for someone to apply some back-pressure to the reins?

Respectfully submitted.

[Sledgehammer427]

:timeout:
Guys, this seems to be getting really out of hand.

RR, you have defended your point well, insults and all, as well as everyone else defending the OP.

Perhaps Hack was used in the wrong context. Perhaps it wasn't. Let's calm down and start looking at this from a different POV. That means ALL of us by the way. With no response from Neal or Ubi, we must assume it is okay, or at least willingly overlooked.

RR, I guess that means cool it with your views of the copyright system. Everyone interprets that system in their own unique way, I appreciate that.

Skyhawk et al, stop getting at RR's throat because of the way he expresses his views and ideals, he has shared his opinion, which is exactly that, an opinion, so stop bashing him for it.

I'm not a moderator, I know, but someone's gotta stem the chaos and insults.

[theluckyone17]

Agreed. All of us have the same goal in mind: improve SH4. We're all entitled to our opinions.

I certainly hold the opinion that RR's a valuable member of this forum. Most of the other names I recognize in this thread are, too. For those I don't recognize, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Hey, drinks at my place, and we can argue 'bout it here. Y'all have to buy your own plane tickets, though :O:.

[Sledgehammer427]

its about 500 round trip from 'ole IL, but I'm not drinking age :O:
coke please!
and thank you for your understanding, LuckyOne. Skyhawk left me a PM saying I am pro RR's opinion, and some other nasty things (I merely browsed it and I'm not going to detail over something I did not completely read) then added me to his ignore list.
this drama is unnecessary.

Deadok, if we didn't scare you off, welcome to the forum and keep up the work, good wrk hopefully :)

[peabody]

its about 500 round trip from 'ole IL, but I'm not drinking age :O:
coke please!
and thank you for your understanding, LuckyOne. Skyhawk left me a PM saying I am pro RR's opinion, and some other nasty things (I merely browsed it and I'm not going to detail over something I did not completely read) then added me to his ignore list.
this drama is unnecessary.

Deadok, if we didn't scare you off, welcome to the forum and keep up the work, good wrk hopefully :)

:har: I'm almost old enough to drink three times over, and I drink coke, so we can share a table.
It's too bad it turned into PMs and Ignores. Just noticed the plural of PM is PMS, I wonder if that has something to do with it? :har:
What does it matter if you are pro anybody? Everyone has an opinion, the world would be quite boring if we all agreed on everything.
Regardless of what your opinion is on the topic, I respect your right to disagree with me and to voice your disagreement and I hope we can still be friends. Like I commented, I disagree with RR about using the word vandalism, that does NOT mean I don't respect him as a person. He is much more better with the English language than I is. ;)

@Deadok, I also hope this does not scare you off.

Peabody

[Skyhawk]

The willingness and/or need to publicly misrepresent a private message speaks volumes "Sledgehammer427".


I did not say you were pro-RR, I said you were displaying pro-bias towards RR and then tried to make my point by explaining the difference between calling someone a criminal (which RR did), and my replies to his comments which you termed "bashing", whose sole purpose was to say that it wasn't necessary to be so condescending and deragatory towards "deadok".


Was it the part where I conveyed that I chose to not participate in this thread any further of my own accord rather than your well-intended but misguided "pearls of wisdom" that made me see the light or was it the fact that I did not use any explicatives, curse words, or make any personal attacks towards you or RR that you found so nasty?

After all, the only things I spoke about in a negative fashion were merely based on my opinion, so no need to "bash" me for it either, unless of course like some others you think the rules should be applied to some, but not to all, and especially not to you.

Perhaps you should report the PM and get me banned if it is so offensive. But we both know that isn't the case. I agree, that enough is enough, and that is precisely why I took my comments to the message system.

I will say one last thing though. There is only one member here at subsim who has been a victim in this thread. That member is "deadok", NOT RR.

"deadok" came here to share something with this community in a positive and meaningful way. RR took that effort, made an issue of it, then took carte blanche with the forum rules in driving him away.

I have yet to hear anyone refute the arguements I made to this effect with logic and sound reason, and have only gotten "grief" for the effort. But you will notice I am not claiming to be a martyr or the victim of abuse.
If you have anything further to say to me, do it via the subsim message system, I have taken you off my ignore list.

Assuming you did not in fact read the entire private message as you've stated, then perhaps you should do so before you make unfounded, public accusations about it. Assuming of course that you don't feel the need to honor a private message with the common courtesy of keeping it private, save for sharing it with the moderating team if in fact you think it is in violation of the forum rules.

Have a nice day, I know I will because I did not just stand by and watch while someone got mugged on the side of the road.

Now, make any comments you like knowing that I choose not to reply in this thread again. There is nothing more to say, if what has been said hasn't been convincing enough.:yep:

[Hitman]

OK, I just noticed that the current SH4 moderators are on vacation. Since I can't close the thread myself I have given notice to Neal but as Subsim moderator I think I can say clearly here:

NO, THIS IS NOT ALLOWED STUFF HERE. NO MATTER WHAT YOU DID TO THE EXE, IT HAS CROSSED THE RED LINE.

I understand there is no bad intention here, but this has been discussed already many times in the SH3 forums and the answer is NO, no exe or dlls hacking is allowed.

Please do not further post here until Neal comes and states his opinion. I can't close the thread, but I sure can give infractions to anybody who keeps posting here.

Thanks

Hitman (As moderator)

[Donner]

Link removed in first post.

Thread closed...Pending review from Neal.

[Onkel Neal]

My understanding is hacking the main game executable is not allowed. I appreciate the intent to add a mod to the game, but as Hitman said, that's forbidden.