dePBO not working on 1.54 content

[[frl]myke 14]

Ok, was curious if and what has changed/was added in the configs in 1.54. So i tried to dePBO some of the PBO files but it didn't worked. Somehow the header is scrambled so the dePBO does not work anymore.

To make it clear, i understand and support BIS as they want to protect their "BAF light" so people will not upgrade it themselves. Fair enough. Who wants high quality british armed foerces should pay for. No problems with this so far.

But then please, put the models and textures in a scrambled PBO and the config into a separate PBO which can be opened.

Actual it looks like this (fictional):

ME: I would like to know how to make proper configs

BIS: Check the BIWIKI.

ME: But the BIWIKI is incomplete, outdated and some things are just wrong

BIS: DePBO a BIS addon to learn from its config.

ME: But BIS addons can't be opened anymore to learn from the configs

BIS: ....

So either BIS provides full info about configs or they find a way so people have a way to learn for themselves. Or face the fact that addon making community will die and therefor also BIS games.

So far BIS is more and more locking addonmakers out, making it nearly impossible especially for beginners to get a foot down.

So BIS, get this sorted ASAP.

[mr burns 132]

Bummer .....

Now how long will it take until tools adapt? Not seeing much sense in this brute force approach to stop low-res BAF replacements :(

[Beagle 684]

Seeing this topic I see it was wise for them to lock the BAF .pbo

[roberthammer 582]

Normal Pboview is not working ,but Eliteness works :)

[mrcash2009 0]

It might be a small thing of damage limitation in the initial release stages.

Purchase decision isn't that you can crack open any part of the core game, its the fact that you can add to it.

I think its pretty well thought through, although like the OFP poster it would be nice to see config examples so there no need to open anything this way.

EDIT .. i see its just dpbo hasn't caught up ... oh well, there we go then, sorted.

[Tronak 10]

Normal Pboview is not working ,but Eliteness works :)

Eliteness also works for me :), I think there's no need to panic yet guys.

[[frl]myke 14]

duh...didn't tried eliteness.

Sorry for this, thread can be closed. Shame on me.

:EDITH:

Seeing this topic I see it was wise for them to lock the BAF .pbo

Please re-read my OP again. I agree that it would be understandable and surely logical for MLOD's and textures, but not the configs.

:EDITH2:

Hmmm...Eliteness doesn't work at all...or i have an outdated version.

:EDITH3:

anyone with a link to the most actual version of Eliteness? All i can find seem to be outdated version and on dev-heaven....well, impossible to find anything helpful there.

Edited August 26, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[Dynamic Echo 10]

I can't get Eliteness to dePBO the BAF missions pbo...

[maruk 80]

We are supposed to be sorting out that some unofficial tools are not working? You are kidding, right?

As to releasing sample content, sure, as always we will do it. But I suggest a bit more patience.

And those phrases about modding community dying, please no more...

Myke;1730860']Ok' date=' was curious if and what has changed/was added in the configs in 1.54. So i tried to dePBO some of the PBO files but it didn't worked. Somehow the header is scrambled so the dePBO does not work anymore.

To make it clear, i understand and support BIS as they want to protect their "BAF light" so people will not upgrade it themselves. Fair enough. Who wants high quality british armed foerces should pay for. No problems with this so far.

But then please, put the models and textures in a scrambled PBO and the config into a separate PBO which can be opened.

Actual it looks like this (fictional):

So either BIS provides full info about configs or they find a way so people have a way to learn for themselves. Or face the fact that addon making community will die and therefor also BIS games.

So far BIS is more and more locking addonmakers out, making it nearly impossible especially for beginners to get a foot down.

So BIS, get this sorted ASAP.[/quote']

[[frl]myke 14]

@Maruk

i'm sorry if this was a bit overpanic'd, my apologies.

Also i think you got me a little wrong. I'm not asking or even requesting sample models although it would be more than nice to have. But at this point i fully understand that BIS wants to make profit out of it at first. Fully legit, you have to do your living with.

The only thing i was dissapointed at first was that i couldn't not open a pbo to look at the config. Not more and also not less. BIS configs were and are the only valuable source we have actually so i guess it is some kind of important for making own addons.

But finally it sorted itself, just cpbo had problems, with eliteness it works. My bad, i'm sorry.

We are supposed to be sorting out that some unofficial tools are not working? You are kidding, right?

There are official tools to extract configs from BIS addons? Sorry, didn't knew that, maybe someone has a link to it?

Of course you are surely not supposed to sort issues with unofficial tools. I guess my phrasing was not pretty good on that matter.

What i meant, if you decide to block un-pboing (what i thought first when cpbo didn't worked) which i would fully understand, then it would be pretty much more than helpful if BIWIKI gets significantly updated, at least config reference.

Again, my apologies if my OP was misleading.

[Jelliz 10]

But finally it sorted itself, just cpbo had problems, with eliteness it works.

Which version are you on?

I'm on Eliteness 2.78 / Depbo 3.14 and i get the "DePbo unknown header type" error message.

[maruk 80]

Honestly, I hardly see any real reason to start depboing BAF that would not conflict with BIS interests and licensing policy.

Re: configs, yes, you are right. We simply should release our configs under suitable license and I can promise you we will do it once we have a bit time.

What also amazes me: with OFP you (= mod making community) gave us years, with Arma 1 months, with Arma 2 week, with Arma 2 OA days but now you give us only hours before you become angry.

And do not you realize we are very community oriented company, we support modding as much as we can and that we are not going change in this approach as this is what we like the most about our work?

[road runner 4344]

Well said , there's a lot of impatient and spoiled behavior rearing its ugly head..

All good things come to those who wait !! ;) and Rome wasn't built in a day either guys...

[kylania 568]

What also amazes me: with OFP you (= mod making community) gave us years, with Arma 1 months, with Arma 2 week, with Arma 2 OA days but now you give us only hours before you become angry.

In that case, let me take this opportunity to express my anger at however you approach this issue for ArmA3 right now! :p

[[frl]myke 14]

Honestly, I hardly see any real reason to start depboing BAF that would not conflict with BIS interests and licensing policy.

Of course you already know if something in the configs has changed or added. How are we supposed to know?

Knowing proper config values and possiblities is important to create own addons.

Re: configs, yes, you are right. We simply should release our configs under suitable license and I can promise you we will do it once we have a bit time.

If the BIWIKI is updated to OA standard, i see no need for you to release your own configs. Simply updating config references would do.

What also amazes me: with OFP you (= mod making community) gave us years, with Arma 1 months, with Arma 2 week, with Arma 2 OA days but now you give us only hours before you become angry.

Maybe because the game develops and evolves and the BIWIKI reference pages are on a stand...well, pre-Armed Assault?

And i'm not angry (ok, a little bit but i also know that i am of no importance), i'm just a addonmaker that tries to create the best addon i'm capable of. For this i need knowledge and all i try is to gather this knowledge.

And do not you realize we are very community oriented company, we support modding as much as we can and that we are not going change in this approach as this is what we like the most about our work?

True and by all my ranting, don't think i do not respect this. After all, the OFP series (those made by you), Armed Assault (incl. QG), ArmA 2 and OA now were the only SP campaigns in a game i ever played to the end.

Also only because of Armed Assault i've learned to script, creating 3D models and textures and all it needs to create an addon. No other game have ever fascinated me that much....okay, maybe Monkey Island but this was another time.

So i really do appreciate all your work.

[metalcraze 290]

Honestly, I hardly see any real reason to start depboing BAF that would not conflict with BIS interests and licensing policy.

That didn't seem to be a problem when people was doing reskins of USMC units and vehicles from AA2 for OA. Just sayin'

[b00ce 160]

That didn't seem to be a problem when people was doing reskins of USMC units and vehicles from AA2 for OA. Just sayin'

However, in AA2 you had pretty textures "for free" and didn't have to buy the prettiness. Why pay for it when you can get something almost as good for free? ;)

[metalcraze 290]

However, in AA2 you had pretty textures "for free" and didn't have to buy the prettiness. Why pay for it when you can get something almost as good for free? ;)

Actually in AA2 I have pretty textures included for the full game's price. And then I also have beautiful desert reskin for USMC for free from modders. Same goes for LAV and AA2-humvees desert reskins.

Note that nobody is talking about using anything from DLC for the content available for OA though.

Edited August 27, 2010 by metalcraze

[kylania 568]

Note that nobody is talking about using anything from DLC for the content available for OA though.

The point is if it were easy to unPBO the files we could easily reskin, at normal resolutions, the BAF Lite units thereby making the paid DLC redundant for some.

[noubernou 77]

Myke;1731512']...

I think the words everyone is looking to say to you Myke is "hold your horses!"

Seriously, has it even been 24 hours since release? Calm the heck down.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

What also amazes me: with OFP you (= mod making community) gave us years, with Arma 1 months, with Arma 2 week, with Arma 2 OA days but now you give us only hours before you become angry.

Haha, so true.

Guess what will happen? We will become angry about ArmA3's modding tools even before its released. :D

[maddogx 13]

)rStrangelove;1732101']Haha' date=' so true.

Guess what will happen? We will become angry about ArmA3's modding tools even before its released. :D[/quote']

The Arma3 modding tools aren't out yet? WTF?!

[Undeceived 392]

I think the words everyone is looking to say to you Myke is "hold your horses!"

Seriously, has it even been 24 hours since release? Calm the heck down.

+1

+ 8 more ch

[roberthammer 582]

Myke you can open BAF "lite" files from ArmA 2\Common folder and use those configs , those names should be 99,9% same as normal BAF

[[frl]myke 14]

@all who are telling me to calm down: read the entire thread, not only the OP and you'll notice that i am calmed down. I apologized for my OP as the problem was on my side.

Also take note that i always said that surely i do understand that BIS don't want the "BAF lite" illegaly updgraded. My interest was always pointed towards the configs.

It wouldn't be a big deal for me to "upgrade" BAF lite for my personal use but i don't do it. Instead i will try to buy the DLC somehow (not easy without credit card or paypal) as i support BIS full hearted. But also here, this is my problem, not BIS.

And for heavens sake, who has complained about BIS tools? Surely not i.

Edited August 27, 2010 by [FRL]Myke