Reverse Engineering, legit design strategy or intentional robbery?

[that1guy]

Okay, so, I want some opinions and some rational discussion. I personally see downloading craft and using aspects of downloaded craft in your own design as no big deal. For example, Pa1984 is a brilliant SSTO engineer, I have used some of his design tactics along with other fuselage designs in my cargo hauling SSTO. That having been said, the lifting body, wing profile, and engine configuration are all from previous SSTO building on my part.

So, discuss, is it okay to download and learn, or is it morally reprehensible?

[LordQ]

I see nothing wrong with it personally. I've not really done it myself though.

[Lazro]

It's not like you're going to make money off it. As long as you don't take something that was made by someone else and say it's your own, I say that it's all right.

[boomerdog2000]

Considering it's the basis of all modern science, otherwise everyone would have to go derive the the laws of nature on their own. As long as credit is given if you're showing it off, and not making money off of someone else's work I don't see a problem.

[Tex]

Absolutely not. It's especially untrue to say reverse-engineering is wrong if it is a specified tutorial, such as what Scott Manley does. Besides, it is nearly impossible to copy a craft part-for-part without the craft file, so why not muck about with their design? Maybe you can improve it!

[RedDevilEA]

Here's my take on the whole morality debate concerning mods and craft files and whatnot: are you having fun? If not, then find a way to have fun! I think it's absurd to beat one's chest over maintaining some level of purity of gameplay. Because that's what it is - a game. My 4 year old son loves Legos. He had a regular old Lego set and eventually got bored with them, so I bought him a Millennium Falcon kit. He loves it! Do you know why? Because it's effin' awesome! So relax and have fun!

[softweir]

In Real Life, REing a design can be a way to steal another person's Intellectual Property. But in KSP where models are uploaded into the public domain, it is a legitimate learning strategy.

[SkyRender]

I don't think anyone uploads their .craft files with any sort of illusion of them being somehow above being torn down to see how they tick. Nor do I see anything wrong with that, either. Nobody is making money on these things, and everyone stands to benefit from sharing.

[Whackjob]

If I ever get around to putting things up on the spacecraft exchange, feel free to take them, rip off every idea I ever had, and claim them as your own. I'll go along with it happily!

[Garoad]

This is perfectly fine from a moral standpoint. You can't own a design any more than you can "own" any other natural or artificial pattern. Knowledge isn't a scarce resource like physical property is. Without economic scarcity, property rules used for scarce resources do not apply.

[Geschosskopf]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If you don't want your stuff imitated or outright copied, don't show it off.

[FITorion]

all engineering is reverse engineering...

In real life or in game. You look at things others have built... learn the principles employed to build it so you can apply the principles in other places in other ways. This is how we learn.

As to the question of if this is acceptable in game... OF course it is.

[Justin Kerbice]

As long as there will be not enough docs (unity screenshot is not really what we could call a doc) regarding tricky/non obvious things, there will be no choice than doing our own RE. Of course there is a few things here or there, maybe quite a lot is lost in one or two useful reply in a middle of a 100 pages thread, but looking at "FAQ" about wheels/hatch/suspension/wings/engines/... and plugin in add-on subforums, it's clear community need more docs.

[Torham234]

I do not think its wrong.

Its also something I wouldn't do. The best part of KSP for me is designing and building my craft. I would be taking away the most fun part of KSP for me, if I decided to reverse engineer other craft.

[Force21]

I personally think it's wrong to incorporate someone else's designs into your own. I've always made my own designs for everything and never copy someone else's, which has been very easy to do with my terrible memory.

[Comrade Jenkens]

If I come up with some new way of doing something I want ppl to know so they can make even better things with it!

Also my current main warship, the Co-23A, is almost an exact copy of Donlikimon's XC-305. All I did was turn it on its side.

[Whatshtisthis]

If you don't want your stuff imitated or outright copied, don't show it off.

This.

Looking at what people did when you can't get something to work in KSP is fine, of course, if you're sharing the .craft file, it's always good to thank the maker of the craft you referred to.

[Red Iron Crown]

I consider a shared .craft file to be implicit consent to use, modify, learn from, or otherwise do what you like with the craft.

If you share a craft that's derived from someone else's I consider it good form to give credit to the original designer, but that's not necessary either, just polite.

[Red Iron Crown]

This is perfectly fine from a moral standpoint. You can't own a design any more than you can "own" any other natural or artificial pattern. Knowledge isn't a scarce resource like physical property is. Without economic scarcity, property rules used for scarce resources do not apply.

Copyrights and patents are ways to create artificial scarcity for intellectual property so that we can economically encourage creative types. It can be argued whether this is a net benefit to society, or whether the time limits on such things are reasonable, but it is a form of scarcity.

I suppose someone could post a .craft file with a license for use, but I personally think that would be silly.

[Epthelyn]

Imagine a world where the majority of people have no SSTOs (even more so that reality), where asparagus staging is a well-guarded secret and where Whackjob left months ago because his coffee thread gave him no ideas.

Now think of a lot of other stuff that you and others can do only because you/they looked for ideas on the forums, or asked for help.

Yes. It's OK.

It's also going to happen regardless of whether you want it to or not.

[magnemoe]

Absolutely not. It's especially untrue to say reverse-engineering is wrong if it is a specified tutorial, such as what Scott Manley does. Besides, it is nearly impossible to copy a craft part-for-part without the craft file, so why not muck about with their design? Maybe you can improve it!

Yes, most of that you do is using ideas, anyway if you reverse engineer, the other way is to modify an craft file a bit or say update an skycrane for an rover to use on another body.

Someone made an 4 stage light Eve lander, I used this design as an 5 stage and added an decent stage with an science lab and a rover.

[Wallace]

If people didn't want you to use their designs, they wouldn't upload them.

[Silverchain]

Entirely legit so far as I'm concerned, but if you borrow major elements of an uncommon design you should acknowledge that it isn't your own idea until you modify and develop it so far that it's a new thing.

[Red Iron Crown]

Someone made an 4 stage light Eve lander.

That's an impressive accomplishment, have you got a link by chance?

[sanoj688]

"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants." ~ Newton