Leaderboard

Not if you don't have his permission. Do not try to guess what someone may or may not find respectful. If he vanishes in the middle of his work, that does not give you the right to decide what should be done with it. This is the part where I have to agree with peter_spy strongly.

Restricting and locking isn't the right direction to take TDM or DR. For me the atmosphere would become one where we can't trust each other, and I think that would do irreparable harm over the long term. It's unfortunate that you feel such measures are necessary "especially in the context of this community", but I believe there's in fact no active mapper here who would knowingly ignore a modeller's request not to alter their work. Unknowingly is another matter, and there will probably be another bad apple in the future or from off-site, but that's a limitation of uploading your work to a project like this. As was already established, you couldn't control this even if you wanted to, and any attempts at doing so anyway would have to be weighed against how this would alter the character of TDM. Personally I think there are a lot more contributors attracted to TDM's openness than there are contributors who want to lock their work away from others.

I think I've found a bug, albeit an amusing one: https://streamable.com/qasfb5 1. Throw body into water 2. Go underwater and frob body 3. Swim a far away as you'd like, but stay in the water 4. Continue to manipulate the ragdoll because your frob never disengaged 5. Get back onto dry land to stop the madness It doesn't seem to happen all the time, but probably more like 90% of the time for me. I can file a bug report if this isn't already a known issue.

I may have to see such a license to understand what is truly required, because from a technical perspective, an "unopenable package" is clearly nonsense. The game would have to be able to open it, and with the game being open source, that would immediately tell anyone who is interested how to do it. Add to that the potential effort and added complexity to implement any sort of protection (which takes dev time away from other areas) and potential increase to load times, I'm very sceptical this would be worth it. For me, this is a common theme with DRM measures - they tend to hurt the honest people more than the dishonest ones. As for the broader topic: there should be no doubt that authors have the sole authority to dictate how their works should be used. This is typically guaranteed by copyright law, but even if not, it isn't up for debate. Obviously, if your work builds on existing work, you have to adhere to any restrictions that come from that. Now, as a coder I may have a slightly more relaxed stance concerning my own contributions, because with the advent of the open source movement it is now fairly common practice to release code under a permissive license, and I typically do so even if I'm not obligated to (as TDM code contributions are by the original Doom3 GPL license). Yes, it is initially scary to do this, to "let go" of your own creations, knowing that anyone could do any kind of stupid shit with it. But it can also be very liberating, and the benefits usually outweigh the bad outcomes. Personally, I think asset creators could also benefit from a more relaxed approach here, because I frankly don't agree that code is somehow fundamentally different. In fact, I find that a little demeaning, as it suggests asset contributions are somehow of an inherently higher value that deserves greater protection?! But again, this is an individual choice and your choice alone. What I do strongly suggest for anyone to do is to make the terms of what you deem acceptable usage clear. To that regard, every mission, asset pack etc. should include a license.txt that states what uses are acceptable and also lists any non-core third-party assets included and their respective author and license. This is common practice in the software development world, and I think it would also benefit the mission-makers. Because more so than any DRM mechanism, it clearly states the acceptable terms of use, and whoever then disregards those is simply a dick.

I've found some value in this, specifically in order to combine several models into one. I over-modularized some pieces in my walls, and once I was sure of the sizing I was going to use I combined a wall, window sill, horizontal spacers, etc into two different 3-story wall slice models which are still highly reusable but much simpler to place. I've tried to avoid too much premature performance optimization but I also expect combining models to sometimes be a valid technique for reducing entity counts and drawcalls if modules or detail/clutter models push things over the edge. I think the best thing we can do as creators is make our intentions for our work clear by choosing and applying the right license. For instance, as my FM will tell my own unique story, I'll release the map itself as CC BY-NC-ND. OTOH I consider the assets I'm creating for the FM to be more of a means to that end and I'd be happy for others to use them as they saw fit to create their own stories, so I'll make those CC BY-NC-SA. If I was creating high-quality, highly-unique assets I might feel differently about them and choose a different license accordingly. We can't really prevent bad actors from doing what they want, but we can make things easier for everyone who is acting in good faith. Maybe we could come up with a way to increase the visibility of the licenses to other mappers somehow. Or maybe we should at least have a wiki article that encourages content creators to both include a license with their work, and to check for and understand the licenses that come with others' assets. We could either link here or provide our own simple examples of what the different CC licenses mean.

Definitely. I think in all cases its proper etiquette to ask the artist/ creator for permission to use their work. I also think its also our responsibility as creators to use our best judgment when we put our work on the internet, because inevitable not everyone is going to ask, unfortunately. Assets that come packaged with the mod (part of the core) are up for grabs for editing, modifying, ect without permission. Just not using commercially of course.

TDM is an open source project, and as such there are certain ideological aspects that tend to come with such projects. Not everyone cares about that of course, but the idea of copy-protecting resources in an open source project doesn't really go down well. It's the kind of idea that tends to be a part of corporate/proprietary software, not a free and open project. I'm not sure how widespread the abuse of freely provided assets in different projects is, although I've definitely seen it happen. It's something of a balance between the interests of the artists and that of the project. If you're worried about assets you created been taken later, reused and possibly modified out of your control, the only practical option is to not put such content out there. The good thing seems to be that, while it does sometimes happen that someone go nuts and forgets even the basics of asking for permission before messing with other people's content, it's generally quite rare that this happens. A project such as TDM doesn't survive unless people have the confidence to create assets for it without worrying about post-release manipulation.

Just skimming through the topic here so I may miss some of the nuances of the conversation. I've been part of the Thief community since 1999. From the very beginning, mappers have made use of existing assets and often modified them...for better or worse...for use in their own missions. Generally, most asked permission and mentioned original authors in their credits. I've seen horrific modifications made, but those modifications have no bearing on the original assets...whether they were core mod assets or borrowed from an FM, the original versions do not magically get overwritten if someone butchers them for an FM. If a modified asset looks bad, most people playing it are just going to assume the FM author made it...I don't think it will reflect badly on the original artist. Having contributed work to the mod over the years in art, audio and code, the idea of preventing the sharing of assets makes me uncomfortable. It's counter to how we built and promote the mod. The Thief community has always shared. That's why it's miraculously still alive today. TDM is a cousin to the Thief community, we're smaller and I would say a tad more fragile. I would not be in support of doing anything that might create hurdles that weaken it.

I get the sentiment here, I really do. However, if someone wants to take models (my own included) and change them for better or for worse - I consider that their problem and not mine. Thats just the nature of contributing to a free mod. We're not going to boot model exporting.

Loosely following the discussions on Discord, I think I know where this topic is coming from. The conclusion to solve the past problems by removing the model export functionality from DR is wrong on so many levels, my answer just has to be nope. Besides the technical discussions, I personally find the thought of artists being that retentive about their work a bit strange, at least in the context of this community. If all the folks contributing to the mod had thought this way, there simply wouldn't have been a The Dark Mod at all.

Ugh, no. DarkRadiant is a mapping tool, not a DRM enforcement system. Disabling or removing features because someone, somewhere might use them to violate someone's copyright is the sort of rubbish we saw when the late-twentieth-century RIAA and MPAA wanted to ban MP3 players and CD writers because people might use them to copy commercial music. Then those models are not compatible with the CC license used by the Dark Mod can cannot be used as part of the mod, full stop. Our CC license requires sharing alike and restricts commercial use, but no more. There are no restrictions on formats or storage mechanisms, and any license which imposed such additional restrictions would be CC-incompatible and therefore unlawful to distribute as part of a CC-licensed work. You seem to be under the misconception that there is something magic about the ASE format which means it can't be loaded into anything else. This is incorrect. It is a text format like any other, and it is easy to write an import script for it just as you can write an import script for OBJ, LWO or any other format. There is even an ASE import script for Blender 2.49, which according to your interpretation would make it impossible to follow the license of certain models until Blender is deleted from the internet. If a license is interpreted such that following the license is only possible as long as some other piece of software does not exist, there is something very broken about that license and I would suggest not touching any assets which use such a license.

[Just posted this on Discord, but I think it'd also be good to post here since the FX system seems to be almost unknown.] I've just (again) come across the fx system, which is quite a neat way of coordinating a sequence of particles, sounds, lights etc. to appear without having to script or make a cascade of trigger_relays. All it takes is an fx definition like this: fx fx/sparks { { delay 0 duration 0.5 restart 0 light "lights/sparks_sound", 1, 1, 1, 96 offset 0, 0, 0 } { delay 0 sound "security_camera_spark" duration 2.5 } { delay 0 duration 2.5 restart 0 model "sparks.prt" //fadeout 1.5 //particle "sparks.prt" } } This goes into an .fx file (renamed from .txt) in the fx/ folder. A func_fx entity with an "fx" "fx/sparks" spawnarg can be triggered ingame to play it. Oddly, TDM only has a total of 11 fx (+1 if you also count all FMs), of which half are thunder-related. The system has barely been used for anything else than thunder, even though there are in fact quite a few entities, other than func_fx, that support calling fx: - moveables can have an fx_collide spawnarg - AIs can have fx_on_death and fx_on_ko - func_fracture entities can have fx - security cameras can have fx_damage and fx_destroyed - anims can trigger fx on specific frames with the fx keyword - respawning items can have fxRespawn (might be a Doom3-exclusive thing) - the player's view can have fx applied via script, i.e. an fx with a shaking effect There's seemingly no documentation of fx on the TDM domain and no real support for fx in DR. But documentation can be found in this article on iddevnet, and in a way this post could be considered a nucleus for TDM-specific documentation. Edit: iddevnet.com has gone down, but you can find a backup on the TDM server: http://ftp.thedarkmod.com/backup/iddevnet.zip P.S.: what probably goes well with fx_collide on moveables is the script_collide spawnarg. Could maybe be used to make a fragile object? More examples of fx in the spoiler:

I've been building a rather large fm, no doubt more than I can handle (but it's fun and DarkRadiant is amazing!): brushes 17000, patches 8700, entities 5650. Perhaps I've overloaded the system and have to break it into 2 linked parts, which would require rethinking the storyline so each part has a definite start/middle/conclusion. Still, it's smaller than The Painter's Wife in all respects. Anyhow, I've run into problems setting objectives "item is in info_location". I'd earlier wasted time trying to get "item is in location" to work and finally gave up, shortly before a bug was reported and the warning put in the wiki. I can get "item is in info_location" to work, but only one instance. I imagine the player gathering up various objects and placing them here and there to trigger objective complete, helping to give a concrete sense to the gameplay - so multiple instances are required. When I try to add a second "item is in info_locaton" I get all kinds of errors, most common being the first info_location objective gets broken - drop the item and previously working "objective complete" isn't triggered. I've verified that 2 info_location objectives work, but in separate maps. Putting them together in one map is impossible. I've had them both activated and where the first (original) one still works, but then the 2nd one doesn't work, or the droppable item drops but loses all properties, it just hangs statically in the air until picked up again (maddening!). I've tried about every possible configuration that I can think of. One interesting configuration happened when I had the first info_location completion trigger the visibility of the 2nd. That set up a loop, "objective complete" endlessly ringing out with the text. So I dunno, is the info_location objective broken or am I missing something obvious?

I've made a new sign decal for Frost_Salamander's map (WIP), and for some reason the editor isn't registering the alpha channel when he applies the texture to the patch. The texture is a .tga file with an alpha channel. Please see the attached zip file if you want to examine it. I used the same process for an inventory icon and it worked perfectly. We can't seem to figure out how to make the editor recognize the alpha channel of the texture in order to create a decal. Please help? Hare Signs.zip

Move all the global keywords to the top, then replace the diffusemap stage with: { blend diffusemap map textures/darkmod/decals/signs/hare_sign_001_512 alphatest 0.5 }

@Jedi_Wannabe yes please.

Psst! Check this out: We can now simulate interiors much better! OTOH: You can have clear windows everywhere but that will impact performance so you have to weigh the costs verse benefits. Sice 2.09 performs so much better, there is more headroom to try this now.

^ Currently I'm test automation developer by trade, but a hobbyist modeller, imagine that! Such an abomination! I know, I know, test automation guys are not "real" developers anyway Btw. @Wellingtoncrabthanks for posting, this is bad news indeed. I was really surprised that textures.com has such a lousy license, given they're not exactly the best site in the world, when it comes to textures or materials. In fact they're awfully behind the times and pricey.

Hi Everyone, I am jumping over from the discord, from a tangentially related discussion which was occurring there regarding including “licensed” assets in FMs. Admittedly as a new author the idea that I could not include ostensibly “free” textures or ones I had purchased with a commercial license in my FM did not occur to me, though it retrospect it was perhaps obvious. One of the reasons this did not occur to me as I have years of images I have gotten from sources like cgtextures.com, many of which I used to use when I was tinkering around with TDS editing and I recognized right away many of TDM’s core assets are available from the same source. Many of these are my some of my favorite textures in the game: https://www.textures.com/download/BrickOldDirty0080/40417 https://www.textures.com/download/BrickOldDirty0067/39621 So I assumed this was a kosher source to derive TDM textures from. This appears to violate CGTextures terms of use which states they you may not “release the Content or derivative products with Content under Open Source Licenses” https://www.textures.com/about/terms-of-use If you go through the core asset library there are other examples. Hopefully there is some record of these textures being sourced originally as CC, and CGTextures.com are the actual bad guys here, but it felt like quite a blow to me and peter_spy thought I should share that with all of you. Hope it is helpful.

I think that since either way it will require an update I'll just figure out a way that it will work with either setting to begin with. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though!

Ok, I'll try to get some more information, but that would need more complicated steps from you. 1) Run tdm_installer without any custom checks, and make sure it installs release209 properly. Do not use test/dev versions for this! 2) Delete "currentfm.txt" file in TDM installation directory (if it exists). 3) Download apitrace from this link. It is a 7z archive with a folder inside. Unpack the contents of the folder into "C:\apitrace". Make sure that path "C:\apitrace\bin\apitrace.exe" indeed points to the executable! 4) Download attached zip file. Unpack its contents into the root of your TDM installation directory. Make sure you see files like "_apitrace_record1.cmd" in the same directory where you see "TheDarkModx64.exe". 5) Action time Run "_apitrace_record1.cmd". It will start TDM game, and after a bit of time you will hear music. Now press Ctrl+Alt+Tilde (~) to open console. Type "condump 1" and hit Enter. Then exit game by pressing Alt+F4. Note that you'll have to do it blind, so verify that both "1.txt" and "res1.trace" have been created in TDM directory. 6) Repeat point 5, but now run "_apitrace_record2.cmd" and execute "condump 2". 7) Repeat point 5, but now run "_apitrace_record3.cmd" and execute "condump 3". 8|) Take files "1.txt", "2.txt", "3.txt", "res1.trace", "res2.trace", "res3.trace" in TDM installation directory, and pack them all into 7z/zip archive. Upload the archive somewhere and share it for download. P.S. And if you start seeing the menu instead of black screen in any of the runs, of course report it 209_blackmenu_apitrace.zip

If the incident from Discord is what I think it is, that issue involved someone repeatedly making unapproved artistic and gameplay changes to other users WIP maps when they had only been given permission to do some performance optimization. We're talking major gameplay and map design changes and when those major changes weren't embraced, that user would become angry that their efforts, unwanted as they were, might not be embraced. If this is more if an aesthetic thing, I would say just ask people not to use the high quality assets from you FM. Heck, add a Pop up screen after the TDM logo on mission launch telling people not to use these assets as they do not meld well due to their higher quality. Then release the lower quality versions. The majority of the community is respectful and it's small. Thinking in terms of numbers here....we don't have hundreds of mappers. This tiny community has lasted 20 years for a reason. Trust and mutual respect. If you don't want your assets folded into the core mod for distribution, that's fine too but I stand by my earlier post. Encryption doesn't fit our model... outdated as openly sharing may be...it is the heart of our community. Ask and the majority will respect your wishes.

Maybe there should be some kind of warning before the beginning of the mission so that the player enables "Open doors on unlock". I also ran into this bug when I first played that mission (amazing nevertheless), and spent a significant amount of time trying different things because I --just like ate0ate-- thought that the note mentioning that the code could be changed was some sort of hint

My opinion peter_spy, as a modeler in some extent my self, i do comprehend your feeling, I really do, modeling of your caliber, is a big amount of work but I also agree with the others, this is not the type of direction that a open source tool, open community should follow, if you really care about who uses your models, than I can only say, don't make models for TDM period or spend less time and effort on them, even if that means TDM losing a source of high quality models. There's nothing you can do about leaches trying to use your work, someone somewhere will just find a way to rip your models, even if you lock them, if you let that affect you, you will never be able to work in a open environment and get yourself a ulcera.

Biltmore Erstate

Sitting Room in Vanderbilt Mansion

Absolutely stellar mission. I love the little notice board side quest system. Very innovative. I have to try the astronomer's challenges yet. I did run into that game breaking lever bug. Very abrupt end to the immersion, though the mission is still one of the best. I initially thought that the note mentioning the code could be changed was some sort of hint and spent quite a whiles trying different things, rereading the readables and searching everywhere only to realize it was a bug in the end. Still, thanks for the work you did here. Missions like these are among my favorites. EDIT: I figured out that it is connected to the "Open Doors on Unlock" option. You can see the effect in game by toggling it on or off and attempting to open the door both ways. If the option is on, as I prefer to play, then the door does not seem to work properly. If the option is set to on, as is default, then all works as intended.

Still experimenting with glass shaders, this time for some more complex shapes. The transparency sorting problem is quite visible here, and even with dark color, the material is too see-through IMO. Going for opaque version and perhaps some sort of glowing crystal a la TDS might be a better option overall. Edit: got a small breakthrough with translucent materials this morning. This is heavily reliant on actual lighting, so getting it right will be hard. But this is one step closer towards some nice magic glowing crystal effect Also, I had no idea you can actually get translucent materials to cast shadows

That worked out OK. Though I imagine Dante's Inferno has a circle of hell populated by folks trying to loop animations with a text editor.

What about glossiness could he include it? I think that would work fine with current non PBR materials. You would need a extra gloss texture thou.