Tomas Torasen submitted a new resource:
Tomas pp filter - pp filter
Read more about this resource...
Tomas pp filter - pp filter
Read more about this resource...
Resource icon
Misc Tomas pp filter 2015-10-10
- Thread starter Tomas Torasen
- Start date
You have just taken my hard worked ppfilter and made a slight change and re-uploaded it. That is how it does NOT work at racedepartment. You should have at least given credit to and link to the original. The original is blackcelica's ppfilter
http://www.racedepartment.com/downloads/blackcelicas-photo-real-pp-filter.5441/
Use mine yes, change it yes, enjoy it yes, re-upload it without permission..NO.
http://www.racedepartment.com/downloads/blackcelicas-photo-real-pp-filter.5441/
Use mine yes, change it yes, enjoy it yes, re-upload it without permission..NO.
On a second note, if everyone else who downloaded my filter (3000) ish or whatever we'd all be flooded with lots of slightly different versions of the same thing. I've done the hard work with research and testers over time to create the filter in the first place. People can and will tweak it as not all monitors, eyeballs etc are exactly the same. There are probably better versions of my filter out there which people have tweaked for themselves and fair play to them. I introduced the foundation to build on and it was introduced at a time when none of the default filters were good enough. The problem needed solving and mine was born. Without credit, your upload was tweaked for yourself, you don't have the right to then offer it out as something you've done for people to try in such a casual manner. Your changes were to suit your needs, this is fine but it should have stayed your needs.
WTH are you talking about? This is not your work. This is an ini file provided by kunos that we all can edit. Research and testers? You are talking about an ini file again.. It's not that many values and it's not like you built something. You can't change some values in an existing product and claim copyright on it. Let go of your ego in this matter and let people exchange information freely.
You introduced the foundation? Really? The foundation I would say is all the code behind the game that we dont see. All the algrotithms that translates into a graphical engine. Thats the foundation and the big work, and a product if you so will.
The ini file contains very few lines of changeble values that you are allowed to change yourself,provided by kunos. Not you. You just took a small ini file that provides us access to a small part of the whole thing that is going on behind the representation that we see. Anyone can look at the ini file in simple notepad form and see actually how small this file is and how very few lines of kunos work you claim copyright to. Kunos gave you, me and other customers access by his choice to these choosen values to be able to change them to anyones liking.
You really are talking nonsense unless you actually believe you built assetto corsa..
You have no idea. Forget it, I'm not getting into a battle with someone who hasn't done their homework.
What do I have no idea about? And how do you know what I dont know? I'm partly a photographer, quite known even in my country. We photographers deal ALOT with questions both practically and we also debate copyright issues alot. I'm no lawyer so I'm not sure about the english terminology, but I do know the principles quite well here in sweden, which is quite similar to england where you seem to be..
The problems you have is:
1. you have modified an original file from a product you have bought and republished it. Per normality you never modify original content and republish thats two accounts of copyright over stepping.
(But in this case kunos vocally expresses he supports modding, even releases tools for it. Although there is still clear rules what we are not allowed to do, generally the modding community knows that ini-files is a way for the devs to give access to settings that most wont need, but some might find useful.
And for you to get fined for copyright enfringement kunos needs to press charges, which both is difficult and expensive over country borders and we all know he wont because he has nothing go gain in this particular case, so it's free modding in this case)
2. Your attitude to claim you own this content like you were talking about an original work of art or something, whereas you would be right. This is much more similar to sharing settings, although more complicated in a personal point of possibly view.
This also makes me annoyed by you.
If you would have asked me to give you credit I would have had no problems in doing so respectfully.
But trying to force me with threat to remove content that you misinterpret as your own I just dont feel like it.
This changed file is quite different from yours in my opinion. Yes I used your settings as a base but changed them so republish and pointing to you would not be good either, copyright wise.
The problems you have is:
1. you have modified an original file from a product you have bought and republished it. Per normality you never modify original content and republish thats two accounts of copyright over stepping.
(But in this case kunos vocally expresses he supports modding, even releases tools for it. Although there is still clear rules what we are not allowed to do, generally the modding community knows that ini-files is a way for the devs to give access to settings that most wont need, but some might find useful.
And for you to get fined for copyright enfringement kunos needs to press charges, which both is difficult and expensive over country borders and we all know he wont because he has nothing go gain in this particular case, so it's free modding in this case)
2. Your attitude to claim you own this content like you were talking about an original work of art or something, whereas you would be right. This is much more similar to sharing settings, although more complicated in a personal point of possibly view.
This also makes me annoyed by you.
If you would have asked me to give you credit I would have had no problems in doing so respectfully.
But trying to force me with threat to remove content that you misinterpret as your own I just dont feel like it.
This changed file is quite different from yours in my opinion. Yes I used your settings as a base but changed them so republish and pointing to you would not be good either, copyright wise.
I never asked you to remove it. Share and share alike. I know the file originally started off as a kunos .ini and it was very different to what it ended up being. A lot of tweaking went into getting it looking good on most systems at all times, all tracks. Imagine if you used a car template (from kunos) painted it all up looking very good indeed, spending hours on it, you upload it. I look at it, change the colour of the seats then re-post it to share??? Look what I've done everyone. You would not be happy. I'm not claiming to own anything kunos, but I am claiming the length of time going over settings, over and over again, testing, getting feedback from co-racers, testing testing testing until we were all happy with the final result before it was posted out for others to enjoy. Let that be enough said on the matter.
You are changing your stance, it's ok. I understand your points and feelings about it. I can agree I should have asked how you wanted to be mentioned before posting it.
I was never after any cred as a modder by posting this, I just wanted to share what I came up with for my own taste after all the tweaking. I could just have kept this to myself but I'm not built that way and I think this kind of enthusiasm of tweaking and tweaking can spark other people to keep tweaking and improving things.
I agree with your point. I do not agree with the analogy to this though. I would perhaps if you had released not just an ini-file (not to minimize your work effort) but a whole package with your own weather files also, graphicsl cloud files and skyboxes etc. That would to me be a different matter and not good. Were talking about one ini-file that originally is based and tweaked from an existing file with no added parameters, just tweaked values.
Tomas, I wish to offer you a sincere apology. Having looked at the forum thread about best ppfilters, you did say mine was the base quite clearly and I'd overlooked that fact. I've acted like an idiot and had a rant for no real reason, so again I'm very sorry. Hope there are no hard feelings. I have downloaded your tweaked version and I don't mind stating that it does look a touch better. Especially between 12 - 2pm time of day on my system.
It takes two to tango, blackcelica. 
No worries mate.
I think regarding how it looks, that it will be as much personal preference as different monitors. I myself are using a calibrated monitor that is balanced using an external calibration meter and internal software. This means it's safe proof regarding looking at "correct" white balance and "correct" color and tone representation. I have this because I handle photography in the same system. This probably means that I will have less blue than most other people and more defined shadow tones. This probably is a disadvantage rather in this regard since it differs more than otherwise.
Try watching a nordschleife replay on track cameras with yours or my filter from 17:00-17:30. It looks absolutely amazing.
No worries mate.I think regarding how it looks, that it will be as much personal preference as different monitors. I myself are using a calibrated monitor that is balanced using an external calibration meter and internal software. This means it's safe proof regarding looking at "correct" white balance and "correct" color and tone representation. I have this because I handle photography in the same system. This probably means that I will have less blue than most other people and more defined shadow tones. This probably is a disadvantage rather in this regard since it differs more than otherwise.
Try watching a nordschleife replay on track cameras with yours or my filter from 17:00-17:30. It looks absolutely amazing.
