Clarification on the MLOD release issue.

[Placebo 28]

Obviously since the community released MLOD thread was closed there's been a consensus of opinion about exactly what it all means, so hopefully we can clarify things a little here.

Firstly it's important that people respect copyright. Generally, if someone wants to release or modify someone else's creations they should get permission first. To get more information in the specifics of copyright there's a good wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright content permissions also ties into what we've been discussing in this thread here. Part of the MLOD issue was simply about copyright and permissions, there was no permission to "rip" open all of the officially released ArmA mods and then lay them bare for anyone to download from a public server for any use they like, we try to ensure that we make the appropriate things available as necessary so that the community can create addons and mods.

There has been a bit of concern since the events happened that we somehow want to stifle the addon/modding community that creates such amazing things to keep on adding to the lifespan of our games, that certainly is not the case and we would not want to in any way dampen the enthusiasm, passion and talent that you guys (and gals! ) exhibit on a daily basis, we know how important the community content creators are to our games and our community and we will certainly continue to support you now and in the future.

If it's unclear what is and what isn't allowed to do, it's always best to ask directly the creator of the original work (in this case BIS).

Finally we're looking into the released MLOD issue with the intention of protecting the best interests of the valuable gaming community. We will investigate the possible release of further MLODs officially, to counteract this unfortunate situation where BIS' copyrighted work was already released to the community and is apparently being further used to create custom content. The first ArmA MLOD sample models that were officially released can be found here

[[aps]gnat 28]

Ok, good. Thanks. Certainly better than the earlier position the BIS team seemed to be taking.

.... there will be questions ..... when I think this through properly

Looking forward to the support.

[granQ 293]

it still make the question.. is it ok with:

Releasing a vehicle based on the hmmwv, like a rework with added detail, maybe a gunner of some sort..

Using the sample hmmwv but only make winter/desert/woodland textures...

Change the textures for a non-sample model, lets say the BMP.

Extract the bmp.p3d, fit it with new weapon. Correct it and release it.

any official word on this?

I just released a soldier based on the sample soldier, should I remove it or email bis somehow to ask the premission?

[RN Malboeuf 12]

ODOLExplorer for ofp exists for years. it's in the download list on every ofp site - why you didn't mind that time ?  

Quote[/b] ]we try to ensure that we make the appropriate things available as necessary so that the community can create addons and mods.

it's over a year after arma release, but examples given are pretty incomplete (for ex. there's still no tracked model.cfg in the examples provided ). As far as BIS do not provide good documentation for its engine (yeh, there's biki but it's filled mostly by community not bis) - the only way to make smth is studing standart stuff. And now if you to take back this chance - Why ? To make addonmakers life harder ?

Released public tools are truncated, docs  inadequate, any attempts to improve current state of affairs called "illegal reverse ingeneering". I really wonder if BIS are interested in community addon development at all

Quote[/b] ]BIS' copyrighted work was already released to the community and is apparently being further used to create custom content

What content ?  Do you mean community arma addons ? Yeh, there're lots of reskins/rework created with those mlods, but how can it harm bis ? All arma addons are using standart bis content anyway.

Anyway... everyone who cares already has these examples thus...all this just doesn't matter ))

[Panda-PL- 0]

When can we expect full default ArmA config to be released?

It is not among the sample files.

Some object types are not represented among the sample files aswell so how can we know what selections are needed?

We need a resource to learn addonmaking. Not everyone is skilled enougth to decipher the ArmA default files on their own.

As for copyrighted material: I am looking forward to see admins locking threads and forcing people to either get permissions or rework their addons.

Because in my oppinion the only way to get rid of copyright violation on this site is to fight it. ODOL exporting is only a small % of such violations. Getting rid of it does not solve the problem.

[Maddmatt 1]

Many released addons have used these 'reverse engineered' models, yet they recieved no complaints from BIS from what I see.

There are also mod projects being worked on that would suffer a lot or have to be canceled if using those models is banned. That would be a great loss if they couldn't use those models.

How else are people suppose to make changes to them to make them better and create more variations and features? Make entirely new stuff and throw the BIS stuff away? That would be a waste

Quote[/b] ]We will investigate the possible release of further MLODs officially, to counteract this unfortunate situation where BIS' copyrighted work was already released to the community and is apparently being further used to create custom content.

Please could BIS also release the source (commented) configs, including the main config and BIS addon configs?

So we don't have to rely on unbinirised configs. It would be helpful. Stuff like this helps the modders and reduces the need for 'reverse engineering', which is never as good as having the source files.

The source for the main config was released for OFP.

In fact, any source files would be appreciated. Maybe those shdc (shader) files? Understandable if this one gets a no, but it would be great if it happened.

[t_d 47]

unbinarized configs can be found in binarize folder

[Maddmatt 1]

unbinarized configs can be found in binarize folder

Thanks, I see them. But they are not from the latest version of ArmA. And do not include the stuff from the addons folder

I don't even see a version number that can be used to tell how old they are

The complete, latest ArmA configs would be appreciated

[Tomislav 0]

another thing is that ofp was for about 5-6 years on his own out there, now ArmA is out, the stuff from BIS e.g. sample models, but also tools came a bit late if you take in consideration, that ArmA 2 is going to be released this year (yes, one never knows as history shows), but in fact things came really late from bis, and you can read the rest from earlier posts here, with which i agree.

it's not that i wanna tell you wait with arma 2, but make things at least compatible, and this time for sure, not that it ends like ofp and arma, than better tell that before.

[kegetys 2]

there was no permission to "rip" open all of the officially released ArmA mods...

The whole idea behind 'modding' is that you can use & extend existing game content and engine to do your own addons/mods instead of having to do the whole game yourself, and I personally find this sudden change in policy a bit odd - If BIS content used without explicit permission is now not allowed then that would mean most of the addons & mods I have made for example would now be illegal. Especially everything made in the early days of OFP were based almost entirely on "reverse-engineered" data & information, since there was no official material and very little documentation about anything.

The general feeling before has been that for BIS material pretty much anything goes - After all what modders are doing is extending the game from which only they get profit from and as such I would have thought it would be in BIS' interests to allow it to be done (Not necessarily by explicitly permitting "everything" but by not forbidding it either as is being done now). Having to worry about wether BIS will "ban" some addon/mod because of some modified ArmA files included is going to be a big headache to everyone if thats where this is going...

[benreeper 0]

I see this as a sign that BIS is leaving the PC community and will in the future embrace ONLY the console community. We all knew it was coming but I thought they could do both. Let's face it, developing for consoles is much more lucrative: shallow, pretty games and a less demanding (read "Less Whiny and Demanding") community and an increase in profits.

You can't blame them but I just wonder if I should cease development of my mod now?

--Ben

[MehMan 0]

Woah woah, calm down now. I think BIS only has a problem with the hosting of said MLODs, mainly on public servers such as FileFront.

[RN Malboeuf 12]

Quote[/b] ]I think BIS only has a problem with the hosting of said MLODs, mainly on public servers such as FileFront.

Problem appered when MLOD section was moved to arma.info site It was available on other hosts for half a year without any problems

[shinRaiden 0]

I kind of find this whole discussion rather ridiculous, and aside from a big "I told you so" it's rather clear that BIS has no other option than to pursue the course that they have.

Let's look at the blindingly obvious facts :

Quote[/b] ]all of the [official] ArmA mods ... for anyone to download from a public server

This is not what's about right or wrong, it's about what's legal or not. Do you the community member have the authority to say "Hmm, I think I will put ArmA up on an ftp somewhere to download without restriction, in part or in whole"? Can I go and post all or some of the CoD4 data files on an FTP, then make a link to it on Activision's forums? Absolutely not, a copied file hardly amounts to a derivative work. If you insist on a policy of fully free sharing, then you must also condone this.

Furthermore, the most blatant examples of this are in direct relation to fundamentally flawed content development processes. Myself and others have endeavored to communicate the best practices as well as we are able to, but in general it has only been met with insult and ridicule, reflecting a general absence of tolerance and consideration; an attitude consistent with the problems addressed here by Placebo.

As has been recently discussed here, there was as myself and many others detailed no need to directly edit the BIS configs and re-distribute BIS's content. A prime example of this would of course be the XAM mod, and any other mod that mistakenly thinks that they need to directly edit dta\bin.pbo. or ca\addons\ca.pbo for config-only modifications.

The entire purpose of various changes BIS made was so that the community would have a greater standard of compatibility by not having to alter each other's content, instead it was the community that went and screwed it all up by insulting corrections and directions when offered.

Another prime example of this problem is the fights over incorrect information about model.cfg content (that directly lead to my 3 WL's.) As is being evidenced with increasing frequency, while placing cfgmodels code into the config.cpp in theory is technically possible, unless it is absolutely perfect it introduces massive cascading problems wrecking content left and right. It was not intended to be a config construct, it was intended to be used as a framework directly linked to the unbinarized models. So vital is this knowledge that the information was one of the first items to be included in BIS's community wiki.

So now that I've said my piece, you'll rebut with "but they made us do it, because they failed to deliver on their promise to give us the tools and content and info we wanted when we wanted." Well sorry, but it's not because they don't want to. They're trying, and they've been steadily making progress. The short of the matter is that none of it was ready to go at or before release, and they've been working on it as best as they are able to or know how. Which of course "isn't good enough" for the "I want it now and my way" crowd.

That's the basic problem, and this action is imho long overdue. The impatience and impulsiveness of the community is no excuse for bad behavior. There has been far too much scamming, bickering, harassing, and in-fighting going on already. It's high time there be some real collaboration, instead of self-aggrandizement. This here is a great example of that spirit and effort.

@granq :

imho, content derived from and / including the sample content may reasonably be redistributed. It would be best to have a BIS clarification, but I believe that this was part of the intent of the sample content.

@bdfy :

The ODOL Explorer developer got raked over the coals by BIS, what more could you ask for? Your impatience does not constitute an emergency on BIS's part. As they have time and resources for non-revenue activities, they are preparing and releasing information. You may think you do not see it, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Also, the problem didn't appear when the content hosting moved, it's been ongoing, but not actioned until now. Anything else is merely coincidental.

@Panda[PL] :

It's not so simple as just dumping configs. There's some crucial changes to how configs work that are much more complicated to explain, and are not obvious by looking at the configs. Rather, it's structural and relational theories best documented on the wiki. Also, documenting all the applicable parameters is a gigantic mountain of work that only BIS can do.

@Maddmatt :

The presence or absence of comment from BIS does not equate to a statement of policy or official opinion. Linker_Split had no problem sacking his 'modeller' who was only ripping content from CoD4, how is that any different from ripping from ArmA? As for the configs, as I mentioned, the information you seek is not in the configs, it's in the designers' head's. Dumping the configs won't help there, and the Binarize ones don't have the more detailed addon configs. Shaders are a definite no, as they're tied directly to the precise engine build and opening them would be unleashing a nightmare of chaos.

@Tomislav :

The design practices and procedures for ArmA and ArmA2 are the same, whereas they differ dramatically between OFP and ArmA. If you follow the bad practices of hacking the arma content, then your content will suffer compatibility-wise with ArmA2. If on the other hand you design your content in an independent context, without any modifications back into ArmA, at the most you're probably looking a a couple lines of config changes and a rebinarization.

@kegetys :

I've always viewed OFP/ArmA as more of a 'platform' rather than a 'product'. I also don't see a sudden change in policy, I just see a history of lax enforcement due to other priorities. Just because BIS may think that the results of something the community does looks neat, doesn't mean that it then is automatically granted appropriateness.

@benreeper :

That's ridiculous, no rational justification for that at all.

[sparky 0]

ok, i'd like to something more to that.

For sure the ODOL to MLOD convartion was somthing really helpfull, nobody is doubting about that. Also as stated it was illegal too since it's conside reverse engineering.

Now what i'd like to add.

Also some models of queens gambit was decoded (correct me if i'm wrong), that means that are available to people that have Armed Assault and don't have Queen's Gambit. So i think that isn't fair, for someone that hasn't pay for something (queen's gambit) to have the addons on his computer and make other addons based on them and redistribute them. Isn't that more illegal?

Well the only thing that i can add to this convertation, since BIS has made its decission is at least for MLODs directly from BIS.

And to make the start i'd like to request for an MLOD helicopter. When we try to develope our uh-1h, we realised that we couldn't have a good study model, so we used the decoded blackhawk in order to see what do we need to create into our helicopter.Generally i would like to ask an mlod of each kind, like a helicopter (as i asked before) something form nature like a tree or bush etc etc...

[Jackal326 1158]

Linker_Split had no problem sacking his 'modeller' who was only ripping content from CoD4, how is that any different from ripping from ArmA?

I imagine the obvious answer is, because its being used in ArmA, not COD4. If Linker_Split's modeller was using the COD4 "rips" for a COD4 mod, fair enough. I agree using COD4 models/textures in ArmA is an epic breach of copyright, and whilst using ArmA models in a reversed engineered manner in ArmA goes against the EULA (which I'm not saying is right), its not like they're being used in another game. That said, having everything floating around on the internet is like leaving the mens room with Captain Winky still hanging out - its likely to get mishandled and an accident might occur.

[RN Malboeuf 12]

Quote[/b] ]This is not what's about right or wrong, it's about what's legal or not. Do you the community member have the authority to say "Hmm, I think I will put ArmA up on an ftp somewhere to download without restriction, in part or in whole"?

Quote[/b] ]Any sites which host tools for reverse engineering our software, or host the fruits of such reverse engineering will become "persona non grata" from these forums. If the webmaster of such sites refuse to remove such files from their servers then they will be perm banned from these forums and anyone directly involved with the site will be perm banned from these forums.

Ok, there're enough addons on arma.info that consists of those ripped standart models in mlod format. If it's prohibited then what ? Arma.info will be forced to remove half of it content ?

If bis policy is about killing  arma editing (underdeveloped anyway for number of reasons) then why not say it frankly ?

I don't know maybe CWR project is supported better but for all the rest bis support is just around nothing. really sad.

[ArmaVidz 0]

By prohibiting the use of "reverse engineered" addons for Armed Assault; because of the issue of BIS content being available "for anyone on a public ftp," BIS will effectively put the last nail in the Armed Assault coffin.

The only reason people continue to play (and purchase) Armed Assault is because of the custom content. I'm sorry, I can't be nice about this - there is no reason to play vanilla Armed Assault. It's buggy, it's slow and like all games, it's drab after a couple months. With addons like Kegetys LowPlants, TrueRangeAi, Sound Mods, new soldiers, new vehicles etc. etc. etc. the game is renewed.

Come on BIS! Understand, people are going to take the models if they want anyhow - don't punish the hard working members of the community that perpetuate your revenue.

The most logical course of action would be to grant non-exclusive rights to any addon maker that develops addons; whether reverse engineered or not; or modifications for Armed Assault. Then go after the people that develop addons/mods for other games, using Armed Assault content.

If BIS wants to make a stand with imported weapons from other games I believe that's ethical, logical and inline with the initiative - but putting the brakes on your own community because the community is the primary place where BIS has 'sight' and 'control' - revenue suicide.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

How many of the currently available ArmA addons are "reverse engineered"?

[t_d 47]

It seems that BIS expressed (or just Placebo?) themselves not very well. For me BIS doesn't want the community not to use their stuff to create new custom content, but don't want that their stuff gets reverse engineered. Otherwise it wouldnt had make sense that BIS released some MLOD sample models. I hope you got my point.

[canis lupus 20]

I'm getting a little confused here... are we not allowed to make re-modeled units from the BIS models?? sounds odd to me but wanted to make sure, since its what I'm doing all day and I won't waste my time with it if I can't use it...

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Guys this is getting blown out of all proportion.

Its business as usual apart from we cannot MLOD the general arma content and put it on a server for public download which is fair enough. Nothing has really changed on the Modding scene.  The information gleaned form the MLODs is already out there.  And will stay out there if people are willing to share learnt knowledge.

What we need now is less moaning, wailing about the end of the community and rumour mongering about BIS turning its back on us.  And of course less of the "I told you so" bollocks and more useable, practical tutorials.  Tuts that cover the basic principles right up to the more advanced areas of interest.  They need to be written in simple clear English that can then be translated or understood by the majority of the community.

Yes I know there is the BIKI reference.  But personally, and I know a lot of people feel the same, I find aspects of BIKI  are written in such a way as to be worse than useless.  While it may contain vital information it is presented in such a clinically detached way that it really doesn’t educate or empower the user.  More often than not it just confuses the fuck out of them. Often there are no simple examples or real world applications.

How about less “OMG the sky is falling†and more “Well, here’s what I know…â€

IF you want to write a tutorial that could possibly help please do, contact ArmedAssault.info, ArmAholic, OPEC or any of the other sites and ask them to host it.

Here’s my contribution to a way forward:

I promise to (re)create a system of basic tutorials, just like Brsseb did for OFP to handle the very basic of ArmA modeling and Configs.  I am going to try and make one a week for the next few weeks.

What are you willing to do?

[canis lupus 20]

I agree with most of this Rocko, ofcourse BIS won't turn their backs on us I really don't think they can afford that, but how did tutorials get involved in this?

I hope all sorts of rumors not based on any reallity will keep to a minimum and I don't wan't to help spread or anything but I really need to know if I'm about to do something I'm not allowed to

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I agree with most of this Rocko, ofcourse BIS won't turn their backs on us I really don't think they can afford that, but how did tutorials get involved in this?

I hope all sorts of rumors not based on any reallity will keep to a minimum and I don't wan't to help spread or anything but I really need to know if I'm about to do something I'm not allowed to

Well the largest part of the "case for the MLODs" was to mine them for information to make our own content.  If those with the knowledge - and there are a few in this thread that have it - were to write down what they know the need for the MLODs might be diminshed.

I know it wont satisfy everyone wanting to modify the blackhawks etc but atleast the information aboutr how to recreate them will be available.

[Placebo 28]

Guys this is getting blown out of all proportion.

Its business as usual apart from we cannot MLOD the general arma content and put it on a server for public download which is fair enough. Nothing has really changed on the Modding scene.

Quoted for truth.

As I already wrote in the Ask a Mod thread the other day:

Quote[/b] ]At the end of the day I think the main issue is that Marek wasn't happy that every BIS produced addon for ArmA had been stripped bare and uploaded to a website for all and sundry to download and use in any way they wish. There's no reason to believe that items cannot be modified and used for ArmA addons/mods the same as they were for Flashpoint addons/mods.

That is an accurate summary of where the problem arose.