...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.

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!

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)

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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:

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.

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.

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.

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: ? )

PM was sent to Neal yesterday.

Actually a few days ago ;)

:D:D

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

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

@ "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: