ETL_player

Added by marze almost 5 years ago

Finally I should be able to share something with the ETL\CQB dev team. Nothing special, it’s just my working copy, but it might be interesting for someone to give a look and maybe make some experiments. The content of the packages is still at an early stage and it’s very rough. Nothing is completed and there is still much to do but it can be a starting point. I decided to work on ETL and CQB at the same time even if it was much more time expensive, hoping in this way to increase the opportunities of collaboration and feedback. I decided to release 2 packages (ETL/CQB) under Creative Common by-nc-nd license, which include all models, textures and future animations but the content cannot be distributed separately.
Any copyleft (or creative common licensed) contribution will be truly appreciated and will be added to the package giving all credits to the author (look at README file inside for details) otherwise if someone wants to use "non-approved materials", he/she must make a further separate pk3, to overwrite the mine for the parts of no interest.

Notes and bugs for the Z_ETL_player package:
- headset and accessories need to be completed
- the models maybe need to be scaled because they seem to be lightly smaller
- problem related to the neck deformation (even if I can minimize it with a better rig of the model, the definitive solution is to remake from scratch the animations)

Bugs for the Z_CQB_player package (tested with TCE):
- Sniper2 ignore the configuration and use same cap of Assault1
- md3_rank –> why use same md3_hat model in the .skin file? null.md3 –> works!

Bugs for the Z_CQB_player package (tested with CQB_DIM):
- lean left/right has different angle inclination (you can see it with cg_thirdperson 1, probably not related with the Z_CQB_player package)
- no blood when you damage a player (probably not related with the Z_CQB_player package)
- missing headset model or texture for all players
- all allied players use the same head (Assault1)
- all axis players use the same head (Assault1)

In the "source" directory you can find:
- reference of model texture
- ambient occlusion of the model
- .skl file (very useful to see how a correct skl file is made)
- .mds file
- .mdm file (with right tag orientation)
- .mdx file (just 10 frames of the animation that I use for rig the player model)

Maybe it would be interesting to give a modern look to the ETL mdm player and a WWII look to the CQB mdm player ...

Check my blog for the files http://marze3d.blogspot.com


Replies (24)

RE: ETL_player - Added by IR4T4 almost 5 years ago

Thank you marze. This early stage already looks very promising !!!!

RE: ETL_player - Added by marze over 4 years ago

I’m redoing the animations for ETL and adding new ones for CQB (less simple and quick than I thought ...).
The’m adding trying to keep the original (I load my set of animations by adding them to file human_base.anim –> #include "animations/human/base/etl_death.aninc"), however, I met a problem with respect to animations relating to death.
I can make some workaround but was curious to find out the reasons why giving a quickly look at the code I didn’t found nothing. Maybe someone can help me.

1) why in the body.aninc file there is the note on the top of the death animation list? —> "// deaths – do not change the order!"
what order they refer?:
"death_machinegun_1" must be declared before or "dead_machinegun_1" or "death_machinegun_1" must be declared before "death_machinegun_2" or what else?.

2) the death animations are composed of two parts. For example "death_machinegun_1" (32 frame) and "dead_machinegun_1" (one single looped frame). I change death_machinegun_1 whith my "etl_death_machinegun_1" in the human_base.script but i can’t find the way to change "dead_machinegun_1" with my "etl_dead_machinegun_1".

The problem is that ET play "etl_death_machinegun_1" and after the single frame "dead_machinegun_1" and not "etl_dead_machinegun_1"...

Thanks!

RE: ETL_player - Added by IR4T4 over 4 years ago

marze wrote:

"death_machinegun_1" must be declared before or "dead_machinegun_1" or "death_machinegun_1" must be declared before "death_machinegun_2" or what else?.

I don’t know why the order should be important here and I would think the same. Maybe it’s about keeping the overview - this file is kind of structured.
Is there a reason why you want to change the order?

2) the death animations are composed of two parts. For example "death_machinegun_1" (32 frame) and "dead_machinegun_1" (one single looped frame). I change death_machinegun_1 whith my "etl_death_machinegun_1" in the human_base.script but i can’t find the way to change "dead_machinegun_1" with my "etl_dead_machinegun_1".

As far as I can see dead_machinegun_1 isn’t defined/used anywhere in vanilla/legacy ... gonna have a look.

RE: ETL_player - Added by marze over 4 years ago

Nothing special just insert a new animations "death_rifle_head_1"

death_machinegun_1    0    32    0    20    0    0    0
dead_machinegun_1 31 1 1 20 0 0 0
>>>
death_rifle_head_2 33 52 0 20 0 0 0
death_machinegun_2 0 32 0 20 0 0 0
...

Also seems that there is no possibility to use different wounded_idle & revive animation for different death.
I mean something like this :
death_machinegun_1–> wounded_idle_1 –> revive_1 or
death_rifle_head_2–> wounded_idle_2 –> revive_2

RE: ETL_player - Added by Dragonji over 4 years ago

Does it mean that new models will be exclusive for Legacy mod?

RE: ETL_player - Added by marze over 4 years ago

I have maintained the best compatibility keeping the same proportions as the old ones so you can use them with any original mdx. They are compatible with any mod and engine that uses the original mdm/mdx. I’m going to create a female character but obviously in this case all the original animations will be incompatible
For example, ETL can use the CQB players models and vice versa

RE: ETL_player - Added by Danfun64 over 4 years ago

I don’t like the license you picked. If the legacy mod will be standalone someday, it should be DFSG-complient IMO. The license you suggest not only forbids modification but commercial usage. I would hope that a standalone legacy mod would be completely libre. Maybe a better license would be gpl, cc by, or cc by sa?

RE: ETL_player - Added by Spyhawk over 4 years ago

Although ET:Legacy code is under GPLv3, current assets are still under the original proprietary license. For new assets, I’m not strictly against a non-commercial clause, but the forbidden modification clause is a no-go from my side.

RE: ETL_player - Added by marze over 4 years ago

Danfun64 I am very pleased you think that my work can be part of a commercial product. Since you support the commercial use, you can do your best offer. I will donate all the money that I will receive to a team that develops free software (for example the ETL or CQB team), as incentive.

No Derivative choice is mostly to avoid contamination from copyrighted material taken from other games and to avoid any confusion in a working copy. No Derivative option can also be safely ignored by private agreements if needed and I will have no trouble to make exceptions to some trustworthy man although in my opinion a modeller or a skinner should not need to use and modify what I have done because it’s not a top quality work.
I published the two packages for ETL and CQB seven months ago and I have never received any contributions. So, considering I am not part of any team, I have no reason at the moment to change the type of license.

From Z_ETL_player_README.txt ...

#Notes:
- This work was made for educational purpose.

- The content of this package is optimized for the game "Enemy Territory Legacy" (http://www.etlegacy.com/)

- The license is CC BY-NC-ND. The reason for ND is:
1) So people don’t fork it while I was working on it
2) to try to maintain a little more control over how the package is used and its content.

- Any contribution is welcome and will be integrated in the package giving all credits to the author.
The requirements are:
1) the contribution must be brand new and absolutely not copyrighted (copyrighted art asset from other games can not be approved).
2) the contribution must be of good quality.
3) the contribution must be approved by the maintainer of the package (currently me)

RE: ETL_player - Added by Dragonji over 4 years ago

Sorry marze, but no possibility to modify it is unacceptable by ET:L...

1. Dev team can’t fix anything on their own.
2. Your work will become "dead" if you’ll be unreachable in the future.

Just 2 reasons I could think of in a few seconds, but you get my idea.

RE: ETL_player - Added by Jacker over 4 years ago

The models we would use would need to be at the least editable by the dev team in the future, also we would need the original project files (3dsmax/blender?). Otherwise the models are somewhat useless to us

RE: ETL_player - Added by marze over 4 years ago

Honestly I don’t have much to add to what I’ve already written. Currently there are not the conditions to change the license.
I think that the best solution for the ET:L Dev Team is to use copyrighted asset of Splashdamage and remake it from scratch step by step (I’m sure the results will be excellent). In my opinion is also better abandon the mdm/mdx format beacause is extremely limited and not easy to handle.

Good luck!

RE: ETL_player - Added by Jacker over 4 years ago

marze wrote:

Honestly I don’t have much to add to what I’ve already written. Currently there are not the conditions to change the license.
I think that the best solution for the ET:L Dev Team is to use copyrighted asset of Splashdamage and remake it from scratch step by step (I’m sure the results will be excellent). In my opinion is also better abandon the mdm/mdx format beacause is extremely limited and not easy to handle.

Good luck!

I do not understand the issue really, why would you not want to share the work? Since its a bad deal for us to use something we have no control over..

RE: ETL_player - Added by marze about 4 years ago

Generally not in favor of releasing a product unconditionally because often someone uses it very different or contrary to intentions of the creator. I have no reason to delete the clause "No Derivative" since I can make private arrangements for any exceptions with individuals or teams that undertake to respect my terms (as I wrote before).

In the specific case to be as clear as possible I haven’t problem to authorize (only) the ET:L dev team to modify my work or appoint a new maintainer of the package if the team agrees to my conditions (just for example ... not mix what I did with copyrighted material or not use it to propagate racism).

To be honest I would have liked to speak also of the content (since it’s only a working copy). There are many things to add without even touching the contents of my package (head asset, body assets, weapons, arms, arms animations, and all textures)...
Anyway ... I’m sorry if this is not enough, but for the moment I’m not going to eliminate the "No Derivative" option.

RE: ETL_player - Added by Danfun64 about 4 years ago

marze wrote:

... I haven’t problem to authorize (only) the ET:L dev team to modify my work or appoint a new maintainer of the package if the team agrees to my conditions (just for example ... not use it to propagate racism).

That sounds like JSON’s infamous "Do No Evil" clause which goes against the spirit of Free Software. http://apebox.org/wordpress/linux/456

I understand that you are protective of your work, but I doubt ETLegacy will adopt it if it can’t be released under a free license. Besides, what qualifies as "racism"? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EverythingIsRacist

RE: ETL_player - Added by Spyhawk about 4 years ago

marze> With all due respect, the reasons you mentioned not to allow your work to be modified aren’t really valid. Not mixing with incompatible license is obviously covered by the license itself, and racism is completely orthogonal to the licensing issue.

I’d also personally prefer not to have a special clause that restricts the modification right to the ETL team only but have the same license for everybody, as this might be much more beneficial to the project on the longer term. Everybody could help improve the models, not just us. In other word, I’m personally fine in not using your work, as I’m sure other people will contribute in a way that is beneficial for both parties.

RE: ETL_player - Added by marze about 4 years ago

and no one talks about the contents of the package ...
Those of the CQB team must be crazy because they immediately started to experiment, to find bugs, to add things and try to help without talking about the license.
I’m more convinced that I made the right choice.

RE: ETL_player - Added by Danfun64 about 4 years ago

It doesn’t matter how good a car looks if you aren’t allowed to put it in reverse.

If I was to continue the car analogy, than CQB is a racecar, designed to go around the circuit. It may be fun, but its closed nature means that you are more prone to crashes and only allowed to use it in a certain way. Regular cars, while they may not seem as exciting at first, are more flexible, with some cars having their engines converted to use other fuel.

RE: ETL_player - Added by Dragonji about 4 years ago

marze wrote:

and no one talks about the contents of the package ...

You try to sound like you had strong valid arguments supporting that your choice of license is right. But so far, to me it looks like you chose ND because you just want it and won’t change your opinion. While NC isn’t really a problem and I fully understand you here, ND is a misconception and your arguments seems to be mostly invalid in my point of view.

marze wrote:

I’m more convinced that I made the right choice.

I think that you just don’t want to listen to our arguments but well, it’s your choice.

RE: ETL_player - Added by illwieckz about 4 years ago

Hi marze,

just for example ... not mix what I did with copyrighted material

All material is copyrighted by default, even cc-by material is copyrighted. This is how copyright work: you don’t need to write a license to forbid (all is forbidden by default, you have all the rights and nobody else has one), but you need to write a license to explicitly say what you allow others to do. Do not confuse “copyrighted” with “others can’t do nothing”, “copyrighted” means “you are the guy who decides what others can do”.

So, by saying “[I use no-derivative clause to forbid others to] mix what I did with copyrighted material” you are just saying : “[I use no-derivative clause to forbid others to] mix what I did with no-derivative material”.

So, if you don’t want to see your work being mixed with third-party no-derivative material, you must use a copyleft license, not a no-derivative license. So, you need the share-alike clause, not the no-derivative clause.

Also, the share-alike clause does not forbid you to do private arrangements with people that does not agree with it (it’s how copyright work).

or not use it to propagate racism

If someone wants to use your work to do something illegal, he is already ok to use illegally your work too. So, the no-derivative clause is useless to fix this issue (and no license can fix this issue, only authority).

So, this issue about ETL_Player is the same as the cqb source code thread: without source and right to modify source, it’s just a cooling-down dead body: still warm, but already dead.

and no one talks about the contents of the package…

Well, if ET:Legacy guys decided to only use modifiable work, the content of a no-derivative package is unavailable to them, so it’s normal if they don’t talk about it. They will be able to talk about the content only if the package allows derivatives.

It’s like selling a car nobody can use, and guessing why nobody ask the price.

Well, that’s said, the no-derivative clause is not what you need, with all what you said, what you need is the share-alike clause.

RE: ETL_player - Added by keMoN about 4 years ago

I just wanted to add my 2 cents here. I understand that you are trying to be protective of your work, I am as well. I worked roughly 2 years on the texture package for ET:L and am really proud and protective of the results. The license I chose is CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/). (I know that at least one person disagrees with that license, but that’s it for now.)

I have to agree with the general pov here, because a license that prevents modification is simply unacceptable for ET standards. In this game you can 'literally’ tweak anything, which makes this game more interesting for devs/players.
IF there is the need to modify/adapt/change/improve/.../ your work, the license will make sure you still get appropriate credits and also the indication for made changes. So if someone chooses to mess with your work, people can see that the original work was good, but the applied changes not.

Please carefully read through the link I posted. I hope this fits your needs!

RE: ETL_player - Added by Spyhawk about 4 years ago

marze wrote:

and no one talks about the contents of the package ...
Those of the CQB team must be crazy because they immediately started to experiment, to find bugs, to add things and try to help without talking about the license.
I’m more convinced that I made the right choice.

I did try your models, and I’d say they look quite good. I’d have a few complaints (like all models having the same face), but nothing that couldn’t be improved.

Yes, the license is important. The reason I’d prefer a clear license for everybody rather than an exception for ET:L is because we can quickly reach some grey area. As we currently don’t have a dedicated 3D modeler in the team, would it means we only need to "hire" someone (even temporarily) so he could modify the 3D models for us? In case only a specific person can modify the models, what happens if that person goes missing because of real life events or lose interest in contributing to ET:L? In case a proper license is chosen as a whole, we know from the start what we can do on the longer term, and you know from the start what you allow to happen.

But in the current state, I’m afraid your current license doesn’t bring any advantage over the stock assets. It’s not worst, but not better either.
And yes, CQB can’t really be compared to ET:L, as we try to be as open as possible.

As stated by Kemon, I’d encourage you to have a look at the various Creative Commons license and read about them. One of them might be what you’re actually looking for. Also, please don’t take all of the previous posts personally, as discussion on the Internet can be misinterpreted easily

Lastly, note that I’m only stating my personal opinion, it doesn’t necessarily reflect ET:L as a whole.

RE: ETL_player - Added by marze 3 months ago

Z_ETL_players_20190315.pk3 ready
I completed the ETL_players package and it seems valid for a first test phase. There is some problem of the mdm/md3 models with dynamic light (and face normals) but I’m thinking that it is a engine problem (I read that someone in some forum talks about it). For example in the limbo menu the player’s head (top right) is illuminated by a dynamic light and it is seen that the effect is not optimal (the behavior is the same even with the original heads even if you notice less). Anyway the ETL engine looks much better then the ET engine.
Unfortunately I am not a skilled skinner and the textures need to be improved especially those of the faces because they are too equal to each other and have no personality. An excellent and quick solution would be to obtain copyleft photographs of heads (front, 3/4, left or rigt, back) and retouch them. Anyway in this initial phase the textures of the heads may be fine and for the moment I don’t improving them (I hope that some skilled 2d / skinner graphics can improve the textures for me) because I would like to focus on the first-view arms and weapons and on third-view animations.
Facial animations, expressions and blood seem ok except for the idle animation of when the player is seriously injured.

I found these problems:
- wrong normals with md3/mdm models when the faces are mirrored (even if outside the uv space) that are to be taken into consideration for future models
- the original maps are out of scale respect to the original player’s model (for example check the dimensions of the doors compared to the height of the player)
- many original weapons in the third person view are out of scale and should be redone.
- the rank on the helmet/cap looks too big.
- problems with heavy weapons MG / Mortar / MG tank mounted
- maybe tag_weapons & tag_weapons2 (hands) non perfectly aligned
- trouble when the player is prone with heavy weapons
- i forgot to make the model of the player without clothes
- in general the textures resolution degrade even the player’s view is close (to work around I added nomipmaps & nopicmip in the shader)

Please, as already mentioned in the past, don’t focus your attention on the type of license I am using in this initial test phase.

Check my blog for the files http://marze3d.blogspot.com

RE: ETL_player - Added by keMoN 3 months ago

That sounds very promising. I’ll have a closer test-run with them once I’m back with my desktop PC end of March.
Thank you for putting in the work! Highly appreciated.

Until now I only worked with world textures and never something as delicate as player textures, but I’ll see if I can come up with something.
But again, can’t do much before end of March, because my laptop only has the bare minimum installed, sorry.

(1-24/24)