unmodfile.exe?

Freaky · Post by **Freaky** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:57 am

Am I right in thinking there's no way for users to unpack .dat files yet?

I've made some progress into writing my own extractor, so I'll probably manage to come up with something usable for myself eventually, but if anyone wants to save me some effort...?

Freaky · Post by **Freaky** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:36 am

Eventually? I meant this morning.

I have a script that is, as I type this, unpacking shatter.dat. It's all of 44 lines of Ruby.

milo, mod devs: you're not going to be angry with me if I release it, right?

TheDeadlyShoe · Post by **TheDeadlyShoe** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:44 am

Actually, yeah, probably. [:'(]

But no storage standard stays opaque forever...

Witness HPI.

Freaky · Post by **Freaky** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:35 am

It's a dead simple format; I worked it out with a couple of hours fiddling with less than 100 lines of Ruby total -- it took me longer than that to work out a simple tar reader, and I have the specs for that [:)]

Here they are:

The .exe is generated from a RubyScript2Exe; you need a copy of Ruby if you just want to run the .rb. Run it with the .dat file as an argument; it'll extract directly to the current directory, so make sure you mkdir and cd into a temporary directory first. It's pretty much the exact opposite of modfile.exe, which imports from the current directory.

Pheagey · Post by **Pheagey** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 1:34 pm

I dunno if I would have done that...

Well everything that gets /dat'ed is usually copyright so theres that protection. But still...I guess someone would have done this eventually.

John DiCamillo · Post by **John DiCamillo** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:15 pm

milo, mod devs: you're not going to be angry with me if I release it, right?

Well, now you mention it, yeah I am.

Freaky · Post by **Freaky** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:54 pm

Very well; the files have been removed.

TheDeadlyShoe · Post by **TheDeadlyShoe** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 1:26 am

thanks [:)]

MishimaYukio · Post by **MishimaYukio** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:44 pm

lol, internet

Freaky · Post by **Freaky** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:33 pm

I'm surprised milo's annoyed or even surprised by this tbh; the format's trivially simple, and has nothing to do with any sort of copy protection that I can see. It's just to make the game more space effecient and make mod management easier. Nobody should be under any illusion that it provides any form of protection of content (models, .defs, etc); the compression format's a well known one (your browser probably supports it), the rest won't take any competent script-aware user (ahem) long.

My basic unpacker implementation is all of 15 lines of code. That's shorter than this comment

I don't think this is a bad thing; lots of games have their data files available easily (lots just use zip) and they seem to do fine. I think it helps mod communities when they have a good bit of reference material to work off; it's good for the users, and it's good for the games.

Note, none of this means I don't respect the copyright of milo or modders; obviously derived works will still require permission, but you can't really deny users doing what they want privately with content they have a license to use. Modders will find it useful to fill in the gaps in documentation, users will have fun playing with your defs (and not complaining when they don't work, ahem

Whatever, I'll keep it to myself if you want.

(anyone want to try to beat my line count?

DamoclesX · Post by **DamoclesX** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:49 pm

I think, now this is just me, that milo might not have been ready to release all this information.

With the dat uncompressed, literlly everything can be changed, you could make it 100% different, totaly coversion, milo DID say he will support this, hell the b5 mod already applyed to his total conversion address with information on what we would like to do for a free mod and room for who knows what the future could bring.

But ss is new, and maby he wants it to get out more before everybody starts changing everything.

I must admit I"m suprised the dat was open, I figued it was encrypted something harsh.

From a modelers perspective, I am not to inclined about releasing the b5 mod right away to a format that can be cracked open so easy
I know from experience the second it hits the net our stuff will appear in every fly by night mod out there, and after the work we put into(most) these models, I have no inclination to just hand them over right now.

If and WHEN we ever took this to the second stage, where all the models would be re-done with professional intent(I do most of the current ones in about 2 hours) then it wouldnt matter to me.

And I must admit, while torn by the possibility of all that can be done with the open dat file, I still have respect for milos wishes and until I get an email back from him okaying at least some of what we want we will stick to only what is allowed right now.

either way, I wouldnt feel to bad about it, honestly lol, if it was that easy then it was only a matter of time lol.

Mr.Frag · Post by **Mr.Frag** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 6:57 am

This thread has kinda got my interest going ... it *seems* looking at the save files that the campaign format is pretty easy to work with and I'd be interested in tossing my hat into making some reusing existing stuff (i'm not a graphics guy). Is that going to be in the realm of permitted?

There are (from all the mod boards I have been part of) 3 types of folks:

(a) The modder - likes to change and rework existing things to suit their fancy.
(b) The artist - likes to make things completely new.
(c) The storyteller - likes to create new stories that fit what they have from (a) & (b)

It seems the staying power of these types of games is directly related to how fast more stuff comes from the user community.

DamoclesX · Post by **DamoclesX** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 7:12 am

We have all 3 types for out mod:)

Basically we are a flood waiting to be released lol, ive never gotten so many emails from people offering support or help in my life lol!

the dynamic camps DO look easy, but, that scares me, every time something looks easy you find out those one or two little things that make it a living hell lol.

I do know from my time running bridge-commander.com tho that a un-openable mod format should be introduced, we might dealay a bit but eventually we will release even with this open format(I can always beat my old models lol, I did most in about 2 hours) but a lot of the people I know are a lot more tight and would NEVER let their stuff out if they thought it could be used so fast.

I just cant help but wonder if with the open dat you can edit the jump effects lol, I so want to see those incomming and outgoign wormholes lol

AncientAngel · Post by **AncientAngel** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:29 am

Well for the most part like Damo said we have those three sides fairly coverd right now.. In a sense we have 9 people doing that stuff ..but that is mainly because none of us like being tied down to one issue with-in the mod. Although we might not be the best in the group at doing one thing we are more than willing to get our hands dirty to get the job done.

Issues of securing the .Dat still concerns me about releasing the mod..abd at the same time the work that is being done gets you all pumped up to do more and get this mod out... but at the same time .. why dump this all over the net if your work can't be secured to some point. Now turn this around and think of what this is doing to Milo and all of the work he has done over the past years. My issues can not even begin to compair to the ones that he has ...So out of respect to Milo please keep that info a close secret..

DamoclesX · Post by **DamoclesX** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:50 am

hell

make a patch that re-encryps that sob with a 4024 byte incrption:)

TheDeadlyShoe · Post by **TheDeadlyShoe** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:43 pm

bah you guys are paranoid

what diff does it make?

:edit: harsher than i wanted to sound.

DamoclesX · Post by **DamoclesX** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 6:46 pm

if we wanted everybody to have the source at the start, we wouldnt be releasing it in a dat file

Miguel · Post by **Miguel** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 8:38 pm

I believe information should'nt be held back. We supported this product through its development, we also financially supported Milo's efforts by purchasing this product supposed finished product. Which as was not impressed, when I first checked out starshatter three years ago, I was expecting much more. I like the freedom to work my creativity. While I believe intellectual property should be protected, nonetheless there are ways it can be protected without holding back knowledge that could help advance the way the engine goes. I myself had questions that have still gone unanswered.

Phoenix-D · Post by **Phoenix-D** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:40 am

The fact that I can't get at the base files is really making me hesitate about buying SS. I don't mind not being able to export the models, etc but having the make an entirely new ship, model and all, just to change very minor things annoys me.

Does the full game at least provide the filenames of the base stuff so you can -use- it?

DamoclesX · Post by **DamoclesX** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:46 am

it has one ship.

um, I dont know I thought you could override a base ship by creating a new def in its name, but I never tryed.

I dont know if milos base ships(his mag files) can be accessed..

we have thrown the idea around at p7 when/if he does release those base ships files or allow that edits to re-do his ships with highpoly(b5 level) models(being able to export the mags files as 3ds and into max realy makes it easy lol), for those people who complain the models are to low detailed

would be a good demo of our ability anyways.

unmodfile.exe?

unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?

RE: unmodfile.exe?