Skyrim to FO4 Animation Converter: It Works. Now What?

[dagobaking]

Hello. The topic of animation quantity for FO4 came up in a recent discussion. Someone mentioned the possibility of converting animations from Skyrim to work in FO4. I thought it was an interesting idea. But, mainly thought of it as a coding challenge and didn't really think through the wider implications.

 

Well. Some time later, I now have a working animation converter. This will convert an entire folder full of Skyrim animations (SE or LE versions) in seconds into working FO4 animations.

 

Obviously, there are IP implications. I would not release this tool without a warning that publishing conversions are not allowed without the original authors permission.

 

But, even before that, I want to open the subject up to Skyrim and FO4 animators, first. Would you be ok with this tool existing in the public? In some ways it would be helpful to you to be able to publish to multiple games. However, I understand that some may not want that.

 

(Also, at this point, it should be easy to make a converter from FO4 to Skyrim as well if there is interest.)

 

Thoughts?

 

@CEO 0S @Airock @JoshNZ @3jiou @Mitos @Leito86 @4uDIK @FalloutBoy2 @Kurg4n @Katzumi @SirNibbles @Sailing Rebel @fjob276 @ZaZ

 

@Gray User @Farelle @EgoBallistic @Crazy6987 @Rufgt @SavageCabbage @bp70 @BraveBunny @RohZima @Allnarta @darthroman @TheBottomhoodofSteel

 

I tried to ping all animators I know of above. But, I'm sure that I'm missing some. Please let me know if anyone else should be pinged or let them know.

[kziitd]

I hope it's only available to the animators themselves.

If animators want their work ported to FO4, then this tool is a powerful tool, saving those who wanted to create anime for FO4 but didn't want to repeat work already done for Skyrim from canceling their plans.

[JB.]

Wow. This is a huge benefit for the F4 community, which has always been sorely lacking in animations. If handled responsibly, it could mean a new boom, for example, by obtaining permission from the creators before uploading conversions, or at least acknowledging authorship if there are any retired creators. Deep down, I see it as a similar case of clothing conversions.

 

My line of thinking is that if it benefits the community, you should go for it.

[Vaelorian]

I cannot for the life of me see how releasing a utility that allows users to personally change files already on their device for their own personal benefit and enjoyment could possibly be IP infringement any more than a clothing conversion from one game to another.

The modder has uploaded a file. You downloaded that file. Excluding uploading the file or any derivatives or modifications thereof, the modder's control and rights end there.

 

Uploading the animations themselves is another matter entirely. For that, you'll want to obtain permission.

[SirNibbles]

From my side I think it would be a great addition.

Getting the animations to be more widely available in different Bethesda games would be a pretty nice addition to the roster of animations where they are lacking. Though I haven't really been following the FO4 modding scene, back when I played it some time ago there definitely was a lack of animations.

Though it would come with the problem of different body types, lacking physics (or at least differing physics), missing assets etc, but still it would be a good start nonetheless. But if users understand that at least and take the minor issues as is then I can only see benefits.

[kziitd]

We need to consider creators who put their work behind paywalls to earn coffee. If they could earn a second coffee on another game, they would need to create the animation themselves even without the necessary tools. If these tools are released for free by Dago, it's no different from having 3ds Max or Blender that the creator already possesses. The tool the creator uses is irrelevant; what matters is whether the creator has the opportunity to expand their income, receive encouragement, and enter a virtuous cycle.

If non-creators also have the opportunity to do the same, even if you don't see it released on LL or Nexus, it doesn't guarantee the original creator's interests haven't been affected. In other words, non-creators' animation conversions without the creator's permission are no different from pirated software.

Furthermore, tools like hkxposer and SAM can alter the original animation, weakening its consistency and creating the excuse of "no infringement."

This differs from clothing mods. Clothing mods are 99% based on resources from other games/Daz/etc, with only 1% created from scratch behind paywalls. Animations are 100% original.

Edited March 1 by kziitd

[tuxagent7]

Imagine if you can also convert to starfield...

 

This is great for modding !

[bicobus]

A tool is but a tool.

 

If I understand correctly, you are worried about the copyright and IP of individual modders. It doesn't really matter given the tool you have written. Understand that this community is based around the concept of taking something that has been created by somebody else, then modifying it to fit our creative muse. There are many tools of that genre around, like SkyProc (or more recently SkyPatcher) which works on existing data to generate a new state of things. The prerequisite for such tools is to already have acquired the necessary files.

 

If I already have the necessary files, run your tool, and get a bunch of stuff that can be used by a mod, who cares? The result never leaves my computer, so it's quite fine. And if a modder out there feels wronged, tough luck: modding is using creations in another way than what was originally intended. This is valid for commercial products, as well as indie.

 

So, to my mind, the issue lies in publication of modified assets. And that will always be a big no (unless specified otherwise). But the tool to work on said asset, that should be fine.

[quarzo]

release the beast, fo4 need a lot of love

[kziitd]

2 hours ago, bicobus said:

A tool is but a tool.

 

If I understand correctly, you are worried about the copyright and IP of individual modders. It doesn't really matter given the tool you have written. Understand that this community is based around the concept of taking something that has been created by somebody else, then modifying it to fit our creative muse. There are many tools of that genre around, like SkyProc (or more recently SkyPatcher) which works on existing data to generate a new state of things. The prerequisite for such tools is to already have acquired the necessary files.

 

If I already have the necessary files, run your tool, and get a bunch of stuff that can be used by a mod, who cares? The result never leaves my computer, so it's quite fine. And if a modder out there feels wronged, tough luck: modding is using creations in another way than what was originally intended. This is valid for commercial products, as well as indie.

 

So, to my mind, the issue lies in publication of modified assets. And that will always be a big no (unless specified otherwise). But the tool to work on said asset, that should be fine.

The core idea behind Dago's threads is to solicit the opinions of animation creators.

Once this tool becomes freely usable by anyone other than the animation creator,

it has two branches:
1. For personal use only, not for distribution—in this case, there's absolutely no reason to object.

2. Allowing non-original animation creators to use the tool and distribute the converted animation, provided permission from the original creator is required—again, there's no reason to object.

However, a gray area arises: if other tools can easily alter the animation's pose while maintaining its necessary rhythm and liveliness, the non-original creator can claim they've also contributed, and the result is no longer original. After all, the animation's physical posture is completely different (though the animation's dynamics remain unchanged). If they refuse permission from the original creator and believe they have sufficient grounds to publish it as their original work, who can rationally and with animation knowledge judge whether the published content is a conversion based on an unauthorized adaptation of the animation?

I also want to emphasize that the conversion and adaptation of clothing mods are different from the conversion of animation itself.

99% of clothing mods in Beth games come from resources elsewhere, while animations in Skyrim and AAF are 100% created from scratch by animators. When you simply modify clothing that is essentially from other resources, you're no different from the original mod creator. But when you simply modify something that was essentially 100% created by someone else, declare that you've only adapted/improved/for player needs/etc., and then consider obtaining permission from the original animator as obstructive/redundant/completely disagreeing...

Who is the "judge"?

This needs to be clarified.

----------------------------------
I just want to present any extreme cases; that's the point of this thread.

[Vaelorian]

4 hours ago, kziitd said:

We need to consider creators who put their work behind paywalls to earn coffee. If they could earn a second coffee on another game, they would need to create the animation themselves even without the necessary tools. If these tools are released for free by Dago, it's no different from having 3ds Max or Blender that the creator already possesses. The tool the creator uses is irrelevant; what matters is whether the creator has the opportunity to expand their income, receive encouragement, and enter a virtuous cycle.

If non-creators also have the opportunity to do the same, even if you don't see it released on LL or Nexus, it doesn't guarantee the original creator's interests haven't been affected. In other words, non-creators' animation conversions without the creator's permission are no different from pirated software.

Furthermore, tools like hkxposer and SAM can alter the original animation, weakening its consistency and creating the excuse of "no infringement."

This differs from clothing mods. Clothing mods are 99% based on resources from other games/Daz/etc, with only 1% created from scratch behind paywalls. Animations are 100% original.

 

Let me assume you're not trolling:

 

If there are animations behind a paywall, that I have, it means I either pirated them or I paid. If I paid, well I will have access if the modder converts the animations and puts 'em behind a paywall themselves 'cause I paid. If I pirated it, nothing in the world would stop me from pirating the next set.

 

Unless you propose that modders should sell the same animation twice, individually for Skyrim and Fallout4, despite not converting by hand and only using a tool someone else made. That, I believe, would be exploitative of the consumer AND of the person who made the tool.

In all other cases, the modder does not lose any money, nor are his IP rights harmed; something they made, and sold to a player, gets modified by that player for the player's own enjoyment. It's exactly like clothing mashups. It's exactly like modifying the esp of a mod. It's exactly like a thousand other personal modifications; as long as it stays on your machine, there is no IP infringement.

 

And, modders might make some money if there's someone who doesn't play Skyrim who does play Fallout and wants those extra animations.

 

It's all upsides, no downsides.

Edited March 1 by Vaelorian

[Allnarta]

Absolutely, it sounds great. I also believe tool itself cannot violate any permissions unless someone posts ported animations without author's consent (which, I assume, would not be necessary at all as tool would be easily usable by any user to make own personal conversions), which also would not make public tool as faulty one.

Edited March 1 by Allnarta

[bicobus]

2 hours ago, kziitd said:

the non-original creator can claim they've also contributed, and the result is no longer original

This is all handled by properly licensing your shit. Take the GPLv2, for example: it allows a lot of freedom, but requires anybody that use the software to share its sources, state the changes mades, and distribute any derivative under the same license. So sure, any non-original creator can claim whatever they want but they would still be bound to declare that what they are distributing isn't original work. And I see absolutely no issue with this. It's actually a great way to improve the state of things;

 

There is no "stealing" if you can merge back any changes made to your work. If anything, your project get improvements for which you didn't have to work for. And since this tool it to transfer animations between games, you may not even care about whatever happens on FO4 yet take any changes back to your skyrim stuff (or inversely). Folks playing the other game gets neat anims, you didn't have to sweat the porting and still get the credits as the original creator.

 

2 hours ago, kziitd said:

Who is the "judge"?

I mean... Have you seen the crew you're running with? We all strive on modifying content we didn't make in the first place. I don't quite care so long due credit is given and improvements are made.

[dagobaking]

I just wanted throw in a few clarifications:

 

I agree that the tool itself would not technically violate any IP laws. And even using the tool for private use isn't an IP issue.

 

The problem occurs when/if other peoples work gets converted and re-published without permission. That would definitely be an IP breach.

 

With the tool, the work to do the file conversion becomes easy. But, setting the animations up to work in the game (AAF XML files or FNIS files, with config for extra features like morphs, overlays, etc.) would still be a bit of work. So, there would be a lot of interest for people to "re-pack" and distribute the converted animations. Also, many animators have left the scene but people still want to use their animations...

 

We would be naive to think that gatekeeping at a few different sites would be enough to stop it. Or, even DMCA laws themselves. If a person or group decides they want to re-publish something, there will always be some place they can do it at, even if it's just moving locations. So, to me, it's important to gauge the authors comfort level with that circumstance. To see if there is at least a general consensus.

 

This concern comes from two places:

 

A) Basic courtesy and respect for other peoples efforts. I think that a tool like this could affect the environment they are (or have) contributed in and I don't want to be known as the one who made it more negative for them.

 

B) How will this influence new animators? If it creates a situation where being an animator means having to chase people around on the internet, argue with people, file takedowns, etc. they may be much more likely to choose not to animate at all. That's not the result I would want from posting my work.

[dagobaking]

7 hours ago, tuxagent7 said:

Imagine if you can also convert to starfield...

 

This is great for modding !

 

I haven't looked at Starfield much. But, if they still use hkx format and have a way to decompile to XML and then recompile, it would be easy. Even without that... probably very possible.

[Vaelorian]

1 hour ago, dagobaking said:

B) How will this influence new animators? If it creates a situation where being an animator means having to chase people around on the internet, argue with people, file takedowns, etc. they may be much more likely to choose not to animate at all. That's not the result I would want from posting my work.

 

Can you please explain how this isn't already the case with any animation that's behind a paywall? How would your work exacerbate this, beyond the potential "gold rush" to be the first person to publish an animation package while FO4 animations are still scarce? And wouldn't the "gold rush" be easily ameliorated by sending the tool to the animators first and giving them, say, a full month to learn how to use it and post their stuff themselves?

 

You seem to be as ethical as they come, which is beyond admirable. I'm just not following the logic, so could you please take me through it?

[TheBottomhoodofSteel]

Coming here because I was mentioned. I alr said my point elsewhere, but I'll reiterate it here for posterity

While a conversion tool is great for creators looking to put their animations in multiple games for more widespread use, I do believe it should be a secondary solution to encouraging original creators to come forward and learn to make animations, not the primary solution to getting new and fresh animation mods in Fallout 4. I also feel it'll just incentivize an already burgeoning issue of a complete lack of originality and creativity in modding that we're seeing. It's just gonna be some loser chasing cheap clout off doing badly made ports of SexLab anims or whatever because they can pump em out quicker than people who have spent their time making and perfecting animations can keep up with. If you're not careful you might alienate the original creator base. 

@dagobaking We have the Blender Animation Kit, a work you put a ton of time and effort into and has made the process far easier to get into. The big problem though is that there has been no advertising, no pushing and no motion made to make adaptation of that toolkit take off aside from people who already know animation creation and don't wish to use 3DS Max. There's no tutorials for use, no pointers to get new people drawn in and so it just remains a borderline niche and esoteric tool that isn't getting used. 

I think more resources should be put to making that something people want to learn and use and incentivizing original content over just recycling content from other games into FO4. 

But I'm biased. All my work is based on me wanting to make a unique experience with my own vision in Fallout 4, not just drag the dead body of a successful mod into FO4 for easy popularity. 

[kziitd]

4 hours ago, bicobus said:

This is all handled by properly licensing your shit. Take the GPLv2, for example: it allows a lot of freedom, but requires anybody that use the software to share its sources, state the changes mades, and distribute any derivative under the same license. So sure, any non-original creator can claim whatever they want but they would still be bound to declare that what they are distributing isn't original work. And I see absolutely no issue with this. It's actually a great way to improve the state of things;

 

There is no "stealing" if you can merge back any changes made to your work. If anything, your project get improvements for which you didn't have to work for. And since this tool it to transfer animations between games, you may not even care about whatever happens on FO4 yet take any changes back to your skyrim stuff (or inversely). Folks playing the other game gets neat anims, you didn't have to sweat the porting and still get the credits as the original creator.

 

I mean... Have you seen the crew you're running with? We all strive on modifying content we didn't make in the first place. I don't quite care so long due credit is given and improvements are made.

With the original author's permission, there's nothing to discuss.

But I know the story of Ceo's Osex and Ostim. I also know the story of AAF and NAF.

Yeah.

Do you know those stories? If you don't, then I understand you feel like you don't need to worry about anything.

[waldschrat58]

You should give the tool to people who know what they are doing, to people who know how to create animations without errors. I can very well imagine what happens when everyone has access to it (chaos, ctd, etc). 

This also minimizes the possibility of animations getting onto the internet illegally.

I would be happy if there were more animations for FO4, but I don't have to and don't want to create them myself.

I'm grateful to the people who sacrifice their free time to improve the games for us.

[dagobaking]

2 hours ago, Vaelorian said:

 

Can you please explain how this isn't already the case with any animation that's behind a paywall? How would your work exacerbate this, beyond the potential "gold rush" to be the first person to publish an animation package while FO4 animations are still scarce? And wouldn't the "gold rush" be easily ameliorated by sending the tool to the animators first and giving them, say, a full month to learn how to use it and post their stuff themselves?

 

You seem to be as ethical as they come, which is beyond admirable. I'm just not following the logic, so could you please take me through it?

 

Fair questions.

 

It would make it easier for anyone to make and distribute a repack. Right now, the technical barriers are likely the only thing preventing that from happening.

 

People who can contribute to modding often spend some time learning and looking around the community. Some of that is gauging "what is needed" and "what it would be like to author x". If the community includes disputes over animation permissions, etc. then it's possible that some would-be animator will either not bother or just make animations for their own private use only. Effectively, the risk/work/reward equation changes.

 

In my opinion, the community has already gone down this rabbit hole to some degree. And has suffered for it. I don't want to be a part of making that worse.

 

All that said, I think it depends most on what animation authors feel. If they by and large feel the benefits outweigh the risks, I'm cool with that too. I just think it should at least be given some time to discuss publicly first. Maybe a grace period for mod authors to use it first would work? I dont think that is unreasonable. But, I don't want to speak or decide for others.

 

PS: FWIW, I know Skyrim has quite a few more. But, FO4 actually does have a lot of animations. I think people just always enjoy new ones coming in regularly. Its more the pace than the actual quantity, imo.

Edited March 2 by dagobaking

[dagobaking]

2 hours ago, TheBottomhoodofSteel said:

I think more resources should be put to making that something people want to learn and use and incentivizing original content over just recycling content from other games into FO4. 

 

I hear you. More new content would be great. I dont know if anyone is against that either. But, if the games can share each others animations, it all just goes that much further for the user.

 

I already max my time out coding. Which I think makes sense because thats what I know. I've never been much of a marketer. So, I would need help with that kind of effort.

[Lokikun]

As mostly a mod tinkrer and not an animator, I'd like the option/tool to convert it for private usage. 

I'd like to try some movement animations/Poses from Fallout 4 in my Skyrim and vice versa. 

I'd love for my favorite animations authors to make their animations available in both games. And hopefully when TES6 arrive we can have their animations available there too. 

But the truth is people have limited time. And conversion could help with speeding up anim dev between games.

 

Even so I agree that the creators should have final say. It is their work. 

 

At least for me this opens an endless stream of questions like: 

Does this mean centralisation of animation distribution? Will all anims end up in Nexus/moddb/somewhere? Is it right to have "one that decides"? What is the best way for it all be enforced? Will animations dissapear completely from pages open to all?

 

Fortunately or unfortunately the cat is now out of the bag, there is proof that animations can be converted.

So if there is a right way to do it, this animators/modding community will have to find it, otherwise someone else will end up doing it. Even if not now, it will happen in the future. 

 

Personally I hope for the best, so that we can all learn, share and grow from it.

 

The only thing I know is that dealing with this new discovery will neither be simple nor easy.

Even so I think this conversion tool can be good, because now animators are now freer from game constraints and their work can reach more people. 

[darthroman]

Hi, a tool like a converter would be a powerful tool for animators. It's great if, for example, a certain animation package can be transferred from Skyrim to FO4, that's great, but I suspect that simply transferring it won't be enough, especially when it comes to creatures. Therefore, in addition to conversion, some adaptation and customization will likely be required. Then, this kind of work would be more of a collaborative mix of the original work of the author and the person adapting it. Now, of course, it would be interesting to see what the converter is and how it works. It would be great to see a working example. 

 

My thoughts may seem strange, but let's say someone with understanding offers to port animations from my package to another game, why not? Let's say I don't have the time, for example, to study the nuances of all the games and prepare a separate version for each one. And such matters can be discussed with someone willing to do the work, where they can discuss copyright and, if necessary, monetization. There are many possible courses of action.

Edited March 2 by darthroman

[dagobaking]

Good points.

 

To clarify the technical questions:

 

Yes. It could technically transfer creature animations to the right format. But, the games don't share the same creatures. So, quite a lot of work would be needed to truly bring a creature over. Though, I do think that could be done. I imagine the tool is more immediately useful for human animations.

 

Because the skeletons and body meshes for humans have differences between games, there are alignment issues in some cases. It just seems to depend a bit on the type of animation, angles, etc. I'm working on configuration options and other tools so there is at least a pathway to make those adjustments. But, it will definitely be some work.

 

It would be kind of amusing to bring in the entire exact skeleton and body from Skyrim and call it the Neanderthall race.

Edited March 3 by dagobaking

[Cookiemonsta234]

Wow Congratulations!

 

Are the animations limited to nsfw or does the tool also work for sfw animations? Like this one which involves flight? https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/48932

Edited March 3 by Cookiemonsta234