Ship length in Recognition manual [Nasty Hack] - Page 2

ReallyDedPoet · 08-19-09, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irish1958

Great advice, thanks.
Moderator please note.

It has been on the radar here

Rockin Robbins · 08-20-09, 02:35 PM

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.

Quote:

It is not permitted:
...
- To modify the Multimedia Product or create any derived work,
- To create or distribute unauthorised levels and/or scenarios,
- To decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble the Multimedia Product.

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!!!!"

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.

Rockin Robbins · 08-21-09, 06:07 AM

First of all, with respect for any lawyers who may be present

, 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:

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:

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.

vanjast · 08-21-09, 02:26 PM

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.

Rockin Robbins · 08-21-09, 03:07 PM

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.

makman94 · 08-21-09, 03:36 PM

...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.

Rockin Robbins · 08-21-09, 04:15 PM

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!

Come on guys, use your brains!

makman94 · 08-21-09, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm goin' down

Makman, you have an interesting set of mods. Are any of them popular? If so, which ones?

And by the way, been to the famous caves? (You are on Crete, are you not?)

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

....

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....

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

Armistead · 08-21-09, 08:40 PM

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

Skyhawk · 08-21-09, 10:42 PM

Shakespeare wrote a play that exemplifies this "issue" which RR has raised. It is called "Much Ado About Nothing".

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?

. . . and just when you thought it was "safe to go back into the water", ROFL!!!

Mikhayl · 08-22-09, 08:19 AM

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.

Rockin Robbins · 08-22-09, 02:10 PM

Done. Thanks Mikhayl!

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.

Mikhayl · 08-22-09, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

There is a clear precedent that modding does not include hacking the executable game code of a program.

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.

theluckyone17 · 08-22-09, 08:17 PM

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.

Skyhawk · 08-22-09, 10:22 PM

"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.

08-21-09, 06:07 AM	#18
Rockin Robbins Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: DeLand, FL Posts: 8,900 Downloads: 135 Uploads: 52	First of all, with respect for any lawyers who may be present , 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: 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: 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. __________________ Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks, Slightly Subnuclear Mk 14 & Cutie, Slightly Subnuclear Deck Gun, EZPlot 2.0, TMOPlot, TMOKeys, SH4CMS Last edited by Rockin Robbins; 08-21-09 at 12:06 PM.

08-21-09, 03:07 PM	#20
Rockin Robbins Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: DeLand, FL Posts: 8,900 Downloads: 135 Uploads: 52	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. __________________ Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks, Slightly Subnuclear Mk 14 & Cutie, Slightly Subnuclear Deck Gun, EZPlot 2.0, TMOPlot, TMOKeys, SH4CMS

08-21-09, 03:36 PM	#21
makman94 Hellas Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,325 Downloads: 182 Uploads: 7	...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. __________________ Knowledge is the only thing that nobody can ever take from you... Mediafire page:http://www.mediafire.com/folder/da50.../Makman94_Mods Last edited by makman94; 08-21-09 at 03:51 PM.

08-21-09, 04:15 PM	#22
Rockin Robbins Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: DeLand, FL Posts: 8,900 Downloads: 135 Uploads: 52	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! Come on guys, use your brains! __________________ Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks, Slightly Subnuclear Mk 14 & Cutie, Slightly Subnuclear Deck Gun, EZPlot 2.0, TMOPlot, TMOKeys, SH4CMS

08-22-09, 02:10 PM	#27
Rockin Robbins Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: DeLand, FL Posts: 8,900 Downloads: 135 Uploads: 52	Done. Thanks Mikhayl! 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. __________________ Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks, Slightly Subnuclear Mk 14 & Cutie, Slightly Subnuclear Deck Gun, EZPlot 2.0, TMOPlot, TMOKeys, SH4CMS Last edited by Rockin Robbins; 08-22-09 at 02:29 PM.

08-21-09, 02:26 PM	#19
vanjast Sea Lord Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Somewhere else now Posts: 1,734 Downloads: 825 Uploads: 4	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.

08-21-09, 08:40 PM	#24
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	Oh no.....now we will have no more mods.....

08-21-09, 10:42 PM	#25
Skyhawk A-ganger Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 79 Downloads: 18 Uploads: 0	Shakespeare wrote a play that exemplifies this "issue" which RR has raised. It is called "Much Ado About Nothing". 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? . . . and just when you thought it was "safe to go back into the water", ROFL!!!

08-22-09, 08:19 AM	#26
Mikhayl Captain Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 485 Downloads: 64 Uploads: 0	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.

08-22-09, 08:17 PM	#29
theluckyone17 Captain Join Date: May 2006 Location: Niskayuna, NY Posts: 482 Downloads: 103 Uploads: 0	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.

08-22-09, 10:22 PM	#30
Skyhawk A-ganger Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 79 Downloads: 18 Uploads: 0	"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.