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.

Happy Birthday!
The airfield track looks great and good choice of setting.

Quote from Viperakecske :

When can we see sector times ingame whitout airio?

There is an option to display your split times. Or do you mean something else?
Generally I think insim exists exactly for such more detailed customization and display stuff.

the first generated images looked quite strange and mushy but now I see where this is going.
interesting approach

Quote from timdecnodder :

I decided to take a break from LFS and put them under custom access until k decide if i return, but if i leave they will get deleted considering they are my personal intellectual property, and would rather avoid them getting bad rep if updates arrive that make it worse/break the car

That makes no sense.
Currently those mods have a good rep, judging from the comments and ratings.
I think people will understand if an LFS update should break some old mods, in whatever far away future.
If it happens then there will probably be ways to mark them as outdated. (like a comment and removing their "approved" status) They would not get a bad rep, players will simply remember them as mods that are no long compatible.
Deleting perfectly functional mods now is real the worst way to deal with that and surest way to get a bad rep, because nobody will understand that decision.

First, sorry for the inconvenience. This is maybe my worst program ever.
Over the years multiple people have contacted me with problems and I could only help like maybe half of them.

If cones get ignored, there is likely something silly in the svg file.
If you attach the svg file I can take a look.

In hindsight, going with svg files was a bad plan. I knew that svg files are complex but I did not foresee how messed up all image-editors sometimes save the files. svg can include scaling, rotation, shifted origins and all kind of stuff that my program can not deal with. Often editors create files that look the same but internally are completly different. In Inkscape, even just opening a file, adding one dot/cone does sometimes mess up the whole coordinate system for all other elements. It makes debugging very tiresome.

compiling:
I also had problems with that on my new computer. Actually I think it was linker problems.

I still like the idea of such editor but at the moment I just do not have the time for it.
I would likely try creating the graphical editor-part in Lua but there is no insim lib for that. Then the editor would create a list of LFS-coordinates as txt-file and another script would send those to LFS.
If someone wants to cooperate on that, message me.

Without going into specifique details:
I think it is not so important how excactly a situation is judged.
It justs needs to be consistent. Even simple things like "When is a car considered to be off the track?" are not easily answered. Some say all wheels must be on the track, others say two wheels are enough.
Sometimes the curbs are seen as part of the track, sometimes not.
It is similiar with overlap, turning in, defensive moves etc.

Almost any interpretation of the rules is okay.
But most important is that the rules are always interpretated the same. All situations should be judged by the same standard.

Scawen, do you still have plans for this lesson editor?

I think what it needs the most is an easy way to share the lesson-files with others.
Currently it would requires users to download and unpack zip-archive and open the lessons in editor. That is okay for testing but I fear that is too complicated for normal players.
Also it only allows to select original LFS cars.

for those wondering what this car is about and how it is meant to be driven:


good mod idea, fits well with LFS autocross system.

things I would like to see fixed:
1) LOD2 still has the rearlights from original UF1000
2) the frame of the windscreen is partly invisible from the inside (at the top)
3) remove side mirrors (they are almost always removed to avoid knocking over poles with them. but sometimes there is an interior mirror)

maybe add a rear rollbar? It is quite common I think.
tires are maybe a bit big for the wheel arches.

Quote from NENE87 :

why you just not change some little parts? That's an amazing work, i'm so sad!

that would not work, someone posted here that the model was taken from Forza:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2003788#post2003788

@timdecnodder
did you delete your Schanke cars over that?

ah yes. I completly forgot about the textcommands. thanks!

Quote from timdecnodder :

1 standard skin included in the mod

what happend to that skin? (the orange/black/white one)
currently the mod comes with ~5 skins but all are basic color. (4x white with different rims and 1x blue)

Quote from czar3 :

every time I want to use a modded car, I have to search for it in the Mods menu and select it.

You can add it to your "Favorites" list by clicking the star-icon in the car's picture. (not the rating stars but underneath those)

Is there a way to quickly switch between the 3D-mode of a VR-headset and normal 2D-screen?
A way that does not require to click through the options menu.
I thought there was a button-combo for that but we did not find it.

We were testing mods, so there was lots of clicking through the menu, changing tracks, joining servers etc.
The person with the headset was driving and second person was setting up the races etc.
Using the menus in VR works okay but with a mouse and screen it is bit faster. The problem is that the menu is still rendered in "VR-style" 3D on the screen, so it is sometimes a bit tricky for the non-driver to use the menu if the driver does not hold their head still.

Upload the mod, for testing it does not need to be approved/public.
What does it say in chat at race start? Those lines:

Quote :

XFR : R 0° - F 0° - fdr 3.221 - max 64.9 m/s - lap 2:57.39 - lap fuel 2.6% - total 6% (1 stint)
6BDD71 : R 0° - F 0° - fdr 3.948 - max 58.7 m/s - lap 3:25.41 - lap fuel 3.1% - total 7% (1 s

Does it say XFR or name of your mod?
I do not remember any other post about AI running out of fuel, despite that many different mods exist now.
But maybe you found a combination that confuses the AI.

If you are remaking everything, do you still want the old version published?
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/98566-SUTADAI-TARIAS-2000
If not, maybe close it.

Also be sure to keep in-progress pictures of the modeling, so there will be no doubt about the origin of the mod!
So far it looks good

what happend with the leader at the last lap? 56min in the yt video

Nice. The one in Topgear did no have a reverse gear. However I read on wikipedia that they also made versions with reverse gear. I think in LFS reverse would be useful