[Storebror]

I guess this announcement should clarify some things about FM discussion deletion/movement at UP:

Sounds reasonable to me, let's see what's to come...

Best regards - Mike

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I guess this announcement should clarify some things about FM discussion deletion/movement at UP:

Sounds reasonable to me, let's see what's to come...

Best regards - Mike

What is funny about that 'missioin statement' is how he implys other sites are doing negative things

As if he himself didn't do those things

When he himself was the one doing those very things

This is not the first time HaDeS has tried this tatic

Accuse others of what you do

As a way of trying to take the heat of himself for doing it

But if this is a new leaf I welcome it

But I suspect this was done just to try and take the focues off the current topic at hand and try and paint others as criminal for doing what he himself does

[P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole]

And none of them, including us, profess to have the ultimate best most accurate FMs for all planes

Makes a pleasant change then.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

And none of them, including us, profess to have the ultimate best most accurate FMs for all planes

Makes a pleasant change then.

Lets hope it is more than just lip service

Maybe that explanes why he deleted the two threads where UltraPack DID profess to have the ultimate best most accurate FMs for all planes

As in from here on out that will be thier new position

Because it was not thier position prior to ther new mission statement.

[Fireskull]

This brings me back to my earlier post with regards to hypocrisy :roll: (if these facts are indeed true).

This I saw with my own eyes on a bunch of visits to the UlraPack website.


I am a witness that numerous UltraPack threads, where ACE-OF-ACES explained his testing methods and presented the data according to the standards, was deleted-it would seem. No rational cause for this was given by UP. The comments of the visitors did not justify a deletion of the threads, in my opinion. Moved?...:wink:


The threads were merely moved?? :lol: It would be typical for them to reinstall them soon, but I really hope that they can grow in rational thinking. This is for everyone's sake.

[Guest]

Exactly; I'm not trying to piss on UP, but it is extremely hypocritical to flame this site for deleting posts in which we informed the users the reasons why, and to do the same thing but without informing the user! Still, at least it shows that we're all human 8)

[Fireskull]

Exactly; I'm not trying to piss on UP, but it is extremely hypocritical to flame this site for deleting posts in which we informed the users the reasons why, and to do the same thing but without informing the user! Still, at least it shows that we're all human 8)

Okay, on that thought, read this part of HaDes statement of earlier today:

HaDes: "We have learned that having long pointless debates about overall historical accuracy does nothing but inflame people. So we'd like to change that into a policy and atmosphere of allowing more for the report of FM bugs and other bugs and ideas, and leave the discussions of the finer points to the guys working on the actual FM's, in private, just like they work it at SAS. It would be nice if people someday found a way of debating a parameter without the animosity, or the insulting undertones and the like. We live in hope, but, for now, we deal in reality." -HaDes, April 29, 2010, UltraPack website.

Fireskull response:This seems like a cooling down, doesn't this? It could be very good. Hades could very well be allowing things to calm for a variety of reasons. I honestly believe that the words of ACE-OF-ACES and his supporters-including myself-are having a strong effect in the mind of HaDes. Is it a positive effect? I believe so because a person as smart as HaDes must have the capability for wisdom added to smartness.

However, the fact remains that the topics, where ACE-OF-ACES explained his testing methods and data according to IL-2 and aviation standards, was either moved or deleted. The purposes of these could be either good, bad, or a mixture of the two. We will be looking for what is to come.





HaDes:"Following all that, we can see no point in encouraging or hosting any animosity towards any other site out there, even ones who may be aggressive towards us or who may simply disagree with how we run things here. We are here to make mod packs and make this game better for UP users, and that is all we are here for. From now on, we ask for no negative posting about other sites here, and no bitching and sniping and complaining about them. If other sites want to attack us, or insult or undermine or whatever ugliness one can think of, they are welcome to do it, elsewhere. We hope however, to set an example of live and let live, and for an atmosphere in the IL2 community of more moderation and tolerance." -HaDes, April 29, 2010, UltraPack website.

Fireskull response:This follows ACE-OF-ACES very effective publication and promotion of his flight model data and testing methods. My comments and strong emphasis on AAA taking the moral high flight seems to be reverberating in the virtual halls at UltraPack.


Kwiatek took pause on the InterNet after our united efforts here. This could simply be prudence on this part. We all should step to the rear from time to time to read, listen, gather our thoughts, and plan our next move.



A personal message to UltraPack leaders reading this, including HaDes and Kwiatek:

My more positive comments seem to effect you. I invite you to work more effectively and efficiently. I challenge you to take advantage of more synergy by joining with All Aircraft Arcade experts, and others, to truely put your money where your mouth is. We showed willingness to develop a team structure which would do much more good than any of our groups could apart from one another.

Let us come together in all forms through all media with humbleness while we use our skills at debate to contribute instead of cutting contact.

HaDes, your unwillingness to debate in public should be replaced with private debate, as hinted in your message at UltraPack today. The results of private discussion, debate, and negotiations will be clear to the whole IL-2 society that you are sincere. For the sake of everyone, you must stay engaged and committed to IL-2 synergy among communities, regardless of temporary difficulties. Remember, there are many innovative discoveries in the midst of challenges, but the realizations best come with united persistence.

Leaders of UltraPack, will you fully appreciate the opportunity of this moment? Potential such as this only is revealed once in a while. You should take this one while it is available.



The Fireskull Proposal

Since HaDes expresses the policy of UltraPack to now be back to co-operation, I further the following:


The IL-2 Mod Charter - 2010

I propose that conferences be scheduled with all significant mod community leaders invited with the purpose of discussing a charter to be formed as an agreement among all parties for ethics and divisional assignment of objectives for major mod Research and Development. Pause and think of the increased efficiency and extra motivation for the creators.

Included would be ethical guidelines, role structure of leaders, and vision for the future. Both major objectives for mod development and subcatagories agreed to be negotiated in the fututure would be established. In time, individuals and teams would be invited to create and participate in the specific objectives. (Example: Flight Model testing and evaluation of the newest modded aircraft, with lower level meetings organized to discuss the tasks and who will perform them.)

Included in the conference would be the founding of a Panel for Tools, Data, and Testing Methods with the purpose of establishing agreed standards.

(End of proposal)



HaDes, if you are genuine about IL-2 integration while avoiding conflicts, then unite with others and keep your promises that you made today at the UltraPack website. What things should you do to keep your promises expressed at UltraPack?

[Deutschmark]

Salute ALL hi ;-)



FROM UP SITE;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
StG77_HaDeS
Administrator
IL2 Addict


Posts: 3389
Gender:

Mission Statement, Moving Forward.

[Storebror]

I did take out your UP link as UP links are not allowed here at this site.

Never mind :wink:
I can't say I didn't know it...

is there ownership of things
Made for IL2 by modders or is there not

The simple answer would be: Yes, if the author claims to and has his rights asserted.
For instance you could seal your mod by a proprietary software license.
In case of a new aircraft this could, for instance, use the DiffFM mod whilst prohibiting reverse engineering by the included license. Since the classfiles of your A/C are compiled, the FM/DM is encoded in a separate file and the meshes are type of "compiled" as well, it would break your license if someone would touch your A/C in either way and you'd be entitled to sue him in that case.
Following common sense I'd rather say some kind of "No" - it should be a matter of ethical principles not to alter someone else's work without asking him/her for permission, but after all the contributed work should be disclosed for modifications if neccessary. Further more I personally wouldn't mind if some work of mine would become part of someone else's "pack" as long as sources remain mentioned correctly.

Best regards - Mike

[Guest]

No, DM is right; when it suits him he can claim ownership, but when we had done that aaaaages ago he went mental claiming that once something is on the internet then it's free for anyone :roll: Or something along those lines.

I'm all for unification, but all idea of ownership need to go out of the window IMO

[ACE-OF-ACES]

No, DM is right; when it suits him he can claim ownership, but when we had done that aaaaages ago he went mental claiming that once something is on the internet then it's free for anyone :roll: Or something along those lines.

I'm all for unification, but all idea of ownership need to go out of the window IMO

+1

[Fireskull]

No, DM is right; when it suits him he can claim ownership, but when we had done that aaaaages ago he went mental claiming that once something is on the internet then it's free for anyone :roll: Or something along those lines.

I'm all for unification, but all idea of ownership need to go out of the window IMO

I believe that it is still a moral obligation to ask for permission to alter a creative work when in doubt about permissions and also important to give credit to the creator(s). Stock IL-2 flight models are off limits, of course.

[Guest]

No, DM is right; when it suits him he can claim ownership, but when we had done that aaaaages ago he went mental claiming that once something is on the internet then it's free for anyone :roll: Or something along those lines.

I'm all for unification, but all idea of ownership need to go out of the window IMO

I believe that it is still a moral obligation to ask for permission to alter a creative work when in doubt about permissions and also important to give credit to the creator(s). Stock IL-2 flight models are off limits, of course.

I quite agree, but considering the UP guys haven't been doing that (as far as I've been told anyway) then for unification it's probably easier to just drop ownership. In a perfect world, we'd be able to share our mods equally in the community without limiting them to certain sites or people. If we're all on the same song-sheet then things are easier.

[Fireskull]

No, DM is right; when it suits him he can claim ownership, but when we had done that aaaaages ago he went mental claiming that once something is on the internet then it's free for anyone :roll: Or something along those lines.

I'm all for unification, but all idea of ownership need to go out of the window IMO

I believe that it is still a moral obligation to ask for permission to alter a creative work when in doubt about permissions and also important to give credit to the creator(s). Stock IL-2 flight models are off limits, of course.

I quite agree, but considering the UP guys haven't been doing that (as far as I've been told anyway) then for unification it's probably easier to just drop ownership. In a perfect world, we'd be able to share our mods equally in the community without limiting them to certain sites or people. If we're all on the same song-sheet then things are easier.

I want the ideal, but we'll see. Added to the mix is the issue of compatibility and fairnes of gameplay for online use. If one guy has a mod which another one does not, then there can easily be an unfairness.

For example, one user has a certain cloud mod and he can see you more often than you can see him because you have more cloud volumn in your cloud mod would be a big problem.

Another example is a gun smoke mod. ( :wink: ) One guy has it activated and another guy in the same squadron does not. Where is the fairness in that?


Issues of compatibility and fairness during gameplay are major themes for an IL-2 committee.

[Fireskull]

No, DM is right; when it suits him he can claim ownership, but when we had done that aaaaages ago he went mental claiming that once something is on the internet then it's free for anyone :roll: Or something along those lines.

I'm all for unification, but all idea of ownership need to go out of the window IMO

I believe that it is still a moral obligation to ask for permission to alter a creative work when in doubt about permissions and also important to give credit to the creator(s). Stock IL-2 flight models are off limits, of course.

I quite agree, but considering the UP guys haven't been doing that (as far as I've been told anyway) then for unification it's probably easier to just drop ownership. In a perfect world, we'd be able to share our mods equally in the community without limiting them to certain sites or people. If we're all on the same song-sheet then things are easier.

I want the ideal, but we'll see. Added to the mix is the issue of compatibility and fairnes of gameplay for online use. If one guy has a mod which another one does not, then there can easily be an unfairness.

For example, one user has a certain cloud mod and he can see you more often than you can see him because you have more cloud volumn in your cloud mod would be a big problem.

Another example is a gun smoke mod. ( :wink: ) One guy has it activated and another guy in the same squadron does not. Where is the fairness in that?


Issues of compatibility and fairness during gameplay are major themes for an IL-2 committee.