Clarification on the MLOD release issue.

[Jaksa. 0]

if i unpack the BIS *.pbo, if i unrap the config, to see the scripts, classnames, it's reverse engeneering, am i right?

If every addonmakers will ask BIS for permissions, the BIS will need few more workers, only to writing letters and testing a community addons. As i remember, there was about 3-5 releases per day for OFP (sometimes 100- 300mb or bigger).

No community works in that way.

Addonmakers work = more copys sold. Who will earn more money? Not the addonmaker, i suppose. If the community will be killed, i will have my job still...

One more thing: why Arma becomes completly new game recently? Everybody know, it's patched OFP. What's the point?

[wipman 1]

Hi, for me the 1St post don't clearificates anything; may be my bad

english, or may be that i don't see any specific prohibition there so

all what i know is that BIS don't like that someone ripped they're

3D models and made 'em available to many people to download from

an FTP and then they were uploaded to public Armed Assault sites.

So... to me the only "clarificated thing" is that i shouldn't use the

BIS models/textures into any other game or for anything that don't

be a BIS game, OFP, Armed Assault and the ArmA2 when it be done.

I don't need anyone to tell me that; the common sense (and copyright)

tell me that already. To me and seems that for many others too,

would had been better if we had a much more clear and specific

info on what we could and not could do with the MLODs already

available to us.

Keeping in mind that the MLODs released by BIS had wrong named

selections, holes in the 3D models that you don't see in the 3D

models in the game; they didn't released any MLOD usefull to do

helicopters and many other things; im tired of write. Let's C ya

[Jaksa. 0]

no. 1st post says, that OFP and Arma becomes completely different games. That becomes more than a year, after release. You cant put ANY ofp content into Arma. If i have a permission to use something in OFP, it can't be used in Arma.

And it says more: if i cant use official mlods (because it's broken), and i cant use illegaly upacked mlods- i cant do anything. Officialy- i shouldn't know, how it works!

[pauliesss 2]

And what should I do if I dont have any MLOD model and need one, where can I download them when the public mirrors are not allowed ? (I know that there is BISModels pack, but theres not the model which I need)

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

And what should I do if I dont have any MLOD model and need one, where can I download them when the public mirrors are not allowed ? (I know that there is BISModels pack, but theres not the model which I need)

You cant download them form anywhere. BIS do not want them distributed.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i haven't readed in the first post anything like:

Quote[/b] ]1st post says, that OFP and Arma becomes completely different games

But is good to know that a game licensed by Codemasters and

developed by BIS belongs to the licenser and not to who did it.

The thing still not clear in the 1St post and i think that this is causing

more throubles and mistakes than help anyone to know what's going

on with the MLODs and where this is heading. So the thing for me

is this:

A) BIS is angry for the rip off and release of they're game's MLODs.

B) The MLODs released by BIS are not enough and contain bugs.

C) If we want to do something for the ArmA we shouldn't use

the Synide MLODs and we can't count on the BIS MLODs

because they didn't released all the possible needed example

models (units, weapons, vehicles, aircrafts). Then we shouldn't

be able of do/release anything.

A good an real clarification on this issue will help us much more.

Let's C ya

[pauliesss 2]

And what should I do if I dont have any MLOD model and need one, where can I download them when the public mirrors are not allowed ? (I know that there is BISModels pack, but theres not the model which I need)

You cant download them form anywhere. BIS do not want them distributed.

Yeah, I know, so I have to wait until BIS release their own MLODs, "great".....and if not, then I am finished with ArmA.

[W0lle 1052]

Yeah, I know, so I have to wait until BIS release their own MLODs, "great".....and if not, then I am finished with ArmA.

Yes great, you're done with ArmA because BIS doesn't gives you what you want

There is also the option to create your own models as some other addonmakers do. This might be even better because if then someone is ripping your work apart you spent countless hours with, you know how that feels.

I think I said that several times before but I repeat it:

As you purchased ArmA you bought a licence to play the game, not more not less. BIS gave the community the tools and some example models for free, they don't have to. That of course wasn't enough for certain people because they want it all and they want it for free. Now BIS has an interest to save their intellectual property and - as always - they get bashed for it.

Above is my personal opinion and not made as part of my moderation duties.

There might be another official statement soon regarding this. Until then I would suggest everyone drop the speculations etc. and wait, because with every unofficial statement and speculation made the situation gets more confused and out of hand.

[ExtracTioN 0]

Yeah, I know, so I have to wait until BIS release their own MLODs, "great".....and if not, then I am finished with ArmA.

Yes great, you're done with ArmA because BIS doesn't gives you what you want

There is also the option to create your own models as some other addonmakers do. This might be even better because if then someone is ripping your work apart you spent countless hours with, you know how that feels.

I think I said that several times before but I repeat it:

As you purchased ArmA you bought a licence to play the game, not more not less. BIS gave the community the tools and some example models for free, they don't have to. That of course wasn't enough for certain people because they want it all and they want it for free. Now BIS has an interest to save their intellectual property and - as always - they get bashed for it.

Above is my personal opinion and not made as part of my moderation duties.

There might be another official statement soon regarding this. Until then I would suggest everyone drop the speculations etc. and wait, because with every unofficial statement and speculation made the situation gets more confused and out of hand.

I fully agree with you but my opinion is if this is the new rule most Arma and Arma 2 wont survive long I see no harm as long as it is used for Arma not other game and the editor of the Mlod or maker is not making money than it would be ok.

If BI is saying you can't use models outside the officially released half broken BI Mlods than the game's released by BI wont survive or make a succes like OFP.

Just my opinion.

[pauliesss 2]

Yeah, I know, so I have to wait until BIS release their own MLODs, "great".....and if not, then I am finished with ArmA.

Yes great, you're done with ArmA because BIS doesn't gives you what you want

There is also the option to create your own models as some other addonmakers do. This might be even better because if then someone is ripping your work apart you spent countless hours with, you know how that feels.

I know that there is the option to create the whole model, but as I am only starting with modeling, its easily for me to only edit created models.

And they dont have to give me "what I want", but it should be in their own interest to help community which is trying to make this game better and maybe a little more interesting for more people...

But thats only my opinion....you dont have to agree with me and I am really not expecting that....

Sorry for my english...

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Guys have a read of this. Specifically Cervo's latest (top) post:

armedassault.info - MLOD Issue Comments

Seems there is some hope for "the community" after all.

Now we all stop playing Chicken Little and go back to what we were doing before please.

[ExtracTioN 0]

Guys have a read of this.  Specifically Cervo's latest (top) post:

armedassault.info - MLOD Issue Comments

Seems there is some hope for "the community" after all.

Now we all stop playing Chicken Little and go back to what we were doing before please.

Now that seems the old BIS we know hope it is true

[pauliesss 2]

Guys have a read of this. Specifically Cervo's latest (top) post:

armedassault.info - MLOD Issue Comments

Seems there is some hope for "the community" after all.

Now we all stop playing Chicken Little and go back to what we were doing before please.

Now that seems the old BIS we know hope it is true

That will be great, thanks Suma.

[NoRailgunner 0]

1. Some gifts are dangerous.

2. Give them an inch and they will take an ell.

3.

Well what if BIS gives all MLODs with documentations? Can anybody guarantee that those models won't be used in other games or non-ArmA projects...

[pauliesss 2]

1. Some gifts are dangerous.

2. Give them an inch and they will take an ell.

3.

Well what if BIS gives all MLODs with documentations? Can anybody guarantee that those models won't be used in other games or non-ArmA projects...

"...and proper documentation such as EULA which clearly states what they can and cannot be used for..."

..so it will be allowed for ArmA addons only I think...

[baddo 0]

if i unpack the BIS *.pbo, if i unrap the config, to see the scripts, classnames, it's reverse engeneering, am i right?

One thing to notice about "reverse engineering" is that it can be possible that it is allowed in your legislative area with certain conditions. For example a condition could be that you could do it as long as you don't distribute anything that comes as a result of the reverse engineering. It is always the local legislation which you must follow and "reverse engineering" alone is not always illegal. The point of not allowed to distribute of course is the difficult one here.

Your local legislation is what you need to follow first, then after that the EULA from BIS. This comes as a direct result of a basic principle that any agreement you make must not conflict with your local legislation. If you make an agreement which is in conflict with your local legislation, then that agreement is invalid in your legislative area. A very simple principle: you can not make legally binding agreements which are breaking the laws under which you are governed. Many software EULA's I think are in conflict with the legislation of my country. Some people who write EULA's are knowledgeable enough to understand this and write a note into their EULA like "...or according to your local legislation." or something like that. Which means that either you follow the EULA or your local legislation if the EULA conflicts with your local legislation.

You can see an extreme case of local legislation allowing people to do more than the legislation of the country where the products are coming from, in China where they have not implemented (sufficient) laws against piracy even though officials and businesses for example from USA are very much wanting them to have better laws to combat piracy. And the Chinese people who make products don't need to care as long as they are not breaking their local legislation.

I'm not giving you professional legal advice so don't accuse me if you get sued.

[Panda-PL- 0]

@Baddo:

No intention to "correct" you, you are absolutely right.

While this is true BiS forums can enforce whatever policy they want on the boards themselves. Even if dooing something is legal according to local laws they can lock the topic or ban you without having to explain themselves. Forums are their property.

Also, it is probably not your country that these forums are hosted from (which makes no difference really, because of the previous point. It could have a meaning if for example the server was in Germany - then you couldn't post a swastika on screenshots or in any other form... Local laws).

Noone was speaking of lawsues and I doubt they would go as far as that (unless you'd try to use the ripps in another game, that would violate any local laws of any country...).

Just sharing something I've noticed.

As for the MLODS: documentation is 10x more important. Since the beggining of my ArmA modding I had to redo my models every few months and now I have again thanks to only recently announced "actually it's the number of sections that causes problems".

Would have been much easier if I knew it a year ago...

[baddo 0]

Only thing I wanted to point out is that local legislation comes first. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Placebo 29]

I fully agree with you but my opinion is if this is the new rule most Arma and Arma 2 wont survive long I see no harm as long as it is used for Arma not other game and the editor of the Mlod or maker is not making money than it would be ok.

There is no "new rule", what happened wouldn't have been accepted with Flashpoint stuff either, the problem (as said before and again now) is that all ArmA addons had been ripped open and uploaded in an exposed and unregulated state onto public servers without BIS' permission, leaving anyone and everyone free to download them and do with/to them anything they wished, whether they were going to do that stuff with them for ArmA or anything else. Nothing has changed with regards how addons/mods can be created, if it was acceptable in Flashpoint regarding addon/mod creating over years past, it is acceptable in ArmA now.

[Thunderbird 0]

What about simply 'encrypting' the MLOD files in order to make them unalterable or destroyable if converted to other formats.

Hard-Coding the models basically should not represent a difficult step for BIS to get through.

regards,

TB

[R0adki11 3949]

I would one much prefer is Bis would give the community a selection of the standard units in Armed Assault available to download in MLOD format already as they did for OFP.

[miles teg 1]

I agree R0adki11... That along with a bit more documentation would help. I'm trying to do the whole specular mapping thing right now and am getting confused by all the different methods people are telling me without a clue as to which is the proper method. I probably just need to spend more time scanning all the forums threads on texturing, but thats the problem...I have no time.

Thanks Placebo for the post, but things are still foggy. An example is that my mod has a bunch of Hamas insurgents based off the civilian MLOD's released but with our kuffiyah' (arab headress) added from our OFP models that we made. We also tanned some BIS faces to make them look more Middle Eastern. Right now I have no clue who to ask whether this is legal or not (I'm assuming your mailbox is full with people asking for permissions). If its cool, I would binarize them to make them difficult for modders outside the ArmA community to get access to them.

But if its illegal...then crap.... well not much I can do accept hope and pray that some brilliant addon maker with tons of time on his hands decides to join my mod. Its easy for others to say, "Suck it up and learn how to make proper addons you lazy ass." but not all of us have tons of time to devote to such things, nor are we all as gifted and talented as many of the top addon makers in the community.

If essentially anything based on unofficially released BIS MLOD's is illegal, then I am afraid that my mod (the oldest surviving mod from OFP) may disappear as it will die or at a mnimum, be severely crippled until someone else who is very talented makes the models we need from scratch and allows us to modify them. A primary example is having access to a variety of civilian and infantry models as those are quite difficult and complex to make from scratch even for skilled addon makers.

So I hope that some kind of clarification will be put forth or we can simply go through someone to get permission on a case by case basis to use BIS MLOD's.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Thunderbird 0]

These are the reasons why encrypting the MLOD models per default would decrease by half the risk for BIS to see their 3Ds used within other games.

They would be able to make them public then, of course, with a patch for O2 depending on the included encryption module.

regards,

TB

[MehMan 0]

@Miles Teg: This is how I see it: you can use the MLODs you have, nothing wrong with that. As Placebo said, what you could in OFP can be done here.

The problem occured when stuff was put onto ArmedAssault.info without question.

Also, I vote nay for the encrypting MLODs idea, aka not being able to convert them from p3d to 3ds. Many do not work in O2 simply because it is inferior to most other apps out there and use those apps.

[max power 21]

@Miles Teg: This is how I see it: you can use the MLODs you have, nothing wrong with that. As Placebo said, what you could in OFP can be done here.

The problem occured when stuff was put onto ArmedAssault.info without question.

Also, I vote nay for the encrypting MLODs idea, aka not being able to convert them from p3d to 3ds. Many do not work in O2 simply because it is inferior to most other apps out there and use those apps.

I think what TB is saying is that BIS should use encryption to keep the models delivered with the game safe and so they can control which models they wish to release for free distribution.