leak the lockon code!!!

[Troffmeister]

frankly i hate all your signatures - they are pointless - remove them all - and say something constructive worth reading - most of the time the sig pic and comments are bigger than the post !

 

i really really hate sigs on forums period ! my opinion

 

as for ed code and stuff - it would be nice to have a means of implementing a cockpit for new 3d models or updated models - also i would like a fly all executable - a legit one - so i can fly all planes - ai included in the mission editor for fun )

 

lastly - why not allow multiple new objects to be easily incorporated into the game by modders - by releasing some tool or means of opening up , and implementing new object slots easily into the game engine

 

- to summarise - some nice new tools or 3d modding abilities for me would be

 

1 - add cockpits as above

 

2- fly all planes legit in mission editor for fun / testing / 3d modding purposes

 

3- a tool or means of new object slots into the game engine - without the need to remove or transvestite existing game objects

 

Roger

[hitman]

Well I spend the time to make a decent signature and a few kbs over isnt going to kill anyone or anything. I mean seriously, whos going to care about 1 or 2 or even 5kbs over the limit? I can understand 10 perhaps...but even that is dumb. Whatever I wont even bother screwing with any anyways, god forbid you make something just a tad over limits.

[hitman]

Hitman,

 

I don't care if you are "getting tired" of the sig rules - they are not up for debate.

 

Moreover, using the signature function to rant about forum rules or moderators decisions is a ban worthy offense, so I suggest you don't go down that road......just a friendly advice in case you should get that idea ;) .

Debate or not at LEAST there should be a small percentage of allowance for...IE my sig met the 150x600 pixel limit, but was over but a kb or 3. Seriously mods, you HAVE to have something better to do than infract people who have a sig thats "slightly" over the limits.

[hitman]

You don't have any infractions(could have been removed again)

 

 

 

Nope it doesn't :)

 

 

 

Yes your sig is ok now.

So youll allow it at 50.3, but not at 53, which is only 300 bits more than his. You gotta be kidding me. I see 159th BlackHawks sig is slightly over limit at 53kb and no ones busted him for it...Im willing to bet I could go around the forums and nitpick at stupid crap like this, and some beta testers get to have 2 sigs on theirs. You dont want me to complain about that EVERYONE has to comply. That goes with the cussing too. I got 20% for saying sh!at, but everyone else gets away with it. Lets stick to one standard, if one gets punished then EVERYONE who does it gets punished. Lets not have any double standards here cuz favoritism is horse sh.

[EscCtrl]

Debate or not at LEAST there should be a small percentage of allowance for...IE my sig met the 150x600 pixel limit, but was over but a kb or 3. Seriously mods, you HAVE to have something better to do than infract people who have a sig thats "slightly" over the limits.

 

So you are saying 50kB should not be the limit, that it should be alright for a 55kB sig? So then if the rule is changed to 55kB who's to say 60kB now only 5kB over the new limit isn't alright?

 

There has to be a cut-off and yes whilst it's pathetic moderating signatures like that it needs to be done. This forum is a neat forum, no old posts lying around the forum (you have to search to find them) things are moved to appropriate forums, signatures are trimmed. Each thing alone seems a joke but overall the appearance and order of the forum is well managed and this gives ED a good presentation, afterall this is their forum and if they want to be presentable so be it.

 

 

It isn't that much to ask on your part to resize a signature slightly is it though? By the way was it the last signature that was offending the rules becuase I liked that one, the one with the flamed, skull animation.

[hitman]

The problem is the standards. I can certainly understand limits here, and what I dont understand is if it meets 9 out of 10 conditions, then why cant that 10th condition be bent slightly? It really is a "SMALL" condition. My first flaming skull they removed cuz it was at 150kb, and I fully understand WHY they removed it. I cut the size down, took some frames out of the animation and got it down to a very reasonable size. My marine sig was very reasonable as well.

[Alfa]

The problem is the standards. I can certainly understand limits here, and what I dont understand is if it meets 9 out of 10 conditions, then why cant that 10th condition be bent slightly? It really is a "SMALL" condition. My first flaming skull they removed cuz it was at 150kb, and I fully understand WHY they removed it. I cut the size down, took some frames out of the animation and got it down to a very reasonable size. My marine sig was very reasonable as well.

 

You are behaving like a kid hitman. The standards are the same for everyone - that someone else violates the rules is not an argument for you to do the same.

 

Seriously mods, you HAVE to have something better to do than infract people who have a sig thats "slightly" over the limits

 

Indeed and thats the very reason you can find other people with oversized sigs - because we don't go around looking for them, but call it when we see it(that includes testers BTW). Besides, I believe you got the infraction for the rant you put in your signature - not for the oversized image.

 

Like EscCtrl said - there needs to be a cut-off limit somewhere and past experience has tought us that if we let it slide, the sig images will keep getting bigger and bigger.

[hitman]

You are behaving like a kid hitman. The standards are the same for everyone - that someone else violates the rules is not an argument for you to do the same.

 

 

 

Indeed and thats the very reason you can find other people with oversized sigs - because we don't go around looking for them, but call it when we see it(that includes testers BTW). Besides, I believe you got the infraction for the rant you put in your signature - not for the oversized image.

 

Like EscCtrl said - there needs to be a cut-off limit somewhere and past experience has tought us that if we let it slide, the sig images will keep getting bigger and bigger.

The sig has a set pixel limit, and with that pixel limit a size limit is set. To get a sig THAT large under a certain size you have to .gif it, and not everyone can afford photoshop. My marine sig was slightly over 50kb but met the 150x600 pixel perfectly. I posted that nag in my sig to make a statement and I was heard, so the point I made on that is made. Ill take the infraction for that, but if your going to mod, mod the forums for less pathetic issues than a 5kb over limit (not serious). I can search the english forums for the word "shi7" and come up with more than 10 results posted in the last week. If you have the time to mod my sig from an excess of 5kbs (but meets pixel size) then you can mod the forums for foul or abusive language. Theres a turkey vs greece thread in the movie section thats starting to get flamed...my 5kb over the limit should be (at the very most) the least of everyone elses worries.

 

My whole point on the rant is that there should be a "small amount of leeway" if everything else is in order. I can go to the store for a beer and be 5 cents short on change and they will let it slide. Not like the coke machine who not only steals my .75 cents from time to time, but refuses to sometimes dispense my drink and doesnt care if im 1 cent short or not. Lets try to be somewhat forgiving here, as it makes EVERYONE elses life so much easier.

[GGTharos]

Getting back tot he original topic, I'm pretty sure the official word would go something like:

 

Lock On code will not be released or leaked. Ever. Period, full stop.

[Fjordmonkey]

I for one cannot see why ED should ever give up the sourcecode for the Lock On-series. Yes, it would be nice to mod Lock On with new flyables, Flight-models, cockpits and whatnots. But until, and unless, ED chooses to release either the sourcecode for the game or the tools to actually change the code, OR someone manages to reverse-engineer the code: Too bad, their choice, you're up Crap Creek in a leaky canoo without a paddle. And, I might add, without a say in the matter. Deal with it.

 

Besides, I would be as bold as to say that since the Lock On-engine is used in other products, as for example the USAF A10 Desktop-simulator package (might be wrong on this one) which delayed Black Shark, releasing the sourcecode for Lock On and thus missing out on a good amount of money in terms of sales, support and upgrades is...well..plainly put: about as smart as wearing clown-shoes in a minefield. Cutting off the main channel of income is about as smart as that, and that's what releasing the sourcecode for Lock On would be.

[Ven]

Leaked Falcon 4.0 code has worked for that community because there was no further OFFICIAL development. The community kept it alive. But I would've much prefer if Microprose was still alive and continued to develop an official version.

 

I would really hate for LockOn community to become like F4 community. All different versions and dances... As long as official development continues, I like it the way it is.

[SuperKungFu]

not to mention, the good versions *cough* OF and RV *cough* are underground so you kinda gotta search for them since F4:AF's legal laws are in the gray area.

[rogue_blade]

Seriously, you need to grow up. You say your 19 years old in the other thread, maybe try acting like it.

 

I dont really know how to act my age through a keyboard

[Leddhedd]

oh come on

 

really guys ED spent soo long making lock ons engine that its nearly incomprihensible the amount of time and dedication it reqires.

i do basic game coding and am a well established moddeler in the bf2 community and if someone came up to me and said, "hey leddhedd gimmie the rights to mess around with your past 5 years of work so i can change it how i want it to be" i would slap them in the face (metaphorically :music_whistling: )

look how long it took to make black shark, why would they bother making a tool that will take even more time to make, that allows us guys to mess with their source code!

so for you guys who whine about how nasty they are for not letting us touch their source code, i suggest you write a game engine and then have the heart to just give it to me no questions asked.

once you have the skill and the product, you have the say

 

LeddHedd

[hitman]

I have a program I kinda wrote with VB that Ill give to you....:D

The Snake Game...not original but not bad either.

[Troffmeister]

mess with source code ? disagree with that

 

i think what all would like would be the ability to add new stuff to lomac , in the same fashion as u can mod / add to ms fs2004

 

eg you can add cockpit , plane / vehicle / scenery in a free / addable slot easily into ms fs2004 game engine

 

you can't do this to lomac - unless you transvestite / remove an existing model - not good

 

we don't need source code - but a new tool / editor that would enable slotting in of new stuff into the game engine / object database and the ability to make cockpits for those inclined to do so - would be fantastic modding addition tools :-)

[RvETito]

Well there were similar petitions for the Flanker 2 code once it got completely abandoned in a favor of LO. Nothing happened then, nothing will ever happen on that subject. Those are the rules of the modern market.

AFAIK the Falcon 4 code has been stolen rather than 'officialy' released.

[rogue_blade]

Well there were similar petitions for the Flanker 2 code once it got completely abandoned in a favor of LO. Nothing happened then, nothing will ever happen on that subject. Those are the rules of the modern market.

AFAIK the Falcon 4 code has been stolen rather than 'officialy' released.

 

how can you 'steal' a code? :joystick:

[Fjordmonkey]

The Falcon4-code was leaked about 3 months after the original design team at Microprose was laid off by Habro. The licence and the code itself was at that time owned by Hasbro, and as such, the leaking and subsequent spreading of the code amounts to stealing in the eyes of the law (copyright-violation). Just who released the code to the public is something that probably will never get revealed, just because I'm pretty sure there's a small horde of lawyers standing by to drag their butts to court. Which the leakers know.

[Gunja]

This needs to be in the chit chat forums, and PythonOne you need to turn off your pc and go outside ;) if RB wants to post these "pointless threads" let him and if they bother you that much dont read them.

 

Its not nice to go around telling people their thoughts are "pointless".

good point MrWolf

i honestly cant understand people who bother posting in the thread that their highness consider pointless or God forbid posted before.

[Troffmeister]

All this source code talk is very unhelpful - source code is not needed and its very disrectful to ED

 

please people think what would actually be helpful to modding LO in terms of adding new 3d stuff - then if there was enough sensible support and consensus for such ideas, we should all ask ED very nicely if they would support us all, and kindly release some new tool utilities !

 

i have tried to make some sensible suggestons like others - comparing Lo to FS2004 modding - suggesting cockpit editor / object slot placement utility - so we can actually add new objects to the game engine without removing others - this is vital i feel if the masses want to see LO actually expand and flourish in terms of both new and enhanced 3d content , on a free community modded basis !

 

it would be nice to have new planes / ships and vehicles and perhaps scenery pieces , and actually be able to add them permanently and relatively easily into the game engine to enhance the LO virtual world .

[EvilBivol-1]

ED will not release their source code. However, they will continue to move in a direction which provides more game access to the community.

[Kuky]

Getting back tot he original topic, I'm pretty sure the official word would go something like:

 

Lock On code will not be released or leaked. Ever. Period, full stop.

 

that would be best :smartass:

[RvETito]

To which market are you referring, if you are talking about the gaming market, of which this forum is about, then you are incorrect, ,more and more companies are releasing tools, source code, examples etc. Not less and less. Even the limited flight sim market has more an OPEN concept than LO, so I am not sure which market you are referring to here.

 

Almost every new game that comes out on PC right now eventually releases tools, source code etc.

 

I'm referring to the flight simulator market. It doesn't have much to do with the gaming market in general since it's much smaller and very specific. I don't know what do yo mean by Open concept that LO lacks. It's actualy very open for all kind of modding- textures, 3D models, sounds, features like TacView, the LUA export. But to release the source that hardcodes the uniqie graphics engine and the physical aircraft model would be suicidal for ED. What benefit this could be for them if everyone could put his name under their product and start selling it on it's own. How they could protect their copyrights?

[Troffmeister]

Can i make 2 sensible and sane requests of ED to help 3d modding of LO flourish futher

 

1 - could you please release a 3dmax or 3ds file of your LO pilot character , so that 3d modders can add your pilot dude to our models please - i am 1 week away from showing my new model - just wing and missile , and a gear bay left to do - and i would very much love to be able to add your pilot character to my plane cockpit please

 

2 - can we have some official feedback from ED on the possibility of an object placement utility - by that i mean would it be possible for Ed to create a small simple util tool , that would enable 3d modders to add permanently new objects into the game engine , and be recognised by the game engine , without having to remove an existing object - for example say i wanted to add a new military hovercraft to the mission editor - i would like it in the game library 3d engine permanently with an appropriate entry for use, the same obviously with new community made 3d aircraft etc

 

Can we have some serious official consideration and feedback on these issues please

 

thankyou

Roger