Ship length in Recognition manual [Nasty Hack]

[Captain America]

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Skyhawk

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.

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!

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]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

..... 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... ? )

[Rockin Robbins]

PM was sent to Neal yesterday.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

PM was sent to Neal yesterday.

Actually a few days ago

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by I'm goin' down

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.

[Rockin Robbins]

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

[Blood_splat]

[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!"

-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!

[theluckyone17]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 . 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

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.

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 .

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 .