Do not upgrade to 2.12

[FastAShecK]

Yes I know, but I wasnt talking about any of that. I said many times do what you want offline. My concern is what people do online, using the term illegal to describe that. Thats when you told me that I'm making up the definition.

Whats funny is that definition you posted from the Merriam-webster dictionary actually shows the definition I used, even though you said that what you posted was the only definition there.

Either way I'm not trying to argue with you, I was just laughing about how I got attacked when using the word illegal, even though I wasnt using it as the way you thought I was using it.

Your struggling in a circle of semantics... The word "illegal", "Criminal" or such implications is ridiculous. Your using the term as like in a sport, an illegal foul or etc, not the Legal "Breaking The Law" sense however the word is being used ON BOTH Sides of the definition by different parties, making YOUR INTENDED use of it quite simply tossed aside. Unfortunately some are flat out calling us criminals (even though you may not), its ridiculous.

How hard is it to choose a better suited word when obviously "illegal" is not working.....

 

[Voodoovaj]

I'd like to know when this became an active feature in the game. Was it there since 1.0 or is it there because it's a GT6 feature?

 

[Zuel]

Never said that, in fact, the exact opposite....



Duh obviously they have them since a registered trademark implies this already...



NO, not even close, First off all that is altered is performance and sound, as already mentioned in the thread if you stick a B18 in a Veyron the Veyron engine stays the same, the VISUAL appearance of the car HAS NOT been alterred, and even though we may share hack info, it is in NO WAY distribution until a copy of the game disk is distributed..



The protected representation a Manufacture has in GT5 is VISUAL representation.... We have not pulled off man logos and swapped them, we have not altered the appearance of any bands product...



How does hacking the GT5 save game open the possibilities for GT5 to be used on other Platforms??? I'm curious how you draw that conclusion.

It's not copyright infringement UNTIL you make a copy and distribute it.

Having the ability to do something is not illegal until you act..

Ill show how your logic fails... I have a gun and the ability to do allot of crime with it, like Rob a Bank, Am I already guilty of robbing the bank because I have a gun? The gun is registered and legal BTW..


Batter Up!!!

I don’t see how the logic of owning a gun, having the ability to do a lot of crime just for owning the gun like robbing a “Bank” as you state has anything to do with this matter. Just having the ability to do something doesn’t give the right to do it. Correct? I have the ability to kick someone in the head. Just because I have that ability does that give me the right to do so? “NO” Am I guilty for having that ability? “NO” I have the ability to hack a software program. Does it give me the right? “NO” We can go on and on with the ability or right matter. Though it still doesn’t give anyone the right to do what has been done.

How does hacking a B18 motor into a Veyron keeps the Veyron motor the same? If I’m following you correctly, if you change the Veyron motor code for the B18 motor code the motor code still stay the same even though it’s the B18 motor code? Changing of the code could not be looked at as copyright infringement? Although those codes were design to represent that brand?

 

[Voodoovaj]

I don’t see how the logic of owning a gun, having the ability to do a lot of crime just for owning the gun like robbing a “Bank” as you state has anything to do with this matter. Just having the ability to do something doesn’t give the right to do it. Correct? I have the ability to kick someone in the head. Just because I have that ability does that give me the right to do so? “NO” Am I guilty for having that ability? “NO” I have the ability to hack a software program. Does it give me the right? “NO” We can go on and on with the ability or right matter. Though it still doesn’t give anyone the right to do what has been done.

How does hacking a B18 motor into a Veyron keeps the Veyron motor the same? If I’m following you correctly, if you change the Veyron motor code for the B18 motor code the motor code still stay the same even though it’s the B18 motor code? Changing of the code could not be looked at as copyright infringement? Although those codes were design to represent that brand?

For the most part, PD's copyright has not been infringed upon. No one took any intellectual property from GT and called it their own. If modders created a new game (like counter strike for instance), then that is copyright infringement. If the modders copied the game and redistributed it, then that is copyright infringement.

Changing car bodies to the limited/DLC cars IS copyright infringement. But I still feel they could have handled that in a far better manner.

(yet another conjecture warning)
If this code is earmarked for GT6 and PD simply hoped no one would find out, then MAYBE there could be some kind of argument about the copyright for GT6 being infringed upon through modding of GT5.

 

[Zuel]

For the most part, PD's copyright has not been infringed upon. No one took any intellectual property from GT and called it their own. If modders created a new game (like counter strike for instance), then that is copyright infringement. If the modders copied the game and redistributed it, then that is copyright infringement.

Changing car bodies to the limited/DLC cars IS copyright infringement. But I still feel they could have handled that in a far better manner.

(yet another conjecture warning)
If this code is earmarked for GT6 and PD simply hoped no one would find out, then MAYBE there could be some kind of argument about the copyright for GT6 being infringed upon through modding of GT5.

I can see your point.

 

[Sonygamer455]

Got busy yesterday so I was unable to try the tires Sonygamer455. Sorry. I will definitely do it today though.

That's okey, it tends to happen with me as well. I just got a report from Zedman that it does, but I don't know what method he is talking about.

Some details I should have mentioned earlier:

1. After switching the body to a car that can get dirt and snow tires (In example, Subaru 360), when you go into your garage, press triangle on the car you swapped the body to and select tuning then install the tires. Don't get in it and go to the tune shop because it doesn't work!

2. I have had some awkward quirks before were some won't work, but it rarely happens. That's why I recommend testing the car and seeing if it works on dirt/snow after switching the body back to what it had.

 

[Zuel]

For the most part, PD's copyright has not been infringed upon. No one took any intellectual property from GT and called it their own. If modders created a new game (like counter strike for instance), then that is copyright infringement. If the modders copied the game and redistributed it, then that is copyright infringement.

Changing car bodies to the limited/DLC cars IS copyright infringement. But I still feel they could have handled that in a far better manner.

(yet another conjecture warning)
If this code is earmarked for GT6 and PD simply hoped no one would find out, then MAYBE there could be some kind of argument about the copyright for GT6 being infringed upon through modding of GT5.

Ok, now what is the community to do? Keep on modding forcing people to stay off line and PD to make another change or to stop support? Even though a lot of the people did update a lot haven't.

Now back to my previous question. What if now this is a if, PD releases a pacific track pack and car pack that has been asked for some time now. And the only way to get these items is to update to the latest software changes. Will anyone do it?

 

[FastAShecK]

I don’t see how the logic of owning a gun, having the ability to do a lot of crime just for owning the gun like robbing a “Bank” as you state has anything to do with this matter. Just having the ability to do something doesn’t give the right to do it. Correct? I have the ability to kick someone in the head. Just because I have that ability does that give me the right to do so? “NO” Am I guilty for having that ability? “NO”infringement? Although those codes were design to represent that brand?

That is my point Just because I have the ability to do something does not make me guilty of a crime I have not committed as I was replying to somebody inferring it is infringing upon copyright laws when they posted "This hack has opened the possibilities for Gran Turismo to be used on other platforms, Which is a copyright infringement correct?" The hybrid does NOT breach copyright laws, the copying of the game and emulating it on a different system is different The hack has NOTHING to do with emulating or ripping and redistribution.

Interesting, as you understand the analogy, but you don't understand the context....

How does hacking a B18 motor into a Veyron keeps the Veyron motor the same? If I’m following you correctly, if you change the Veyron motor code for the B18 motor code the motor code still stay the same even though it’s the B18 motor code? Changing of the code could not be looked at as copyright infringement? Although those codes were design to represent that brand?

Because if you look at a Veyron (In the game) that has had a B18 swapped in, the W16 quad Turbo is still visible in the car, a B18 is NOT sitting in there, the Engine visible on the vehicle remains the same, so in actuality NO engines are actually getting swapped around, only the characteristics and sound.

If There were hacks sticking the visible engine into a car, where visibly you saw a B18 inside a Veyron, well now you put a Honda product into Bugatti product and misrepresented them both, if you keep it on your TV screen, its NOT a problem, BUT if you publish that image publicly, then you are in the red zone, as you misrepresented the brands, HOWEVER no presentation, = no misrepresentation ...

 

[Tornado]

If PD actually did something major to the game that made it worth updating for, I'm sure some people would go through the trouble of updating. The chances of that happening are increasingly slim, however.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Ok, now what is the community to do? Keep on modding forcing people to stay off line and PD to make another change or to stop support? Even though a lot of the people did update a lot haven't.

Now back to my previous question. What if now this is a if, PD releases a pacific track pack and car pack that has been asked for some time now. And the only way to get these items is to update to the latest software changes. Will anyone do it?

I don't know the answer yet. I know that online has been pretty lackluster since the update. I have a horrible lag issue as do other folks that never had such and issue before. So, do I revert or do I play a tired game with a shoddy online component? I'm beginning to lean towards a permanent revert to 2.11.

I am upgrading to a fiber optic line at the end of the week, but that should not be the answer to better online performance. As of right now, online performance has rendered it essentially unplayable for me.

 

[FastAShecK]

If PD actually did something major to the game that made it worth updating for, I'm sure some people would go through the trouble of updating. The chances of that happening are increasingly slim, however.

You are Soooooo right on. Its the ONLY thing that may persuade me to even look at 2.12 and up. Just it seems like the DLC until now have only served to "finish" or get the product close to a "finished" product, something I feel they have not accomplished and may not in the life of GT5... GT5 is rather a let down especially after GT5 Prologue was supposed to be like GT3, and GT5 like GT4 if you get what I mean... Instead GT5 is more like a slightly updated version of GT4, heck I spend more time on GT4 cars in GT5 then I do GT5 cars... We even had to wait for PSP in car view to get updated in, how lame is that, the STD cars in car view comes from GTPSP....

They would have to come out with more then they have all together so far.

Like if they did a Port of TT Bikes to add in to the list of Standard cars. I would be all over it (With PS3 #2 )

 

[Voodoovaj]

Like if they did a Port of TT Bikes to add in to the list of Standard cars. I would be all over it (With PS3 #2 )

I would kill for the TT bikes

 

[FastAShecK]

I would kill for the TT bikes

I know I would bite the 2.12 bullet lol

 

[NFSCARBON1]

We even had to wait for PSP in car view to get updated in, how lame is that, the STD cars in car view comes from GTPSP....

It isn't even the PSP view. They are new silhouettes. The PSP views have some of the cars exterior visible through the windscreen unlike the standard cars. However, there was a glitch way back in v1.02? where the replay camera glitched inside a Supra RZ, revealing a low res PSP style interior view.

 

[Spoil-t]

The in car views are just the camera view pulled into the car. They added in nothing else new to make those interior views. It's the same concept with the people who mod NFS games to get an in car view.

 

[FastAShecK]

It isn't even the PSP view. They are new silhouettes. The PSP views have some of the cars exterior visible through the windscreen unlike the standard cars. However, there was a glitch way back in v1.02? where the replay camera glitched inside a Supra RZ, revealing a low res PSP style interior view.

Sorry, updated or enhanced GTPSP style views, not far off....

 

[Tunerguy21]

It will revert them (for the most part as some lil things have snuck through) there is a code to reset the parts or something of the sort..

It is 100% not as simple as redoing your hack car after 2.12 until 2.13 wipes it again. The game will reset your cars over and over and over.

Keeping in mind SOME things have made it to 2.12 so its allot of grey area

I was wondering the same as KingJosh. Does anyone know exactly what made it through, or is it just trial and error? If I, for instance, wanted to put twin stage 3 turbos on my NSX RM, how would the re-reset work, if at all? Maybe I'm just not understanding what's already been said, but I'd like the extra clarity.

 

[Voodoovaj]

I was wondering the same as KingJosh. Does anyone know exactly what made it through, or is it just trial and error? If I, for instance, wanted to put twin stage 3 turbos on my NSX RM, how would the re-reset work, if at all? Maybe I'm just not understanding what's already been said, but I'd like the extra clarity.

In short, there are tickets for weight reduction , turbo, etc. Some of them work on some cars, and some do not. The weight reduction seems to be the most universal, so you can go to +5 weight reduction instead of only +3

 

[Tunerguy21]

In short, there are tickets for weight reduction , turbo, etc. Some of them work on some cars, and some do not. The weight reduction seems to be the most universal, so you can go to +5 weight reduction instead of only +3

I understand about the tickets, but if I wanted to put on, for example, twin turbos through "ways not disscussable on GTP", would they be rejected? I know some mods slipped through the cracks, but what I don't know are which.

 

[Lock2Lock]

That's okey, it tends to happen with me as well. I just got a report from Zedman that it does, but I don't know what method he is talking about.

Some details I should have mentioned earlier:

1. After switching the body to a car that can get dirt and snow tires (In example, Subaru 360), when you go into your garage, press triangle on the car you swapped the body to and select tuning then install the tires. Don't get in it and go to the tune shop because it doesn't work!

2. I have had some awkward quirks before were some won't work, but it rarely happens. That's why I recommend testing the car and seeing if it works on dirt/snow after switching the body back to what it had.

Confirmed. Doesn't work

Sorry bro.

 

[ImaRobot]

Your struggling in a circle of semantics... The word "illegal", "Criminal" or such implications is ridiculous. Your using the term as like in a sport, an illegal foul or etc, not the Legal "Breaking The Law" sense however the word is being used ON BOTH Sides of the definition by different parties, making YOUR INTENDED use of it quite simply tossed aside. Unfortunately some are flat out calling us criminals (even though you may not), its ridiculous.

How hard is it to choose a better suited word when obviously "illegal" is not working.

I understand and I get where you are coming from on that alone. However, if you understood how I was using the term, I don't get why you attacked me so. Although I can somewhat see why, with some of these comments that where being thrown arround. Although I feel like you took some hate out on me when it wasn't warranted. Maybe I just chimed in at the wrong time.

If you understood my use of the term then there was no need to act how you did. That being the case to, there was no need to change my wording either, seeing as you knew how I was using it. Either way I just feel like you took it out on the wrong person.

I stepped away from continue posting about my opinion just to avoid that whole fact.

As long as you understand how I was using the word, then I'm fine with that.

 

[FastAShecK]

I understand and I get where you are coming from on that alone. However, if you understood how I was using the term, I don't get why you attacked me so. Although I can somewhat see why, with some of these comments that where being thrown arround. Although I feel like you took some hate out on me when it wasn't warranted. Maybe I just chimed in at the wrong time.

If you understood my use of the term then there was no need to act how you did. That being the case to, there was no need to change my wording either, seeing as you knew how I was using it. Either way I just feel like you took it out on the wrong person.

I stepped away from continue posting about my opinion just to avoid that whole fact.

As long as you understand how I was using the word, then I'm fine with that.

I apologize for seeming like any hate was tossed, I can be aggressive and direct, hard headed and all of that, so I may get heated or irate, but I'm Canadian, nothing finishes a heated argument like a beer and a game of Hockey I'm not one to hold a grudge. Please don't feel like if we disagree, even get all heated in a argument, that this mean I have any hate for you or anybody, its just passion. You are correct it may be you just chimed in at the wrong time when others were tossing the term out with different meaning and being way too literal with it. I understand you clearly, its semantics. When a word doesn't work in the circumstances (as illegal showed not to work here) the diplomatic option is to use a different word, often the simplest solution is the best solution... I had issue with the continued use of it because despite it being made clear its use was causing conflict, it was almost as if using that word became more important then the content of the discussion... We are not talking about a Basketball game or such, the term is NOT working, especially under the circumstance. "Illicit" may be more befitting. When the meaning of a word becomes the point of conflict the "loose" meaning is irrelevant, and only the literal meaning stands.


I wouldn't care about any replies to my comments if I didn't hold value to the opinions here as I do.

 

[ImaRobot]

I apologize for seeming like any hate was tossed, I can be aggressive and direct, hard headed and all of that, so I may get heated or irate, but I'm Canadian, nothing finishes a heated argument like a beer and a game of Hockey I'm not one to hold a grudge. Please don't feel like if we disagree, even get all heated in a argument, that this mean I have any hate for you or anybody, its just passion. You are correct it may be you just chimed in at the wrong time when others were tossing the term out with different meaning and being way too literal with it. I wouldn't care about any replies to my comments if I didn't hold value to the opinions here as I do.

I have to wake up for work in 5 hours, I'm writing through my cell phone, and I'm tired a hell(but can't go to sleep for the life of me) so all I'm going to write is that I'm glad to see that you understood my opinion, even though, at the time it seemed like the complete opposite.

At least a middle ground was met 👍

EDIT: I see your edited post but won't be able to get another reply in till tomorrow when I get to work.

 

[FastAShecK]

I have to wake up for work in 5 hours, I'm writing through my cell phone, and I'm tired a hell(but can't go to sleep for the life of me) so all I'm going to write is that I'm glad to see that you understood my opinion, even though, at the time it seemed like the complete opposite.

At least a middle ground was met 👍

EDIT: I see your edited post but won't be able to get another reply in till tomorrow when I get to work.

Semantics bro, semantics..


Get to Bed bro, the topic will be here tomorrow.

 

[Sonygamer455]

Confirmed. Doesn't work

Sorry bro.

Well that blows! Guess going through and modding all my cars in my garage was all for nothing. Oh well, thanks for trying!

They may make it were I cannot drive all my cars I have on dirt and snow and remove my hybrids I enjoy making but im still not playing Forza.

 

[LeMansAid]

I wonder if the terms that you guys are looking for are "illegal" and "criminal" (I apologise if I am repeating anyone's post with this). Illegal is something that is legally wrong, while criminal is something that is legally wrong and legally punishable. For instance suicide used to be a criminal act, and if attempted and not completed was punishable by law. Now, suicide (in my country at least) is illegal but not criminal. The term "commit suicide" is a hangover from when it was a criminal act.

But, should this argument be about legalities anyway? I would rather consider the ethics of it. In my opinion, Jeff Buckley's album Sketches For My Sweetheart The Drunk should never have been released. It was a recording that he was not happy with and was released after he died, obviously without his approval. The relevance? I believe that any artist (including game developers) should be able to keep their works within the realms of what they believe to be a non-defamatory representation.

How about not being so extreme? Comments like "GT5 sucks without hybrids" are never going to win people to your way of thinking. I don't know if PD could have somehow kept sensible motor and chassis swaps but got rid of the ludicrousmobiles, but surely they are more than busy creating a new game perhaps? Dealing with this issue (and it definitely needed to be addressed in some way) would consume time that they just do not have. Perhaps we could stop throwing sticks and stones at each other and become a collective that might be heard.

These are quiet words and will not automatically generate much response, but please consider them none the less.