WIP - Personal Project F-16 all versions
-
Hi my friend Radium
Your answer was very helpful and useful, indeed! I follow the Falcon universe (and all the improvements achieved by the plenty of communities that worked on it since then) since it was first launched as Falcon 4.0 by Microprose and understand the issues faced when working with it due to the limitations the old software features impose on everybody who works on it.
I’ve been looking into BMS universe for a while (even before I first brought my cents to you) and thinking about which models I could improve, but didn’t make a pick yet. I’ll think carefully about it and then bring it to you, so we can follow the implications of my decisions up.
Just let me ask you a thing: I understand when you say that “you can request, and I hereby insist on the request verb, to integrate your model in BMS official database, but, you will have to accept to give BMS your sources, and the right of exploitation and resign your cease and desist rights on your model for BMS usage. This is, juridically speaking a lot of conditions, which is the reason why, only few people accept them, what we also and of course respect very much”. Does it imply that I won’t be able to using any version of the same project for any other purposes out of the BMS world or there’s no such restriction? I would like to understand your policy a little better, could you provide me any extra info about how it works?
One last thing for now, when you say “tris” you mean the 2 tris which compose one poly, correct? It’s an issue I must be very careful about considering the techniques I’m using to achieve the good results I’m achieving for my model, I’m looking for the best results first (high polycount) and then reducing the polycount as an afterwork to matching the specs without decreasing the quality of the model so much…
Thanks a lot!
Best regards,
Ahroun.
-
Hi my friend Radium
Your answer was very helpful and useful, indeed! I’ve been looking into BMS universe for a while (even before I first brought my cents to you) and thinking about which models I could improve, but didn’t make a pick yet. I’ll think carefully about it and then bring it to you, so we can follow up the implications of my decisions.
Just let me ask you a thing: I understand when you say that “you can request, and I hereby insist on the request verb, to integrate your model in BMS official database, but, you will have to accept to give BMS your sources, and the right of exploitation and resign your cease and desist rights on your model for BMS usage. This is, juridically speaking a lot of conditions, which is the reason why, only few people accept them, what we also and of course respect very much”. Does it imply that I won’t be able to using any version of the same project for any other purposes out of the BMS world or there’s no such restriction? I would like to understand your policy a little better, could you provide me any extra info about how it works?
Thanks a lot!
Best regards,
Ahroun.
Hello,
In fact, it is rather simple :
If you give a model to BMS, you give the rights of exploitation and resign cease and desist option, but, you are still owner of your model but can’t request BMS to transfer you back what you gave.
Juridically speaking, if you make a F/A-18F model in BMS :
- You will create LODs and texture, and let BMS use them as they want to,
- You will give your sources .max and .psd, and accept that BMS can alterate your work without your permission, if you can’t be contacted,
- You are still owner of your work, if you want to export it to another software, you can do it without requesting permission of BMS. You can even legally sell your work, but, you can’t link BMS to this marketing relationship, BMS will keep independant from all your further alteration of your file and what to decide to do about it.
- You can’t then sell or give exclusive rights of your model to anybody,
- Once you accepted to give your files to BMS, this is one way decision, you can’t claim it back.
Hope it is much clearer!
Regards,
Radium
-
And to expand on Radium’s explanation:
-BMS’ request for source files (3dsMax, PSD, etc…) is not to keep the original IP owner (the creator of the model,skin, etc…) from continuing development, rather BMS requires the source files so that the model/skin/etc… can be easily modified to accommodate changes in code or other changes that could impact the work. Especially if the original IP owner is unreachable at a later time.
-Also realize that BMS does not accept payment for any of its work, and by extension, that means it will not accept payment for any work that you may wish to assign to BMS. Your work is also protected from other persons trying to profit from your work by BMS’ End User License Agreement.
-
… there are much worse … take a look into the TacRef and look at IL76, IL78, C-17, C-5, …
Or A-freakin’-10.
-
Or A-freakin’-10.
I’m taking it in a serious consideration, Sunrise! One of my favorites!
-
Dear friends Radium and Pumpyhead,
Understood! Very objective and clear!
Thanks a lot, I’ll keep in touch and bring news soon!
Best regards
-
I have a question I think is relevant to this topic. With regards to models, does BMS make use of any (or perhaps, would BMS make use of any) models which are licensed openly to the community?
If a model was released under a permissive CC license (such as a CC-BY-NC or a CC-BY-NC-SA) would BMS make use of that, given that its very similar to the BMS requirements for use? The biggest difference I can see is that a CC license would allow anyone to use the models, whereas the BMS one appears to only allow BMS to distribute them.
With the CC licenses described above, they also allow derivative work, which is what is required to modify the model later if required, even when the original owner is not around.
-
I have a question I think is relevant to this topic. With regards to models, does BMS make use of any (or perhaps, would BMS make use of any) models which are licensed openly to the community?
If a model was released under a permissive CC license (such as a CC-BY-NC or a CC-BY-NC-SA) would BMS make use of that, given that its very similar to the BMS requirements for use? The biggest difference I can see is that a CC license would allow anyone to use the models, whereas the BMS one appears to only allow BMS to distribute them.
With the CC licenses described above, they also allow derivative work, which is what is required to modify the model later if required, even when the original owner is not around.
Hello Blu3wolf,
Your question is highly relevant.
In fact, the main problem is that it is very difficult to ensure a model is released under the licences you described below. There is plenty of websites claiming their models to be free, open source, while in fact the are copyrighted, ripped from games.
So, we prefer to check by ourselves how models are made, and we encourage people to share on this forum their WIPs, it gives some good general faith in the work we would be submitted.
Regards,
Radium
-
Hi Radium, I can see that would be a serious concern. I had meant the question to relate to those models which we can see develop here on the forum, though. If Ahroun (for example) decided to release his model under a CC-BY-NC-SA license, would that prevent BMS from using it?
That license requires that the model not be used in a commercial product, that the author receive attribution for making it, and that if the model is redistributed (even after modification) others are free to take that version of the model and modify/redistribute it themselves. This would for instance mean that BMS would be free to make any modifications to that model they liked, but it would also mean that if they distributed their version, anyone could use the BMS version as a base for their own project - so long as they also attributed the author, shared the model under a similar license, and did not make it into a commercial product.
Note that Im not asking for blanket approval of the license, just asking whether it would mean an automatic disapproval by BMS.
Thanks!
-
Note that Im not asking for blanket approval of the license, just asking whether it would mean an automatic disapproval by BMS.
Thanks!
My guess is that BMS would not use the model without obtaining the source files along with permission from the author to use and distribute them.
-
Such a license would grant everyone the ability to use and distribute them…
-
Such a license would grant everyone the ability to use and distribute them…
My guess is that BMS would not use the model without obtaining the source files along with permission from the author to use and distribute them.
-
So the model source files would need to be made available additionally. I think that answers my question, thanks!
-
Hello,
Juridically speaking: this licence means that you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made, that you may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. On this point, creators are not specifically given credit, as BMS gets a property title of the model given : in fact, when you give a model to BMS there is two independant rights holders, this is in fact a twin patrimonial relationship.
This licence also means that you should share alike and must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. In that case, BMS do not distribute its software with this kind of licence, so, we can’t comply this rule.
I suppose you now understand that BMS licences are really custom ecause we prefer to keep the maximum control we can on the software components.
Best regards,
Radium
-
You must distribute the derivative work under the same license, but BMS is not a derivative of a 3D model[emoji14]
BMS is a complex work which means individual components of it can have different authors and different licenses.Anyway that also answers my question differently. If it is a requirement that ownership of the model is solely transferred to BMS for its inclusion, that would preclude the use of CC licenses.
-
Hi guys
Some news on the f-16 basic frame: Addition to the ADF’s vertical tail, as the APX-109 IFF antennas. LAU-129’s installed on te wingtips as well. More to come soon.
While that, pondering on which model I can work in paralell.
Best regards!
-
Or A-freakin’-10.
+1
Yes please A-10. Now that we all wanted the Hornet, now the A-10’s turn……:p
-
Please let us know your project, if you decide one, we could advise you about the ideal budget.
Hi Radium, which would the ideal budget for the A-10 be? I’m not saying I’ll pick it for sure, but considering the idea seriously…
-
Hi Radium, which would the ideal budget for the A-10 be? I’m not saying I’ll pick it for sure, but considering the idea seriously…
Hello,
I really don’t think A-10 would be the most urging aircraft to build. Her model is not great, but still acceptable… Please also consider that DCS is simulating A-10C very well, so your possible A-10 for BMS will always suffer of the possible comparison and undertaking… If I had to advise you, I think that a F-4E would be much more useful and urging for the campaigns… South Korea has it, Japan has it, Israel has it, Greece has it, Turkey has it… All the major countries of BMS BLUFOR side has or had the F-4…
Regards,
Radium
-
Hi Radium,
What about 3D pit modeling. Is there information on how to get a 3D pit filled with gauges and how to get it in bms?
Curious to know.
Thanks