Contorable Astute Project~On going
 

I'm working on a new controable Astute sub of UK.
Temporally, using SSN21 interface for modification
Changed default weapon loadout:replace MK48 with Spearfish;
Reduced Rack Stowed from 42 to 32;
Adjusted all those Masts position match the Astute mod(from LWAMI mod 3.08)
Player Choice Picture: add-on UK flag base on a SSN21 PC picture
.......
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c...astuteWL32.jpg

almost done, except one thing------"SailBridge", can't find it's "obj number" in Database(those SAM launcher number doesn't count ), therefor I can't adjust SSN21's sailbridge position into Astute:damn:

Any suggestion? or any idea I can find it's exact number in Databse?

Cheers!

Adding new playables was explicitly forbidden by Sonalysts....man, you can't do that. No one here will support it or help you with that, so forget about it. :mad::mad::mad:

I would like to see this one come before a judge.I think he would find against SCS.

Would you care to share with us your reasoning for that?

If I sold you a car that only had three wheels but you could make it perform better by adding a wheel,how would you feel if I told you that you cannot do this.You must also not repaint it to make it look better.You must also accept that I have sold you a defective product for which I will only provide minimal support as I can make more money elsewhere!I made a mess of the marketing and never made any money on it,but I will not let you maximise the cars potential even if you are not going to gain financially on it, but you are only doing it to maximise your driving pleasure.It is an imperfect product,but you bought it.I also let you tinker with the previous product made by me and you made it really good but you are not going to have that much fun again.
Also I did not let you drive the product before you bought it and did not tell you that you cannot mod it at all until after you bought it.
If this was a car would you still buy it??

The following law would probably cover it:

Sale of Goods Act

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 traders must sell goods that are as described and of satisfactory quality.
If consumers discover that products do not meet these requirements they can reject them and ask for their money back providing they do so quickly. Alternatively, they can request a repair or replacement or claim compensation.

Argument by analogy works on judges, but only in the absence of controlling law.

You might want to have a look at 17 USC 106.

Modifying a product/work does not fall within any of these remedies.

I am in the UK so I would be basing this on UK law.Nowhere in your link is software mentioned.I still think that this is a flawed product and I can claim that the goods are unsuitable and request a refund.

I do not have the game to hand but where is it stated that no modification can take place,even though they allowed it in subcomand?

Good point!:up:

honestly, I don't care what Sonalysts think, I buy it, and I have the rights to do what I want to do on it, besides, I'm not going to sell it to anyone or make profit from it. Why not???? I think somebody in this forum have some bugs in their logic:down:

Will Sonalysts restrict me to buy their product??? I don't think so

As a fan, I truelly hope the subsim forum especially the DW forum can be more active, positive,more enthusiasm on the improving tech for Game that can bring more fun to all fans, rather than some stupid discussions about what you can what you can't

come on! here is not courthouse, only a game forum, who make the call here?? you guys, or Sonalysts?:rotfl:


If someone can help and wanna to, help; if not, please! do me a favour,at least don't big talk about "against-rule" stuff, it's a waste of your time

keep trying to improve the game I love, never ever drop that

I just predict this thread to be erased, as many before. So it's you wasting time here in the end.

uhm, if it's like what you predict, this sentence might be a good choice of caption in DW section

You haven't brought up any UK law that addresses the question. I'm going to take a guess and say that even if UK law did not provide this sort of copyright protection domestically, that international agreements would. The WTO is a bit behind the curve on getting this done on a global basis, but states like the US and UK are the ones pushing for it so it would make sense that they honor each others' copyrights. Also, SCS would be the party suing so they would chose the forum. The UK would probably enforce the judgment of a US court against a UK subject.

Unless you want to argue that the terms used in 17 USC 106 do not include software, you have not made a meaningful argument. Defintions are covered in section 101, if you'd like to try. Heck, I'll even narrow it down for you and point to 106(2) as the provision you really need to be concerned with. That narrows it down to two terms.

Which has nothing to do with the issue you raised nor has anything to do with this thread whatsoever.

I think SCS would be laughed out of court for suing someone who was trying to improve their flawed product for his own personal use and no commercial gain.How would they even be able to find the person doing it if all the modding was done on your own pc?
I believe that a similar logic was discussed over SHIV and its imperfect early state,but at least the manufacturer didn't take our money and walk away laughing which is what SCS are doing with DW.It is obviously easier to pull the wool over government agencies eyes than a lot of hardcore gamers which is why they have abandoned us.
I think SCS have never gotten over the embarrassment of how good SCX is and dislike it because they didn't invent it and will therefore not allow anything similar..I also remember expansion packs being discussed by SCS for DW when it was launched but they have never appeared.Again they promised more than they delivered and I am sure it was done to improve sales.Did they ever have any intention of providing these and if they did why not release them as a patch to the people that bought the game?
I certainly do not remember agreeing to a no mod clause when I bought Dw and if I had known that a DWX would never have been allowed I probably wouldn't have bought it.I just hope Ubisoft launch a modern subsim and then we can all put two fingers up to SCS.
The issue is whether someone can mod on their own pc something for their own use.Copyright allows something to be reproduced as long as it is substantially different from the original.A drivable Astute does not appear in the game so I think SCS would have no case against someone doing this.Roll on a few more interesting drivables
Mol.n,I see you are a law student,how do you fancy a class action suit as your first case?

You're only looking at it from the point of view of the retail consumer. The court is going to look at it from both sides, and more importantly, is going to look at the law. When you do that, there is nothing to laugh about. There are going to be two issues that come up. First, does the creation of the mod violate SCS's rights? Unless you can make an argument that the mod in question is not a derivative product, the plain text of the law makes it clear that SCS has the exclusive right to create derivative products of DW. SCS is going to win that round, and then you get to round 2...what remedy does SCS have?

This is harder for SCS because they're probably going to have to prove some sort of damages. I suppose I could do some research and provide a more definite answer to this, but I don't have any background in intellectual property law so doing so is going to be a lot of work, so I won't do it. What I will say is that it might be the case that there are some sort of damages presumed by statute, or there might not be. If there is, then SCS wins again. If there aren't, then they have to prove damages which will be hard for them. If the mod got into circulation and caused their miltary sales to suffer, however, the creator of the mod is really, really screwed. Possibly to the tune of millions.

That's nothing to laugh out of court.

I'm about 99% sure SCS announced here and in interviews prior to DW's release that a PCU would not be allowed. (DWX would have been allowed, just as LW/Ami has been allowed). I'm 100% sure you had to accept this...
...before you were able to install DW.

For what exactly? Not that it matters, I probably lost the right to bring any such action by becoming a beta tester.

The point is that if someone wants to discuss adding drivable units to DW he will not be allowed to do it here.
Just put up a new forum some where else on the web to discuss this mod.
Second, even if you have an scx type mod for dw you still need a comunity to use it if you want to enjoy a multiplayer experience. Its going to be quite difficult.
Third, scs will not be pleased by this turn of affairs, and even if a successor to dw was pretty low on the horizon,with these kinds of mods we are actually putting a coffin over dw 2.
As to whether people using non approved mods will be prosecuted by scs i have my doubts but you never know. :hmm:

Looks like Molon Labe has done a first rate job addressing your comments, but I would like to add a few non-legal ones myself. Firstly, I think SCS-DW is one of the finest naval simulations ever released. If not the best. What embarrassment by SCS are you talking about?!?!? As far as I know, they are genuinely proud of the work they've done, and the simulations they've created that many have enjoyed for many long years. They have also been fully supportive of community mods. Including SCX. They've said that all along. They also said at the time SCX was created that they liked the mod very much. Are the Romanian developers from UBIsoft embarrassed and upstaged by the GWX project? You do know how stock SH3 and GWX compares don't you? I don't think they are, and they shouldn't be either. As SH3 was a fine game on it's own merits as well. As far as SCS add-ons go, the add-ons were never "promised and not delivered" like what you're saying. They have always stood by their words that any add-ons or future releases would depend on sales. And that they reserve the rights to build add-on units for their games. DW is their intellectual property created in house at Sonalysts. The code does not belong to you. I don't understand all the fuss.

Linton bought the product in england therefore he is govend by english law if sonalasys is an american company they cant do squat unless they have at least one outlet in the uk and seeing as they dont they can do very little.

Changing something that is copy right to make profit is illigal in this country however chaning something that is copy right for nothing is not, UKTRAINSIM is one very good example of this and so is flightsim!

"The point is that if someone wants to discuss adding drivable units to DW he will not be allowed to do it here.
Just put up a new forum some where else on the web to discuss this mod."

Goldorak why cannot this be discused here.Obviously everybody has a different opinion and exectation of DW.I was massively disappointed with it.It was sold with the expectation of future expansion packs and continuing patches.Neither have appeared.
I have been deceived and sold a sows ear and not a silk purse.:down::down::down: