dePBO not working on 1.54 content

[Tarnish 0]

It is a bit of a shame that the BAF content can't be DePBO'ed but it is BIS intellectual property after all so I can't complain. My only reason for wanting to unpack PBOs is to have the ability to take exisiting missions and plonk 3rd party units in the try them out in a proper single player mission enviroment. I loved "Battlesfields" in OFP Resistance for that very reason. It would be nice to have the PUKF weapons and kit in the BAF missions and campaign. C'est la vie.

[[frl]myke 14]

It is a bit of a shame that the BAF content can't be DePBO'ed but it is BIS intellectual property after all so I can't complain. My only reason for wanting to unpack PBOs is to have the ability to take exisiting missions and plonk 3rd party units in the try them out in a proper single player mission enviroment. I loved "Battlesfields" in OFP Resistance for that very reason. It would be nice to have the PUKF weapons and kit in the BAF missions and campaign. C'est la vie.

*sigh*....another one who didn't read the whole thread.

[Tarnish 0]

Myke;1732207']*sigh*....another one who didn't read the whole thread.

Calm thy self, I was making NO comment on your feelings about it simply stating my view as to why I like to have the ability to DePBO. And no I didn't read the whole thread as it all seems rather premature only one day after release of the DLC.

[[frl]myke 14]

Well then, i see making comments on a thread without actually reading it is pretty mature then. You could have noticed that the error was on my side and eliteness does work. You could have read that i was pretty sorry and apolgized for it.

Really sir, you have proven maturity.

[Tarnish 0]

Myke;1732260']Well then' date=' i see making comments on a thread without actually reading it is pretty mature then. You could have noticed that the error was on my side and eliteness does work. You could have read that i was pretty sorry and apolgized for it.

Really sir, you have proven maturity.[/quote']

I wasn't talking about you or your views, I was simply passing comment as to why I like the ability to DePBO content. Well done for apologising if you needed to but I didn't read all that you wrote as I realised it was of no further interest to me, that and I was at work and had better things to be doing.

Damn you mean at 38 years old I've finally reached maturity? Bugger! I was trying so hard to avoid it.

[[frl]myke 14]

Damn you mean at 38 years old I've finally reached maturity? Bugger! I was trying so hard to avoid it.

LMAO...you're a man, no way you ever reach maturity. You sir, are pretty sympathic.

And as a sidenote: 38? You got beaten by 2 yrs. ;)

[4 IN 1 0]

Look out! Maruk is not in a good mood!!:butbut::couch:

[[frl]myke 14]

*stuff*

Edited August 27, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[CoA|Saint 5]

Look out! Maruk is not in a good mood!!:butbut::couch:

LMAO.... Pivo prázdno ? :D

[bigshot 62]

OK so enough of the tripe posts...in this new light the real question on MY mind is:

Will cPBO be updated to work with patch 1.54?? (for those of us who prefer using it over Eliteness i mean)

[bobby budnick 0]

The better question is when will any of the 3rd party tools be updated to work? Contrary to what was written in the previous posts, no depbo tool works for the DLC missions_baf.pbo. The DePBO 3.15 and 3.16 change log even lists being updated for BAF. Yet Eliteness and the DOS extractPBO tool do not work, both saying something about an unknown file header.

I'm just trying to edit the missions to be more to my tastes, but between this and the helicopter rant I am probably approaching outlaw status here.

[metalcraze 290]

Contrary to what was written in the previous posts, no depbo tool works for the DLC missions_baf.pbo. The DePBO 3.15 and 3.16 change log even lists being updated for BAF. Yet Eliteness and the DOS extractPBO tool do not work, both saying something about an unknown file header.

At the same time I had no problems opening missions_baf.pbo from 1.54 patch (non-DLC) with the latest eliteness and DePBO 3.14. It has only mpmissions, but they get opened perfectly in the editor.

[bobby budnick 0]

Thanks for the tip. I found the unencrypted missions_baf.pbo in the common folder. Works for me.

[SyNcRoNiCzZ 0]

Hmmmm, whit not a any Comm. tool can unpack the new BAF .pbo´s. :confused:

I thought BIS supported the Moding Comm. ??? And now, with each new release comes a new decoding .pbo code ?

I "need" the new recoil value of the BAF Weapons. And can not read the Config.

FPDR

[[frl]myke 14]

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

5 chars

[kylania 567]

Thanks for the tip. I found the unencrypted missions_baf.pbo in the common folder. Works for me.

If that single mission showed how to use IEDs with scripting I might be happy, but all it really shows is how to fake a mortar attack...

[[frl]myke 14]

Ok, now i'm curious.

Since we're not allowed to de-PBO BIS content and since the plane HUD behaviour has changed (which is well made so the HUD shifts with head movement, nice improvement) in latest beta patch, i've ran into a problem.

Let me first say: i do not blame BIS about the raise of the problem, the improvement is really welcome.

My problem is, i use the same system for the MFD's which now also shift with the head movement. Surely this is not wanted behaviour on MFD's.

At this point i usually would start to de-pbo BIS files (mainly probably the beta bin.pbo and probably several others) and take a look at the configs to see if there is a setting i could enable for the MFD configs to disable this "head-following shifting".

Fair enough, the beta patch is brand new so assuming it should already be listed in the BIWIKI is unrealistic. No need to point at that.

But on the other side, in the past the BIWIKI was updated not as often as one could wish. So it is a calculation of probability: how are chances to see those new settings (or see that there are no new settings) in the BIWIKI?

So with my work i'm stuck. Do i have to rework the MFD's? Can i adjust something in the config?

I'm curious. Respecting EULA even for getting (or better not getting) info's that could keep my work going, i wonder for how long i have to drop the work on this one.

Once again to make it clear:

- i do not think that this info already could/should be in the BIWIKI, just, it wasn't updated in the past, so why should it happen now?

- i do respect EULA and will not de-pbo any of the BIS files to gather the information myself. I did in the past as i thought that BIS is okay with it as long it is for informative reasons (checking for new config entries).

- i really welcome the update of the HUD behaviour, looks really good.

- it's not about BIS to fix my issues, it is up to myself.....i just need some info, that's all.

- i have no problem with reworking the MFD's, if at least i know i have to. Would prefer to keep the actual system.

There are just two question i would love to see answered: are there plans to update relevant BIWIKI reference pages? How do those plans look like (any timeline)?

[Fox '09 14]

de-pbo? are you talking about mikero's tool? I've been using an older build and it still works for 1.52. With BAF i get 'unknown header' or something. but i dont need to dig through BAF stuff, what have they added that's enough for me to look? For OA, i needed to check out backpack stuff , but that was it.

[hamm 10]

Myke;1740370']Ok' date=' now i'm curious.

Since we're not allowed to de-PBO BIS content and since the plane HUD behaviour has changed (which is well made so the HUD shifts with head movement, nice improvement) in latest beta patch, i've ran into a problem.

Let me first say: i do not blame BIS about the raise of the problem, the improvement is really welcome.[/quote']

Not sure if this is exactly what you meant, but the new HUD has always been there since OA's release, not with a beta patch, but only for the F-35 and AH-64 pilot's seat.

[[frl]myke 14]

@Hamm

you are talking about HMD, i am not. I am talking about normal airplane HUD as to be found in the A-10 or the AV-8. You might have noticed.......ah, screw it.

Go place a A-10 and try latest stable patch and latest beta. After that, you might come and start talking again.

Edited September 4, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[nodunit 397]

He means you look at a HUD in OA, before when you shifted your head the HUD would remain in place which would made aiming much harder, now it follows your eye.

Did I get it right or swing and miss? truthfully I'm not at home to try out the patch.

[t_d 47]

The ability to look in configs is given without dePBOing, simply by scripting. CBA has something for exporting the whole config afaik.

[Logan9773 10]

No depboing = end of modding = dead game. Because this game isn't worth anything without good mods (ACE2 in particular). Its just too half baked. Ace has made realistic some of the guns and sniping, but the vehicle and flight simulation is pretty bad. Also the terrain and structures are very bland, with the colors of the world looking very faded and unrealistic. It all just looks like a pale imitation of different types of sims clumped together. Its all just barely done. Even Falcon 4 ( a 12 year old game!) has much better flight sim. Hate to harp on the FSim, but being a flight simmer of old, I just can't stand it. Especially in the A10. You can't even see the hud. Instead of just throwing out more half ass assets to make you money, you should concentrate on making a realistic world ( with better graphics ).

Edited September 16, 2010 by Logan9773

[ravendk 25]

use eliteness..

[[frl]myke 14]

use eliteness..

read whole thread aswell.