Falcon 4 Source Code
Peter Fisla
It looks like the falcon4.zip source code is actually the REAL Falcon 4
source. The whole project is Visual C++ 6 compatible as I'm able to load
it into the development tool and compile. I'm having some problems with
linking it but that could be due some path issues with libraries or actually
that these libraries are missing which will be an issue. My theory is that
we have everything it's just I need to psend to some time with the project
to figure out what do I actually have and have to get / make those
necessary libraries. I also don't know exactly at this point
of which version of Falcon 4 source we are really dealing with but it seems
to
me it is the version 1.7 or at least that's what is says in the "f4VerNum.h"
file.
I'm a software developer and I do work with VC++ and Win32Api and MFC
but I don't know much about Flight Simulators software development art :)
Anyone else as more info ?
Peter
PS: The compile process took about 15 minutes roughly on my:
P3 500 Mhz
256 MB Ram
Dimond Viper 770 TNT2 Ultra
Peter Fisla
the whole directrory tree is about 700 MB big.
Peter
"Peter Fisla" <ris...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:Ak1I4.279151$B6.18...@quark.idirect.com...
Derek Smart
wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>It looks like the falcon4.zip source code is actually the REAL Falcon 4
>source. The whole project is Visual C++ 6 compatible as I'm able to load
>it into the development tool and compile. I'm having some problems with
>linking it but that could be due some path issues with libraries or actually
>that these libraries are missing which will be an issue. My theory is that
>we have everything it's just I need to psend to some time with the project
>to figure out what do I actually have and have to get / make those
>necessary libraries. I also don't know exactly at this point
>of which version of Falcon 4 source we are really dealing with but it seems
>to
>me it is the version 1.7 or at least that's what is says in the "f4VerNum.h"
>file.
>I'm a software developer and I do work with VC++ and Win32Api and MFC
>but I don't know much about Flight Simulators software development art :)
>
>Anyone else as more info ?
>
>Peter
>
>PS: The compile process took about 15 minutes roughly on my:
>
>P3 500 Mhz
>256 MB Ram
>Dimond Viper 770 TNT2 Ultra
Peter
I'd be very, very, careful with this if I were you!!!! Just a word of
advice from a fellow developer. I would urge that you delete that
source code from your machine asap. You've had your look. Thats that.
Get *rid* of it!!!
btw, I actually got an executable <g> (check lib paths and some 3rd
party externals).
Derek Smart, Ph.D.
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.3000ad.com
"Battlecruiser Millennium - If you're not in the game...
get in the game!"
Vortex
hurry to delete it. I don't see that you're violating anything
here.
Copyright and Trademark are only significant if the company seeks
to uphold them. Without their commitment to that end there are
_no_ issues here at all imo.
Vortex
In article <Ak1I4.279151$B6.18...@quark.idirect.com>,
ris...@idirect.com says...
Dusty Rhodes
No offense but unless you are a copytright attorney, I would leave it alone.
I guess if you just keep it to yourself then you might get away with it,
however you are still taking chances with it. If it is worth it to you then
by all means, I have stated my opinion, and I won't break anyones copyrights
or any laws. Just me, that's all.
--
Dusty "Redwolf" Rhodes
Red...@Dogfighter.com
WWW.Dogfighter.com
WWW.187th.org
"Vortex" <neve...@dontbother.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.135a90cbaeaae47d9896bb@news...
Rouge
<dus...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>Vortex
>
>No offense but unless you are a copytright attorney, I would leave it alone.
>I guess if you just keep it to yourself then you might get away with it,
>however you are still taking chances with it. If it is worth it to you then
>by all means, I have stated my opinion, and I won't break anyones copyrights
>or any laws. Just me, that's all.
If you read the License Agreement that came with the sim you will see
it states that it may not be modified in any way. The various patches
certainly do this, making a patched copy technically illiegal.
Better delete that Falcon4 dir quick!
:o)
Rogue...out
su...@my-deja.com
Rouge <gb...@ddyne.com> wrote:
> If you read the License Agreement that came with the sim you will see
> it states that it may not be modified in any way. The various patches
> certainly do this, making a patched copy technically illiegal.
Theoretically, yes. It's a common paragraph in any license agreement.
However, since this hexcode-hacking doesn't hurt anybody and doesn't
cause loss of money at Hasbro, they tolerate it. It helps to keep the
community together and perhaps sell a few more copies of F4 (spreading
the word is often enough).
The source code is however _very_ different. This is a real big deal,
and no company would watch their intellectual property beeing posted on
the Net w/o taking action.
> Better delete that Falcon4 dir quick!
Hehe, no. Falcon4 is probably one of those games which I'am not going
to nuke for a very long time.
Of course, the source is different. I wouldn't even download it.
Besides, it's quite useless. You could watch it, try to understand it,
compile your own .exe, but you could never distribute it. So what.
--
The computer revolution is over. The computers won.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Vortex
attorney. I've had a few dealings in that realm though with prior
business ventures, but when all is said and done I'm definitely
no attorney. But then by the same token I don't believe anyone
else here is a copyright attorney either, yet there is a lot of
advice floating around (both pro and con). For various reasons
our positions differ here, but in the end I'm sure most realize
they're just reading different peoples opinions on this matter.
I respect your position that you choose not to infringe upon a
copyright. What would actually constitute an infringement here,
and the legalities of that, I'm not entirely sure. But obviously
if you're not comfortable having it on your system I certainly
respect that position.
Vortex
In article <8cr58i$oi$1...@news.snowcrest.net>, dus...@snowcrest.net
says...
> Vortex
>
> No offense but unless you are a copytright attorney, I would leave it alone.
> I guess if you just keep it to yourself then you might get away with it,
> however you are still taking chances with it. If it is worth it to you then
> by all means, I have stated my opinion, and I won't break anyones copyrights
> or any laws. Just me, that's all.
Energy
compile it then make a comparison
of exe's then distribute a hex edit that would do the job
Jeff
Chuan-kai Lin
> Once you compile everything though, its impossible to figure out
> whether you did it the hard way (via hexediting the original exe) or
> just recompiling it.
Wrong. Practically speaking, changes made with hex editing will
only involve replacements of hex code, instead of insertion /
deletion / permutation of code as often found in recompilation.
The reason why hex editing is strictly replacement only is that
machine code will most definitely contain absolute jumps, and
inserting and deleting -- even just a byte -- will screw that up.
-- Chuan-kai Lin
Kevin Hill
Regardless of what hasbro does, I beleive that international copyright law
is, and always has been a contentious issue that is impossible to enforce at
best. Hasbro will not be able to keep the supposed source code from peoples
hands now. it's out.
At this point, Hasbro is kinda screwed. The cat is out of the bag.
However, look at the resounding success of Quake, Doom, and Quake II. All
of these have some sort of public source code release program, and it has
not hurt sales, in fact, it has boosted them.
Perhaps Hasbro can turn a sour lemon, into pure gold. Hasbro, I am sure has
witnessed the obsession of the Falcon4 hex editors. The dedication of the
Ibeta team and so on. I think that releasing source code officially, in the
tradition of ID software, would put a HUGE feather into Hasbro's cap. Then,
if people started to SELL a new version of Falcon4, or a game that was based
off of falcon4, Hasbro could walk in and take them to court and wipe them
out. However, as a method to allow the hard core sim community to grow and
flower, this could potentially make Falcon4 the non stop defacto simulation
forever. The user community may change, but the desire would not. Then
Hasbro would simply be in the business of selling the single user license to
Falcon4 and it's desendants. I.e. - you must purchase falcon4 cd from
hasbro, in order to install and run the latest code from the Flight sim
community.
As it stands now, someone stated that the source code still requires files
present on the full version of the Falcon4 CD. So, it still requires that
you purchase the CD to get those files. Of course people could copy those
files, but those people would be copying the program anyway and not buying
it. So that arguement is moot.
I think that Hasbro has the chance to make a bold move here. In the
tradition of ID software and their success. They really have the potential
to extend Falcon4's life indefinately, for little to no cost to themselves.
let's face it, the technology of falcon4, I don't think, is quantum leap.
Any serious gaming house could duplicate the project with time. It's the
scope of Falcon4 that makes it unique.
I don't know if Hasbro has the guts to make such a profound move. I don't
know if the market will bear out a decision to release source code. But, as
it stands now, apparently, the source code itself does require the full
game. Not just the download.
Also, a quick question. When did Hasbro purchase Falcon4? Is 1.07 code
pre-hasbro? Could the 1.07 code be the "last" version of Falcon4 before
Hasbro purchased it? Perhaps Hasbro only owns 1.08 and on? And 1.07 is
owned by the nether-company of Microprose or Gilman Louie?
"Alex Pavloff" <IHAT...@pavloff.netSPAM> wrote in message
news:om=xONkRRZ0z6xQ...@4ax.com...
> On 10 Apr 2000 05:58:50 GMT, "Energy" <ene...@spd.alt.net> wrote:
>
> >Probably the only use........is if you understood it good , fix things,
> >compile it then make a comparison
> >of exe's then distribute a hex edit that would do the job
>
> Once you compile everything though, its impossible to figure out
> whether you did it the hard way (via hexediting the original exe) or
> just recompiling it.
>
> I worry that Hasbro might decide to litigate and shut everyone down.
>
> --
> Alex Pavloff - alex at pavloff dot net
> Thank you fly through
John Williams
>
I hestitate to get involved in this discussion, because I am just adding
another ignorant voice to the rabble. But anyway, let us proceed...
> Momentous times for Falcon4.
Talk about soap opera, this game's been through it all!
>
> Regardless of what hasbro does, I beleive that international copyright law
> is, and always has been a contentious issue that is impossible to enforce at
> best. Hasbro will not be able to keep the supposed source code from peoples
> hands now. it's out.
Agreed.
>
> At this point, Hasbro is kinda screwed. The cat is out of the bag.
> However, look at the resounding success of Quake, Doom, and Quake II. All
> of these have some sort of public source code release program, and it has
> not hurt sales, in fact, it has boosted them.
I don't think Hasbro are "screwed" in any way by this. They will be
embarrased and pissed off about the leak, but I don't think it will hurt
them in any concrete way (unless they chose to act).
>
> Perhaps Hasbro can turn a sour lemon, into pure gold. Hasbro, I am sure has
> witnessed the obsession of the Falcon4 hex editors. The dedication of the
> Ibeta team and so on. I think that releasing source code officially, in the
> tradition of ID software, would put a HUGE feather into Hasbro's cap.
I wonder about this. I really do. Personally I doubt whether anyone
who really matters is even aware of it. If they are, I further doubt
that they would pay much attention. They might be curious, but it seems
unlikely that there's anyone "really listening".
I don't think they care about feathers in their caps - they're
infinitely more interested in the stock price. All else is simply a
means to improve the stock price and stockmarket perception of the
company.
> Then,
> if people started to SELL a new version of Falcon4, or a game that was based
> off of falcon4, Hasbro could walk in and take them to court and wipe them
> out.
Yes.
> However, as a method to allow the hard core sim community to grow and
> flower, this could potentially make Falcon4 the non stop defacto simulation
> forever. The user community may change, but the desire would not. Then
> Hasbro would simply be in the business of selling the single user license to
> Falcon4 and it's desendants. I.e. - you must purchase falcon4 cd from
> hasbro, in order to install and run the latest code from the Flight sim
> community.
I think the assumption you're making here is that Hasbro gives a shit.
They don't. Why would they? They can make mega-squillions with pokemon
blah blah blah - FALCON and MICROPROSE MEAN *NOTHING* TO HASBRO.
>
> As it stands now, someone stated that the source code still requires files
> present on the full version of the Falcon4 CD. So, it still requires that
> you purchase the CD to get those files. Of course people could copy those
> files, but those people would be copying the program anyway and not buying
> it. So that arguement is moot.
Correct.
> I think that Hasbro has the chance to make a bold move here. In the
> tradition of ID software and their success. They really have the potential
> to extend Falcon4's life indefinately, for little to no cost to themselves.
The boldest move Hasbro will make this year will be to release a new
line of pokemons. Unless you're doing an IPO, bold is not a word that
share holders want to see on the prospectus.
> let's face it, the technology of falcon4, I don't think, is quantum leap.
> Any serious gaming house could duplicate the project with time. It's the
> scope of Falcon4 that makes it unique.
But the technology is intimately tied to this breadth of scope. But
you're right, line-for-line, detailed design documents would probably be
more useful to a competitor than the actual source code.
>
> I don't know if Hasbro has the guts to make such a profound move. I don't
> know if the market will bear out a decision to release source code. But, as
> it stands now, apparently, the source code itself does require the full
> game. Not just the download.
I guess we'll see. The page is still there at idrive.com. Probably not
for long, it's almost monday morning US time!
Hasbro have a corporate image to protect - it looks *real* bad that the
source code from one of their subsidiaries can just materialise on the
net. And like Alex was originally saying, here's hoping this doesn't
provoke a heavy handed crack-down on *all* the mod-makers, including
I-beta.
More wood for the fire in the saga that Falcon 4.0 has become.
Cheers,
JW
Jan-Albert van Ree
>
> Momentous times for Falcon4.
>
> Regardless of what hasbro does, I beleive that international copyright law
> is, and always has been a contentious issue that is impossible to enforce at
> best. Hasbro will not be able to keep the supposed source code from peoples
> hands now. it's out.
Not sure, but indeed it's hard to say the least to sue foreign
organisations/people, so this will be very costly, and they gain nothing
from it. So to me it looks like they'll turn this around, so they come out
looking like the nice friendly chaps.
> I think that Hasbro has the chance to make a bold move here. In the
> tradition of ID software and their success. They really have the potential
> to extend Falcon4's life indefinately, for little to no cost to themselves.
> I don't know if Hasbro has the guts to make such a profound move. I don't
> know if the market will bear out a decision to release source code. But, as
> it stands now, apparently, the source code itself does require the full
> game. Not just the download.
I wish they indeed would make this move... it would sure help them PR-wise.
Right now, most simmers will do everything to avoid Hasbro, this could mean
a big break for them.
> Also, a quick question. When did Hasbro purchase Falcon4? Is 1.07 code
> pre-hasbro? Could the 1.07 code be the "last" version of Falcon4 before
> Hasbro purchased it? Perhaps Hasbro only owns 1.08 and on? And 1.07 is
> owned by the nether-company of Microprose or Gilman Louie?
Nope... they own the entire program. They didn't purchase just F4, but the
entire company, thus also everything Microprose has/had.
--
Jan-Albert "Anvil" van Ree | http://www.nl.3dgamers.com
3D Sims Archive maintainer | http://www.3dgamers.com
Thrustmaster Resource Center | http://www.3dgamers.com/tmresourcecenter/
Chuan-kai Lin
> On 10 Apr 2000 07:06:45 GMT, Chuan-kai Lin <ck...@oink.cc.ntu.edu.tw>
> > machine code will most definitely contain absolute jumps, and
> > inserting and deleting -- even just a byte -- will screw that up.
Data are also accessed by address, so they are affected by insertion
and deletion exactly the same way. The buttom line is simple: for
hex editing, no insertion, no deletion.
-- Chuan-kai Lin
su...@my-deja.com
"Energy" <ene...@spd.alt.net> wrote:
> Probably the only use........is if you understood it good , fix
> things, compile it then make a comparison
> of exe's then distribute a hex edit that would do the job
Hex edit wouldn't be sufficient. Changing a single line of code in the
executable will most likely change the size of the executable. So,
simple hex-editing wouldn't work anymore.
To make this work, one would need a binary diff/patch system like
RTpatch to distribute the changes. Which is again not legal, because
with this patch you would distribute parts of the copyrighted code
(which is - according to the license agreement - forbidden).
su...@my-deja.com
"Kevin Hill" <kh...@cts.com> wrote:
> At this point, Hasbro is kinda screwed. The cat is out of the bag.
> However, look at the resounding success of Quake, Doom, and Quake
> II. All of these have some sort of public source code release
> program, and it has not hurt sales, in fact, it has boosted them.
Which is different. The full Quake source has been released by the end
of last years, more than 3 years after Quake has hit the streets.
You're probably talking about the "mod community", those brave people
who write kickass add-ons like Team Fortress and distribute them for
free. They do however not use the Quake source code, but only some kind
of SDK (the game-dll sources which have been released by id).
> Perhaps Hasbro can turn a sour lemon, into pure gold. Hasbro, I am
> sure has witnessed the obsession of the Falcon4 hex editors. The
> dedication of the Ibeta team and so on.
Most likely. And they tolerated it because it didn't hurt anyone.
_This_ story is very different, however.
> I think that releasing source code officially, in the tradition of ID
> software, would put a HUGE feather into Hasbro's cap.
Sure it would. The question is whether this is possible at all.
What if the source code contains 3rd party stuff which hasn't been
written by Microprose and remain the intellectual property of the
owner? Hasbro wouldn't be allowed to release that, even if they have
licensed it legally. It's quite simple like the following: As a
programmer, I have a licensed version of Visual C which comes with full
source code for the runtime library and the MFC. I'am allowed to
distribute those libraries in binary form together with my own
programs. I'am not allowed to distribute the sources of the libraries
and allow some other guy - who isn't using Visual C - to recompile them
with Gnu C. Even if _my_ program would be open source, I could not
release the sources for the MS libraries w/o violating the license
agreement.
Software license agreements are complex stuff. It isn't always that
easy. The only easy way is to go open source from the beginning of the
project and ensure that you do not create any license conflicts.
For example, Netscape had the same problems when they released source
for their browser. They had to rip a big amount of code, simply because
they were using a lot of 3rd party libraries which they couldn't
release.
Derek Smart
>Probably the only use........is if you understood it good , fix things,
>compile it then make a comparison
>of exe's then distribute a hex edit that would do the job
and that is what I'm guessing too.
Derek Smart
<IHAT...@pavloff.netSPAM> wrote:
>On 10 Apr 2000 05:58:50 GMT, "Energy" <ene...@spd.alt.net> wrote:
>
>>Probably the only use........is if you understood it good , fix things,
>>compile it then make a comparison
>>of exe's then distribute a hex edit that would do the job
>
>Once you compile everything though, its impossible to figure out
>whether you did it the hard way (via hexediting the original exe) or
>just recompiling it.
Not quite.
>I worry that Hasbro might decide to litigate and shut everyone down.
They won't.
Derek Smart
>Alex Pavloff <IHAT...@pavloff.netspam> wrote:
>> Once you compile everything though, its impossible to figure out
>> whether you did it the hard way (via hexediting the original exe) or
>> just recompiling it.
>
>Wrong. Practically speaking, changes made with hex editing will
>only involve replacements of hex code, instead of insertion /
>deletion / permutation of code as often found in recompilation.
>The reason why hex editing is strictly replacement only is that
>machine code will most definitely contain absolute jumps, and
>inserting and deleting -- even just a byte -- will screw that up.
>
>-- Chuan-kai Lin
hmm, after reading 2 of your posts, I smell a fellow hacker in our
midst <g>
Derek Smart
<oxfor...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 10 Apr 2000 07:06:45 GMT, Chuan-kai Lin <ck...@oink.cc.ntu.edu.tw>
>wrote:
>
>>Wrong. Practically speaking, changes made with hex editing will
>>only involve replacements of hex code, instead of insertion /
>>deletion / permutation of code as often found in recompilation.
>>The reason why hex editing is strictly replacement only is that
>>machine code will most definitely contain absolute jumps, and
>>inserting and deleting -- even just a byte -- will screw that up.
>
>Of a data byte/word? Can't agree, sorry...
uhm, I think you misunderstood what he meant. Read it again - slowly
this time <g>
Bard
> present on the full version of the Falcon4 CD
and don't forget that bloody huge manual!
--
Bard
http://www3.telus.net/bard/1VVFSC
Vancouver Flight Sim Club
Kevin Hill
I think that Hasbro will have to carefully consider the bottom line in
this decision. Releasing the source, could potentially extend the lifespan
of Falcon4 indefinately, and can present a revenue stream at little or no
cost to support. I mean, the more products that are based on the falcon4
code, the more CD's that get sold for Falcon4.
Think about it. Hasbro could potentially turn this into a huge
leveraging move for the falcon4 product. Realistically, the falcon name
(falcon, falcon 3, falcon4 etc..) is gold to the flight sim community. What
would happen if 5 other developers took the code, and released Mig29, MI-24,
Su-25, F-4, and A-10 based on this code? Each one requiring that the user
purchase the base Falcon4 CD from Hasbro.. Sound like Hasbro's sales just
went up 5 times without even changing a line of code.. Wow - sounds like
the bean counters can't argue here.
Sure, you might have some legal fights in store for you, but that's a
pittance compared to 2 or 3 years of development time for a flight sim game.
granted, it's not as huge as pokemon, but, free money is free money.
If they manage this right, they can still retian rights, make money, AND
come out looking like the Messiah for Flight Sim community. Out of the Fire
and into a Rock star so to speak.
I don't know, but someone could really make Hasbro a LOT of "Free" money
if they move on this right.
Of course, they could also stomp down like a tightening sphincter, shut
everyone down. Piss everyone off even more (Doubt they even care), and get
zero (0) additional sales dollars. And, have to spend money on legal fees.
three scenario's
1. Start legal proceedings to prosecute, actively attempt to recover source
code -
COST: Legal Fees, PROFIT: None RESULT: source code still in hands of
overseas public guaranteed, some major players shut down in US
2. Publicly State release is unauthorized, do not legally prosecute unless
large company is using code for their own product.
COST: Legal Fees, PROFIT: Potential lawsuit of company already selling
viable product RESULT: Source code still in hands of public. Potential to
garner some cash from illegal companies, if they are on US soil or a close
US Ally
3. Publicly Release Source Code. Offer no support. Require ULA. Prosecute
companies selling product without requiring purchase of Falcon4 also
COST: Legal Fees, PROFIT: Potential profit stream from spin-off products
requiring purchase of Falcon4 CD. RESULTS: Possible legal fees to enfource
ownership of source code and royalty. Income stream from spin off products
requiring Falcon4 CD Purchase. No new development costs.
Logical Business decision for Hasbro is: Make an official release of the
source code. Have a ULA present stating that sale or distribution CANNOT
include required files from the Falcon4 CD on any distribution. The source
code must check for these files regardless of whether they are used or not.
These files must be purchased by each user. Copies sold for profit will
require a fee paid to Hasbro for each CD printed/sold. Also, have whatever
Copyright or ownership legal mumbo jumbo present also.
It's worked for ID handsomely, and, with Hasbro's no cost ideals - it
really makes sense for them also..
Kevin
"John Williams" <ja.wi...@student.qut.edu.au> wrote in message
news:38F181...@student.qut.edu.au...
> Kevin Hill wrote:
> >
>
> I hestitate to get involved in this discussion, because I am just adding
> another ignorant voice to the rabble. But anyway, let us proceed...
>
> > Momentous times for Falcon4.
>
> Talk about soap opera, this game's been through it all!
>
> >
> > Regardless of what hasbro does, I beleive that international copyright
law
> > is, and always has been a contentious issue that is impossible to
enforce at
> > best. Hasbro will not be able to keep the supposed source code from
peoples
> > hands now. it's out.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > At this point, Hasbro is kinda screwed. The cat is out of the bag.
> > However, look at the resounding success of Quake, Doom, and Quake II.
All
> > of these have some sort of public source code release program, and it
has
> > not hurt sales, in fact, it has boosted them.
>
> I don't think Hasbro are "screwed" in any way by this. They will be
> embarrased and pissed off about the leak, but I don't think it will hurt
> them in any concrete way (unless they chose to act).
>
> >
> > Perhaps Hasbro can turn a sour lemon, into pure gold. Hasbro, I am sure
has
> > witnessed the obsession of the Falcon4 hex editors. The dedication of
the
> > Ibeta team and so on. I think that releasing source code officially, in
the
> > tradition of ID software, would put a HUGE feather into Hasbro's cap.
>
> > As it stands now, someone stated that the source code still requires
files
> > present on the full version of the Falcon4 CD. So, it still requires
that
> > you purchase the CD to get those files. Of course people could copy
those
> > files, but those people would be copying the program anyway and not
buying
> > it. So that arguement is moot.
>
> Correct.
>
> > I think that Hasbro has the chance to make a bold move here. In the
> > tradition of ID software and their success. They really have the
potential
> > to extend Falcon4's life indefinately, for little to no cost to
themselves.
>
> The boldest move Hasbro will make this year will be to release a new
> line of pokemons. Unless you're doing an IPO, bold is not a word that
> share holders want to see on the prospectus.
>
>
> > let's face it, the technology of falcon4, I don't think, is quantum
leap.
> > Any serious gaming house could duplicate the project with time. It's
the
> > scope of Falcon4 that makes it unique.
>
> But the technology is intimately tied to this breadth of scope. But
> you're right, line-for-line, detailed design documents would probably be
> more useful to a competitor than the actual source code.
>
>
> >
> > I don't know if Hasbro has the guts to make such a profound move. I
don't
> > know if the market will bear out a decision to release source code.
But, as
> > it stands now, apparently, the source code itself does require the full
> > game. Not just the download.
>
Joel Bierling
on this. If they don't try it sets a precedent that says its okay to take
our code and put it on the net.
Now once they do the above, I hope they do what you suggest.
-Joel
"Kevin Hill" <kh...@cts.com> wrote in message news:ZwmI4.179849
[snip]
Chuan-kai Lin
> hmm, after reading 2 of your posts, I smell a fellow hacker in our
> midst <g>
Hey, why do you have to blow my cover like this? Don't you have
anything better to do, like exposing Sylvain Gagnon instead?
Now *THEY* are coming after me!!!
-- Chuan-kai Lin
Rico
Chuan-kai Lin <ck...@oink.cc.ntu.edu.tw> wrote in message
news:8csbp7$fnq$2...@gemini.ntu.edu.tw...
> Peter O'Boyle <oxfor...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > On 10 Apr 2000 07:06:45 GMT, Chuan-kai Lin <ck...@oink.cc.ntu.edu.tw>
> > > inserting and deleting -- even just a byte -- will screw that up.
> > Of a data byte/word? Can't agree, sorry...
>
> and deletion exactly the same way. The buttom line is simple: for
> hex editing, no insertion, no deletion.
>
It's true that you can't delete or insert in such a manner that would cause
the machine code/data to change relative memory addresses, but there are
ways to work around this. In my horrifying days <grin> of front-paneling in
patches, the common technique to do an insertion was to replace an
instruction with a jump instruction to an unused memory segment*, then
insert code there (including replaced instruction that is now a jump), then
have the code jump back to the instruction following where the patch jump
was inserted. Data is a lot more tricky, though it's possible to hunt for
instructions that access the segment the data is stored in, then redirect
that to a new copy of the data in a new segment. Sometimes it's as simple
as changing a page register (for platforms that do that). Doesn't always
work, however, since the address may be computed and a simple search/replace
won't fix that.
* Replace the word "segment" with the appropriate platform-specific term,
and thank the Lord for teaching us how to do flat memory models. Amen.
Chris L.
I agree, this could be a real plus for Hasbroke. It could also mean a
resurgence for them in the flight sim genre. Seeing all the interest by
third parties to fix, improve and maintain F4, they may take a second look
at their marketing division's short term thinking on cost vs profit. Suppose
they make another type of F4 sim, this time not broken. Then they make
available the source code. This time they tell, say, Ibeta or any
individual, you can monkey with it, make add-ons and what ever. You ship it
back to us for approval. We'll make a special edition add-on cd at a
reasonable price, sell it and give you credit for it on the cd. We'll also
pay you a small piece of the pie for every approved mod, add-on or
improvement.news:V4fI4.179613$8k3.9...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> Momentous times for Falcon4.
>
> Regardless of what hasbro does, I beleive that international copyright law
> is, and always has been a contentious issue that is impossible to enforce
at
> best. Hasbro will not be able to keep the supposed source code from
peoples
> hands now. it's out.
>
> However, look at the resounding success of Quake, Doom, and Quake II. All
> of these have some sort of public source code release program, and it has
> not hurt sales, in fact, it has boosted them.
>
has
> witnessed the obsession of the Falcon4 hex editors. The dedication of the
> Ibeta team and so on. I think that releasing source code officially, in
the
> tradition of ID software, would put a HUGE feather into Hasbro's cap.
> if people started to SELL a new version of Falcon4, or a game that was
based
> off of falcon4, Hasbro could walk in and take them to court and wipe them
and
> flower, this could potentially make Falcon4 the non stop defacto
simulation
> forever. The user community may change, but the desire would not. Then
> Hasbro would simply be in the business of selling the single user license
to
> Falcon4 and it's desendants. I.e. - you must purchase falcon4 cd from
> hasbro, in order to install and run the latest code from the Flight sim
> community.
>
> present on the full version of the Falcon4 CD. So, it still requires that
> you purchase the CD to get those files. Of course people could copy those
> files, but those people would be copying the program anyway and not buying
> it. So that arguement is moot.
>
> tradition of ID software and their success. They really have the
potential
> to extend Falcon4's life indefinately, for little to no cost to
themselves.
>
> Any serious gaming house could duplicate the project with time. It's the
> scope of Falcon4 that makes it unique.
>
> know if the market will bear out a decision to release source code. But,
as
> it stands now, apparently, the source code itself does require the full
> game. Not just the download.
>
> pre-hasbro? Could the 1.07 code be the "last" version of Falcon4 before
> Hasbro purchased it? Perhaps Hasbro only owns 1.08 and on? And 1.07 is
> owned by the nether-company of Microprose or Gilman Louie?
>
>
>
> news:om=xONkRRZ0z6xQ...@4ax.com...
> >
> > >Probably the only use........is if you understood it good , fix things,
> > >compile it then make a comparison
> > >of exe's then distribute a hex edit that would do the job
> >
> > whether you did it the hard way (via hexediting the original exe) or
> > just recompiling it.
> >
> >
Derek Smart
wrote:
>Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote:
*chuckle*. You did that all by yourself. Remember, it takes one to
know one :-)
As for Sylvain, he's laying low and I haven't heard from him for a few
days now.
Derek Smart
wrote:
>
>I agree, this could be a real plus for Hasbroke. It could also mean a
>resurgence for them in the flight sim genre. Seeing all the interest by
>third parties to fix, improve and maintain F4, they may take a second look
>at their marketing division's short term thinking on cost vs profit. Suppose
>they make another type of F4 sim, this time not broken. Then they make
>available the source code. This time they tell, say, Ibeta or any
>individual, you can monkey with it, make add-ons and what ever. You ship it
>back to us for approval. We'll make a special edition add-on cd at a
>reasonable price, sell it and give you credit for it on the cd. We'll also
>pay you a small piece of the pie for every approved mod, add-on or
>improvement.
When dealing with publishers:
Mistake #1 - man_wearing_suit != man_with_common_sense;
Roland N. Cataldo
Should Hasbro file a suit a counter claim might be conceivably filed by
the defendants. From reading the email in this forum the counts in
this "theoretical counter claim" (just for the sake of this scenario)
could be: 1. Breach of warranty - released a product that was
incomplete and not fit for its intended use and never completed the
product. 2. I heard that the first release as well as the completed
1.08 patch were not as advertised, hence, a second count sounding in
False and Misleading Advertisement could be included which under Florida
Law could include injunctive relief from any further type of conduct and
an award of attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party. So, if
Hasbro wants to litigate over the source code perhaps they might open a
can of worms which they may elect to avoid.
Roland
John Williams
>
> John,
>
> I think that Hasbro will have to carefully consider the bottom line in
> this decision. Releasing the source, could potentially extend the lifespan
> of Falcon4 indefinately, and can present a revenue stream at little or no
> cost to support. I mean, the more products that are based on the falcon4
> code, the more CD's that get sold for Falcon4.
In principle, I agree. In principle.
> Think about it. Hasbro could potentially turn this into a huge
> leveraging move for the falcon4 product. Realistically, the falcon name
> (falcon, falcon 3, falcon4 etc..) is gold to the flight sim community. What
> would happen if 5 other developers took the code, and released Mig29, MI-24,
> Su-25, F-4, and A-10 based on this code? Each one requiring that the user
> purchase the base Falcon4 CD from Hasbro.. Sound like Hasbro's sales just
> went up 5 times without even changing a line of code.. Wow - sounds like
> the bean counters can't argue here.
I don't think this is a plausible situation. Think about it for a
minute - F4 was about what, 4 or 5 years in the making? After 5 years
of development, the sim was (apparently) "rushed out the door", full of
bugs etc etc. We know all about that.
Now here's the crunch - over the next year, and 8 patches - the same
team who designed and wrote the game were *still unable* to correct many
of the errors which were present.
I accept that there would possibly have been some staffing changes etc
after the initial release, however my point remains. Now against that,
I find it very, very hard to believe that "private" programmers will be
able to take the codebase and produce from it a *commercially viable*
product such as a Mig29 add-on. I emphasise commercially viable because
in your post you are emphasising that aspect from Hasbro's point of
view. Call me a pessimist, but I just don't think it's going to
happen. So instead, Hasbro would be left worrying about vetoing
external releases, worrying about quality control, worrying about
support, etc etc etc.
OTOH, I think having access to the code could be a big help for I-beta
in their "tweaking" activities - but that's another story.
IMO the best outcome will be for hasbro to summarily ignore the whole
thing. Maybe jump on a developer if they try a commercial release, but
it is unlikely anyone would attempt to do so anyway. So Joe Bloggs C
programmer can fiddle with the source, realise he/she is *totally out of
their depth*, then delete it when they need the file space back. And
the I-beta guys can get tweaking and maybe fix this thing for good.
Even if Hasbro did say "OK guys - go for it, we're with you every step
of the way (but no money, support or information forthcoming)" - then it
would be at least 12-24 months before anyone did anything *really*
useful with it , and by then we'll all be thinking F4 - yeah it was
good, but what's out now is so much better. Maybe. Note that I'm not a
flight sim doom-sayer - I think we will still be getting good quality
sims in 2/3 years time. Razorworks are going a long way to ensure it.
Request for speculation: How many copies of EAW are sold these days,
*solely* due to the add-ons like ECA and the Pacific scenery packs?
I'd guess maybe a couple a week, tops.
Cheers,
JW
Alex Pavloff
<rola...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Should Hasbro file a suit a counter claim might be conceivably filed by
>the defendants.
Alright. Who wants to contribute to the Falcon 4 legal fund? One one
hand, we have a Pokemon fueled corporation with zillions of dollars.
On the other hand, we have a group of hobbyists.
I'm sorry, if it comes down to a legal fight, my money's on Hasbro.
Then again, I don't know exactly who's going to get sued at this
point. :-)
John Williams
>
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:13:53 GMT, "Roland N. Cataldo"
> <rola...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Should Hasbro file a suit a counter claim might be conceivably filed by
> >the defendants.
>
> Alright. Who wants to contribute to the Falcon 4 legal fund? One one
> hand, we have a Pokemon fueled corporation with zillions of dollars.
>
> On the other hand, we have a group of hobbyists.
>
> I'm sorry, if it comes down to a legal fight, my money's on Hasbro.
Isn't it automatically an offence to be in possession of material which
you know to be stolen, regardless of whether that material is physical
or digital?
If Hasbro announce that the material was taken unlawfully, then it is no
longer just a civil copyright matter.
This business of Hasbro suing everyone (or indeed anyone) seems a little
unlikely, particularly if they could lodge a *criminal* complaint and
make it SEP (Someone Else's Problem), ie the police? Farfetched I know,
but not much more so than the idea of Hasbro suing everyone in
c.s.i.p.g.f-s!
JW
Vortex
dsm...@pobox.com says...
>
> When dealing with publishers:
>
> Mistake #1 - man_wearing_suit != man_with_common_sense;
>
>
Lol, isn't that the truth.
Although I agree whole heartedly with the previous posters and
the potentials they outline, I certainly can't argue with the
above. There's a ton of truth to that.
Vortex
mO
Roland N. Cataldo <rola...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38F2603B...@earthlink.net...
> Alex::
>
> Should Hasbro file a suit a counter claim might be conceivably filed by
A simple Deja search would return numerous consumer accounts saying, "Falcon
4.0 is the greatest sim ever released...," to refute those claims.
mO
Greg Cisko
news:uTyd3l4o$GA.231@cpmsnbbsa03...
The same search would also show as many if not more with just
the opposite claim. In fact the 1.08 patch screwed fonts and the
devcreate stuff for TNT owners... So there is enough ammo to
go around to support Rolands version. Probably more so.
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
> mO
>
>
Derek Smart
wrote:
>
>Roland N. Cataldo <rola...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:38F2603B...@earthlink.net...
>> Alex::
>>
>> Should Hasbro file a suit a counter claim might be conceivably filed by
>> the defendants. From reading the email in this forum the counts in
>> this "theoretical counter claim" (just for the sake of this scenario)
>> could be: 1. Breach of warranty - released a product that was
>> incomplete and not fit for its intended use and never completed the
>> product. 2. I heard that the first release as well as the completed
>> 1.08 patch were not as advertised, hence, a second count sounding in
>> False and Misleading Advertisement could be included which under Florida
>> Law could include injunctive relief from any further type of conduct and
>> an award of attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party. So, if
>> Hasbro wants to litigate over the source code perhaps they might open a
>> can of worms which they may elect to avoid.
>>
>> Roland
>>
>
>A simple Deja search would return numerous consumer accounts saying, "Falcon
>4.0 is the greatest sim ever released...," to refute those claims.
*blink*
Derek Smart
<ja.wi...@student.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>Isn't it automatically an offence to be in possession of material which
>you know to be stolen, regardless of whether that material is physical
>or digital?
Yes. But, the i-drive site is a public site, and one would argue that,
I for one, thought that it was a gesture by the dev team to provide
the source code in order to easier facilitate future fixes -
especially in light of recent discussions about that whole bubble
affair.
Since its upload to that site, there has been no statement from
Hasbro/MS or anyone for that matter. So, in all truth, there is
*nothing* stopping *anyone* from keeping that code until there is a
statement by Hasbro/MS indicating that the code was uploaded
unlawfully. Once that statement is made known, it then becomes illegal
to have the code and to download it if it appears elsewhere. So, as
far as those who have downloaded it are concerned, we've done
*nothing* illegal. Especially since (a) the state in which the
original game was released (b) the state in which the game was as per
the 1.08 final patch (c) is it not unheard of for
publishers/developers to release some form of source code for
products. So, again, it could be argued that this code was made public
for any of these reasons.
Now I wish I hadn't deleted it. *wink* *wink*
>If Hasbro announce that the material was taken unlawfully, then it is no
>longer just a civil copyright matter.
Correct. But, see above.
>This business of Hasbro suing everyone (or indeed anyone) seems a little
>unlikely, particularly if they could lodge a *criminal* complaint and
>make it SEP (Someone Else's Problem), ie the police? Farfetched I know,
>but not much more so than the idea of Hasbro suing everyone in
>c.s.i.p.g.f-s!
They don't stand a chance. And I for one, know for a *fact* that there
is some internal damage control going on, right this minute. What we
need now is an insider to give us the scoop. <g> Am gonna make a few
calls and see what I come up with. Will keep you guys posted. Whatever
shakes, watch out for my next www.bc3000ad.com/soapbox/index.shtml
rant. <g>
Bard
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:13:53 GMT, "Roland N. Cataldo"
> <rola...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Should Hasbro file a suit a counter claim might be conceivably filed by
> >the defendants.
>
> hand, we have a Pokemon fueled corporation with zillions of dollars.
>
> On the other hand, we have a group of hobbyists.
>
> I'm sorry, if it comes down to a legal fight, my money's on Hasbro.
>
this is seriously fucked up.... the man with the most money wins???
If it came to a court case i'd throw in a couple of hundred bucks.
Roland N. Cataldo
I have represented a few folks with deep pockets. When I did have
these clients ... I never lost :<) So, what a few have stated here is
unfortunately a picture of the real legal world ... out spend them until
they give up. However, if you can add counts which include reasonable
attorneys fees to the prevailing party than .... milk that file :<) oh
ya ... God bless the person who sues my rich client. ;<) And, you
better not be on the receiving end .... in Florida if the action is
brought or maintained without justiciable issue (its has no merit) the
attorneys can get hit with 1/2 the award of fees ...
Roland
Roland N. Cataldo
Despite the fact F4 was released unfinished ... I still liked to play it
.... got a lot of practice public bete testing for over a year ...:<)
If I had a choice not to release (and therefore not have it at all) or
releasing it in an unfinished state and than to slowly "almost" get it
as advertised .... I am glad they released F4 :<) Just gets me to see
them say .... in effect ... its finished when we all know it wasn't
finished. Thank you to ibete and others this sim may be the best of
all time :<)
Roland