AC Track Reboot site gone?

[chili pepper]

Anyone know what happened to AC Track Reboot, the site appears to be dead?

 

[barf]

No need, all of the tracks are still available.

Well there kinda is a need if there's no decent LiDAR Bathurst versions available yet. One good looking Bathurst LiDAR project thread here but it seems abandoned?

If we had open source tracks this copyright BS wouldn't be a problem in the first place, other sims in the future might benefit from that too.

 

[Emà!!!]

I totally agree with @daykrolik (maybe because i do the same work? )
As i said before, i'dont see a big issue in most of the conversions between a game to the other, provided that it's free, because all the developers have only to gain from that situation.
So, if there is not any interest by the developers, there is not a real damage for them and there is not a profit by the modders, i cant see many chances for a legal claim.
Maybe, only the 100% non-moddable games like FM (i suppose) are excluded....
But i have also to agree with @mclarenf1papa.... The other side of the question is when a modder steals the job from the other, without permission. And in some case i see that they also make it for money!
Maybe it's not a legal question (not copyrighted) but morally is a wrong attitude and i agree with the RD policy to exclude that contents.
I've also to say, speaking about the reboot site, that they made conversion from other games, but not stealing from other modders without permission, as far as i know.... Sometimes ago, for example, i ask to Jim if they are interested to work on the apparently abandoned Malagoli's Fuji Speedway, but he said that he preferred to ask for permission and, since he could not contact Malagoli, nothing was done.

 

[mantasisg]

It is best not to take models "from a friend" and make a mod out of it.

It is circle we do benefit from RIPs when they are done well, but in the long run it has negative effects, such as unsupported modding, legit mods creators stopping their works. It spoils the ecosystem.

Everybody is happy to have those well done rips, but in the long run it will have negative impact.

 

[Emà!!!]

The quality of mods it's totally another question. Poor quality mods, either if rips or scratch made, is not too positive in any case.
But, in both case, this work could be a good starting point to learn the technique, for a future great modder

 

[nicks1]

Luckily they released Lime Rock before closure - wonderful track from iR! Also classic Spa is top there.

 

[mantasisg]

haha noobs

 

[cnuk]

Can you explain why a scratch-built, real-world circuit is "protected" from being made into a simulator track? Even one behind walls (test tracks) can be reasonably created from satellite imagery, LIDAR sources, and ground truth. To me, the result is equivalent to a photograph that anyone at the track could take (albeit in three dimensions).

 

[jim lloyd]

i always wonder why these types of conversation never seem to pop up over at the Rfactor2 steam workshop....just saying

 

[mantasisg]

thats how mafia works

 

[LilSki]

Because the mentality started on the AC forums. They didn't want ripped content on their forum and banned people because of it. That mentality caught on and stayed to a degree when we moved over to RD. Every other sim tends to turn a blind eye to rips even here on RD. But the AC "community" still cares to a degree and thus this conversation continues to come up.

It has caught on somewhat as I see some of it over on the rf2 forums and discord with posts being removed and edited when rips are involved.

 

[RobertR1]

Because the mentality started on the AC forums. They didn't want ripped content on their forum and banned people because of it. That mentality caught on and stayed to a degree when we moved over to RD. Every other sim tends to turn a blind eye to rips even here on RD. But the AC "community" still cares to a degree and thus this conversation continues to come up.

It has caught on somewhat as I see some of it over on the rf2 forums and discord with posts being removed and edited when rips are involved.

I never downloaded a mod from the site due to it's lack of usage for the online racing with RD.

However, I have no problem with the rips. There is no direct or in-direct damage to the original IP. You'd be hard pressed to show that the reason I didn't buy FM7 is because I could now get Lime Rock Park as a mod in AC. To top if off, the user wasn't charging for this content which take the commercial element out of it also.

 

[mantasisg]

Yeah, whatsup ripped models suporters. What about Automobilista ?

Rippin Hood stealing from poor and giving to rich, I guess.

I know it is great to have it all in every sim, but do you really think it has no negative effect for developers ?

P.S. I am still shaken by how nicelly Grand Prix Legends 2 mod was welcomed, which even title was stolen.

Yo, they don't ask money for it, so it is good. LIIIIFE HAAAAACK

 

[Ryno917]

Thank you. I do understand that. However, as another poster noted, it is ironic the concern is often less with brands and designs, names and likenesses etc.

Agreed; to some extent it's an arbitrary line. I've pointed out the same a few times in the past when these discussion have come up. I understand all the perspective put forth, though, and I accept the rules as is.

And even when people get a cease and desist we end up with 20 different versions of events.

Keep in mind that many of these such cases that actually do see the legal gears start to turn are settled out of courts and those involved are often prohibited from discussion specifics. The community just starts throwing out theories at that point, usually.

Think about Science. Newton defined gravity. So is no other scientist allowed to use gravity in their equations ?
Copyright defies development and slows progress. It increases greed and the importance of building (pay)walls and defenses all fueled by self-righteousness and the fear of tomorrow.

The most important things in life are freedom and liberty. Laws are fork mutations that will be overrun by the evolution of nature in time. Sorry lawyers, your jobs are obsolete. You can start to live your life right now and leave the modders alone

One could argue that nobody would f.e. create a game or write songs without the existence of copyright. Why not ?
If you´re capable of doing sth., what should stop you ?

Protection for new developments is precisely what allows most major advancements to happen in the first place. It's not about greed - many copyright holders will license their developments for free, even. The whole point of copyright is that the entity who invests in development of something is able to control the use of it to prevent another entity from making money off of it, while the original developer loses money because they had to pay to develop it in the first place.

Look at it this way - you would definitely not invest hundreds of thousands of dollars developing new tech just for your competitor to copy it verbatim and reap the benefits of your work. You'd lose your house while they get richer.

Copyright absolutely does not stifle innovation, it fosters it by giving some protection. That's literally the entire point. If we could just divine new tech into existence it wouldn't be necessary, but development requires considerable resources, copyright laws ensure that those who do that aren't punished for it.

Furthermore, Newton can only claim copyright for his specific words used in his writings. IF he coined the term "gravity" then the word itself would be covered under fair usage for anyone talking/writing about it. He didn't invent gravity, he discovered/described the relationship the force imparts on the universe. Again; no one could legally copy his writings in full without attribution/permission, but the concept of gravity isn't owned by anyone, and can't be.

Apropos of nothing, IIRC Newton didn't develop equations for gravity as he wasn't a keen mathematician. Another scientist was responsible for that I believe, but using Newton's theories as a base to work with - and Newton was credited for his part. That's how the system is supposed to work. I may have that specific example incorrect, but I believe it was Newton who couldn't develop the equations for his theory - might have been a different scientist/theory, but that's beside the point.

 

[Mark Ratzenbacher]

Look at it this way - you would definitely not invest hundreds of thousands of dollars developing new tech just for your competitor to copy it verbatim and reap the benefits of your work. You'd lose your house while they get richer.

You´re right, it´s so much better that every new racegame has to start building f.e. Bathurst from scratch again and again and again. Its not at all a waste of resources thanks to copyright....come on

Copyright is responsible for hindering collaborative work.- Without it we´d probably had the perfect sim.
But yeah, then nobody could live in a luxury house, while others crumble under bridges. I know you get my point.
The concept of owning sth. exclusively is only for dwarves and dragons.

Copyright absolutely does not stifle innovation, it fosters it by giving some protection. That's literally the entire point. If we could just divine new tech into existence it wouldn't be necessary, but development requires considerable resources, copyright laws ensure that those who do that aren't punished for it.

Do a websearch for: "Open Source"

Furthermore, Newton can only claim copyright for his specific words used in his writings. IF he coined the term "gravity" then the word itself would be covered under fair usage for anyone talking/writing about it. He didn't invent gravity, he discovered/described the relationship the force imparts on the universe. Again; no one could legally copy his writings in full without attribution/permission, but the concept of gravity isn't owned by anyone, and can't be.

All right, so now i cannot use specific words, because somebody else used them before me or claims them as their intellectual property. Phew... There are not enough words in human language that not every possible combination wasn´t used before. Copyright is mathematical illogical.

Btw, nobody invented Bathurst. It is natures creation. Who is securing natures copyright ?
You know that does not take us anywhere, because there are no similarities between existence and ownership. And that is important to understand.

Apropos of nothing, IIRC Newton didn't develop equations for gravity as he wasn't a keen mathematician. Another scientist was responsible for that I believe, but using Newton's theories as a base to work with - and Newton was credited for his part. That's how the system is supposed to work. I may have that specific example incorrect, but I believe it was Newton who couldn't develop the equations for his theory - might have been a different scientist/theory, but that's beside the point.

I don´t remember it as well and just used it as a kind of rhetorical example. I believe the meaning was sounding through between the lines. Now just imagine Newton had a good lawyer, sueing the other scientist. We probably would have never heard about gravity and apples could fly

 

[Ryno917]

You´re right, it´s so much better that every new racegame has to start building f.e. Bathurst from scratch again and again and again. Its not at all a waste of resources thanks to copyright....come on

Copyright is responsible for hindering collaborative work.- Without it we´d probably had the perfect sim.
But yeah, then nobody could live in a luxury house, while others crumble under bridges. I know you get my point.

If every sim used the same version of Bathurst we'd have one single very old, poorly created version of Bathurst. Things advance and evolve. ACC doesn't use the same AC tracks verbatim; they've gotten more detailed, better textured, improved models, etc. Furthermore, different development studios have a different approach to things - notice how no two sims look identical? That's why. If every game used the same assets there'd be no reason to have more than one game. They're different, and that's a good thing. Competition is good for everyone.

That has nothing at all to do with copyright. There's nothing stopping two different developers from sharing assets if they chose to, together, mutually. But why should Developer A have to pay for the considerable time and labour required to create Bathurst while Developer B could just grab those assets and put them in their product? How does that make sense? Developer A gets the shaft in a big, big way in this scenario. Literal thousands of man-hours spent creating something that the other just gets for free? Honestly, that sounds like greed to me.

All right, so now i cannot use specific words, because somebody else used them before me or claims them as their intellectual property. Phew... There are not enough words in human language that not every possible combination wasn´t used before. Copyright is mathematical illogical.

You have that backwards. You can use specific words. What you can't do is copy an entire chapter of a book. Again; why should Author A have to spend thousands of hours writing a book and Author B just gets to duplicate it in entirety and sell it as well?

Btw, nobody invented Bathurst. It is natures creation. Who is securing natures copyright ?
You know that does not take us anywhere, because there are no similarities between existence and ownership. And that is important to understand.

Bathurst is an ambiguous case because it is a public road. I can't really comment on how exactly that works. COTA, for example, is owned property, and definitely requires a license.

Furthermore, if you are against ownership, I suppose you have no problem with transients coming into your home and using your items against your will?

I don´t remember it as well and just used it as a kind of rhetorical example. I believe the meaning was sounding through between the lines. Now just imagine Newton had a good lawyer, sueing the other scientist. We probably would have never heard about gravity and apples could fly

The point of my example was that Newton and the other scientist worked together, safe in the knowledge that their own work was protected. That's the point.

As an additional aside; I realised after my previous post about protecting tech that the specific example there would be patents, not copyright (please forgive the error, that's what I get for posting right after waking up), but the basic premise and argument is the same. Protecting your work product from freeloaders. Expecting to have free access to someone else's work for free is the definition of greed.

 

[iwn]

I don´t know who has suffered, but I see this as blow to my hobby. Downloaded few of the best tracks from there.

 

[Mark Ratzenbacher]

Thanks for replying Ryno. It is a very interesting topic and i don´t disagree with you by heart, but then how copyright is used in some cases is not as intented by the creator i suppose.

There's nothing stopping two different developers from sharing assets if they chose to, together, mutually. But why should Developer A have to pay for the considerable time and labour required to create Bathurst while Developer B could just grab those assets and put them in their product? How does that make sense? Developer A gets the shaft in a big, big way in this scenario. Literal thousands of man-hours spent creating something that the other just gets for free? Honestly, that sounds like greed to me.

Joint-ventures are happening all the time and then contracts are defining the "fair" share between partners.

In our sim-world example all companies (Kunos, Studio397, etc) could share ressources to create Bathurst to use in their own sims. They could create multiple tracks with the same labour time used by all single companies to create each their own rendition of one and the same track.
Its just not happening and i don´t really understand why.

Furthermore, if you are against ownership, I suppose you have no problem with transients coming into your home and using your items against your will?

Trust. If we could trust in each other this would be possible.

I know we dont live in a perfect world, but i like the concept of visiting my neighbour with his fully equipped 3d motion simrig and use it as i see fit. It´s an utopian dream allright, but it would be great.

Expecting to have free access to someone else's work for free is the definition of greed.

Mmh, you´re right. But then sharing freely without reclaiming is the basis for the social fabric of our society and family structures.
So what was first ? Greed or the protection from it ? I mean why do we have to protect anything ? The root of all this might be sth. completely else and i hope it will be uncovered during my lifespan.

 

[CreamyCornCob]

I don´t know who has suffered, but I see this as blow to my hobby. Downloaded few of the best tracks from there.

A blow? The tracks are not gone...

 

[Ryno917]

Thanks for replying Ryno. It is a very interesting topic

It is!

and i don´t disagree with you by heart, but then how copyright is used in some cases is not as intented by the creator i suppose.

As with all systems, it all falls apart when humans get involved.

Joint-ventures are happening all the time and then contracts are defining the "fair" share between partners.

In our sim-world example all companies (Kunos, Studio397, etc) could share ressources to create Bathurst to use in their own sims. They could create multiple tracks with the same labour time used by all single companies to create each their own rendition of one and the same track.
Its just not happening and i don´t really understand why.

I think there's several reasons for it in general, from timelines to differing approaches, to different engines with different requirements, etc etc. That being said, we are seeing this a little bit with Reiza/S397. Also I've heard that some tracks have helped the laser scanning process by actually having their own scans commissioned which they include with a license to developers, meaning individual developers don't have to rescan on their own dime.

Trust. If we could trust in each other this would be possible.

I know we dont live in a perfect world, but i like the concept of visiting my neighbour with his fully equipped 3d motion simrig and use it as i see fit. It´s an utopian dream allright, but it would be great.

Yea, like with all systems everything falls apart when humans get involved. Democracy is great, until you add people. Communism works in theory, until you add people. People ruin everything

Mmh, you´re right. But then sharing freely without reclaiming is the basis for the social fabric of our society and family structures.
So what was first ? Greed or the protection from it ? I mean why do we have to protect anything ? The root of all this might be sth. completely else and i hope it will be uncovered during my lifespan.

I'd be surprised if protection from greed wasn't the reaction in this case. I mean, the whole point of society is mutual protection and benefit. The problem is that some people abuse the privileges afforded them by being a member of said society, and as such certain protections are put in place. Obviously these protections aren't perfect, don't cover all scenarios, and are quite often misunderstood by most; including the ones they're meant to protect.

Then of course different people have different views, too. Some people want to live by the letter of the law, some by the spirit of the law.

 

[Stereo]

Because the mentality started on the AC forums. They didn't want ripped content on their forum and banned people because of it. That mentality caught on and stayed to a degree when we moved over to RD.

I'm pretty sure that attitude started with RD's predecessor, RaceSimCentral. RD's a lot more lax about it (original owner needs to claim rips, not just anyone who can prove it) @A3DR can probably name some of the even earlier communities against ccc though cause I think he modded nfs4 and stuff.