"File Encryption Tool" for modders use......

[Hawk]

NO NO NO FFS..............................Just kidding but NO Hawky

A TGA not PSD as it has to be converted for me to use as I DONT use PHOTOSHOP I am a Corel boy baby. And I am sure it would help others too as it is far easier to edit a tga than a psd if you dont have the right software. I am talking about making it REAL simple for everyone to do.

Thats why I made a Ducati Parts Pack so you did not even have to paint much just use the parts you want to change. THANKS BIG TIME to H for making the Ducati's like that. It makes it easy and fun to be able to paint nearly everything.

The LESS guys have to do to make personal paints WITHOUT using some dudes custom paint and getting their nuts bit off, the more personal it gets and the more personal paints will be used in GPB.

Naturally this is just the bikes paint I am talking about, but the more we are allowed to do in GPB without agro, the more fun it will be and a lot less battles of the bitches on the forums!!! Keep the fights for the racetrack lol

DD

Debate DD.... This is what a forum is all about, right? 

Luckily this thread has not degraded into a cat fight(Yet). Lol. There are some interesting points of view being posted for sure. 

A TGA you say? Well that's easier to do than creating a .psd paint kit. Just convert whatever the template image format is into a TGA format and bobs your uncle(or rather not. Lol). 

Hawk.

[doubledragoncc]

UM...............did you not read the part about THERE ARE NO FUCKING TEMPLATES AVAILABLE!!!

Manu has made some for MotoGP but not Moto2 so I butchered an original as had nothing else...........sorry Manu I had to sacrifice one bro for the greater god of painting. I will be posting it today so that nobody has to kill anymore innocent bike paints...........it will be a plain white paint and yes I will say it was an original from Manu before he bites, beats and whips me.

As bike makers normally make paint liveries why not just have a blank one like the default bike but white? Problem solved and no extra work for the modder.

DD

[Hawk]

@Hawk

I was ironic, I have not really understood the real reason of this discussion, what made you take the idea? 

The reason this was suggested was because of work being used without asking permission to use it, as I indicated in the initial opening post in this thread..... I'm not going to name people as it's up to them to do the right thing, but just to say, it doesn't hurt to just ask, and between fellow GPB community members that's all that would be needed. It's about just having respect for other fellow modders before just plagiarising  their work without a thought for the hard work put into it by another author..... A simple PM to ask permission from the author is all that's needed and would've been, and still would be received positively and also greatly appreciated.

It's also about putting this issue to the fore so it's in peoples minds and that we're not all the sort of people who blatantly accept using others work for their own ends without asking permission to use that work first. It's just about trying to get people to be decent about this whole thing instead of just taking what they want without conscience or question. 

If an encryption tool is needed to stop that sort of behaviour then I'm all for it, but honestly it's really not something that I would've wanted to happen.  But Piboso did point out and suggest some other fringe benefits I hadn't thought about of introducing an encryption tool that I do agree with too, so we all realised something new about this too, though I know we don't all agree on it.

We're not here to start wars in the community, but sometimes people need reminding to respect each other and shown the possible consequences of their actions. 

Hawk.

[Blackheart]

I agree ask permission before, but i think that GP bikes is based on a database, with only the right mods, the servers should use just bikes from the original authors, I think this is enough. 

[Hawk]

UM...............did you not read the part about THERE ARE NO FUCKING TEMPLATES AVAILABLE!!!

Manu has made some for MotoGP but not Moto2 so I butchered an original as had nothing else...........sorry Manu I had to sacrifice one bro for the greater god of painting. I will be posting it today so that nobody has to kill anymore innocent bike paints...........it will be a plain white paint and yes I will say it was an original from Manu before he bites, beats and whips me.

As bike makers normally make paint liveries why not just have a blank one like the default bike but white? Problem solved and no extra work for the modder.

DD

Well F*ck me! I wonder who has the gaul to release a bike without a paint template DD!? I know... I'm just joking!  Hehe! 

But no, I don't do much template painting so really didn't take in that part of what you said as it just wouldn't occur to me that a bike wouldn't have a paint template. 

Hawk.

[doubledragoncc]

LOL Hawky

I am sure all bikes first livery is plain white base so why not save one copy before its used? Common sense I'd say lol................................ oh I forgot this is GPB we are talking about hehe

DD

[HornetMaX]

Side note: circumventing the protection on GPB default sounds is fairly easy.

Then Piboso needs to know how that is achieved so that he can stop it happening, yes? 

I think he's smart enough to figure out that by himself. Problem is, even knowing that, there's not a lot he could do to prevent it.
Note: I really don't see a good reason why one would "crack" the default sounds, so per se this is not an issue.
It was just to tell you that encrypting the samples can be circumvented, which makes encrypting them not as useful as some imagine.

Why see encryption as a punishment.... It will only stop those that wantonly abuse others work without asking permissions first, yes? If people want help and advice they only need to ask.

As I said: people learn looking at other mods. If you prevent that, you prevent them from learning.
Yes, they could come to you with a very specific question and you may be willing to answer but sometimes one just needs to play with the stuff to understand and, anyway, at the 10th question you'd be pissed off and you'll stop answering (which is normal).

But mostly this: another modder could improve somebody's else mod, how would he do that if you encrypt ?!

I mean if someone walked into your house and helped themselves to your food without permission I'm sure you'd be the first to complain.... so why do you consider mod work any different? It's a strange attitude to consider any work you do free for all to do as they please with without asking permissions first, surely?

I consider it different because it is different.
Here's a better analogy: if I invite somebody to my house and I serve him my super special foie-gras and lobster pizza, and then the guy goes home and does the same pizza for himself, I would not complain. Of course, if he calls this his own pizza then I may be marginally pissed off (just marginally), but for sure I will not require any other person to whom I'll serve my special pizza to eat it blindfolded to "protect" my creation.

If you don't plan to sell your mods, there's no need for encryption. Simply because there's little reason to steal free stuff and there's little to lose for the creator if the free stuff gets "stolen' anyway.

Put it this way - There is nothing at all stopping a modder producing a mod and asking money for it now.

Yes there is: it's the fact that as soon as they sell once, the un-encrypted mod is available to all (at least potentially).
And that's good, because it means that a modder that wants to make some money out of his mods will have to ask for a one-off payment: once paid, the mod will be available to all.
I'm OK with that. I'm not OK with each user individually paying for a license for the mod.

DD hit the nail on the head when he said, "At the end of the day it is about respect and that is all that is needed". How true is that! Well said DD!   

So let's ask for respect instead of encryption.

I'd totally agree with you on that Max(did I just agree with you? Hehe!  ), but from some of the attitudes expressed here in this post, do you really think that is going to work? I mean seriously? Lol!

I don't see which attitudes you're referring to, I haven't seen anything shocking posted here (apart from Blackheart usual compliments directed to me, no big news here).

Anyway, no it won't work, there will always be annoying ones that won't listen. But preventing them from being annoying is not worth the price.

[Hawk]

Side note: circumventing the protection on GPB default sounds is fairly easy.

Then Piboso needs to know how that is achieved so that he can stop it happening, yes? 

I think he's smart enough to figure out that by himself. Problem is, even knowing that, there's not a lot he could do to prevent it.
Note: I really don't see a good reason why one would "crack" the default sounds, so per se this is not an issue.
It was just to tell you that encrypting the samples can be circumvented, which makes encrypting them not as useful as some imagine.

I would say it would still stop the majority from cracking into the files as most wouldn't know were to begin cracking an encrypted file.

Why see encryption as a punishment.... It will only stop those that wantonly abuse others work without asking permissions first, yes? If people want help and advice they only need to ask.

As I said: people learn looking at other mods. If you prevent that, you prevent them from learning.
Yes, they could come to you with a very specific question and you may be willing to answer but sometimes one just needs to play with the stuff to understand and, anyway, at the 10th question you'd be pissed off and you'll stop answering (which is normal).

But mostly this: another modder could improve somebody's else mod, how would he do that if you encrypt ?!

He'd improve the mod by first asking for permissions to do it. Then the author could send him the open files to work on. That's doing the decent thing. Just taking your work, altering it and then publishing it is very bad and disrespectful to the original author and his work. After all, the author may not want his work altering, right? In which case if the modder wanted to improve on the mod then the modder should look to create the same mod again from scratch or find another author of the same type of mod whole let him alter it.
It's swings and roundabouts, it's not all as straight forward as it seems.

I mean if someone walked into your house and helped themselves to your food without permission I'm sure you'd be the first to complain.... so why do you consider mod work any different? It's a strange attitude to consider any work you do free for all to do as they please with without asking permissions first, surely?

I consider it different because it is different.
Here's a better analogy: if I invite somebody to my house and I serve him my super special foie-gras and lobster pizza, and then the guy goes home and does the same pizza for himself, I would not complain. Of course, if he calls this his own pizza then I may be marginally pissed off (just marginally), but for sure I will not require any other person to whom I'll serve my special pizza to eat it blindfolded to "protect" my creation.

If you don't plan to sell your mods, there's no need for encryption. Simply because there's little reason to steal free stuff and there's little to lose for the creator if the free stuff gets "stolen' anyway.

You have a unique way of looking at things Max. Lol 
The need is to protect an authors work from unscrupulous modders and not for the aim of selling the mod. If another modder wishes to improve on it then they only have to ask and the author can decide if he wishes for his mod to be worked on by someone else for improvements. Sounds very reasonable to me.

Put it this way - There is nothing at all stopping a modder producing a mod and asking money for it now.

Yes there is: it's the fact that as soon as they sell once, the un-encrypted mod is available to all (at least potentially).
And that's good, because it means that a modder that wants to make some money out of his mods will have to ask for a one-off payment: once paid, the mod will be available to all.
I'm OK with that. I'm not OK with each user individually paying for a license for the mod.

Works out well for the X-Plane community, so obviously not a problem if selling is the aim(which I doubt it ever will be for modders of GPB).

DD hit the nail on the head when he said, "At the end of the day it is about respect and that is all that is needed". How true is that! Well said DD!   

So let's ask for respect instead of encryption.

I'd totally agree with you on that Max(did I just agree with you? Hehe!  ), but from some of the attitudes expressed here in this post, do you really think that is going to work? I mean seriously? Lol!

I don't see which attitudes you're referring to, I haven't seen anything shocking posted here (apart from Blackheart usual compliments directed to me, no big news here).

Anyway, no it won't work, there will always be annoying ones that won't listen. But preventing them from being annoying is not worth the price.

Well we'll just have to wait and see what happens, but I think peoples fears of file encryption are baseless if they are willing to contact authors for permissions in the first place, which is the decent thing to do surely?

But again I'll say that I personally wouldn't want to encrypt any work unless people were badly abusing it, but I really do think an encryption tool should be available as an option for those that may want it, and for as Piboso suggested; the fact that it could well encourage more modders in too as I'm sure many serious modders would only mod for software were encryption is available.
So let's think about providing it as an option for those that want it, and those that don't want to use it then fair enough, their files will be there to satisfy all the people that want to have a look at how things are done. So there you go, best of both worlds... Sorted Max! 

Hawk

[HornetMaX]

But mostly this: another modder could improve somebody's else mod, how would he do that if you encrypt ?!

He'd improve the mod by first asking for permissions to do it.

But how would you differentiate somebody that really wants to do that from somebody that will ask you, take the sources and then throw them around saying it's his own work ?!

[TFC]

But mostly this: another modder could improve somebody's else mod, how would he do that if you encrypt ?!

He'd improve the mod by first asking for permissions to do it.

But how would you differentiate somebody that really wants to do that from somebody that will ask you, take the sources and then throw them around saying it's his own work ?!

This is why I thought my idea was a good one..

But damn you guys seem to love going at it over here lol

[Hawk]

But mostly this: another modder could improve somebody's else mod, how would he do that if you encrypt ?!

He'd improve the mod by first asking for permissions to do it.

But how would you differentiate somebody that really wants to do that from somebody that will ask you, take the sources and then throw them around saying it's his own work ?!

Well we'd just have to go with experience. In that if you trusted someone not to do that and then they went and abused your work then I'm afraid that's when that person would get publicly renounced and basically sent to Coventry with no further contact or help, and I'd hope that with everyone else in the community knowing what they'd done after the trust you'd gave would support that action and none of their mods would not get supported on servers or databases.... They'd soon disappear, as would their bogus mod work.  With support from the community you can solve many problems.

Hawk.

[HornetMaX]

But how would you differentiate somebody that really wants to do that from somebody that will ask you, take the sources and then throw them around saying it's his own work ?!

This is why I thought my idea was a good one..

This one ?

Would it instead possible to attach a hard coded name to a bike which can't be changed? This way there could be iterations after, titled differently, but it will always come up with the original author name..

Don't know ... I don't see how this could work: even if we engrave the original modder name somehow, what prevents the malicious modder from taking all the data and creating a new bike wiuth his own name engraved ?

They'd soon disappear, as would their bogus mod work.  With support from the community you can solve many problems.

Can't agree more. But can't see the need for encryption for doing that, we can do the same without.

[Hawk]

+1 to that MaX..

Would it instead possible to attach a hard coded name to a bike which can't be changed? This way there could be iterations after, titled differently, but it will always come up with the original author name..

Hmmm.... Interesting, but how would you achieve that? I mean how would you make it so that the name couldn't be changed. Also, how would that stop people changing the physics or even the model?

Hawk.

[TFC]

The short answer to both yours and MaX's reply is I don't know, that would be for PiBoSo to figure out. But my point was not about file encryption, more recognition. If it always came up in game as 'made by Hawk' it would at least put people off claiming it was theirs.

As for what people can use of others, I tell anyone who asks me for help with tracks or skins that they're welcome to use anything of mine as long as they give me credit as I think the more quality stuff out there the better, but I do get that MXB is a bit behind on content next to GPB, and to this date I think the only ripping problem we've had has been stuff from other games where the original author was credited but unfortunately never asked in the first place.

As for someone hacking the attached name, it's effort vs reward.. The files would already be available so if someone actually was to rip anything it would be easy, and in my experience the bulk of 'rippers' do it because they don't want to learn, don't have the knowledge / skills involved and don't fit the profile of someone who would be able to unencrypt something without 3rd party software to do it for them.

[HornetMaX]

The short answer to both yours and MaX's reply is I don't know, that would be for PiBoSo to figure out. But my point was not about file encryption, more recognition. If it always came up in game as 'made by Hawk' it would at least put people off claiming it was theirs.

Yeah that was understood, but unless you encrypt something, the "marking" won't be effective.

It could go like this: Hawk makes the bike and once all the "data" is ready BikeEd could generate a code (like the one for track registration) that depends on the data, including the author name.
When GPB loads the bike, it can check the data matches the code (like the online server checks your track and bike match the server's ones), so if you change anything, including the author name, GPB could refuse to load the bike.

The problem is that I can take all the data, change the author name from hawk to max and run BikEd to generate a new code for my "new" bike. Zero effort, unfortunately.

An example of where marking works is 3d models: if hawk creates a model and sticks his name into the 3d model somewhere (like embossing "made by Hawk" on the chassis somewhere), then it would be hard to remove/change that, because we don't have the source files but only the .edf (which is somehow similar to an encryption). Yes, one could always try to rip the model, but that would be quite some effort (rip + rework the ripped model to integrate it into GPB). So here yes, it would be an effort vs reward decision. But it only works because the source files are "encrypted".