The Bridge (AAF to NAF)

[evp]

33 minutes ago, georgechalkias said:

 

Lemme correct on that part a bit.

You can actually 'disable' the black screen in AAF ini files. You can actually shorten the 'walk to target for animation' in the same ini file. If the duration surpassed and the NPCs still couldn't meet up? It'll skip straight to anim. It's all done manually in the ini file.

But, that's where NAF becomes successor; you can manually skip the walking time in real time. If you don't skip it, they'll try to walk. Furthermore, the bridge mod allows you to tune the animation duration.

 

But, I agree that the whole copy XML files to NAF can be a negative part. Furthermore, some other issues have been noted such as no strap-on on manually assigned anims which requires some manual work and can't move with NAF menu open.

 

You probably misunderstood me on two points.
1. My computer is 15 years old. And AAF is very difficult for it. For example, it takes 20-40 seconds to load a tentacle animation in gameplay. And all this time I'm looking at a black screen. There is no walking towards each other, the animation can only start when I step on a tentacle. With the bridge, these animations start instantly. No black screens! This is true for any other animations as well.

2. I'm just a simple music listener, I'm not a composer. I turn on my player and listen to music. Same here: I have mods and I don't need a console neither NAF nor AAF. I don't use staged animations, I just play the game like 99% of other people. So the problems of strapons disappearing in staged scenes is of no concern to us. We just enjoy the gameplay. Apparently this problem is there and you care about it.

We were given a player that starts playing music immediately, not requiring us to wait half an hour.

By the way, as I understand it, NAF and AAF are just animation players. Many of these animations are not created for AAF at all. They are much older than AAF itself. I want the right to choose which player I will use for viewing. And no one can stop me from that right, not even the author of AAF, lol.

 

Edited March 16 by evp

[EgoBallistic]

4 hours ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

Now about how above is applicable to your "work".

Papyrus in Fallout 4 game gives a techical method to call functions and pass arguments to these functions. This method requires functions declarations and arguments declarations in Papyrus source code. So, when it is necessary to call any Papyrus function and pass arguments then function and argument types must be declared. It is the only known way to guarantee that function can be called.

 

This is bullshit and you know it.  By your logic no code can be copyrighted because at the end of the day it all either uses compiler functions or library functions, so all C code is the same, all Java code is the same, etc.  That's not even wrong, it's wilfully ignorant of how copyright has always worked.

 

In any event, concerning this ownership BS, the Creation Kit EULA makes it clear: MOD AUTHORS OWN THEIR MODS AND HOLD THE COPYRIGHT TO THEM:

 

Quote

2. GAME MODS; OWNERSHIP AND LICENSE TO ZENIMAX
A. Ownership. As between You and ZeniMax, You are the owner of Your Game Mods and all intellectual property rights therein, subject to the licenses You grant to ZeniMax in this Agreement. You will not permit any third party to download, distribute or use Game Mods developed or created by You for any commercial purpose.

 

Bethesda reserves itself the right to reproduce your mods, but again, the author owns them:

 

Quote

D. License to ZeniMax. Whether or not You provide a copy of one or more of Your Game Mods to ZeniMax for download from the ZeniMax Platform and in exchange for ZeniMax making the Editor available to You free of charge, You hereby grant to ZeniMax an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, fully paid, worldwide, non-exclusive right and license, with the right to sublicense through multiple tiers of distribution, to use, reproduce, modify and create derivative works from (including without limitation (a) modifications necessary to make Your Game Mods compatible with the Services (as defined in the Terms of Service); (b) modifications as ZeniMax deems necessary or desirable to enhance gameplay; and (c) where ZeniMax in its sole discretion deems modification necessary for security, statutory or other regulatory consideration), distribute, transmit, transcode, translate, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, publicly display and publicly perform and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of such Your Game Mods (or an part or element of a Game Mods), including without limitation in connection with the operation and promotion of the Services.

 

And in fact by publishing "his" mod, nodtrial is violating Beth's EULA on the CK:

 

Quote

3. YOUR REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES REGARDING GAME MODS
If You develop any Game Mods, then You represent, warrant and guaranty that:
• You own or have sufficient legal rights in all Game Mods to grant to ZeniMax the licenses described in this Agreement. This includes, without limitation, copyrights, trademark rights, rights of publicity and any other kind of intellectual property rights or other proprietary or personal rights affected by or included in any Game Mods. In particular, You represent, warrant and guarantee that each Game Mods is originally created by You (or created by You and the other identified contributors, in which You represent You have the right to submit such Game Mods on behalf of those other contributors) and that Your Game Mods do not infringe, violate or invades upon the privacy, publicity, intellectual property (including trademarks and copyright rights) or other rights of others, and do not contain any content that is libelous, defamatory, harmful, harassing, threatening or contain other illegal or scandalous content or material
• Your Game Mods do not violate any applicable contract, law, or regulation;
• Your Game Mods do not transmit, include, promote, or distribute any Trojan horses, viruses, worms, spyware, time bombs, cancelbots or other malware or malicious code that may damage, interfere with, intercept, expropriate or disrupt any software, hardware or service, including, but not limited to, any Game(s), personal information, or confidential or proprietary information;

 

Now nodtrial has removed the source from this latest version of "his" mod but the evidence is there, plain to see, that "his" mod is just a patch on AAF_API:

 

 

Now stop lying.

[Blaze69]

10 minutes ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

If there are any changes in AAF scripts that make Bridge invalid, then 3rd party mods become invalid as well. Maybe not all of them, depends on certain changes.

Can't wait to see AAF get updated to break the Bridge (and break a ton of other 3rd party mods in the process), and then for this to become an arms race of AAF code getting more obfuscated and the Bridge finding a way to work around it. If the FO4 NSFW modding scene was kinda crap compared to, say, Skyrim's before, it'll only get worse once mods need to be updated every few days to keep them working with whatever new contrived system has been added to AAF.

 

Of course this whole thing would be a nonissue if AAF was updated to add the functions NAF has and people want, because then everyone would use AAF and everybody would be happy. But I guess actually putting time and work into mod development is hard, mmkay. Easier to just fight tooth and nail to keep a monopoly so people will throw money at  Patreon for doing nothing, like every other scam porn game on F95Zone or whatever. 🙃

[kziitd]

20 minutes ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

I've answered these questions in my post.

Maybe answer is not detailed enough to be fully clear. I will try to clarify details:

3rd party mods expect functions with certain name in the script with certain name. It is the part of Papyrus scripting system, not Dagoba's "work". Dagoba had  to follow scripting engine rules with no choice, so it is not a creative work that can be protected by copyright lows.

So path and name of pex file must be identical to AAF's one. Not because of infringement, but because of functions calling system provided by Papyrus engine.

If there are any changes in AAF scripts that make Bridge invalid, then 3rd party mods become invalid as well. Maybe not all of them, depends on certain changes.

What are you talking about?

You can modify any author's original PEX, this is okay.

You directly replace without the permission of the original author, rather than as a "patch" for adding/changing. Is this okay?

So what is the significance of patches? What is the significance of the hard requirements for the original project?

Can I directly modify any of your works and publish them as they are without your consent?

Are you saying that【 AAF api.pex】 was made by Beth instead of Dagoba?

I haven't seen such a thing in all these years.

Either it's a patch or with approval.

Only ESP with the same name for translation purposes is an exception.

Edited March 16 by kziitd

[EgoBallistic]

Just now, Blaze69 said:

Of course this whole thing would be a nonissue if AAF was updated to add the functions NAF has and people want, because then everyone would use AAF and everybody would be happy. But I guess actually putting time and work into mod development is hard, mmkay.

 

Don't be a dick.  We are actually in the process of doing exactly that.  If you compare the performance of AAF v 171 compared to previous versions, it's quite a bit faster.  The update we are working on now is faster yet.  I wish we had more time to dedicate so we could get updates out faster, but that's life.

[guliguliradish]

This is the speech of legal blind people. As long as a country exercises modern law and its citizens are also modern people, it should be understood that ownership and copyright are separate. You can say that the ownership of the game belongs to Bethesda, but AAF is a work of Dagoba. Your so-called "original mod" is highly similar in functionality to Dagoba, which is enough to illustrate everything. I don't know what your original intention is for publishing, is it to attract attention from the public? Is it for personal gain? Don't you feel ashamed to plagiarize someone else's work in front of global players? Don't you feel like you've smeared your country? Perhaps plagiarism is your tradition?

[kziitd]

8 minutes ago, Blaze69 said:

Can't wait to see AAF get updated to break the Bridge (and break a ton of other 3rd party mods in the process), and then for this to become an arms race of AAF code getting more obfuscated and the Bridge finding a way to work around it. If the FO4 NSFW modding scene was kinda crap compared to, say, Skyrim's before, it'll only get worse once mods need to be updated every few days to keep them working with whatever new contrived system has been added to AAF.

 

Of course this whole thing would be a nonissue if AAF was updated to add the functions NAF has and people want, because then everyone would use AAF and everybody would be happy. But I guess actually putting time and work into mod development is hard, mmkay. Easier to just fight tooth and nail to keep a monopoly so people will throw money at  Patreon for doing nothing, like every other scam porn game on F95Zone or whatever. 🙃

Ego made the AAF version without a PC clone before the end of last year.

We will wait and see.

Yes, this has promoted the development of mods.

But development does not mean that I can modify your things without permission, not as patches, but release them as is and claim that there is no infringement.

[TheBottomhoodofSteel]

57 minutes ago, evp said:

 

 

Ease of Installation:

• Proper installation of an AAF is something not everyone can do. The existence of an "Fucking Manual" is proof of this.
• AAF is installed by the mod manager in two clicks. It can just as easily be installed manually.

 

AAF bad because a unrelated guide to having a fully decked out sex mod installation is about the STUPIDEST take I have ever had to witness and I am sure you typed this out with all the confidence you had that you would sound like such a smart reviewer but honest to god you sound like your teacher handed all your tests back quietly and face down at that. 

[guliguliradish]

A stinky dog poop fell into the thick potato soup, it's really disgusting

[Blaze69]

18 minutes ago, EgoBallistic said:

Don't be a dick.  We are actually in the process of doing exactly that.  If you compare the performance of AAF v 171 compared to previous versions, it's quite a bit faster.  The update we are working on now is faster yet.  I wish we had more time to dedicate so we could get updates out faster, but that's life.

I don't want to be a dick, I want AAF to be updated with all the features it can, so that sex mods for FO4 stop being too much work for too little shitty result and become something on par with Skyrim. And I do want to believe that you guys are all working hard at getting it done.

But when the response to NAF is to keep throwing temper tantrums and trying to pull connections to get the competition unperson'd and haram'd from LL and/or Nexus, with (seemingly, until this very post) no talk of updating AAF whatsoever, then it gets harder to root for the AAF team and not have a cynic outlook on the whole ordeal. Maybe if there wasn't a Patreon involved, I would be more willing to side with AAF.

(Although for the record, I do know Snapdragon has a Ko-Fi, so that side isn't completely innocent on that topic).

Edited March 16 by Blaze69

[guliguliradish]

Short sightedness is really scary. If a high-quality author's work can be easily plagiarized, will the author still update their work? Shouldn't you pay for someone else's service to you? Talking about someone else's poor work, but actually continuing to enjoy their work results, please use your own buttocks to think about whether you are ridiculous or not?

[guliguliradish]

Plagiarize someone else's things and shamelessly claim not to have plagiarized. "If someone accuses me of this, it must be that person's mistake."
I don't know what kind of family education can cultivate such a personality.

[TheBottomhoodofSteel]

16 minutes ago, Blaze69 said:

I don't want to be a dick

 

Yet here we are with you showing once again your constant disdain for FO4 and spouting ignorant nonsense.

 

May have been best for you to sit this one out 

[PCGameFanatic]

I have used AAF since day 1, think its best I stick with that. Maybe an update for it is out, hell if I know I am no modder just an end user. Any new animations for FO4 out yet?

Edited March 16 by PCGameFanatic

[Dlinny_Lag]

2 hours ago, EgoBallistic said:

This is bullshit and you know it.  By your logic no code can be copyrighted because at the end of the day it all either uses compiler functions or library functions, so all C code is the same, all Java code is the same, etc.  That's not even wrong, it's wilfully ignorant of how copyright has always worked.

It seems you didn't get explanation right.

 

You just changed the direction when started to say that "all code is same". No, it is not. And I never meant this.

I'm saying about what code is under copyright protection and what is not under protection.

The expression of idea that can be expressed in the single way only is not under protection. I quoted it in my post. It also named "merging of idea and expression" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction

The idea that Bridge tries to express - allow to use NAF functionality without 3rd party code modification. And there is no known way to express this idea rather than placing the .pex file with same functions and structures declrations (not implementations) at the same path as AAF's one. The only way we have to make that pex - declare functions and structures in .psc file and compile it. There is just no other known way. And this causes necessity of partial copying of AAF functions and structures declarations (not implementation). It is forced by currently existing tools and approaches. 

AAF tries to express the similar idea - allow to use AAF functionality without 3rd party code modification, when possible. And the only know way to achieve this - keep functions and structures declarations same from version to version.

The idea "change behavior without 3rd paty code modification" (bug fix or calling of something else) has the only single known way to express - place identical functions and structures declarations (not implementations) to the .psc file with same name and compile it.

It is the limitation of Papyrus scripting system and I do not know any samples of these limits exceeding. If you know a sample where it done in other way - share your knowledge, I will stop saying that merging doctrine need to be applied here.

 

 

Edited March 16 by Dlinny_Lag

[nodtrial]

I kindly ask the moderator to clear the thread of all these discussions about who is the copyright holder of whom. I don't see posts from people who are reporting something about mod and want support.

I kindly ask everyone concerned about copyright ownership to create a separate thread on the forum and continue the debate there.

As I told earlier English is not my native (I think here is many people from all world) and it is hard enough to read much text trying to understand if it has affinity to the mod's support or not.

Edited March 16 by nodtrial

[ponzipyramid]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

[dagobaking]

7 hours ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

@dagobaking

In Bridge, there is no infringement at all, I do not see any idea expression copied. If you want to prove infringement you have to show identical expressions, not functions and structures declarations.

 

Dlinny. I've already been through this with you. Your approach appears to be: lose an argument, google some new theory and present that instead. You clearly do not know anything about this subject.

 

Functions and structure IS considered part of expression in software. I proved that in the last debate when I pointed out the common comparison tool used by US and foreign courts around the world to analyze software copyright cases. But, go ahead and pretend like that doesn't exist.

 

Regarding Bridge, the author posted the mod with source on Nexus. The diff I posted was from the authors own source file. And it is very obviously a copy of my work.

 

Here he simply removed the source file and is being dodgy about admitting he posted it on Nexus too. He also dishonestly let Ashal believe that the diff I posted was not of his mod source file.

 

7 hours ago, nodtrial said:

Stupid or not, but it is. It is in bethesda license.

 

I think you have been clearly refuted on this point by others posting the actual text of the "license".

 

You are wrong about this.

 

2 hours ago, jarno5 said:

This is the reason why we ask premission from mod authors to make patches and such.

 

Thank you. It puts me in an awkward position since my own mod is involved. But, this is exactly what I was trying to say early on.

 

If permissions are dead now in modding, it's not going to be a good end result for mod users.

 

2 hours ago, Blaze69 said:

Can't wait to see AAF get updated to break the Bridge (and break a ton of other 3rd party mods in the process), and then for this to become an arms race of AAF code getting more obfuscated and the Bridge finding a way to work around it.

 

Haha. How is that not the logical result of the NAF groups actions?

 

You expect mod authors to just roll over and let themselves be taken advantage of? Why? Because some users who haven't contributed nearly as much effort want them to?

 

1 hour ago, Blaze69 said:

I don't want to be a dick, I want AAF to be updated with all the features it can, so that sex mods for FO4 stop being too much work for too little shitty result and become something on par with Skyrim. And I do want to believe that you guys are all working hard at getting it done.

 

A lot of people like and use AAF just the way it is now. Just because some people dont like something about it doesn't entitle you or a little band of people on discord to take it over or attempt to speak for everyone.

 

While the NAF assholes were busy trying to figure out how to steal from my efforts more, I learned how to use Blender from scratch and made an animation rig for it for FO4. Something that has been missing for years.

 

There is a shit ton of things that people could do to improve AAF options, etc. and FO4 modding in general. And none of them involve hijacking AAF.

 

1 hour ago, ballofdog said:

Talking about someone else's poor work, but actually continuing to enjoy their work results, please use your own buttocks to think about whether you are ridiculous or not?

 

Thank you. Exactly.

 

1 hour ago, PCGameFanatic said:

I have used AAF since day 1, think its best I stick with that. Maybe an update for it is out, hell if I know I am no modder just an end user. Any new animations for FO4 out yet?

 

Thank you for using it.

 

There is an update in the works.

 

And I just want to add some context around updates since it keeps coming up:

 

There are two reasons AAF hasn't been updated as much lately. One, IRL issues that I would rather not share. Two, AAF actually got far ahead of mod authors in terms of features being used.

 

In relatively short time, I built out a ton of code to handle various features. And to this day, a lot of them still haven't been implemented. I can't really polish or fix features that aren't even being used by anyone. And it doesn't really make sense to keep adding new features when there is already a list of features people haven't used yet.

 

What people typically mean when they say AAF needs to be "fixed" is that they just want a different kind of framework. Perhaps like sexlab. I've addressed that at length multiple times before. I made AAF based on the things I wanted to see and a lot of other people like it too. But, I fully acknowledge its different than sexlab or other frameworks with its own pros/cons. The solution is for someone to make sexlab style or other new framework on their own.

 

Obviously, if people want a different framework, it doesn't make logical sense to rip off and copy the one they don't like.

[vaultbait]

Wow, this was certainly something to wake up to on a Saturday. My read is that there is a serious disconnect between people from various parts of the world with different (or no) concepts of copyright, people trying to debate through terrible computer-assisted language autotranslation, and rather a lot of clueless users who don't have the faintest understanding of how to adjust configuration defaults for the mods they think they're using.

 

AAF performance is fine, you're clearly using it wrong. NAF proponents seem to have little if no respect for the work other mods authors put into what they're sharing with everyone else. I already had limited interest in trying to support NAF users with my mods, but four pages of strawman argument and reductio ad absurdum have thoroughly convinced me that NAF users don't actually want mod authors to support it, they just want a soapbox to complain about how they're being oppressed by the establishment. That's rich.

 

I'm going to get back to actually working on something, as I rather regret reading through all this now.

[kziitd]

1 hour ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

It seems you didn't get explanation right.

 

You just changed the direction when started to say that "all code is same". No, it is not. And I never meant this.

I'm saying about what code is under copyright protection and what is not under protection.

The expression of idea that can be expressed in the single way only is not under protection. I quoted it in my post. It also named "merging of idea and expression" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction

The idea that Bridge tries to express - allow to use NAF functionality without 3rd party code modification. And there is no known way to express this idea rather than placing the .pex file with same functions and structures declrations (not implementations) at the same path as AAF's one. The only way we have to make that pex - declare functions and structures in .psc file and compile it. There is just no other known way. And this causes necessity of partial copying of AAF functions and structures declarations (not implementation). It is forced by currently existing tools and approaches. 

AAF tries to express the similar idea - allow to use AAF functionality without 3rd patry code modification, when possible. And the only know way to achieve this - keep functions and structures declarations same from version to version.

The idea "change behavior without 3rd paty code modification" (bug fix or calling of something else) has the only single known way to express - place identical functions and structures declarations (not implementations) to the .psc file with same name and compile it.

It is the limitation of Papyrus scripting system and I do not know any samples of these limits exceeding. If you know a sample where it done in other way - share your knowledge, I will stop saying that merging doctrine need to be applied here.

 

 

It's ridiculous.

The essence of the matter is that you must obtain the author's permission to "replace" the release/takeover of any modifications, otherwise it is a patch. There is no possibility of direct replacement without permission.

The author of AAf has not disappeared, AAf is still under management, and the PEX of AAf API is still under the management of AAF author.

NAF users are looking forward to the NAF version of the Fo4 adult mod, so they finally came up with this method?

Not to ask the author of the mod if they can create a NAF version, but to make the mod think they are still interacting with AAF?

I stayed directly at your house and told all the relatives/friends who came to visit, I am you.

And you have already said that you do not allow me to impersonate you.

The technique of sophistry is simply breathtaking.

[dagobaking]

15 hours ago, Ashal said:

 

They have shown plenty of extensive proof in the past regarding NAF. I'm just not accepting this one piece's current case.

 

Hello Ashal.

 

Just to follow up on this. My source confirmed that the diff file did in fact come from the authors source file. So, I was not inaccurate or misleading in any way. He copied my file, edited it and is now calling it his own work.

 

He posted this mod on Nexus with the source code included. And it has now gone into moderation review there because of the copying issue. That's why he was being coy about admitting that he posted this to Nexus too.

 

He simply removed the source files and reposted it here. And when the issue came up last night he sat there and let you believe I was just making things up. When he really knew I was correct.

 

I'm not sure what more is needed to remove this mod?

 

1) Its taken down (at least currently) at Nexus.

2) The author misled you directly in this thread.

3) The diff is correct. He started with my source file and modified it slightly. The best he can do now is try to superficially change how it looks. But, the fact will remain that it is derived from my work.

4) The entire purpose of the mod is to route calls to an allowed mod to one that is not allowed. If that isn't a rule violation, I don't see how it doesn't logically suggest that the rules are contradictory and need to be updated.

Edited March 16 by dagobaking

[Dlinny_Lag]

11 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Your approach appears to be: lose an argument

I don't lose my arguments. You just ignoring them and I'm trying to find anything else that you will not ignore. How comfortable, isnt' it?

Just a reminder, "the plaintiff still carries the burden of proof that infringement occurred". We never saw anything that can be considered as a proof other than in your head.

 

14 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Functions and structure IS considered part of expression in software.

Agree, but it doesn't mean that some particular expression will be protected. There are exclusions. 

[dagobaking]

4 minutes ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

Agree, but it doesn't mean that some particular expression will be protected. There are exclusions. 

 

This is just proving my point about you. You just wrote function and structure aren't part of expression. I point out that they are. You lost that point.

 

But, instead of just admitting that you vaguely bring up "exclusions".

 

Yes. There ARE exclusions. But, they are are for very defined and narrow reasons that do not apply in either the Bridge or NAF case. The exclusions are for things like "works of parody" and "educational material".

Edited March 16 by dagobaking

[Dlinny_Lag]

25 minutes ago, kziitd said:

The essence of the matter is that you must obtain the author's permission to "replace" the release/takeover of any modifications, otherwise it is a patch. There is no possibility of direct replacement without permission.

 

The quote from AAF download page:

Quote

• No permission is given to host, offer, sell this mod anywhere else.
• No permission is given to reverse engineer, fork or otherwise modify this mod.
• No permission is given for this mod to be used in any mod pack without prior written permission.
• AAF is packaged for user convenience with an F4SE plugin ("LLFP") with the permission of the author "jaam". No permissions for LLFP are extended to anyone by me.

Bridge is not a modification of the original mod. And definitely not a replacement %)

It provides same API as the original mod. And I explained how it appear that code is partially same. And how merge doctrine applicable here. I understand that it is a complex area and it is hard to explain in a way to be easily understandable by other people. Maybe I'm not clear enough.

 

36 minutes ago, kziitd said:

I stayed directly at your house and told all the relatives/friends who came to visit, I am you.

And you have already said that you do not allow me to impersonate you.

Interesting metaphor, I suppose you are trying to explain "replacement" idea. But again, Bridge is not a replacement of AAF.

[Dlinny_Lag]

18 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

This is just proving my point about you.

You proved my point of view about you a long time ago %)

You ignoring the message and interpret a part of the message in a way that comfort for you.

Kicking out unwanted information... how mature %)

 

22 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

The exclusions are for things like "works of parody" and "educational material".

Go to google, please. Find all other exclusions, if you can't find them here. Maybe google can help you in search routines.

Anyway, I will help you a bit:

one

two