Ohio

[OneShot]

The FAQ refers to various sources where SCS Representatives, namely Jamie Carlson, have explicitly given their Ok to change some things. Here is again a link to one hard source where SCS (by way of Jamie) gave his Ok to certain modding efforts

http://www.simhq.com/_naval/naval_019d.html

As you can see, more or less everything short of new/added playable platforms is Ok! To make it more clear, changes in the DB, new textures and models, new sounds and so on is alright. Only when you add a new playable platform regardless of how you do it are you stepping out of bounds. The only thing that is unclear (but I think SCS is Ok with it) is adding a different type of an already existing platform. For example an 688 Flight I or an Indian Kilo.

[Hitman]

From that interview:

In short, we can't allow modders to create new drivable platforms because our business model depends on us being able to charge for them, either for commercial customers or government contracts.

That makes me wonder if we would be allowed (It's a matter of asking, of course, because the current situation is a NO unless we get a positive reply) to add playable old cold-war era platforms, like the Knox FF, Sturgeon, Victor III, or even older ones.

If the real reason they forbid adding platforms is to secure their contracts with modern navies, I think that those navies would hardly be interested in such old boats, right? :hmm:

[GrayOwl]

Originally Posted by OneShot

The FAQ refers to various sources where SCS Representatives, namely Jamie Carlson, have explicitly given their Ok to change some things. Here is again a link to one hard source where SCS (by way of Jamie) gave his Ok to certain modding efforts

http://www.simhq.com/_naval/naval_019d.html

As you can see, more or less everything short of new/added playable platforms is Ok! To make it more clear, changes in the DB, new textures and models, new sounds and so on is alright. Only when you add a new playable platform regardless of how you do it are you stepping out of bounds. The only thing that is unclear (but I think SCS is Ok with it) is adding a different type of an already existing platform. For example an 688 Flight I or an Indian Kilo.

It not the legal document is simply conversation of two friends.
The legal document on a disk - EULA.

[GrayOwl]

Originally Posted by Hitman

From that interview:

That makes me wonder if we would be allowed (It's a matter of asking, of course, because the current situation is a NO unless we get a positive reply) to add playable old cold-war era platforms, like the Knox FF, Sturgeon, Victor III, or even older ones.

If the real reason they forbid adding platforms is to secure their contracts with modern navies, I think that those navies would hardly be interested in such old boats, right? :hmm:

The modern fleet will never use out-of-date and primitive model of the engine of this game.
25 years of years back it could be used - but only not now.

[OneShot]

Originally Posted by GrayOwl

It not the legal document is simply conversation of two friends.
The legal document on a disk - EULA.

Its an official statement in a public forum made by a representative of SCS in his capacity as such. While not a legal document per se its enough to work with and it doesn't contradict the EULA. I would guess ML could add a note on this too ...

[GrayOwl]

Its an official statement in a public forum made by a representative of SCS in his capacity as such. While not a legal document per se its enough to work with and it doesn't contradict the EULA. I would guess ML could add a note on this too ...

-"Its an official statement in a public forum..."

But not on an official site of the game developer.
Besides, it can be the individual point of view - JC.
From the legal point of view - that is on a disk and is first on the importance by the document.

[Raptor_341]

>> My only point was if it wasnt for sub sim and people with a comitment to realism that has made mods such as LWAMI possible, i wouldnt even use DW, end of story. I just find it so hard to believe that they would want stop the adding of new platforms, it makes no sence. What do they lose... nothing. The work of people to make more for DW should be a plus, and most of it is. Some people follow everything by the book i guess. But there is nothing more to say here, so we might as well close this.

[steeljackal]

I don't know laws matter, but i think:

-DW is property of SCS, then they can do what they want

-but wich they do have non sence, is stupid

For example SH3 lives with GWX (and a lot of games keep alive with mods)

[FIREWALL]

This is why I'm glad I only paid $8.19 out the door at Target for this sim.