Strike Fighters 2 meets FlightGear

[+mue 723]

1 hour ago, swambast said:

In my opinion, I could not disagree more and hate the way this is heading...The Developer of this Sim created an encrypted .LOD file format for a reason - to prevent theft and unauthorized distribution.  I have never seen a post where the Developer has made a claim about not caring about reverse engineering - why do you think he ended up locking certain .LODs and other game components away then if he didn't care?  Anyone can justify anything if they want, but it doesn't make it right.  I'd personally prefer to see Thirdwire continue to go on it's own way and FlightGear do the same - I don't see what benefit Thirdwire or the community has in this arrangement - for example, do we suddenly get access to FlightGear assets?  But I'm sure I'm again in the minority - seems to be just a free for all these days.  

TK posted this in Sep. 2007 in his forum. See this forum thread: LOD file format. - Third Wire Forums.htm. And I wrote already that he used obfuscation methods later.
Just to clarify: I don't want to distribute any assets. I only want to use assets from the game I purchased or assets from this community within FlightGear. For this I plan to write a tool that automatically converts the SF2 data ini files into FlightGear files (Edit: the .lod file itself can be directly loaded into FlightGear via the OSG pluging, so no conversion of lod files needed). Again: no distribution of any assets! I think that's legal within TWs EULA and CombatAce Freeware License Agreement.
And I see benefit for Thirdwire and the community: Maybe some will buy SF2 games if they know they can use the aircraft in FlightGear too. And maybe FlightGear can be enhanced to be a fully community driven open source air combat simulator. Then why not use the already by this community created assets?
And yes, everybody has access to FlightGear assets. Most FlightGear assets are released under GPL or other "free" licenses. I was told recently, that FlightGear aircraft were already converted to SF2.

Edited October 15, 2019 by mue
added info about lod file loading; grammar

[+mue 723]

13 hours ago, RichardH said:

The python code isn't generally available (due to the risk of griefing)

Since the multiplayer protocol is open, you always have the risk of cheating. I don't understand how releasing the python code increases the risk of griefing?
I assumed the FlightGear combat community isn't that big, means you know each other, and therefore cheating isn't that much of a problem.

Edited October 16, 2019 by mue

[RichardH 16]

13 hours ago, swambast said:

 I'd personally prefer to see Thirdwire continue to go on it's own way and FlightGear do the same - I don't see what benefit Thirdwire or the community has in this arrangement - for example, do we suddenly get access to FlightGear assets?  But I'm sure I'm again in the minority - seems to be just a free for all these days.  

Just to be clear nobody is promoting or encouraging any sort of distribution that isn't permitted by the existing licences. Normally in the FlightGear world we respect the creator's wishes - so if someone doesn't want something used we generally won't use it (even if an existing licence would permit this). It's a case of doing the right thing.

All of FlightGear's assets are freely available and you can redistribute under the GPL

• https://scenery.flightgear.org/ - currently 7498 models - e.g. military objects https://scenery.flightgear.org/app.php?c=Models&a=browse&shared=6

• 532 FlightGear aircraft can be found here https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/fgaddon/HEAD/tree/trunk/Aircraft/

• The rest of our assets are in here; https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/fgdata/ci/next/tree/ - e.g. low poly aircraft models https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/fgdata/ci/next/tree/AI/Aircraft/

The benefit to this community is open up the development and to hopefully build something that will grow with the modding community - without negatively impacting it. 

Remember that ThirdWire are commercial, and in fact I just had a brief look and found these statements here https://fundrazr.com/31YZNe?ref=ab_53zatDj9Npr53zatDj9Npr - whereas any opensource game can keep going all the time that the community wishes to support it.

Quote

Q. Are you going to continue to support the game?

A. We wish we could continue to support the game forever, but again, these things takes a lot of money, and we simply can not afford to keep supporting old games for years and decades....

Q. Can we add <xyz> features and fix <abc> bugs?

A. We'd love to be able to do everything everyone is asking for, but unfortunately, all these take a lot of time and money....

These are the benefits for me and one of the reasons that I chose FlightGear over X-Plane, FSX, P3D - but I'm not here to try too hard to change anyone's mind.

 

13 hours ago, russouk2004 said:

Im sticking with SF2 too....flightgear has some good terrains and features,but too long and complcated method of importing a model...think I will stick to what I know lol

Hopefully this will be resolved by having a complete SF2 loader that will allow the entire model to be loaded and flown without any need for modders to do this.

 

8 hours ago, mue said:

Since the multiplayer protocol is open, you always have the risk of cheating. I don't understand how releasing the python code increases the risk of griefing?
I assumed the FlightGear combat community isn't that big, means you know each other, and therefore cheating isn't that much of a problem.

Because FlightGear is so open we don't really want to publish something that could be used to cause grief /  interfere with civilian flight operations - i.e. the normal multiplayer. It would be bad for OPRF if someone put up a set of AI fighters that decided to intercept and shoot down (or just annoy) civilian traffic.

[+mue 723]

25 minutes ago, RichardH said:

Because FlightGear is so open we don't really want to publish something that could be used to cause grief /  interfere with civilian flight operations - i.e. the normal multiplayer. It would be bad for OPRF if someone put up a set of AI fighters that decided to intercept and shoot down (or just annoy) civilian traffic.

Ok, now I understand. I forgot/haven't considered that you use the official multiplayer network with it's civilian traffic.

[+russouk2004 6,959]

Quote

Hopefully this will be resolved by having a complete SF2 loader that will allow the entire model to be loaded and flown without any need for modders to do this.

ahh ok...thnks...will have look at whats involved in depth and see how I get on...do my bit so to speak lol   hopefully we can get this to work...

[Wilches 1,173]

I wonder if it's possible to import planes from FlightGear. There are some very interesting subjects there like Ar 234B with cockpit among others. Could it be?

[RichardH 16]

2 hours ago, Wilches said:

I wonder if it's possible to import planes from FlightGear. There are some very interesting subjects there like Ar 234B with cockpit among others. Could it be?

I imagine it's a case of importing the 3d model into 3ds and exporting an LOD.

Usually FlightGear models tend to be built from lots of individual models that are pulled together in the xml file - however I've got a tool that merges these into a single file (and uses a texture atlas); I've run this on the AR-234.

The resulting model is entirely suitable for import into 3ds Max (the archive contains AC3D  FBX and Blender formats) https://www.dropbox.com/s/0v7mh220igkfu4n/AR-234-full-model.7z?dl=1 

The XML file also contains all of the animations which might be useful as a guide; and remember that this model licenced under the GPL v2.

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by RichardH

[Wilches 1,173]

Wow!! That's awesome! Hope that someone make this job. It' s out of my skiils. Thanks Richard and keep with us!

[+mue 723]

36 minutes ago, RichardH said:

and remember that this model licenced under the GPL v2.

For those who don't know the GPL: If you use GPL content for your aircraft then the derived work, i.e. your aircraft, is also automatically licenced under the GPL. That means you can not distribute your aircraft under the CombatAce Modders License Agreement, because the CombatAce Modders License Agreement forbids the sale of the content (as payware). However the GPL doesn't allow those restrictions. Under the GPL the user has the right to sell the content!

[+swambast 730]

Easy enough to get it started...

 

LOL

@Mue, so under the GPL if I made this available I or anyone else can then subsequently take it and sell it?  Or am I totally misunderstanding...  

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by swambast
GPL question for Mue

[+mue 723]

44 minutes ago, swambast said:

so under the GPL if I made this available I or anyone else can then subsequently take it and sell it?  Or am I totally misunderstanding...

Correct! But the buyer/recipient also get the same rights as you from the GPL. He can use/modify/distribute/sell the content under the GPL. His right to modify the content also means that you have to give him the "source code" of your content. The GPL says about the source code: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I think (maybe Richard can confirm or correct me here) that means, that if you sell the lod file then you must also include the e.g. *.3ds or equivalent file.

Edited October 17, 2019 by mue

[RichardH 16]

1 hour ago, mue said:

Correct! But the buyer/recipient also get the same rights as you from the GPL. He can use/modify/distribute/sell the content under the GPL. His right to modify the content also means that you have to give him the "source code" of your content. The GPL says about the source code: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I think (maybe Richard can confirm or correct me here) that means, that if you sell the lod file then you must also include the e.g. *.3ds or equivalent file.

Firstly the guiding principle of the GPL is that you, as a creator, can choose to licence your creation so that everyone can have the freedom to use it, to redistribute it, but also to distribute improvements. Any distributed improvements must have the source so that the original freedom is maintained. You get to choose if you want to licence under GPL - if you don't like it then don't use it.

I really don't want to get into a licencing debate - basically the GPL means you have to distribute the source to any improvements that you distribute (regardless of whether you sell it or not). 

Edited October 17, 2019 by RichardH

[+russouk2004 6,959]

With GPL then adding models,might make people release them as Payware...if I do,i for one might consider this....if others make £££ $$$ off my free model,then why shouldnt I first ?....lol

is this GPL obligatory for Flightgear...? maybe we could if it happens....create a group that is strictly freeware. ?

I assume GPL means General Public License ?

Edited October 17, 2019 by russouk2004

[+mue 723]

33 minutes ago, russouk2004 said:

With GPL then adding models,might make people release them as Payware...if I do,i for one might consider this....if others make £££ $$$ off my free model,then why shouldnt I first ?....lol

is this GPL obligatory for Flightgear...? maybe we could if it happens....create a group that is strictly freeware. ?

I assume GPL means General Public License ?

Yes GPL means General Public License.
Only if you want your aircraft included in the official FlightGear hangar "FGAddon", then the GPLv2 is obligatory. Otherwise you can license your model as you like (assumed the whole model is your own creation and don't contain or uses GPL content) and use it in FlightGear.

[Wilches 1,173]

It's getting hot here!

[+VonS 1,428]

On 2019-10-17 at 3:30 AM, Wilches said:

I wonder if it's possible to import planes from FlightGear. There are some very interesting subjects there like Ar 234B with cockpit among others. Could it be?

There's a fine Deperdussin Racer of 1913 that I remember seeing several years ago, in FlightGear - would be nice to import that one into FE2. Also the Santos-Dumont Demoiselle comes to mind too. 

Happy flying,

Von S

[Icarus999 70]

This is an interesting concept... looking forward to seeing this progress.