Special Aircraft Service

The SAS Factory - Tech Help, Ancient Mods etc. => Tech Help (other than BAT or IL-2 Great Battles) => Tech Help : Making Mods => Topic started by: SAS~CirX on March 07, 2011, 12:00:07 PM

Title: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding subject are not allowed
Post by: SAS~CirX on March 07, 2011, 12:00:07 PM
Hi everyone

This post is primarily about SFS packing, and why we will not allow discussion of it. But it also relates to subjects like the encryption of Buttons and the encryption of COD files ect.

When about 2 years ago, CharlieChap from HSFX got an SFS packer for use on SEOW packs, he shared the results of it (the SFS archives) with the wider community. This led to some being under the impression that I too have such an SFS packer, and a flood of emails and PM's, requesting copies of it. I of course did not, and a number of the requests turned quite nasty and insulting. Many accused me of being a "modding mafia" and a traitor to free modding and all kinds of bullshit. Some tried emotional blackmail and all sorts of underhanded tricks and angles to get it from me.

Now, Lutz and Hades have an SFS packer which Lutz developed over the course of two years . This time around I made it very clear, publically, that I DO NOT HAVE IT. Nor do I want it. I DO NOT want to go through the same shit again as last time. Yet, apart from a few enquiries that were quite polite, I seem destined to.

I do not have a big installation of mods slowing my loading times, I have UP2.01 on 4.09. I use my SAS Modact installs largely for testing and development and experimentation, and they have only a few small mods in them. So I have never had the need myself.

I have a great working relationship with UP and HSFX, and have always been able to have crucial mods (all of which are available here) packed into SFS, for all to enjoy, and will continue to do so in future.

Now, SFS packing is a powerfull tool for packers of ModPacks. Unfortunately, there are sites out there trying to get their hands on such a thing for no other reason that to make money, and with no regard for the division they will cause again in the IL2 world. I know that if I ever have it, a few of my friends will get it from me, and soon, it will be all over.

So here, for the last time : I DO NOT HAVE AN SFS PACKER.

Nor was I involved, apart from being invited years ago to a few private development discussions (which I did not understand anyway), in it's development. I have no information on how it works.

We are also not going to allow anyone on this site to discuss it in open forums, or allow users to badger people by PM about it. This is because there are people out there, as I have mentioned, who want this for private gain, and will destroy happily the balance and unity that we have worked hard with HSFX, UP, C6, and other sites to achive. To have a limited number of packs for online play in SFS brings a lot of stability to our world, and allows for much more creativity and productivity from the many modders who are avid online players.

Regarding Buttons and COD encoding. Although I have these tools, they are not up for public discussion (although we are always OK with discussion of their contents and bugs from that, as we always have). There are paranoid people out there who accuse us of being some sort of surpressive conspiracy to keep modding knowledge secret.

The truth is (as those same paranoids will know first hand) that we have never turned a serious modder away or refused them knowledge they needed for their projects. Ever. Just because we do it in private and in closed forums, does not mean we are trying to ruthlessly surpress all knowledge of modding, or that we are on some sort of evil power trip.

We just think it is irresponsible to make some powerfull and easy to use modding tools available to every pre-puberty teenager and his posse out there. Sure, for us offliners it would be no big deal, but for online players, it would litteraly be the end of the world. And without the modding contributions of the online crowd, people, the SAS would be a much quieter place.

We know that this attitude of ours may not be to the taste of some out there, but that is how we roll. You may disagree, and you may be the guy to one day splash these tools open for all to see. You may be the guy who goes down in history as the cat who fucked up IL2 for everyone. But it is not going to happen here.

So please be aware, if you post such tool related questions or discussions, and your post dissapears, this is why. If we merely make some fun of it, you are lucky. If we get a report of a PM that is out of line, there will be have to answer for it. If you are a serious modder with a serious need for Buttons access or COD help, then you will know you have the full right to ask, privately, for help, and if you have the shit to back your self up, you will get the help. But be aware, we have also not been in IL2 modding since yesterday, and mostly, we can tell one way or the other.

These rules in NO WAY prohibits the discussion of button or COD or SFS mod related issues that users may have. Those are always welcome.

Thank you
CirX
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: Jonzynator on March 07, 2011, 02:54:26 PM
SFS Repacking should stay with the ModPacks, just because they are so large, I believe their is no need to have each mod repacked into a SFS, it would just cause conflicts.

~S~ Jones
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: Mick on March 08, 2011, 12:13:55 AM
Regarding Buttons and COD encoding. Although I have these tools

... with a serious need for Buttons access or COD help,


Jeez CirX, you already cracked Cliffs Of Dover ...!!  :P
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: SAS~CirX on March 08, 2011, 01:33:52 AM
Jeez CirX, you already cracked Cliffs Of Dover ...!!  :P

Haha! hardly!  :D No, COD is a type of encrypted file used in IL2 that relates to weapons loadouts and bombclasses, and some other things.
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: SAS~Storebror on March 08, 2011, 02:57:17 AM
COD is a type of encrypted file used in IL2 that relates to weapons loadouts and bombclasses, and some other things.
Sure.
I thought it's where the easteregg screens are. The naked ladies, Paulo Hirth's avatar etc ;)

Best regards - Mike
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: Eexhaton on March 08, 2011, 03:37:44 AM
Now, Lutz and Hades have an SFS packer which Lutz developed over the course of two years . This time around I made it very clear, publically, that I DO NOT HAVE IT. Nor do I want it. I DO NOT want to go through the same shit again as last time. Yet, apart from a few enquiries that were quite polite, I seem destined to.

Now not to be a smartass, but is this wisdom?
Since you don't want people to bug you (CirX), and assuming the SFS packer tool is not freely available, you just might direct people directly towards Lutz and HadeS with this, who I hope, are aware of this. ;)

Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: IamIsaid on March 08, 2011, 05:23:33 AM
Now not to be a smartass, but is this wisdom?
Since you don't want people to bug you (CirX), and assuming the SFS packer tool is not freely available, you just might direct people directly towards Lutz and HadeS with this, who I hope, are aware of this. ;)

As I understand it, the problem is not to redirect inquiries, but that people do not believe that he does not have the packer, leading to accusations and flames.

It is perhaps one of those things that you can never make some people believe. You can never prove that you dont have it :D
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: II/JG51-Lutz on March 08, 2011, 05:39:12 AM
Once again, I can confirm.

Two SFS packer distribs are available: one for Hades for UP and the other on my side foreseen to package II/JG51 AOC mod.

[edit]
Now, I understand. Up to now, I thought that cod was a kind of fish ...
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: SAS~Malone on March 09, 2011, 12:23:32 AM
soon the Cash On Delivery offers will be coming in for Lutz's packer.... ;D :D
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: II/JG51-Lutz on March 09, 2011, 01:01:26 AM
I confirm, it is not for Call Of Duty.
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: asheshouse on March 09, 2011, 01:47:36 PM
Isnt the European Union planning to ban Cod?
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: SAS~CirX on March 09, 2011, 02:05:55 PM
I dont know, but there was several institutions around the world that wanted to ban "the Da Vinci Cod"
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: Jafa on March 09, 2011, 03:36:10 PM
Oh for Cod's sake  ;D
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: PhoenixOrion on March 10, 2011, 02:43:07 AM
Can I send u my 23.8 gig mod to be packed? LOL. JK Eventually I'd like to pack it but it is bloated and waiting for ultrapacks new version. I'm sure that it will cut quite a bit of it down. I did turn this mega mod of mine into an sfs archive and when I was done I think it was a little over 8 gigs but unfortunately IL-2 would not access it but now I realized that I did not add it to the .rc file list as well but even if I did I'm thinking it wouldn't work. In no way do I want to cheat. I just have a crapload of mods from here and allaircraft service that I use online so the game looks and sounds better when I play that I have consolodated into one mod folder thats the only way I figured out how to get that much stuff to work together where I know nothing is conflicting. It would be nice to do. But I do see your points and understand where your coming from. I think I've asked u this before but is there any chance Ultrapack is gonna come out with there newest pack before cliffs of dover. I also think this will keep people more interested in IL-2 and not just getting cliffs of dover and forgetting about the older game which will have more planes and so on not that they'll forget anyway but I do think it would help.
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: StG77_HaDeS on March 10, 2011, 03:09:43 AM
is there any chance Ultrapack is gonna come out with there newest pack before cliffs of dover.

Yes. ;)
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: Mick on March 10, 2011, 05:43:24 AM
... now I understand why the release of CoD has been (apparently) delayed ...  ;D
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: Anders_And on March 10, 2011, 06:11:35 AM
Hey Cirx can you help me with one thing?
Do you have the SFS packer?! I have heard you did...
Can you send it to me?
 :P
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: Mick on March 10, 2011, 06:14:08 AM
... you should have read the first page ...

"I DO NOT HAVE IT. Nor do I want it."  ;)
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: II/JG51-Lutz on March 10, 2011, 06:19:35 AM
Cirx has not this packer: http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,14360.0.html (http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,14360.0.html)

and for Hades (he can confirm), or for me (including II/JG51)  we have taken a common decision (6 months ago) to not distribute it.
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: Anders_And on March 10, 2011, 07:25:40 AM
Haha clearly some people just dont get sarcasm... Even with a smiley underneath my last reply haha...
Guess its cultural diffrences... In some societies there is no sarcasm, neither on tv or radio... Switzerland and Belgium in Europe etc etc come to mind as an example. With these people u can make sarcastic jokes and they will just look at you without understandting at all... On the other end of the scale u have countries like Netherlands, Uk and the Scandinavian countries... Thank God for these countries and mentalities..
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: SAS~CirX on March 10, 2011, 09:22:23 AM
Well, you know, the greatest inside joke shared by the greatest masters of sarcasm was to convince others that they weren't. ;)
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: SAS~Storebror on March 10, 2011, 10:11:25 AM
Do you have the SFS packer?!
I have the SFS packer. He's working for me since 7 years now and never disappointed me. Just send me $50 and you'll get three nice letters, two "S" and one "F" nicely packed together in a single giftbox :P

Oh and if you happen to need the cod encrypter/decrypter, he's got a new job opportunity now where he's allowed to encrypt/decrypt a trailing "e" as well, so unfortunately he's not in that business anymore ::)

Best regards - Mike
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: LuseKofte on March 10, 2011, 10:29:26 AM
You can never tell witch thread  goes funny in the beginning.... ::)
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: Mick on March 10, 2011, 11:42:06 AM
Haha clearly some people just dont get sarcasm... Even with a smiley underneath my last reply haha...

... nope mate, I did see the smiley  ;), but you know this is a very, very sensitive matter and I quite understand CirX must be more than fed up with not always polite requests ...  ::) not to mention the waste of (precious) time answering them ...  ;)
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: LuseKofte on March 10, 2011, 04:20:30 PM
is there any chance Ultrapack is gonna come out with there newest pack before cliffs of dover.

Yes. ;)

Well that is even better new`s . I wait more for UP tan COD , for some reason IL 2  is more like family   ::)
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: Ibis on April 18, 2011, 04:35:18 PM
Quote from: StG77_HaDeS on March 10, 2011, 04:09:43 AM
Quote from: PhoenixOrion on March 10, 2011, 03:43:07 AM
is there any chance Ultrapack is gonna come out with there newest pack before cliffs of dover.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.

---------------------------

  So this is the reason they pushed COD out the door before it was ready  ;D
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: dhtsword on January 24, 2015, 06:48:45 AM
While I can certainly feel the pain you have regarding the Online Playing and the Community and prevention of a cheap dollar, I still can only wonder. Wouldn't it not be very beneficial anyway to introduce IL2-Mod specific security algorithms ? For instance, a Server-Client version validation checker which is provided as a .dll by the Community Hosts ? With these YOU could effectively control exactly what happens in the Online-area of yours ! The same could apply for specific MOD flavors.
I still have the silly feel that there are still other motives in play to guard the patch one owns. A phenomenon present all through IL-2's long career.
And let's be certain, IL-2 today would be absolutely DEAD if not someone breached it, exaclty in the right moment ! May he be blessed to eternity !

I myself are now working on a quite substantial single Player only Mod myself for the last three years, and found it extremly annoying that I have no access to the CODs, or even more so the core.dll source ,so I abolished COD completly and do it my own way now. The same will be the case for the SFS enconding. It's silly !
If the core.dll would be open we could remedy the silly stars at high alt, the lo-res sky, the weather (Cloud, fog etc.), of course this would open the whole thing to be ported to 64-Bit theoretically (needing around 100 mandays minimum, or 60'000 $). So could it be in the end that still Oleg's ghost (in the form of it's Zombie like existence in C3 Maddox) is having his magic spell on this ? Ridicolous ! The Flightsim market is extremly narrow and will ONLY survive if their is an open community.
I would have paid 1000$ for an open IL-2 at any time.

The IL-2 modding community created a unique piece of art investing hundred thousands of manhours and clearly evident devotion, therefore I immensly love it !
We should invite code modders ! Deep coding is nothing for the fast hack in no percievable way, instead we do the opposite, why ??!!!

Anyone having a coding question regarding IL-2 can contact me under hdaniel_sch@bluewin.ch  (And no I don't have the COD secrets and neither the SFS packager !).
May IL-2 live on ! The possibilities are endless !
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: SAS~Storebror on January 24, 2015, 07:51:08 AM
Thread archeology, I love it!
Welcome back Daniel.

I still can only wonder.
That's plain to see. Reading a bit would help for sure.

Best regards - Mike
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding supbject are not allowed
Post by: benitomuso on January 24, 2015, 09:22:49 AM
The same will be the case for the SFS enconding. It's silly !
...

I have already made an SFS Packer / Unpacker which stores and retrieve filenames, 100% available to everybody. It is embedded in the TotalMODder V3. And SFS files are not encoded. Only the table of contents is encrypted, the real information is just compressed.

Regarding FMs, anybody with just some knowledge of how the game reads it, could read plain (non-encrypted) FMs so opening the field to direct FM manipulation.

So I don't clearly understand your complaint.

The real bottleneck of this game is its graphic engine which is not in SFS files or in buttons. Those are compiled libraries and nobody ever (except the original developers) had access to the sources.

Regards,
                     Pablo
Title: Re: Why SFS, Buttons and COD encoding subject are not allowed
Post by: DigitalEngine on May 14, 2015, 10:25:08 AM
Quote
The real bottleneck of this game is its graphic engine which is not in SFS files or in buttons. Those are compiled libraries and nobody ever (except the original developers) had access to the sources.

Just a curious rookie question, but,
is their any type of work around, or replacement for the graphics engine?

Is this something in which DT may have access to but under a non disclosure agreement?