I think this buggy mod has the correct rear suspension: https://www.lfs.net/files/vehmods/6DF024
(it has been a few days since I tried that mod, so maybe I remember wrong or it was just cleverly faked)

Quote from Quored :

... people with their own hands from scratch to make mods by taking something ready-made,

I like how you used the radio as gear indicator

nice little buggy. A bit higher resolution for the textures on the engine would be good.
It looks like the real vehicle has a solid axle and the suspension is just a swing, so both wheels move up/down together. (Like the rear swing-arm of a motorcycle but with two wheels) Your mod looks as if the wheels have independent suspension?

nice work, i am always surprised and impressed how people can create 3d models from 'nothing.' (especially with Blender's GUI)

Try https://www.lfs.net/mailus to get your accountname changed.
I think the name was only a secondary reason, your mods were questionable because their 3D models came from other games/credits were wrong. Also every mod had the same description "Edown Family Private Drift Car"

I do not know about Xbox gamepad but with every wheel or gamepad I have ever used, it worked in LFS like this:
Options -> Controlls
select "wheel / joystick" at top.
Then change throttle/brake axis from "combined" to "seperate"

The green part is the axle?
The point where it attachs to the chasis looks too high. I think it needs to be more like the red line.

Quote from Benzinass :

I have noticed it glides much further when the throttle is pinned, perhaps someone can comment on why that is?

I am not good enough lfs-pilot to notice an effect in flight distance.
But it might be related to engine "torque tilt" centrifugal forces? For example it is noticable in LX6 (light car, big engine) if you are in "N" and rev the engine, then the car tilts to the side.

Quote from pärtan :

I'd like some feedback this early in fact from a reviewer. I don't wanna spend time on something if it turns out I don't have enough evidence for my ownership of my mesh.
...

I am not "a reviewer", just normal forum, but here is my opinion:
It would indeed be nice to have better evidence.
The matching blueprint and details about modeling technique seem believeable to me, even though it would be possible to fake that. But it would not be as trivial as as some of the "just delete parts of the model" fakes done by others.
Also important, and I realize this is not based on technical facts but subjective:
In the beginning I used to believe everyone who said they had made an original model. Over time, some people lost that trust and I became more sceptical in general. In your case, you did seem like a honest person in the threads about downloaded/retopo'ed models.
So far, I find it all plausible.

Not sure what exactly you mean.
In options you can change "Clocks mode" (I think that is what it is called) and switch between having the "real" cluster on the wheel or a "virtual" display on the screen. Or both together. But you can not move either.

There are some tools (example: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/99048-%22Monitor%22----your-time-engineer--%28-%C2%A9-KingOfIce-app-%29) that can show a virtual display on the screen. I think those can be moved around.

You are now online on a server, so does it work now?
At https://www.lfs.net/account/details you can enter a new GAME password (for playing) or a new WEB password. (for forum/website)

Quote from Snoop.DriftEra :

What yall gonna do then? Review every single mod manually.
I mean all these legal issues must be somehow optimized so everyone: LFS devs, Modders, OtherGameDevs can be ok with that.

Reviewing a mod is done very quick if modders upload some good WIP pictures or video.

Quote :

So, hypothetical, someone can create model with very similar mesh orientation, just because it represents the same car

Yes, hypothetical. I have not seen that so far. What I have seen is models 1:1 copied or with slightly edited meshes to hide the fact.
Can you show one such model that is proven original work and almost 100% matches a mesh from another source?

Quote from pärtan :

This means that when you use the methods of large game studios which is to do a very detailed laser scan process, your mesh don't deviate from the real geometry. Thus it's no longer unique to that game studio. Anyone with access to decent photogrammetry or laser scanning would be able to reproduce a mesh that is indistinguishible from a retopology of the other games laser scanned mesh. Because they share the fact that they are both essentially just measured data from a real mass produced object.

Debatable, for example different scan resolution will give a different shape and different topology. Then the laser-scans might have absurd high polygon count that has to be reduced, making the models different etc.
But let's not get sidetracked. What matters in my opinion is that one can not say: "Oh yes, my model looks exactly like this one from that game. They laser-scanned the same vehicle as I did."
When someone has created a laser-scanned model then they can still post pictures of their work progress. eg The setup with the real-world vehicle and scanner hardware, the raw data, pictures of the clean-up process.

Quote :

For example if you have an old, blueprint made model that you're sitting on and want to turn into an LFS mod. This model could lack the "documentation" and you're back to taking someones word for it.

Yes, that is a problem and sadly some problems do not have a solution.
In a perfect world it would be possible to just take someone's word for it but we saw how that got abused.
Maybe in the future instead of "I found it on the internet for free" it will be "I found it on my old computer."
There should hopefully be any traces of the creation process. Old file versions, reference pictures, matching orthographic reference pictures included in the file etc. If there is literally nothing then... well, honestly sorry but bad luck.

yes, the template generator only works if the mod has been skin-mapped.

1) links with preview picture
On a mod's page there could be a field like "copy link" and it would automatically generate BB-code for use in forum:

Quote :

copy link:


[url=https://www.lfs.net/files/vehmods/C9F8FE]
[img]https://www.lfs.net/attachment/310904/thumb[/img]
[b]LSV 12 GTR (C9F8FE)[/b][/url]

So it would be easier to make nice links like this:


LSV 12 GTR (C9F8FE)


2) 3D-skin preview on mod's page.
Beside just showing skins as 2D-pictures like it might be nice to show a 3D render of the skins.

3) A separate category for "non-sense" mods. There already is "tweak" and "objects" but maybe there should be something for silly vehicle mods, too. They do not fit into either category.

Quote from Snoop.DriftEra :

But what I disagree is this:
I can rip a CUBE model out of LFS, GTA:SA, and model ONE myself. I can scale them all to the same shape and you'll never get an idea which is which. (...)

I am not sure what you are trying to say.
We are not talking about primitive cubes but about models with several thousand polygons. It feels more like a philosophical question to discuss cubes or how maybe two models are similar in certain places. I do not see how this contributes much to the discussion.
It is virtually impossible that by chance two people create the exact same mesh.

Quote :

But if he lied about the way he modeled it it should be ok since noone would proof his mesh mach any other. He just used a 3D model as a 3D blueprint.

Why should lying be ok?
But let's leave morals aside.
Let us assume somebody lies to the forum: "Hey, I modeled this all by myself, from scratch." The mod system works because every forum member can review the quality and legality of a mod.
That means people will ask for some kind of proof, because they can only review something if there is something to review.
If the uploader does not provide anything then nothing can be checked, nobody can vote, and the mod stays forever in review.

It is not the reviewers job to search through hundreds of video games and compare meshes. Sometimes people have done that, to proof a point.
But if the reviewers do that then it means the uploader failed at convincing them.

---

Quote from pärtan :

Now, before I start on my next mod. I would like to know a few things which seems to have been indicated already:
What sort of blueprints are banned / allowed? If I find a blueprint that have been rendered from an unlicensed game model, does that fall under the same legal category as a retopo?

That is actually a good question. What if a game has a viewer-mode like LFS and you take screenshots from all sides? What if you enable wire-mode and trace the mesh from the screnshots?
I have no idea but it might be better to stay away from such grey areas.

Quote :

Do I have to video the whole modelling process to prove that I have not made a retopo in the future?

My opinion:
You have to somehow convince people that you actually created the model.

A video can work, nowadays it is easy to screencapture so it can never hurt.
WIP screenshots work, if they are the right kind.
You should show something that only the original modeler can show, not something that everybody can fake in a few seconds.
If the screenshots look like you just deleted parts of a ripped model and now you are posting them in reverse order, it will not convince people.
If you post a partly finished mesh in editor but there are no reference-sideview-photos then it might look as if you are just doing a retopo and have hidden the original mesh.

On other hand, look at these WIP pictures:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/1971286
We can follow how the model gets made: from a pencil drawing to a basic 2D-ish outline to a 3D model.
similiar:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/96594-DH-Chorus-Avante---%2794-%2798-Mira---Cuore-Replica-%5BRenamed%5D
The first pictures are a very blocky model (wheel arches are like 5 polygons) and then everything gets progressively smoother.

Quote from Snoop.DriftEra :

-Isn't it the source model's author initiative to claim his model is ripped (if it is)?

You mean the publishers like Ubisoft, EA Games, Kunos etc? I imagine if their lawyers get active it will not be nice for LFS or the uploader. So that situation should be avoided as early as possible.
Beside that, apparently LFS devs do not want pirated content in the mod system whether it gets noticed by other companies or not.

Quote :

-Isn't there a presumption of innocence before that fact is proven?

No, that would make the whole review system unusable.
Modder: "Here is a finished model. I made this model."
Reviewer: "Ok, I will just assume he is telling the truth."
The whole idea is that reviewers check the legal status. If the modder does not provide any information about the model then nothing can be checked.
However, I believe in the beginning there often was benefit of the doubt in unclear cases but then it got abused.

Quote :

-Isn't it a crime for reviewers to open RIPPED models for comparison with mod models?

I am not 100% sure. They are not distributing the models beside screenshots. Uploading files is another matter. (Like up/downloading a whole to a filesharing site will get you in trouble but posting a few single screenshots will generally be ok.)

Quote :

-Isn't the ripped model must be 100% match the mod's mesh by overlay to say it's ripped?(wich requires reviewers to steal a suspected source model for a comparison)

No, a 100% match of the mesh is not required to identify a ripped model. It is trivial to move some polygons around, either by hand or by tools.
On the difference between publishing a ripped file and opening a file but not sharing it: See above.

Quote :

Isn't there is a law (which i know from my IRL FRP bodykit production practice) that if there's more that 10% is changed - then copyright laws does not apply to this item?

It depends on the licenses. There is also the case that any work based on the original is still under the same license. That means even if your new file is 99% different the original licenses and ownership rights would still apply just because it was based on something else.
Often ripped mods are so close to the original that it is hard to argue that they are a new work. (Even the retopo mods are often copying the polygons 1:1)

Quote :

P.S.
XRT has some Mitsubishi's intellectual property in it BTW. What we gonna do with it?
Should I ask NISSAN for permission to take pictures of their headlights at my local drift event to make texture out of it later?

I feel such questions are just trying to derail the discussion.
Is it really required to explain the difference between "Copying files from a copyrighted game" and "taking photo of a car headlight"?
Obviously the later is okay, as shown by hundreds of games that feature real-world vehicles with fake names.

Quote from Foch_sho :

Then what's the point of doing retopology if you want to know that the original layout has permission for copyright use?

There is no point in doing retopology or similiar edits, from legal point of view. It changes nothing about the legal status.
It only makes it harder to compare 3D meshes.
It is like uploading a copyrighted movie or music to youtube:
Sometimes people make edits (mirroring it, changing playback speed, adding black bars at top&bottom)
If you mirror a movie then also "every pixel is different" from the original. But good luck explaining to Hollywood that you created a new original movie instead of editing their work.

However, retopology itself is just a modeling technic and sometimes it can be legal.
For example you sculpt a car out of clay or wood and make a 3D-scan of it.
Or you make a 3D-scan of a real car. Or use software that creates 3D-files from video.
These 3D-scans are usually very rough and need to be cleaned up. Sometimes the scans are so bad, that they can not be cleaned up and are only used as reference pictures.
example:

There is nothing wrong with such retopology because they are based on 3D-files that the modders created themself. No on 3D-files taken from other games.

Quote from KiDCoDEa :

Thanks, i or anyone using that site clearly had no idea! You should counter-argue by missing the point even further, so i can have a truly nostalgic moment here.

meanwhile i'll go lap xfinity at darlington using a realworld branded paint while your poetic is being waxed.

I thought your point was to host ripped files on a third-party site, so that they would be "clean" to use.

But maybe I misunderstood, what is your point then?

Last edited by Flame CZE, Tue, 30 Aug 2022 05:27. Reason : added quote

On the LFS-Lazy tool and various the on-screen displays:
Beside LFS-Lazy there exists other software.

LFS Companion by kristofferandersen:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/97129-LFS-Companion

Detect&Monitor by Tomfuel:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2004269#post2004269
(also has spotter/radar)

Both tools have just recently begun development, so if you give early feedback now then maybe your ideas will be implemented there.

Quote from KiDCoDEa :

iRacing has this "solved" for decades... solution? https://www.tradingpaints.com

That skin-sharing site still has legal terms of use, it is required to have them.
https://www.tradingpaints.com/page/Terms

Quote from Trading Paint terms :

You may not use Trading Paints to create or share anything that is unlawful, misleading, discriminatory or fraudulent, or that infringes any person’s or entity’s rights, including, but not limited to, intellectual property rights.

I assume you mean this mod:https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/100105-DORITO-FD7
But it is not the only one.
I remember this one: https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2001326 It was initially published despite the video showing retopology.
Perhaps that made others think, that this approach was okay?

https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2010556#post2010556
(in my opinion, should not have been published either)

https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2013694#post2013694
"I used another model as a reference, so yes retopology."

Here is another WIP thread:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/100144-FK9-FWD-hatchback

...and so on. I see no use to post in every single thread.

I think not every modder does it in bad faith.
Some might honestly think that retopology is okay because "nothing of the original mesh remains" or "every polygon is changed compared to the original."
Most people never to think about licenses and in in theory it might sound like a clever idea. It might need an official post to explain it.
Maybe also explain what kind of WIP pictures work as proof.
Because I can also delete parts of a model and post them in reversed order.

(This post was originally a reply in this thread: https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/100120)

The biggest delay in publishing seems to be checking the source of the 3D model.
How can normal users make qualified votes on the legal aspect?
On the 3D-file sharing sites, it seems there are mostly two kinds of models:
1) models ripped from other games.
2) models ripped from other games but nobody has yet figured it out.

Afterall, comparing 3D meshes is time-consuming. Some cars are featured in dozen of games.
I have a feeling that there is only a handful of users who actually check anything at all, rest just presses "thumbs up."

For example there is now a new mod with text:

Quote :

i make retopology of model, which i found somwhere on network

Overnight it already has 6x "thumbs up" for legal.
I do not want to single out that one mod/user, but really how is such text good enough for reviewers to check anything?
And who kind of review did the people do, who voted on it?

The best way to speed up the process would be if modders show how they created the 3D model.
It is easy to take screenshots and it is also not hard to record timelapse videos.

Then, there need to be more clear rules what is legal.
For example "retopology":
A ripped model is loaded into 3D-software and then the new model is created by tracing the polygons of the original model.
It might be somewhat legal if the original model is very low-poly and only used for its basic shape and the modeler turns it into a highly detailed model.

However, in the cases that I have seen,the new model is identical to the original, except for tiny irrelevant differences.
A few such mods are already published.
However, I am pretty sure this violates the terms of usage of any game.
The editing does not make the new model legal, and from technical side it is not needed either. The original ripped model would be usable as-is.
The only purpose is to hide that the model is ripped.
But then why upload a video of that? It makes no sense.
Maybe some people vote because they think: "Oh, there is a video of the creation process. That must mean that the mod is original work."

If I sneak a camera into a cinema and upload the recording then that is still illegal. Even if I make small edits like cropping out areas of the movie or mirroring it.
All that is just to make detection harder (for example by youtube algorithm)

Last edited by Flame CZE, Tue, 30 Aug 2022 05:35.

Quote from Marty_Deslions :

I wouldnt mind seeing these pics of the old version of LFS, so I dont have to install it myself.

Keep it coming!

Here are some old LFS sites from web.archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20021210044956/http://www.bhmotorsports.com/LFS
Try the screenshot gallery. But only half the images work.

very old setup guide with the old S1 menu:
https://web.archive.org/web/20021209191943/http://www.bhmotorsports.com/guide/80

Blackholemotorsports used to be one of THE websites for racing games. Demos, videos, news, mods, etc.
When LFS was published there was also another self-published sim currently in development.."Racing Legends". I think some will remember the hype around the first pictures and then it never went anywhere..
Sadly none of the videos are archived. There was actually a video of LFS running on a VR headset already 20 years ago.