[Messin with shaders]

Don't get me wrong, it would make my model and material workflow like 10x easier I already own Substance tools, so with e.g. proper metallic-roughness workflow, I'd export all textures directly from Painter to TDM.

I was just thinking, since TDM doesn't use specular workflow much at all (most surfaces have kind of chalk or powdery properties), switching to PBR makes little sense if you plan to maintain current approach, i.e. mostly no roughness maps. Otherwise, TDM will change style in a way that my custom project differs from current stock TDM assets.

[Messin with shaders]

Moving to PBR will require making roughness maps for all materials. All the base color textures will have to be reauthored too, as they need to use correct intensity range. Since non-pbr TDM stock assets use specular maps in like 1% of the cases, changing from non-pbr to pbr will in essence change the art style of TDM.

[2016+ Games news]

Seems like more trouble for Bloodlines 2: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/vampire-the-masquerade-bloodlines-2-delayed-again-and-hardsuit-games-are-no-longer-developing-it

[Newbie DarkRadiant Questions]

By the way, and maybe I'm misremembering this, but somehow you can't use .dds normalmaps at all now? I know there will be compression artifacts, but you'd expect you can use them, e.g. as a last resort, if you want to bring down the FM package size hard. I think it worked as for all other images. In 2.08 .dds normalmaps are just ignored, however compressed.

Edit: yup, there are articles on the wiki that you shouldn't compress normalmaps to dds, but it was possible.

[Newbie DarkRadiant Questions]

I don't work with other formats, but .ase is a plain text file and it has the material path there:

Quote

*MATERIAL_LIST {
    *MATERIAL_COUNT 1
    *MATERIAL 0 {
        *MATERIAL_NAME "Material #32"
        *MATERIAL_CLASS "Standard"
        *MATERIAL_AMBIENT 0.5880    0.5880    0.5880
        *MATERIAL_DIFFUSE 0.5880    0.5880    0.5880
        *MATERIAL_SPECULAR 0.9000    0.9000    0.9000
        *MATERIAL_SHINE 0.1000
        *MATERIAL_SHINESTRENGTH 0.0000
        *MATERIAL_TRANSPARENCY 0.0000
        *MATERIAL_WIRESIZE 1.0000
        *MATERIAL_SHADING Blinn
        *MATERIAL_XP_FALLOFF 0.0000
        *MATERIAL_SELFILLUM 0.0000
        *MATERIAL_FALLOFF In
        *MATERIAL_XP_TYPE Filter
        *MAP_DIFFUSE {
            *MAP_NAME "Map #12"
            *MAP_CLASS "Bitmap"
            *MAP_SUBNO 1
            *MAP_AMOUNT 1.0000
            *BITMAP "//base/textures/buildercompound/tiling/wall01"
            *MAP_TYPE Screen
            *UVW_U_OFFSET 0.0000
            *UVW_V_OFFSET 0.0000
            *UVW_U_TILING 1.0000
            *UVW_V_TILING 1.0000
            *UVW_ANGLE 0.0000
            *UVW_BLUR 1.0000
            *UVW_BLUR_OFFSET 0.0000
            *UVW_NOUSE_AMT 1.0000
            *UVW_NOISE_SIZE 1.0000
            *UVW_NOISE_LEVEL 1
            *UVW_NOISE_PHASE 0.0000
            *BITMAP_FILTER Pyramidal
        }
    }
}

IIRC, you don;t have to do that with .lwo

[Messin with shaders]

These artifacts also look similar to what you can get with either .dds or ingame compression. You can change these to 0 to make sure it's not that:

image_useNormalCompression "0"
image_useCompression "0"

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

I wasn't aware that SH modding community basically ripped every texture, model and other assets for every SH installment, and made it available for download. Maybe that's why they're freely available on other websites too. Konami doesn't seem to do anything about it, but obviously that's still copyright infringement.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

It's not the same face.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

2 hours ago, OrbWeaver said:

If you choose to believe that such protection really is possible, if only the developers care enough about mappers to get off their lazy asses and implement it, you go ahead and believe it. I can't force you to change your mind.

It's not what I think. I get that having an encryption in GPL code is almost silly, but so is the stance of "every security can be broken, let's do nothing".All in all, if you want modern content creators to come and stay here, IMO you have to at least start thinking about offering something more than vague promises of community goodwill, and then blaming miscommunication, when something goes wrong. And lately it does go wrong, more and more often. Even TDM team can't be treated as role model here, as demonstrated above. I get that nobody's perfect, but people do tend to leave, or at least lose confidence after such incidents.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

On one hand, you can find a big modding site where you can download like every model and every texture from every Silent Hill game, so it seems like Konami doesn't care much about that stuff, not outside Japan I'd guess. But that still is their intelectual property. In this particular case we're talking about player character from Silent Hill 3.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

That was my first impression too. To be fair, I don't think I ever saw that face in TDM, maybe it's a leftover of some kind?

Edit: Nope, that is Heather from SH3 available as one of the female heads:

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

Another, more serious case of using textures, from a commercial game this time. A character artist from another discord server found that dds\models\md5\chars\heads\face_freckle.dds is actually a modified texture from Silent Hill 2. Google image search confirms it.

 

Maybe TDM should go through some kind of due diligence when it comes to textures? The whole thing should probably go to another thread.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

Huh, I remember using their stuff in my TDS mapping days as well. That was ages ago, back when having 512px textures was considered high res I have no idea how much of that ended up in actual missions, but I mostly made WIPs that were never published. Most of their stuff was simple photos, typically with visible shadows, and you had to make them tileable, yeah. While they do have PBR stuff now, it's nothing compared to what you get with substance subscription. I still got like 500 points left from my subscription days, and on substance site it's 1 point = 1 material.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

^ 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.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

44 minutes ago, OrbWeaver said:

Too bad. This is an open source project based on free licenses (GPL and Creative Commons). The team is not obliged to implement utterly worthless and trivially-defeatable DRM systems just so a few mappers can more easily use assets with non-free licenses.

This is just a discussion and I'm pretty much aware that dev team isn't obliged to do anything, but I doubt such dismissive attitude towards mappers or content creators will help with anything.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

5 minutes ago, cabalistic said:

I would steer clear of such a license. It is too vague to know if your use is acceptable or not, because in its most extreme interpretation, it is simply unachievable. At best, you could contact the author to clarify and/or give you explicit permission for what you want to do. But otherwise, that's just a garbage statement, and that wouldn't change at all if we had any kind of package obfuscation/encryption.

We're talking about dismissing one of the most popular model hosting / selling platforms out there. Having closed packages adheres to the terms, there's no requirement on security measures being on par with those used in banks or military.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

4 hours ago, New Horizon said:

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. 

No, we're talking minor change to a core mod mission that was included in the last TDM update. Person who made these changes preferred to ask other TDM team member, but not the mission author. So not that severe, but still another weird case, given the mission author is around. Thus the conclusion that there's no such thing here as community-wide agreement on things like: what's ownership, what constitutes decent conduct or respect towards original author, etc. What is weird or awful to me seems like a normal thing to others.

In terms of encryption, I think we're talking extremes again. Obviously, even most sophisticated systems will be broken in a few days, if someone's good enough. And I'm pretty sure you'd easily find someone who'd do it just for fun. Let's be real here, this is to deter the 70-80% script kiddies out there, and to be able to comply with aforementioned licenses.

By the way:

Quote

What uses are forbidden?

As a rule of thumb, you may not use the 3D asset in a way that allows others to use or access the 3D asset as a stand-alone. 

That's standard license for platforms like Sketchfab.

 

But yeah, the paradox of GPL license was pointed out to me on another discord as well

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

That Discord discussion isn't directly related to the topic, as it was about a TDM dev team member who modified and released updates to a core mod mission by another dev team member, without turning to him first. He asked another team member instead, because...? At least to me, this is very weird, since the mission author is around. That's an argument against using community's common decency and trust as grounds for anything, as people have very different standards when it comes to that. IMO you can use the 'bad communication' excuse forever. But obviously, this is a core mod mission, so it's not about putting it in encrypted package, nor it is about doing the same with core mod assets.

It's more about giving content creators options on how to release their work, and it also opens up possibilities for mappers to use different (and higher-quality) assets in their missions while honoring their respective licenses. For many music tracks, even free ones, this is a baseline requirement, actually, to have it distributed as part of unopenable package. There are many different scenarios here, but I guess the overall question is: would you like to play a mission with some fine content, that may be unique to this particular mission only (or it may appear in other missions, but won't be integrated in the core mod), or you'd rather not experience such content in a mission at all?

1 hour ago, Xolvix said:

Is there any evidence that someone has wanted to contribute assets to TDM but stopped short because of the lack of encryption?

Perhaps not literally, but there are more coders here than content creators in general, and that also applies to idtech4 world as a whole. If you take a look at idtech4 discord, there are many coders, and everyone and their mother wants to have their engine fork, but that didn't translate into a game with great assets or a mapping community. Everyone's still testing their ideas on core Doom3 assets. Content creators are elsewhere, doing stuff for engines that offer some basic control over your work.

Speaking strictly from a personal perspective, I have a small FM in the works with full-quality assets I post here from time to time. It runs the same, if not better than an average mission with stock TDM assets, due to certain optimisation tricks and best practices I know and use in my modelling. I don't want these assets to be mixed with stock TDM assets, as I've already seen that with my previous asset pack. They don't mesh well. Instead, I'd like to release a separate asset package, e.g. without specular materials, perhaps with some textures downscaled, so they blend better with everything else. Without any choice on how I can release my stuff, you force me to downgrade it for the mission release. I guess I should also stop posting pictures of such assets, at least in full quality, as this would be false advertising.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

6 hours ago, Xolvix said:

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.

That's repeating the old-school argument that for open-source project you have to go full or go home; there's only extremes and no middle options. I can guarantee you that very, very few artists (modellers, musicians, etc.) are prepared for such commitment. That doesn't pose a risk of TDM not surviving, more like being stuck in certain era. If you want to go beyond certain level of quality with assets, you simply won't find people that are willing to make a sacrifice this big. The effort that comes with creation is simply too big.

Again, I'm thinking about optional package encryption. Maybe something similar to DoomBFG or RBDoom, or Thief 3 actually, where you launch a map with special console command that puts it all in one file.

 

2 hours ago, jonri said:

I've found some value in this, specifically in order to combine several models into one.

That's really good example, thanks. Performance reasons are always good ones, although, on a tangent, it begs the question: why semi-modern engine like this still has such low entity limit (8192, IIRC)? Even the good old Thief 3 had 16536, and that was in 2004. Quite some time ago Snobel managed to raise that limit to bloody 1 million, just to never to deal with it again. Ultimately it's mappers who have to take responsibility for their maps being optimized, and no artificial constrain like that will help, if they don't want to

Oh, and in terms of entity count, paradoxically, making stuff from brushes could help here, since brushes are treated as one entity, so-called entity0 IIRC.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

I hope it's clear that noone here wants to prevent sharing assets. It's the ability to make a decision that an asset is finished and should be used as it is. Or just experienced in a mission without becoming a part of the core mod.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

28 minutes ago, Dragofer said:

I’m not enthusiastic about the prospect of homegrown files being prohibited from being modified or opened, because an important part of mapping is modifying assets to fit the FM and inspecting other people’s work. But fair enough if that’s what it takes. I must say I hope it doesn’t become a wider trend.

Again, similar to Kingsal's stance on this, I'm curious about practical application of this, because: 1) if you're not the model creator, you have no idea how a model was made, so the potential to make it look worse is IMO rather substantial; 2) typically in FM package you get textures in .dds format, so if you plan to rework them for your mission, you'll be applying heavy compression upon compression, again reducing the overall quality of the model. In both cases it's better to ask the original creator to get better results. Separate asset packages definitely are additional effort, but e.g. could be released with all textures in uncompressed tga format, allowing further modification without losing quality.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

48 minutes ago, kingsal said:

Thats just the nature of contributing to a free mod.

I think that's more complex than that. You might want to just give the community a mission to play. You can prepare a separate package with assets for mappers later. That's how it worked with T3 missions.

Plus, there are awesome free and paid assets (that goes in particular for music tracks), that you could use in your mission, provided that they're not editable / accessible.

You don't have to always deal in absolutes, not everything has to be a contribution to the core mod that can be disassembled and modified forever.

 

9 minutes ago, roygato said:

Interesting. That said, surely it's up to the team to enforce this if it's undesirable, instead of thinking the players "don't give crap". Why would anyone downloading TDM missions even think about meta drama like this.

There was one person who was banned for the practice mentioned and was still defended by the most zealous fans, just because they map a lot and people have stuff to play. As for the most recent example, see my post above. I was casually asked to share an unfinished and unreleased mission by an author who's not been around for quite some time. That doesn't sound like respect, does it?

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

8 minutes ago, roygato said:

I'm also curious, has anything like this ever once veritably happened, or is it all anecdotes and "could-be" scenarios?

There's a history of making unwanted changes to maps and copy-pasting portions of one map to another, yes. And players not giving a crap as long as they have something new to play.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

9 minutes ago, kingsal said:

We're not going to boot model exporting.

Out of curiosity, how that actually contributes to any workflow? I get that you can whip up something with DR brushwork and add details in Blender. But you don't need to export models from DR, if you have model source, and if it's not your model, it's safer to ask the original creator to make changes, as they know how a model was made.

[Potentially unwanted model modifications]

14 minutes ago, HMart said:

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.  

Sure, if someone is a real bastard, they'll find a way to rip anything, but that's not the point. The point is, some basic protection / encryption that asset packages provide has been a standard thing in other engines for ages now. The demand that models be fully opened and ready for infinite modification is what is rather outdated and entitled attitude, not the other way around.