Clarification on the MLOD release issue.

[canis lupus 20]

sorry for being so anoying...

so I'm to understand that its perfectly fine to use the models as long as its done with some care and of course in Arma only?

oh.. and if you should find my lack of understanding anoying, see this as a possebility to make this perfectly clear once and for all...

[oyman 0]

[W0lle 1050]

oyman

48h PR and a postcount reduction by 50 for spamming this thread.

[miles teg 1]

Ok I understand the problem.... BIS does not want everything stripped and sent out onto the internet for every Joe Bloe from every FPS game to use and abuse.    That is completely logical and legal.

I also totally respect Rocko' and what he's saying.  Yes... I admire his leadership and willingness to write tutorials.  Rocko has been a Godsend to those of us who are noobs at making addons.  The sad thing however is that Rocko should really not be having to be writing tutorials.  

Is it really so much to ask for BIS to simply make a sample of each vehicle/infantry type with a sample config and model (plus texture) for addon makers to use??? Honestly is it really that difficult to do???

I really am not interested in the Queen's Gambit models.   Yes they are nice and great job BIS...but....at the end of the day, I would just like a nice clear tutorial and model/Textures + config to base my own custom models off of.    

Right now, I am confused as hell since I now am apparently barred from using the models I needed to make some Arab militia that I was working on.   Until all this is sorted out, I know my own mod (The Lost Brothers, the oldest existing OFP/ArmA mod) is not going to release anything else until this is clarified. I will destroy the Arab militia I was working on as well since apparently it's based on illegal models.

Some of our configs also were from unknown original sources that we must now sort out to see if this is "illegal" config coding or whether anything we have in terms of models are illegal.  

I was just trying to find ANYTHING that worked in ArmA to get my mod's addons working....  I did not realize how serious this matter was.     I guess since Rocko is the spearhead for any new stuff,  I ask Rocko for permission to use whatever he releases and is given the "green light" by BIS since many of our mods lack our own modellers/texture artists/scripters/config coders  who know the legal restrictions and the coding stuff inside and out.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

The Lost Brothers Mod Team Leader

[[aps]gnat 28]

Hmmmm, now wondering if the QG content was what triggered this ..... remembering that the source is different.

[Maddmatt 1]

Gnat @ Feb. 01 2008,12:53)]Hmmmm, now wondering if the QG content was what triggered this ..... remembering that the source is different.

From what I hear, it was when a certain person at BIS noticed a certain large fansite posting about these MLODs on their front page for everyone to see.

Well it looks like the public distribution of these MLODs is the main problem. I think the modders can stop worrying about it, no modders have been banned for using decrypted MLOD models

So long as you only use them in BIS games of course.

[Panda-PL- 0]

Gnat @ Feb. 01 2008,11:53)]Hmmmm, now wondering if the QG content was what triggered this ..... remembering that the source is different.

It also struck me we had retextured/modiffied QG content we could play without QG.

I could see thiere was something wrong with that.

Otherwise, if you used "ArmA for ArmA" content the one using the addons had allready have payed for the copyright.

[canis lupus 20]

were the models from Jbl's tutorials part of the MLOD's if not I feel a little silly because thats the one I'm using and nothing more...

[surpher 1]

Question for BIS

Are we allowed to convert the sample MLOD's into other file formats so that they can be edited in other 3D applications?

[mattxr 9]

Sounds to me, someones pissed in someones else's pool and they have gotten angry and taken it out on all addon makers...

[Panda-PL- 0]

Question for BIS

Are we allowed to convert the sample MLOD's into other file formats so that they can be edited in other 3D applications?

I think the answer is: everything that's not disallowed is allowed.

[Tomislav 0]

@ Feb. 01 2008,15:06)]

Question for BIS

Are we allowed to convert the sample MLOD's into other file formats so that they can be edited in other 3D applications?

I think the answer is: everything that's not disallowed is allowed.

err, i guess that's a little bit too simple, but how should one know before.

and on most points i agree with miles teg i must say, as i guess most addon makers got anyhow very few time due to school, university, job family etc., doing addons eats ones free time, i mean i am sure bis is thankful for the fact that people do that, but that the community, in this case mainly rock has to do a "usefull" tutorial, in order to help people who would like to start with addon making is a hard i must say. of course it is really appreciated, and good to know that an expert like rock is offering to do it, but wouldn't miles teg suggestion be something bis could take in consideration for future?

[miles teg 1]

In my case, while my mod is old, I was just a mod team leader who specialised in mission making in OFP. When our chief addon editor left, our mod team was forced to try and figure out how to convert addons from OFP to ArmA even though we had no real expertise in addon making other then just a bit of experience editing pre-existing stuff.

In my experience, the BIGGEST help in getting stuff converted (aside from helpful tips on the forum) was simply having a solid non-binarized addon to examine, copy, and modify in terms of model, textures, and config codes. Likewise for custom soldiers or civilians, it really helps to have a nice selection of models WITH textures that can be modified for those of us who have no clue about how to do texture mapping but who DO know how to use photoshop and thus layer over pre-existing textures with new ones.

The attitude that I have seen expressed by BIS is a very simple one: The process as it is filters out the noobs and only allows the most highly skilled and most motivated addon makers to really make significant progress. The logic seems to be that this keeps the quality of addons high.

Now is this just speculation on my part? I don't think so. A keen example is the logic expressed by BIS concerning why the camera features were removed from the ArmA mission editor. Their explanation was that such "camera" triggers were the mark of a novice and thus unprofessional. I found that to be a highly elitist attitude that only turns away potential newbie mission makers (would could develop into excellent mission makers) and thus limits the already tiny pool of mission makers for ArmA.

Now I don't want to get bogged down into that seperate topic as that is for another thread. My main point is that while the "survival of the fittest" filtering process may make sense to BIS, I think that they need to re-examine how they go about supporting the mod making community. The Wiki was a good start (and hopefully will be further developed if BIS moderators are not overzealous in what tutorials can or can't be posted there).

My opinion (and yes its just my own opinion) is that the easier it is to make mods for ArmA, the more CUSTOMERS ArmA will attract due to the massive range of mods and possibilities in the game.

I know BIS has ALOT of other priorities as they are a business and thus have limited man-power and resources to spend on this issue. However for at least those who are the laisons for BIS and the mod community, I hope that they really try to re-evaluate how to best nurture the community so that it grows and prospers.

Respect,

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[ryankaplan 1]

I don't quite understand as there appears to be too much politician style indirect speech going on here, or simply don't wish to understand. Am i no longer allowed to say:

-Get mlod stryker, model it into a Stryker Mobile gun system, and release it?

-Get the mlod blackhawk and stick and m60mg on it and release it ArmA?

-Get the mlod russian sniper and put a shemagh on it and release it for ArmA?

-etc? (note: all above mlods weren't released by BIS, but were unbinarised by someone else)

I could do with a clear yes or no answer, as if such is the case, then this sort of makes 90% of released addons illegal.

@miles' 'survival of the fittest' theory

It doesn't make sense to me that BIS would want this. People usually start with crappy retextures and move on to do better things. Look at ofp. People learn with this process. Look at the progress Vilas made with his ww2 addons. They went from average to amazing in a few months. And say i want to create a fleet of m113s or strykers with all the different variants. Why start afresh and waste all those hours when i can add on bits to complement BIS's work? Anyhow, i'm confused.

[Shadow NX 1]

I think what pissed of BIS was more comments like "oh now finally somethign realistic not like the original BIS crap" when for example someoen changed a tiny detail on a BIS model and re-released it.

But at the end not much can be done, if that would eb enforced you have to delete as good as any thread here, be it Project 85, Jonnys Marines hell even CWR.

So calm down everyone, as we say here, nothing gets eaten as hot as its cooked.

[MehMan 0]

Miles:

There's no survival of the fittest or ensuring the quality of addons, not with such crap around. BIS doesn't care about quality of addons. If you look around at the number of OFP ports it is clear.

[shinRaiden 0]

As far as derivative works go, bolting on to existing MLOD's is actually a really bad idea. It creates a very high risk of section-heavy models which hurts performance big time. It's a risky and easily abused crutch. As a reference, they can be useful. But bolting on parts, ie a shemaugh onto an existing unit, without incurring a penalty, is impossible unless you re-work the entire model.

[[aps]gnat 28]

... a really bad idea. It creates a very high risk of section-heavy models which hurts performance big time. It's a risky and easily abused crutch. As a reference, they can be useful. But bolting on parts, ie a shemaugh onto an existing unit, without incurring a penalty, is impossible unless you re-work the entire model.

Sorry, I don't see that as being logical.

If a completely remade model ends up have the similar number of sections/faces/vertex/textures as the BIS "upgraded" version .... whats the difference?

Its almost like you were infering that "if you add some detail, you have to remove detail elsewhere"

I'm not advocating big jumps, but even in OFP, mod'ed model and texture detail only increased over time, remebering that some of the last models released for OFP would have choked computers back in 2003.

[dm 9]

Gnat @ Feb. 02 2008,01:38)]I'm not advocating big jumps, but even in OFP, mod'ed model and texture detail only increased over time, remebering that some of the last models released for OFP would have choked computers back in 2003.

It works VERY differently now compared to OFP.

The render pipeline is much more comple and demanding, and to see the same level of detail changes that happened in OFP happen in ArmA is going to seriously cripple even the next few generations of hardware.

[[aps]gnat 28]

..... seriously cripple even the next few generations of hardware.

lol deja vu ... first cumputer I owned was a VIC20 ...... like time itself, performance WILL move forward.

Edit

hahahaha ... how apt, my 1700th post

[miles teg 1]

There was a Stryker MLOD released?? Damn... I'm surprised nobody took the slat armor from Vixer's OFP Stryker and modified it to fit the BIS Stryker's. That would be fairly easy to do. I could even do that if I knew where to get the MLOD model and then up the armor value so that it can take a couple of RPG hits.....but now it seems that we may not be allowed to do stuff like that...or do we need special permission or something? If we need permission then BIS needs to have a meeting on the issue and sort out the process through which addon makers can or can't modify original BIS models, textures, and configs.

Perhaps

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[shinRaiden 0]

@[APS]Gnat :

What DM and I are both trying to explain is that in many cases it's not possible to trade model complexities, and formerly acceptable practices such as 'bolting on' parts to an existing model have a substantial negative cost in performance that was not as noticeable in OFP.

@Miles Teg :

The Stryker would be a prime example of this problem above. The base model is already one of the more complex and 'heavy' models in the content library. To add slat armor would necessarily add a section penalty. To add slat armor with an absolute minimum impact on the model would necessitate substantially deconstructing the model beyond a basic MLOD analysis. For that and a variety of other reasons, imho it would be more beneficial in the long run for the community to create a new Stryker base MLOD, rather than pursue deriving from the BIS model. This is irrespective of the issues at the core of this thread topic.

[RN Malboeuf 12]

2shinRaiden

You want to say it's that difficult to modify standart mold models ? It's easier to start from the scratch. It's nonsense

as far as i see curretn situation is - standart models can't be modified, but if they're modified and released - it's ok. really great logic out there...  

off: I'm getting sick of this forums and such policy, gotta think about moving any serious editing discussions out of here.

[Panda-PL- 0]

Gnat @ Feb. 02 2008,08:19)]

..... seriously cripple even the next few generations of hardware.

lol deja vu ... first cumputer I owned was a VIC20 ...... like time itself, performance WILL move forward.

Well yeah, but that's exactly why we have so many nonoptymized games nowadays. Instead of working on their engine the company just sticks the "buy a better PC" sticker on the box.  

Plus there were games in the past that were so messed up I still couldn't run them with decent FPS.

As for Stryker: moving UVs around isn't some kind of insane skillz. Having to redo or just correct the mapping to make space for new elements or merging the new elements with old texture is no problem at all.

If someone wishes to make a crappy lazy-butt addon - he will anyway. You can make models with hundrets of sections even if you just copy-paste your own content around within one model.

[Maddmatt 1]

There are more reasons for editing BIS models than just slapping on extra details as some of you guys seem to think. Making extra variations to fit with the BIS stuff for example, and improving BIS models with features.

I know of a mod being worked on that makes changes to many BIS models, where it would be a waste of time to make whole new models. An it is not just slapping on details but improving the stock ArmA stuff a lot. I would probably be able to get my point across better if I went into more detail, but I can't right now.

If people can't modify BIS stuff and have to start from scratch, then it's going to do some serious damage to the modding community. We are not paid developers, we don't do this for money or because we have to.

Hell, even ArmA Effects required some 'reverse engineering' to do things.

And every single retex addon uses a modified BIS model to point to the new textures.