Jump to content

CCM's mod removed from flightsim.to


Recommended Posts

There is / was a very good mod for the Twin Otter on flightsim.to ("CCM’S Twin Otter mod”) fixing bugs and improving flight model and sound. Unfortunately Aerosoft have asked flightsim.to to remove CanadianCaptainMoustache's mod. This is really bad style. The sim is living from all the phantastic mods we get from gifted flightsim enthusiasts and CCM's mod kept the Twin Otter enjoyable for me despite the initial bugs and problems. When Aerosoft refuses to accept mods for their aircraft this will have been the last product from Aerosoft for me. Hope they will think about this position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second every word you said. Honestly, if a company can't accept that the customers might bring good things to the table, that's not a company that will have my money. I'll never again buy anything Aerosoft (including scenery) if they don't change that posture.


The Twin Otter would be a refund for me if I didn't buy it through the store. It's seriously subpar for the money it costs and the community made it great, and now Aerosoft it's trying to take this away from us without actually making up for it.


shame on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft

The simply issue is that these files shared on .to are copyrighted files and we have no other option but to protect our copyrights otherwise you legally lose them.  I explained that three times, but he simply did not want to accept the files are copyrighted. The fact they are simple 'text' files that you can read does not change that. A book also contains readable text and is also fully copyrighted. What was shared in that file was for 95% the code Hans Hartmann wrote and simply cannot be shared freely. It is what we sell. 

 

If he would have asked if he could include that we might have given permission (assuming all parties involved would agree, which I am not al all sure off). There is also absolutely no problem with the fine work he did. If he explains what to change to to the results there would absolutely not be an issue. Or if he just shares the lines that he changed that would not be an issue. It is regrettable that he now draws so much attention to his copyright violation.

 

Just dumping our code, without license, in a freely accessible file, is illegal. It is a copyright violation.  I am sure Martin did not intend that and we do not take offense. His advise has been very welcome and will always be very welcome. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

The simply issue is that these files shared on .to are copyrighted files and we have no other option but to protect our copyrights otherwise you legally loose them.  I explained that three times to Martin, but he simply did not want to accept the files are copyrighted. The fact they are simple 'text' files that you can read does not change that. A book also contains readable text and is also fully copyrighted. What was shared in that file was for 95% the code Hans Hartmann wrote and simply cannot be shared freely. It is what we sell. 

 

If he would have asked if he could include that we might have given permission (assuming all parties involved would agree, which I am not al all sure off). There is also absolutely no problem with the fine work he did. If he explains what to change to to the results there would absolutely not be an issue. Or if he just shares the lines that he changed that would not be an issue. Just dumping our code, without license, in a freely accessible file, is illegal. It is a copyright violation.  

 

 

 

Then make the changes yourselves like you should have done ages ago. The fact that someone can quickly create these important fixes by changing a few lines of text shows that you are not dedicated to making a quality product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, swan1100 said:

 

Then make the changes yourselves like you should have done ages ago. The fact that someone can quickly create these important fixes by changing a few lines of text shows that you are not dedicated to making a quality product.

I agree here. We're paying for the product, if someone can make it better for free and you're not incorporating it to your product, it's on you. Without this mod I wouldn't have put any more than 1 hour or so on it. The stiff posture against community mods from aerosoft will make me not buy it again, after all, at some point, they might start selling liveries and saying that "Modifying our original texture files are copyright infringement" and I don't want to be sucked into this sinkhole. Aerosoft will not ever again get another penny from my wallet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
1 minute ago, swan1100 said:

Then make the changes yourselves like you should have done ages ago. The fact that someone can quickly create these important fixes by changing a few lines of text shows that you are not dedicated to making a quality product.

 

Now that is a good point, it is however not so straightforward as you make it seem. There is a lot of testing involved, new builds, new marketplace versions. It is also the case that some of the people involved do not believe these tweaks are all correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Now that is a good point, it is however not so straightforward as you make it seem. There is a lot of testing involved, new builds, new marketplace versions. It is also the case that some of the people involved do not believe these tweaks are all correct. 

So what's correct is... Taking off at 20 knots? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
1 minute ago, Rafael Rodrigues said:

I agree here. We're paying for the product, if someone can make it better for free and you're not incorporating it to your product, it's on you. Without this mod I wouldn't have put any more than 1 hour or so on it. The stiff posture against community mods from aerosoft will make me not buy it again, after all, at some point, they might start selling liveries and saying that "Modifying our original texture files are copyright infringement" and I don't want to be sucked into this sinkhole. Aerosoft will not ever again get another penny from my wallet.

 

Okay, but have you actually read what I wrote? It is simply not legally possible to ignore this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
12 minutes ago, Rafael Rodrigues said:

So what's correct is... Taking off at 20 knots? :)

 

 If you look at the lift factors you will see this is caused by the prop flow over the wings. That effect is simply much too strong at this moment. Reduced in SU8 btw, still too strong. Now it can be 'reduced' with work arounds but they all cause side effects that made the lift factors less correct. It's a painful issue, some devs accept that the flight behavior is affected, we decided to accept the lift on take-off is too high.

 

It is an issue Alexander has discusses in detail with Microsoft and we have good hopes this will be corrected as it affects basically all aircraft that have prop flow over the wings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Okay, but have you actually read what I wrote? It is simply not legally possible to ignore this.

I did and it's not "dumping your code for free". Anybody who buys the Twin Otter from your website has access to this file and the code contained within it. This mod is made for people who own the Twin Otter, therefore they already have access to these files. If someone has access to the rest of the files but it's allegedly "missing a flightmodel.cfg" then that's on you to figure out. It's not like someone is taking an encrypted file and hacking into it either. What's contained in the file are also not code necessarely, you're just pointing parameters to a .cfg file which are 100% things that are within the sim. Beyond that, I can't see why customer input would be irrelevant to your product. Specially when the work is already done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
3 minutes ago, Wolf Rösler said:

Imagine Microsoft/Asobo would behave the same. Luckily they do not stop the community to mod the code they sell. 

 

True, I am sure this has caused some major discussions with their legal department. Doers not change the fact we are obligated to protect the copyright of the parties that work with us.  That's not a choice, that is an obligation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
2 minutes ago, Rafael Rodrigues said:

I did and it's not "dumping your code for free

 

Well, there we differ. Everybody could download these files, if they were a customer or not. It was simply one click, unzip and you had the files. Copyrighted files.

 

Again, this is not an issue if we like these tweaks or not, it is simply a copyright case. Nothing more, nothing less. We had the obligation to protect the copyright of the people who worked with us the moment they asked us to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FrameRate24 said:

Have you considered reaching out to CCM and working with him, he has done more for your product than any other content creator out there!

More than Aerosoft themselves. All they did with the latest patches were minor adjustments nobody asked for. Now fixing the major wildfire that the sounds or the flightmodel are. Nothing. This is my final comment here. Not buying a single 3 dollar addon if it says aerosoft on it. Not even if I want it. Too bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
3 minutes ago, FrameRate24 said:

Have you considered reaching out to CCM and working with him, he has done more for your product than any other content creator out there!

 

Could not agree more. And we have been in touch. It is just that violating our copyrights is not the correct way to do so. It is illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mathijs Kok Modifying .cfg files has been part of the flight sim community for ages. I understand you want to protect your product but your approach to this issue does come across a bit aggressive. CCM reach out to Aerosoft on multiple occasion and share his observation on your aircraft and request Aerosoft to make thoses changes. You have chosen to ignore his comments.  He just decided to make some properties changes and wanted to share with the rest of the community.   Can we stop hiding behind legal bullshit and let the community enjoy a product they have bought ?  

 

It's clear that Aerosoft has decided that wanted the aircraft to remain arcady and unrealistic. This is the demographic target you want for your product. Why stop the rest of the community who has paid for your product to make it more to their liking ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
2 minutes ago, Rafael Rodrigues said:

More than Aerosoft themselves. All they did with the latest patches were minor adjustments nobody asked for. Now fixing the major wildfire that the sounds or the flightmodel are. Nothing. This is my final comment here. Not buying a single 3 dollar addon if it says aerosoft on it. Not even if I want it. Too bad.

 

It remains amazing how you ignore the copyright violation and the fact we had simply no option but to ask the files to be removed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mathijs Kok said:

 

It remains amazing how you ignore the copyright violation and the fact we had simply no option but to ask the files to be removed. 

What about asking the mod creator to only share the mod with authorized users/buyers of the AS product?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

It remains amazing how you ignore the copyright violation and the fact we had simply no option but to ask the files to be removed. 

no one is ignoring it, its amazing how your the only addon develeloper in all of flightsim to "have to legally" push this issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
1 minute ago, Claude Desrosiers said:

Modifying .cfg files has been part of the flight sim community for ages. I understand you want to protect your product but your approach to this issue does come across a bit aggressive.

 

Let me explain it one more time.

 

The uploaded files were 95% our code, files we have the copyrights over. Sharing those files without permission is illegal, it is a copyright violation. It was not a choice to have those files removed, it was an obligation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

It remains amazing how you ignore the copyright violation and the fact we had simply no option but to ask the files to be removed. 

You did have another option. Ignoring it. Like almost everyone else would have done in this particular situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
1 minute ago, JoseCFII said:

What about asking the mod creator to only share the mod with authorized users/buyers of the AS product?

 

Unfortunately that does not change the legal issue. As I write we have zero problems with the tweaks, we welcome them! The issue is with the 95% of other text that is not for the uploader to share because it is copyrighted. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use