Ship length in Recognition manual [Nasty Hack]
 

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
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.

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.

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"

@ deadok

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

Greets

Maddy

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;))

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.

Could you give me example of such permission?

From license.txt
ps/
2-nd part + included level editor = fun

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!:

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.

Great advice, thanks.
Moderator please note.

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).

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 :)

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

It has been on the radar here :yep:

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.

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/a...tingsmilie.gif

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/a...UBMmessage.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/a...cesseslist.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.

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

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.