Macser

I think that's going to be hard to do. I haven't had any conversations with him in years. I helped him out with some aircraft shortly before he decided to call it a day. I remember the subject came up. He wasn't bothered about people editing his work as long as he was given credit for what he'd done. Unfortunately I've no way of proving that. The Pms went with the passage of time, and board changes.

There is only the Skyrim incident as far as I'm aware. It can be learned from. I just don't believe it's something that can be referred to in isolation. Which sometimes happens.

It's not that surprising. If people are given the option between getting free stuff and paying, you know how it's going to pan out. It is what it is. The thing that's bothered me so far is that giving someone a choice is viewed as being so reprehensible. Which is unusual to me, as we will always have the option to say, "no thanks", and go back to what ever we were doing. There's a lot of fear and anger out there. Not something I fully understand given that there's no real frame of reference to date. Other than the worst possible example most of us are familiar with. @HeroesandvillainsOS It'll be interesting to see how that develops.

I still don't get this idea of "selling out". What exactly does that mean? Doing things for free does not qualify a person as being inherently good or honourable. Just as putting a price on something isn't inherently evil or dishonourable. I know people who turned hobbies into something they earn a supplementary income from. They get don't any crap from people in the same field. Same with Blender addon authors who sell their work. Despite the fact it's an open source environment, they happily co-exist with others who release their work for free. And even have their respect. Largely due to them maintaining high standards. One other point that keeps cropping up, which I also don't understand. If people are so dead set against the idea of monetisation, why would they be browsing a page hosting paid mods and addons at all? Surely it's nonsensical to complain about there being a ton of stuff to wade through, if you've clearly no intention of buying any of it. And why would those same people frequent servers using paid mods or addons? If the number of people against the idea is so great, then surely there'd be enough servers being set up using freely available content. And wouldn't it then follow that there'd be more of them? One of the main problems with Bethesda from, my view point, was their condition divesting themselves of curation. It showed a lack of understanding of the community they were trying to leverage. I think that would be a basic foundation of any system. Where the company has the back of the community and involves themselves in some level of vetting.

Ok. Maybe you don't want something like that. But maybe some do want access to quality they can't otherwise get. Not just a static asset. I don't know. The poll as it is, isn't really indicative. I know the against outweighs the fors. But it's a very small number of total votes. All I see is an option. Should modders have the option? That's not an impediment to you, me or anyone else continuing to do what we've always done. If some folks try to sell crap, I don't think it would last long. They'd be lucky to make a few sheckles out of it. And then they're done. No-one's going to touch them again with a ten foot barge pole. And that's without a standard in place. If someone reputable were to try it, you can be sure they'd put as much effort into it as they do now. If not more. You wouldn't be getting a crappy box with a hand drawn normal map and a flat specular. More than likely it would be on a par with official DLC. But we'd still have the choice to pass on it. I don't know about you, but any of the modders I'm familiar with are not shysters and con artists. They aren't suddenly going to change. And I wouldn't see them any differently should they avail of such an option. But that's just my take on it. And of course that's an assumption we're making. It's as likely the uptake wouldn't be anywhere near as widespread as some of us think. If it ever happens.

I'm sure people are reading the posts. They just might not have what you're looking for.

Are there any examples of a community, game related or otherwise, where paid material does work? That co-exists along with open source and free material. Where there is no formal regulation or even standard. And yet somehow continues to exist. Where the material in question relies on the existence of a parent program, rather than being stand alone. You and others frequently allude to the fact it it will be rife with abuses and lead to all sorts of nefarious behaviour. Indicating that you believe this community as a whole is already capable of it. Is that not something to be concerned about in of itself? If that is something separate to you and people who share your point of view, then you obviously belong to a subset of that community. And are therefore decent and honourable in your dealings with others. Why then would it affect you in a negative way, if a lot of modders, within that subset, were to have a choice?

@Kiory Polls aren't always a good barometer. As we've seen with the recent US elections. But in this case, if people got engaged in it and cast a vote it might at least make things a bit clearer regarding the general feeling here. Because I know there's a lot of people that won't publicly voice an opinion on such a contentious issue. It shouldn't be that way. But it is. And there's many who think not discussing it, makes it go away. Which is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming. I honestly don't mind which path it takes. I'm just curious as to the real reasoning behind people's decisions. @sancron Ok. You're suggesting that your beliefs should be applied to something you had no part in creating? Am I correct? Or misunderstanding you? Why do you assume that a responsible person wouldn't want to support their work? Or couldn't? Why can't a donation system co-exist with a fee based model? What makes them mutually exclusive?

I'm not addressing you specifically in regards to entitlement. Just in case there's any misunderstanding. That's exactly what I meant. There's a difference between entitlement and a reasonable expectation. As in, it's reasonable to expect a mod/addon, or any program you buy, to work correctly and be in line with official updates. If a modder gets into that arena that's something they should expect to deal with. But there shouldn't be any more expected of them than there would be of an in-house team developing a DLC for example. I think that's reasonable. Whether or not they want to take that option, is not up to me. And I don't think it should be. That's for an individual to decide. Which paid modding are you referring to? The only real example I know of, relates to Skyrim. And for me that isn't worth considering because it was so ill-thought out. Dragon, what are you basing your position on? What evidence has shown you that the community as a whole would collapse into chaos, simply because a modder has the option to put a price on something?That's not rhetorical. That's a genuine question. I can only form an objective opinion based on available information.

@donnovan Could you clarify that? I don't fully understand what you're trying to say. @dragon01 You're right. On a personal level it can be a hobby. But there's nothing inherently hobbyist about it. It's just a tradition. A perception. It's still a personal choice. And I don't see why that would automatically change. But it would need to be done correctly. The Skyrim incident was probably the worst possible example. From my point of view that didn't fail simply because it was a bad idea. That failed because of the concerted effort of loudmouths, a lack of standards and no policing. As for the subject of entitlement. If you pay for something the same things to apply to that as would anything else you buy. So if that means keeping it updated, then that's how it should be. That's not an entitlement. I'd say that's reasonable expectation. The mod/addon should remain functional and in line with official updates. Entitlement is expecting someone else to bend to our will, regardless of how they feel about it. And in relation to their work. An unreasonable expectation that they should not have an option under any circumstances. And reinforcing it with harassment and abuse. If there was some criteria, standard or vetting process, that, in of itself, would reduce the quantity of material. Someone who's going to do a set of novelty hats, with the bare minimum of effort, probably isn't going to want to go through that. And that's assuming they'd have their submission allowed. Likely leaving a smaller but more focused group of people willing to invest the extra time and effort to create something of note. IF they chose to avail of it, I don't people like Pufu or Kiory would have problems meeting a set standard, for example. Whether or not that's economically viable for a company to support, or if the market would be big enough to sustain itself, is arguable. I don't think a knowledgeable modder expects it to be like a 9 to 5 job. It would likely be a supplementary source rather than primary. I think what Kiory suggested previously would be a good option. If it's under license it would fall under the direct control of the company. Whether they want that responsibility is another matter of course.

Fair enough. I think this poll could be of some real use if people would just get in there and cast a vote. In fact I'd encourage people, if they're on the proverbial fence, to go ahead and do it. Especially if it's something you think affects you or this community. We can argue until our fingers bleed, and we run out of breath. But I think a decisive vote is hard to argue with. Whether it's for or against, it could at least go some small way to putting the issue to rest. 173 votes is a drop in the ocean. I sound like a campaign politician.

I'm not modding for A3. Although most of the time I've spent helping people out over the past year in particular, has been A3 related,oddly enough. There's some valid points in the videos. But like you and I they're people with opinions. I still don't get this notion of "purity" that keeps cropping up. For me that sounds a bit odd when put into the context of a game. Skyrim was an example of how not to do it. Not necessarily an example of why it should never happen. I don't think it could work without some involvement from the company, regarding policing and management. But there's also the likelihood it won't pan out economically anyway. If people aren't buying, it can't be sustained. I still don't know the facts surrounding Skyrim to be honest. There was so much static from a certain group of very noisy toxic individuals it was hard for me to get engaged in it. I was repulsed by how poisonous it became. Had I been a modder in that environment I'd have left it immediately and never looked back. They definitely made it very difficult for people to have a balanced argument. Mostly because of fear of reprisal or harassment . It's not a community when a bunch of chinless cowardly windbags are allowed swan around unchecked. It'd be nice to see people get a choice, and not have to feel like a pariah in doing so. I'd like to think this community, in particular, is above that.

I understand that. And I know there's plenty of others who feel the same way. But there's quite a few who don't. But they won't mention it, for fear of being demonised. It's literally being viewed as something evil. And anyone who supports it, or rather sees no reason to obstruct it, is somehow morally bankrupt. Considering we're talking about a game, that's taking things a bit too far for me. Modders aren't curing cancer or feeding starving children. So why is it viewed as something untouchable or altruistic? Are there any facts to support the idea that monetisation ruins everything? Facts and statistics, if it's possible in this case, would make a more convincing argument either way. Polls can be helpful in getting a consensus, but they don't reflect the reasoning behind a decision. And it only really works well when most or all of the concerned parties bother to cast a vote. Which is hard to do. The question, for me at least, isn't whether or not you yourself want to avail of monetisation. But rather, do you want to obstruct people from having a choice, should it become available?

I'm not trying to draw a comparison between a hobby and a job. Once you start getting paid for it, it becomes work. The issue for me is that a lot of people think anything related to modding should be considered a hobby. And never be anything else. It's one thing to make that decision for yourself. But advocating to ensure there's no choice in the matter, for others, is something different. At least people are talking about it here though. Unlike the disgusting behaviour witnessed in the Skyrim debacle.

Just so my tone is clear. I'm not sitting here angrily smashing the keyboard and shouting. Just in case it comes across that way. I'm not really for or against anything being discussed. You're entitled to an opinion, just like me, or anyone else here. But that's a statement. You , or I, don't get to tell anyone else what is, or isn't considered a job. Which if you look at it sensibly, is just a task performed, or service rendered, for a fee. I've never understood why some things are not looked upon as jobs and others are. If you get paid for something on a regular basis, it's a job. It doesn't matter what it is. If game developers, artists or musicians, took that line of reasoning, the world might be a very boring place to be. I know for a fact that they quite often have to listen to comments like "get a real job". If they took that advice, this thread for example might not exist.

I don't see anything to explain. At least not about your personal life. You are who you are. It means nothing to me personally. Not in a dismissive sense though. I simply mean, If I'm going to judge someone, and we all do, I'll do it based on how that person interacts with myself and others. I've had friends in similar circumstances, so I know it's not a simple case of being who you are, and expecting everything will be rosy from then on. It does take courage to say "this is who I am", knowing full well that a lot of people will react with hostility.

@ literally halts the script until the specified condition is met. Whereas ~ (wait) pauses for a specified time and moves onto the next line. "go" is a global variable. As is "PlayersCheckedArray". I assume PlayersCheckedArray is set true as a result of some condition in "Massive.sqs" . The script is being told to halt until that happens. Not that I'm any kind of expert in the area of scripting. Far from it.

Is it possible that was an unreleased asset? It's not unusual for modders to work on things without actually completing them. The only sisu xa-360 I've seen for the arma series was done by the FDF mod. But that was for Armed assault.

As far as I know the links for it are still active on it's thread, in this site.

You would have two or more rigs in the scene, animate them, and then save out the rtms separately. Use the dope sheet in action editor mode. Create an action for each sequence, per rig. If you want to keep track of them, I suggest you name each action appropriately. Otherwise it could get confusing. Having said that, because the rigs/reference models are essentially the same, the actions for one will actually run on the others. But a naming convention of some sort would still be a good idea. Here's a blend file with 3 rigs/reference models. Each rig is on it's own layer. https://www.sendspace.com/file/nxzs3a Use the large blue "download" button in the center of the page. I'm not using mediafire, simply because I'm not interested in signing up.

Sure. I think most of the people using the rig so far have been modding for A3 anyway.

What ever you did the deformation looks better. You don't have to use object builder if the rtm is a static pose, by the way. Once you've established there's no issues you can export the rtm straight to game. But you'll have to sort the config side of things yourself. I can't offer advice on that. I'll have to rewatch the video. You're the first person to say they found it hard to understand. I can't really do much about my voice though. It is what it is, as the saying goes. I didn't see the point in showing the model being loaded in. You open a file in the same way you would with almost any windows based application. The video is only there to show how the rtms are generated with the arma toolbox. It's not intended as an introductory tutorial for people new to modding. I don't consider myself a teacher in any sense of the word anyway.

Ok. out of curiosity, what model are you running the rtms on? Is it the A3 character sample in it's original form? Are you taking exactly the same steps as I outlined in the video on the first page?

The uploader on tf3d, in particular, is prolific. Over 4000 finished models. With little or no information about them, and very basic presentation. I know some people who can work fast. But not that fast, at that level. Like the god of war stuff for example. Their origins are very obvious. If it's free there's usually a catch. :)

Before someone does that you need to find out why the transforms and rotations are messed up. If it's not looking right in Object builder/O2, then it won't look right in game. Try this rtm and see if it's ok for you. It should look like this: