Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

peter_spy

Member
  • Posts

    3015
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    102

Everything posted by peter_spy

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. ^ 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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: 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
  11. 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? 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.
  12. 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. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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. 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?
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. FYI, I just got asked via Discord whether I could share the unfinished and unreleased mission by Ubermann: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/19045-merchant-by-the-canal/page/2/&tab=comments#comment-456963 Not sure whether this was a player or mapper, but yeah, that's the decency and trust. As long as we have new maps to play, everything fucking goes
  20. Hey, that GUI editor looks really nice and clean. http://cegui.org.uk/features
  21. I'm really against wording it like that, as "locking away". It almost sounds as you or community were the victim here. You do get to play a mission with these models, and you can also use them. They're not locked away from you. You just can't do whatever the hell you want with how they were built. The author decided they're finished. That's not your decision to make anyway. But I agree that this is no longer DR-related talk.
  22. Apart from believing or not believing in the community's sense of decency, this isn't about locking a work away. With locked packages, you have the work, you can play the mission. If the author decides to do so, you'll also get a separate package with models to be used in your work. It's about decision on when and where the model is finished. It's the same as with decision to finish writing a piece or a book. With current system there's no such thing.
  23. I sure don't expect that kind of commitment from anyone Just found that link on another Discord server, thought would be worth to share.
  24. Making assets or designs is different from coding, this is not joint iterative effort, where working in groups and having code review obviously makes sense, as it contributes to better code. This more of a personal investment, and at a certain level of fidelity, takes a lot of time and work. Similar thing to making music, really. That's why creators want to have at least some level of control over what they made and hold the results fairly dear. Maybe you're right that disabling DR export features wouldn't change that, although both that and locking the pk4 packages would at least limit that to some extent. There's a difference between making assets planned for the core mod and possible future modifications, and making custom content for a single FM. In context of that Discord discussion, that's especially in the context of this community. It's been time and time again, where certain community members didn't get / didn't care about what is personal creation that requires permission, thinking everything released for TDM should be up for grabs and free for all. And there were more community members chiming into the forum discussion with that "what's the big deal" attitude as well. So it is a bigger awareness problem. And if you wonder why there are so few regular modellers around here, then, apart from antiquated content pipeline, this would be the main reason – no control over the work. Even if you add copyright notice to your FM (which you can do, as assets are not code and don't have to comply with GPL) there's not much you can do but trust that people will adhere to that, which is rather naive. It's also about quality control. If a mapper rips your model from from the asset package and makes weird modifications, and the resulting model looks worse, or in general you wouldn't want your name to be associated with such thing – that's still attributed to you.
×
×
  • Create New...