Curse

KairuByte · Aug 15, 2011, 05:17 PM // 17:17

I've managed to get ahold of the original TexMod author, and while his opinion on open source has not changed, he has actually recently started work on it again. He has requested user feedback, and suggestions. I have already posted this on the GWW, but thought I should post it here as well. Keep in mind this is something he sent to me in an email, and should not be used as a specific feature list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RS

A few things you can expect:
- No need to start the game through TexMod, you can attach to running applications at any time
- Mod-packages can be added and removed while a game is running as well
- Much better performance (impact should be close to zero)
- Much better compatibility (it should work with alot more games, exceptions should be very rare)
- (Hopefully) alot of nice features to make finding textures as simple as possible

Additionally, DX10 and DX11 support is planned of course, but It's not high priority for now.

He is looking for requests and ideas, however TexMod is not and will not be developed for Guild Wars specifically, and is instead being developed for DirectX games in general. Therefore no game specific requests please! Keep in mind that just because they have been suggested doesn't guarantee they will be implemented!

Things that have already been suggested ([C] confirmed):
- Fix for Texture Leaking (He hadn't seen this before and is looking into it)
- [C] Background running in the system tray (As well as auto detect games)
- Per game settings (Predefine packages to be auto loaded on game detection)
- In game interface (Definitely not in first release, if at all)
- Logging mode improvements (Both Google-Image style lists and dumping of all loaded textures)
- [C] Not be packed with NSPack (Confirmed, and most likely no packaging at all)

And on a personal note I have to say that I am very excited that RS is developing TexMod again!

impulsion · Aug 15, 2011, 06:03 PM // 18:03

Option to start the game with parameters, although I guess this is covered by "No need to start the game through TexMod, you can attach to running applications at any time".

A way for packages to be loaded automatically, e.g. texmod takes command line parameters itself with a list of the packages to load and the game executable (and parameters to be passed to the game).

KairuByte · Aug 15, 2011, 06:11 PM // 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by impulsion

Option to start the game with parameters, although I guess this is covered by "No need to start the game through TexMod, you can attach to running applications at any time".

A way for packages to be loaded automatically, e.g. texmod takes command line parameters itself with a list of the packages to load and the game executable (and parameters to be passed to the game).

^_^ Those are covered. Since TexMod will likely not require the game to be started through it, any command lines can be entered when the game is started (Apart from -dx8 of course).

Per game settings was included above, but I'll separate it into a second section and clarify. By that I meant the ability for TexMod to auto detect what game it is, and apply packages previously defined automatically.

Chthon · Aug 16, 2011, 06:00 AM // 06:00

Well, this is quite a surprise.

To be honest, the biggest thing would be to fix the bug where certain textures (usually ones that aren't even supposed to be modded at all) are sometimes replaced with a seemingly random texture from the pack. In GW, the characters' shadows seem to be the most common victim textures. I'm guessing that this is what you meant by "texture leaking." To reiterate, this is definitely the biggest issue for me; fix this and everything else is a mere convenience issue.

Other things (convenience issues):

Command line support, with the goal of creating one-click shortcuts. For example, I would like to be able to create a shortcut that would look something like this:

Quote:

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Blah\Blah\Blah\TexMod.exe" -e "C:\Program Files (x86)\Blah\Blah\Guild Wars\gw.exe" -m "C:\Program Files (x86)\Blah\Blah\Guild Wars\Mods\SpiritRadar.tpf","C:\Program Files (x86)\Blah\Blah\Guild Wars\Mods\NakedLivia.tpf" -c "-bmp -windowed"

which would invoke gw.exe with the command line parameters "-bmp" and "-windowed" and mod it with SpiritRadar.tpf and NakedLivia.tpf.
(For the record, no, I do not have a naked Livia mod. It was just a colorful example.)

Incorporate the functionality of the tpf unpacker to allow people to remix single elements from other people's mods.

I'll try to think of more later, and I'll be keeping an eye on this thread.

KairuByte · Aug 16, 2011, 01:28 PM // 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

Well, this is quite a surprise.

To be honest, the biggest thing would be to fix the bug where certain textures (usually ones that aren't even supposed to be modded at all) are sometimes replaced with a seemingly random texture from the pack. In GW, the characters' shadows seem to be the most common victim textures. I'm guessing that this is what you meant by "texture leaking." To reiterate, this is definitely the biggest issue for me; fix this and everything else is a mere convenience issue.

Other things (convenience issues):

Command line support, with the goal of creating one-click shortcuts. For example, I would like to be able to create a shortcut that would look something like this:

which would invoke gw.exe with the command line parameters "-bmp" and "-windowed" and mod it with SpiritRadar.tpf and NakedLivia.tpf.
(For the record, no, I do not have a naked Livia mod. It was just a colorful example.)

Incorporate the functionality of the tpf unpacker to allow people to remix single elements from other people's mods.

I'll try to think of more later, and I'll be keeping an eye on this thread.

Yes, that's what is meant by texture leaking. I had no other way of describing it without there being a huge sentence.

In this case, silent start is a possibility. If it is started separately from GW, and auto applies specific settings to games, it would work in a similar way. Though I will be sure to mention command line arguments.

Also, TPF unpacker is currently off the table from what I gather from his last email. There are copyright issues with the textures.

Chthon · Aug 17, 2011, 05:46 AM // 05:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by KairuByte

Yes, that's what is meant by texture leaking. I had no other way of describing it without there being a huge sentence.

Yes, leave it to me to write a huge sentence...

Quote:

Also, TPF unpacker is currently off the table from what I gather from his last email. There are copyright issues with the textures.

I believe he is mistaken. He would not be liable for traditional copyright infringement for the very simple reason that he would not be making any copies of anything. As for enabling other people to make copies: he definitely would not be liable for vicarious infringement; one could conceivably make a case for contributory infringement or circumvention, but I think that would be unlikely because (1) it's his own damn code, and (2) AFAIK successful contributory and circumvention cases have always involved programs or activities that have no legitimate function besides making unauthorized copies. So, in sum, I think he'd be in the clear. (That, of course, is all US law. I'm not qualified to opine on the copyright law of other countries, other than to say that the US seems to be the most ridiculous and restrictive in the world.)

As an alternative, if the author cannot be dissuaded from fearing copyright liability, perhaps a technical solution would be in order: Create a new filetype called .tpf2 that contains one extra byte in the header (or, better yet, find an unused byte in the current .tpf header that has a constant value). Use this byte for a flag that specifies whether the author *wants* to make the .tpf unpackable. Add a GUI checkbox option, and -- presto -- mod creators can choose to seal their mods or not, and whatever copyright problems may have existed go away.

(Another potential "better yet" implementation would be to just tack an extra byte onto the end of the file, assuming that there's a clear end marker or length declaration in the current format so that it could be recognized as an extra byte.)

KairuByte · Aug 17, 2011, 01:55 PM // 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

Yes, leave it to me to write a huge sentence...

Please don't take any offense, I just meant the term is used to make life easier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

I believe he is mistaken. He would not be liable for traditional copyright infringement for the very simple reason that he would not be making any copies of anything. As for enabling other people to make copies: he definitely would not be liable for vicarious infringement; one could conceivably make a case for contributory infringement or circumvention, but I think that would be unlikely because (1) it's his own damn code, and (2) AFAIK successful contributory and circumvention cases have always involved programs or activities that have no legitimate function besides making unauthorized copies. So, in sum, I think he'd be in the clear. (That, of course, is all US law. I'm not qualified to opine on the copyright law of other countries, other than to say that the US seems to be the most ridiculous and restrictive in the world.)

As an alternative, if the author cannot be dissuaded from fearing copyright liability, perhaps a technical solution would be in order: Create a new filetype called .tpf2 that contains one extra byte in the header (or, better yet, find an unused byte in the current .tpf header that has a constant value). Use this byte for a flag that specifies whether the author *wants* to make the .tpf unpackable. Add a GUI checkbox option, and -- presto -- mod creators can choose to seal their mods or not, and whatever copyright problems may have existed go away.

(Another potential "better yet" implementation would be to just tack an extra byte onto the end of the file, assuming that there's a clear end marker or length declaration in the current format so that it could be recognized as an extra byte.)

I'll link him to this post.

As for the encrypted byte, it's actually simpler then that. The tpf files are just zip files with a password that have had their extension changed. So it would be possible to just check to see if the tpf is encrypted and if not, just skip the decryption process.

Anon-e-mouse · Aug 17, 2011, 07:44 PM // 19:44

One thing that REALLY NEEDS to happen, is that Texmod, needs to NOT be packed by NSPack.

With the oodles of GB's of storage these days there's no real reason to compress the executible with a packer that's used by a large number of trojans.

It's just asking to be flagged as malware.. Removing the NSPack compression, would prevent a lot of the "Texmod is malware honest" threads..

At the moment, Texmod will not work if Avast Antivirus is running.. and if you turn Avast off, MalwareBytes will then flag it as malware simply because it's NSPack'd

This needs to change.

KairuByte · Aug 17, 2011, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anon-e-mouse

One thing that REALLY NEEDS to happen, is that Texmod, needs to NOT be packed by NSPack.

With the oodles of GB's of storage these days there's no real reason to compress the executible with a packer that's used by a large number of trojans.

It's just asking to be flagged as malware.. Removing the NSPack compression, would prevent a lot of the "Texmod is malware honest" threads..

At the moment, Texmod will not work if Avast Antivirus is running.. and if you turn Avast off, MalwareBytes will then flag it as malware simply because it's NSPack'd

This needs to change.

Added! 12chars

Chthon · Aug 18, 2011, 04:30 AM // 04:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by KairuByte

Please don't take any offense, I just meant the term is used to make life easier.

None taken. I'm known for verbosity.

KairuByte · Sep 12, 2011, 01:24 AM // 01:24

Progress is being made!

I talked with RS earlier today, and it turns out the groundwork is laid. He has finished DX9 basics, but has run into a few issues with DX10 and DX11 that have to be addressed before any more progress can be made.

But he is working on it, and from the sounds of it when he is done it's going to be a great improvement to the original!

Edge Igneas · Sep 28, 2011, 10:30 AM // 10:30

Good to hear. Keeping my eyes peeled on this thread.

Prestige · Sep 28, 2011, 11:34 AM // 11:34

Avast simply asks me to Open it in a sandbox, I simply choose ''Open Normally' o:

Daddy · Sep 28, 2011, 02:19 PM // 14:19

We need a Pongmei Valley chest running texmod. Most people now are working on account titles, and this would be such a helpful tool. Include other popular chest runs.

KairuByte · Sep 28, 2011, 04:55 PM // 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestige

Avast simply asks me to Open it in a sandbox, I simply choose ''Open Normally' o:

Hopefully not being packaged with NSPack will prevent that. It's only slightly annoying with Avast, but some completely quarantine or delete the file upon detection. Plus not all users will trust a program just because the entire community says it's safe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daddy

We need a Pongmei Valley chest running texmod. Most people now are working on account titles, and this would be such a helpful tool. Include other popular chest runs.

Wrong kind of suggestion. This is thread is for the actual program, not for individual packages.

Amy Awien · Sep 29, 2011, 09:11 PM // 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

... other than to say that the US seems to be the most ridiculous and restrictive in the world. ...

In Belgium you are not allowed to take pictures, in public space, with things like statues or architecture (any copyrighted material) in them.

So, if you want privacy, just place a contemporary piece of art on your lawn. Other then that, I agree with you. Only this time though :P

But all that is completely OT off course.

Intrinsic · Sep 30, 2011, 06:16 PM // 18:16

I 2nd the -bmp option, that alone would be shiny.

masterfighter · Sep 30, 2011, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Im so excited about this new version, release date?

Anon-e-mouse · Sep 30, 2011, 07:15 PM // 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestige

Avast simply asks me to Open it in a sandbox, I simply choose ''Open Normally' o:

When I originally posted in this thread, the latest version of Avast v5.something (at that time) did not have the sandbox feature. MalwareBytes will still flag it as Malware simply because it's NSPack'd, which hopefully the new version will do away with.

KairuByte · Sep 30, 2011, 08:43 PM // 20:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intrinsic

I 2nd the -bmp option, that alone would be shiny.

Command lines wouldn't matter either way, since TexMod would hook into games as they are detected, and would not need to run the game directly.

Example: Start TexMod, it loads in the system tray. Start Guild Wars, TexMod automatically picks it up and hooks it.

No more need for command line support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by masterfighter

Im so excited about this new version, release date?

No ETA. He does have a life and other projects, and the DX > 9 support is challenging to say the least.

I'm excited as well!!