(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		04-29-24 06:05 PM
0 users currently in ROM Hacking.
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - ROM Hacking - The Open-Source Exception New poll | |
Pages: 1 2 3Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
User Post
Dan

Purple Leever


 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6288 days
Last view: 6279 days
Posted on 01-29-06 06:08 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Mega-Dog
1st off releasing Source with a project is the developers choice. I chose not to since all my code has Copyright on it, but if people do ask about something I do usually help and such. I don't think I ever released a Source of a EXE of mine and probably never will. But it is the creators choice, it should not have to be fore uppon us.


You can still open-source your code, and retain copyright. You are right though, it shouldn't be forced on developers, but it would be beneficial for everyone if source code was released. Hell, it doesn't even have to be at the time of the utilities release. It could be one year down the road, or something.
HyperHacker

Star Mario
Finally being paid to code in VB! If only I still enjoyed that. <_<
Wii #7182 6487 4198 1828


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: Canada, w00t!
My computer's specs, if anyone gives a damn.
STOP TRUNCATING THIS >8^(

Last post: 6280 days
Last view: 6280 days
Posted on 01-29-06 11:12 AM Link | Quote
There are so many reasons to release your code, though.
  • Re-inventing the wheel. Program X is a very complicated program that took years to develop, and has a nasty bug/lacks feature Y/doesn't run on operating system Z and is no longer in development/etc. With the source code you can just add or fix things and there you go. Without it you have to code the whole thing over again. FCEUXDSP is a great example. I doubt many people would have been willing to write an entire emulator just to add debugging features, and even if they did, it probably wouldn't be as good as FCEU for quite some time.
  • Source > Documentation. Some people just suck at documentation. It also takes longer to write it after you've already written the code. Well-commented code is documentation. Also, you can't possibly document everything. Your own FZX editor is a great example. Since it's a 3D editor I can assume it does things like translate up/down/left/right/forward/backward camera movements into axis movements. I've never managed to get this working and there doesn't seem to be one single piece of documentation on Google (it's all about doing similar things that work totally different). If your program does indeed do this, and I have its source, I can just look at how you did it to get an idea of how it works. On the other hand, if you just release documentation, I think it's a safe bet that if I'd never said this, the documentation wouldn't contain any such information, because it's not information about FZX.
  • Learning. People see your code and point out ways you can fix/improve things. You learn from what other people tell you about your code. Heck, maybe some random person points out how to fix that annoying bug all your programs have that you could never figure out. Just look at Linux, most bugs in it are found by hundreds if not thousands of people testing it, finding a problem, and looking at the code to see what causes it. Now imagine trying to debug a closed-source Linux by yourself, without this input. Not something I'd want to do.
  • Portability. You can easily port code written in most any language if you have its source. You've used Sappy as an example of how this isn't true, but I disagree. Writing a C++ clone using only documentation of the music format would almost have to be a lot harder than basing it on the original VB6 code. In fact a few regular expressions can turn large amounts of VB6 code into working C++ code. Again, quality of documentation is another issue. A single typo may go unnoticed until you get to implementing that part and can't figure out why it refuses to work. A typo in the source code should be found pretty quick.
  • Helping others. You've just written a large piece of code, and it was a huge pain. Wouldn't it be nice if other people could just use that code instead of having to go through the same experience?


If you're concerned that people will steal your work and just claim it as their own, there's 3 things you can do.
1) Get it copyrighted. Yes, you can do this.
2) Add things to prevent this. Partway through a large piece of code, embed a check that will display your name in a message box if certain keys are pressed. Encode the string in the source (even something as simple as using "\x42\x47\x4E\x47" for your name) so a search won't find it. Use unusual coding styles (always placing a certain character after a comment or something similar) that can be easily recognized.
3) Realize that most of the people who would do this are clueless n00bs and will be found out within a few days. Especially since they're not likely to know much about how the program actually works.
Kyoufu Kawa
Intends to keep Rom Hacking in one piece until the end








Since: 11-18-05
From: Catgirl Central Station

Last post: 6279 days
Last view: 6279 days
Posted on 01-29-06 12:09 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Hyper LOL

Add things to prevent this. Partway through a large piece of code, embed a check that will display your name in a message box if certain keys are pressed.
I remember that! Some dude's business program was stolen and presented with a different name and color scheme at a convention or something, and the original author asked the demo guy what this and that key combo did. The demo guy said "nothing", and was persuaded to try.

Owned.
Guy Perfect









Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6281 days
Last view: 6280 days
Posted on 01-29-06 12:32 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
BGNG, you have so far failed to state an example of anything extremely negative that would result from releasing source.
As far as I know, there is nothing extremely negative that could result from releasing source code, at least not for a ROM hacking project. The point is that I feel it would be more effective towards the end of understanding the game than presenting source code would.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
1. A person who has documentation and source code will look at it and say "Hmm. Okay. Now I know how it works" and walk away.

So they leave the scene because of this? They stop programming altogether? I'm confused as to what you meant here. If someone just walks away then they weren't that dedicated anyway so who cares?
Hmmm... This is tempting. If releasing documentation makes people go away, then... wait. Nevermind I said that.

With documentation on how something works along with a working model, people are not very likely at all to go into any depth as far as applying their knowledge is concerned. If you see something of interest in documentation and look to see how it's implemented, that spoils the whole opportunity of looking into it yourself to see what it does.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
2. Source code cannot talk, but people can.

That's what IRC/AIM/MSN/etc is for. Source code does talk, btw. It speaks volumes more than documentation.
Show me a chat room with source code as one of the users and I'll believe you.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
3. Documentation on level editing, for example, means the hacking is already completed.

For an experienced coder, yes. But for someone who is learning, definitely not so. If you know the machine code for your target console, but suck at Java or C++, etc, implementation can be a bitch. By giving working examples of how to implement certain types of editing you are both education them as romhackers and as programmers, should they take the time to look the code over. I strongly believe that keeping source closed hampers other hackers from learning how to do what they want to do.
If you can't program, then ROM hacking is certainly an area of difficulty. Most of the time, a simple hex editor won't do the trick. You know that as well as I do. If something needs a code snippet to explain how implementation can be done, then one is usually provided. Check out the CRC32 notes in RFC 2083 (The PNG file format) for an example.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
Again, the "wheel" is the documentation, not the source code. Think of it like a car...

Okay back up. Forget about similes and metaphors. Take a program like Lunar Magic, or the Snes9x GSD build, or even Temporal Flux. Now tell me with a straight face that it would be easy to build a replica of such a program given sufficient documentation. I'll be waiting.
Show me some comprehensive documentation on Lunar Magic and I'll gladly begin to implement it. Depending on the amount of time it takes (since I do have other projects), I might even replicate the entire program. Snes9x GSD build and Temporal Flux would be doable as well, but I know right now they would take more time than I'm willing to spend (since the only reason I would spend any time is to prove my point, and I don't have a need to recreate them).


Originally posted by Hyper LOL
• Re-inventing the wheel. Program X is a very complicated program that took years to develop, and has a nasty bug/lacks feature Y/doesn't run on operating system Z and is no longer in development/etc. With the source code you can just add or fix things and there you go. Without it you have to code the whole thing over again. FCEUXDSP is a great example. I doubt many people would have been willing to write an entire emulator just to add debugging features, and even if they did, it probably wouldn't be as good as FCEU for quite some time.
For ROM hacking, with documentation, actual programming takes a lot less time than you think. Projects usually take a long time to complete because there is hacking being done along with the programming.

Originally posted by Hyper LOL
• Source > Documentation. Some people just suck at documentation. It also takes longer to write it after you've already written the code. Well-commented code is documentation. Also, you can't possibly document everything. Your own FZX editor is a great example. Since it's a 3D editor I can assume it does things like translate up/down/left/right/forward/backward camera movements into axis movements. I've never managed to get this working and there doesn't seem to be one single piece of documentation on Google (it's all about doing similar things that work totally different). If your program does indeed do this, and I have its source, I can just look at how you did it to get an idea of how it works. On the other hand, if you just release documentation, I think it's a safe bet that if I'd never said this, the documentation wouldn't contain any such information, because it's not information about FZX.
If people suck at documentation, then their documentation is not good. Good documentation is better than source code, as I don't know about you, but I would rather look at a file format specification than look at some source code that implements it. File formats, unless they are copied as comments, are never documented in source code.

Relative transformations for camera movement in 3D space is a rudimentary programming principle, so I'm certainly not going to document that for F-Zero X. According to you, I should explain my theory for file I/O as well as setting up an OpenGL rendering context. If you would like, however, I will write an article explaining how to do trigonometric relative transformations in 3D.

Originally posted by Hyper LOL
• Learning. People see your code and point out ways you can fix/improve things. You learn from what other people tell you about your code. Heck, maybe some random person points out how to fix that annoying bug all your programs have that you could never figure out. Just look at Linux, most bugs in it are found by hundreds if not thousands of people testing it, finding a problem, and looking at the code to see what causes it. Now imagine trying to debug a closed-source Linux by yourself, without this input. Not something I'd want to do.
Linux benefits a very large number of people, which is why it's open to community involvement. A level editor would not be a community project (all-Acmlm stuff has never worked before), so releasing source code would only benefit a few individuals.

I will gladly take bug reports for any software that I release. I will not take suggestions for new features, however.

Originally posted by Hyper LOL
• Portability. You can easily port code written in most any language if you have its source. You've used Sappy as an example of how this isn't true, but I disagree. Writing a C++ clone using only documentation of the music format would almost have to be a lot harder than basing it on the original VB6 code. In fact a few regular expressions can turn large amounts of VB6 code into working C++ code. Again, quality of documentation is another issue. A single typo may go unnoticed until you get to implementing that part and can't figure out why it refuses to work. A typo in the source code should be found pretty quick.
You can easily implement ROM hacking techniques if you have its documentation. While it may take more time, it ensures the porter has an understanding of what's going on. Otherwise, we might as well write cross-platform program translators to put stuff in other languages for us and eliminate humans altogether.

Originally posted by Hyper LOL
• Helping others. You've just written a large piece of code, and it was a huge pain. Wouldn't it be nice if other people could just use that code instead of having to go through the same experience?
Unless there's some wicked possibility that I've never heard of, I'm under the impression that with well thought-out courses of action and careful planning, you'll never encounter a programming issue that is "a huge pain."

Originally posted by Hyper LOL
If you're concerned that people will steal your work and just claim it as their own, there's 3 things you can do.
I'm not worried about it.
The Onyx Dragoon

150








Since: 11-17-05
From: Somewhere between Mars and Jupiter, Sitting on an Asteroid

Last post: 6284 days
Last view: 6281 days
Posted on 01-29-06 05:44 PM Link | Quote
I think all of you are making this way too complicated than what it should be...
Glyphodon



 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6320 days
Last view: 6301 days
Posted on 01-29-06 06:20 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by BGNG
Unless there's some wicked possibility that I've never heard of, I'm under the impression that with well thought-out courses of action and careful planning, you'll never encounter a programming issue that is "a huge pain."


QFT. BGNG, your keen senses are a gift to us all.

*cough, cough*
Disch

Red Cheep-cheep


 





Since: 12-10-05

Last post: 6559 days
Last view: 6559 days
Posted on 01-30-06 10:53 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by BGNG
Unless there's some wicked possibility that I've never heard of, I'm under the impression that with well thought-out courses of action and careful planning, you'll never encounter a programming issue that is "a huge pain."



BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA


oh man

that was funny
Guy Perfect









Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6281 days
Last view: 6280 days
Posted on 01-30-06 11:13 PM Link | Quote
You realize that I mentioned "a huge pain" would only occur without careful planning, right? I'm confident in saying that programmers encountering huge pains from the perspective of actual coding could probably revise their methods a bit.

But I digress. "Huge pains" are not on the topic of "When is it approperiate to withhold source code"

(edited by BGNG on 01-30-06 10:14 PM)
Disch

Red Cheep-cheep


 





Since: 12-10-05

Last post: 6559 days
Last view: 6559 days
Posted on 01-31-06 03:43 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by BGNG
the topic of "When is it approperiate to withhold source code"


Okay -- coming back to the topic.

I've reread the original post and some followup posts and am still unclear as to exactly what we're talking about here. I figure it could be any one (or a combination) of the following:

1) Open sourcing is a bad idea for the ROM hacking community. Period.

2) Documentation is a good idea for the ROM hacking community. Period.

3) Both documentation and open source are good, however documentation is much better.

4) More often than not, it is more benefitial to withhold source code from the ROM hacking community.


Of the above -- I would only agree with #2. But of course I don't think anyone would dispute #2, so that seems like kind of a silly thing to make a thread about.

So I'll address my objections to the other 3 points. If I'm missing the overall point of the thread here... please let me know what point I should be addressing.


points 1 and 4) As has already been mentioned in this thread -- there is nothing really negative that can result from releasing the source to a free program. These "bandits" that have been mentioned in the first thread are either a clear work of fiction -- or are as rare as football-sized diamonds. When's the last time any open-source project was sabotaged by such a bandit's meddling? I'm willing to bet my life savings the answer is "never". If you worry about these bandits you should also worry that aliens will be offended by your source code and will come to Earth and vaporize you with their ray-guns -- I mean it's just as likely.

The only real legitimate reasons for withholding source code is if you have something to lose from the source's release, licensing prevents you from legally releasing the source, or something happened where you don't have the source any more --- such as an HD crash? Almost any other excuse boils down to either personal fear, embarrasment, greed, or general laziness. I mean really -- if anyone can list one reasonable downside to releasing the source of a hacking utliity, I'd love to hear it. Because I've been racking my brain trying to think of one and I couldn't.

Reasons I could come up with were:
- Embarrased by your sloppy code
- Fear of source being stolen and you not getting your 'props' (an unreasonable fear, I might add)
- Competition with another editor author (greed)
- Wanting to have the best editor ever made (greed)
- Wanting to keep easter eggs hidden (almost greed -- although not really. It's hard to place this one... though I consider this excuse to be very lame)
- Just never getting around to it (laziness)
- Not caring enough to do it (laziness)


Now I'm not saying source should be expected to be available 100% of the time. I mean we're all guilty of one of more of the above sometimes... but actually saying that releasing source is a bad idea is just nonsense. It's nothing but beneficial for everyone.


point 3) Such a comparison is like comparing apples to oranges. Source code and ROM documentation serve two entirely seperate functions. Neither one can replace the other... (though a skilled programmer would be able to build one from the other). In the right hands, a program's source can lead to great things. Same goes for documentation -- while more people will have an easier time understanding it... it still will only benefit a select few.



And has already been mentioned: why does this come down to having to choose between source and documentation? Why not just release them both? That's getting the best of both worlds.
Xkeeper
Took the board down in a blaze of glory, only to reveal how truly moronical ||bass is.


 





Since: 11-17-05
From: Henderson, Nevada

Last post: 6280 days
Last view: 6280 days
Skype
Posted on 01-31-06 03:53 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Disch
And has already been mentioned: why does this come down to having to choose between source and documentation? Why not just release them both? That's getting the best of both worlds.
This has been brought up in (now) three sepeate posts, none of which ever got adressed. I think peoplle are just arguing for the sake of arguing here...

There really is no reason to just shut up and release both, unless you (as Disch said) have some legal reason not to, although finding a case where you can't do that would be pretty hard.
Guy Perfect









Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6281 days
Last view: 6280 days
Posted on 01-31-06 04:24 PM Link | Quote
As I've been mentioning since the beginnnig, withholding source code and releasing only documentation encourages people to look into the ROM using the knowledge they have and see what they can do. If the knowledge they have access to already exists in program source code, then why look into the ROM if what you would do is already sitting in front of you?

For general utilities that can be used to locate data in any ROM out there, such as a corrupter or text search utility, source code should be distributed because they benefit nearly everyone involved towards the cause.

For specific utilities that hack games that perhaps have specifically not been hacked in the past, source code will dilude the motivation to further understand the workings of the game.


And there's some people who just take source code for the sake of having it. The ability to spawn a utility from something they neither understand nor care to ever look at seems to strike a chord with a great many people, and that's not anything at all what ROM Hacking is about.

↑ See that paragraph? Describes something about source code that is counterproductive towards the goal of ROM Hacking.

(edited by BGNG on 01-31-06 03:24 PM)
Disch

Red Cheep-cheep


 





Since: 12-10-05

Last post: 6559 days
Last view: 6559 days
Posted on 01-31-06 04:50 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by BGNG
As I've been mentioning since the beginnnig, withholding source code and releasing only documentation encourages people to look into the ROM using the knowledge they have and see what they can do.


That's a fancy way of saying "it makes you do more work". Anyone that would WANT to do this extra busy-work is still able to (like for practice, or experience. And in fact... I doubt it's uncommon for people to hack things the hard way for this very reason. I've done so in the past). But for everyone else who doesn't mind making use of other people's hard work.. they can still gain the benefits.

If the knowledge they have access to already exists in program source code, then why look into the ROM if what you would do is already sitting in front of you?


That's exactly the point. The thing about progress is you try and move forward. If you keep throwing away everyone's experience, information, work and "encourage" people to start from scratch... ROM hacking will be thrown back into 1998. Imagine if every ROM hacker had to re-invent the wheel for every hack they wanted to make. Production would grind to a screetching halt.

Additional information (in this case, source code) does nothing but provide more input for the hacker/util author. That info can be used (or disregarded) completely at his discresion. I fail to see any situation where extra knowledge or information would be detrimental to a hacker.

For specific utilities that hack games that perhaps have specifically not been hacked in the past, source code will dilude the motivation to further understand the workings of the game.


I can't even understand how you can say this. The utility itself... yeah I can see that. People can use Lunar Magic and not know the first thing about how SMW works. I agree.

But the source? I don't get how you're making that connection.


And there's some people who just take source code for the sake of having it. The ability to spawn a utility from something they neither understand nor care to ever look at seems to strike a chord with a great many people, and that's not anything at all what ROM Hacking is about.

↑ See that paragraph? Describes something about source code that is counterproductive towards the goal of ROM Hacking.


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding that paragraph.

It seems to me you're saying many people download source but never use it. And that's somehow counterproductive? I guess you could call it wasteful because that person is wasting their HD space and they wasted their bandwidth on the download -- but how is it counterproductive? Do they all of the sudden stop hacking because they have some arbitrary editor's source?

Wouldn't the goal of ROM hacking be to hack ROMs? How does possessing but not using an editor's source relate to that at all?
Ailure

Mr. Shine
I just want peace...








Since: 11-17-05
From: Sweden

Last post: 6280 days
Last view: 6279 days
Posted on 01-31-06 04:52 PM Link | Quote
So you say that to understand my computer fully, instead of working with the Linux kernel source code (or any OS). I need to make my own OS? I don't really get that logic...

Also, why this large fear for Open source in the ROM hacking community? Amongst emulators it's the norm, and heck. Unless you plan to sell the software for $$$, I see no reason to not open source it apart from the code being so sloppy that even yourself have a hard time understanding it.

Also, the fear that someone else will stole the work is ridicolous. Especially if you're editor is known in this community.

I don't understand the "MINE MINE MINE!" mentality a few ROM hackers have, instead of working together forward. I admit that I have a few unreleased hacking docs on my HD, but i'm going to release thoose as soon they're cleaned up.

(edited by Ailure on 01-31-06 03:53 PM)
FreeDOS +

Giant Red Koopa
Legion: freedos = fritos








Since: 11-17-05
From: Seattle

Last post: 6279 days
Last view: 6279 days
Posted on 01-31-06 05:16 PM Link | Quote
Even if the source is messy, there's more reason to release it anyway. People can improve it, and you might learn something from the improvements.

EDIT: But generally it annoys me by the lack of caring here

(edited by FreeDOS on 01-31-06 04:19 PM)
Gavin

Cheep-cheep
Vandalism is not tolerated


 





Since: 11-17-05
From: IL, USA

Last post: 6356 days
Last view: 6299 days
Posted on 01-31-06 05:23 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Kyoufu Kawa
Originally posted by Hyper LOL

Add things to prevent this. Partway through a large piece of code, embed a check that will display your name in a message box if certain keys are pressed.
I remember that! Some dude's business program was stolen and presented with a different name and color scheme at a convention or something, and the original author asked the demo guy what this and that key combo did. The demo guy said "nothing", and was persuaded to try.

Owned.


I might be mistaken, but are you talking about that really crappy family movie from a long time ago (best movie description ever. very informative)? I think it might have been really childish and lame, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it. If you're not, then nevermind entirely
Guy Perfect









Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6281 days
Last view: 6280 days
Posted on 01-31-06 05:37 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Disch
Anyone that would WANT to do this extra busy-work is still able to (like for practice, or experience. And in fact... I doubt it's uncommon for people to hack things the hard way for this very reason. I've done so in the past). But for everyone else who doesn't mind making use of other people's hard work.. they can still gain the benefits.
I don't feel that the benefits of knowing the intricacies of a game will typically come from looking at the source code. "cnmeerr = nins(0x67430, 0x6E3F0, 0x800D43F0, cnme[ i ]);" doesn't necessarily mean "Write next course name to deallocated ROM space" to most people.

Originally posted by Disch
The thing about progress is you try and move forward. If you keep throwing away everyone's experience, information, work and "encourage" people to start from scratch... ROM hacking will be thrown back into 1998. Imagine if every ROM hacker had to re-invent the wheel for every hack they wanted to make. Production would grind to a screetching halt.
This is where ideology comes in. Do not assume that everyone aspires to the same things. I personally feel that ROM hacking is not about "production," but about "capability." Who cares how many editors and mods are churned out by people? I don't, for one. What matters is that people have the capability to move on to bigger and better things, being able to make great works with what they know and can do.

One more Super Mario Bros. hack is inconsenquential. A Super Mario Bros. hacker moving on to Yoshi's Island is more significant. And I don't mean by use of editors, either. If they have the skills to begin hacking more and more sophisticated games, then the ROM Hacking community has played its role. One more editor doesn't make that happen, so its source code will not help much.

You also mentioned the throwing away of "experience, information and work," which I feel is exagerative. All three of those things are provided by, for example, releasing an editor with documenation and without source code. The experience of the person allowed the game to be hacked and the editor to be made. The documentation provides the application of this experience as well as any information needed to do so. The work is the editor, which is provided as proof of concept.

Does it matter if people have the source code? Not if understanding and skill are the focus of the mission. Source code provides little to that end.

Originally posted by BGNG
For specific utilities that hack games that perhaps have specifically not been hacked in the past, source code will dilude the motivation to further understand the workings of the game.
If the source code is there, and application of the understanding provided by the documentation is already implemented, then there is little reason to look into things any further. With just documentation, however, a working model will have to be created by research and experimentation.

Is that more work? Yes, it is. Does it mean people gain a greater understanding and more experience? Yes, it does. It sounds rather lazy to me for people to request source code for ROM hacking when documentation is provided.

Originally posted by Disch
It seems to me you're saying many people download source but never use it. And that's somehow counterproductive? I guess you could call it wasteful because that person is wasting their HD space and they wasted their bandwidth on the download -- but how is it counterproductive? Do they all of the sudden stop hacking because they have some arbitrary editor's source?
It is wasteful. And they may never hack the game at all if they have some arbitrary editor's source. They are more likely to do so given documentation and no source.

Originally posted by Disch
Wouldn't the goal of ROM hacking be to hack ROMs? How does possessing but not using an editor's source relate to that at all?
Yes, hack ROMs. Not use editors, not play with someone else's source code, but hack ROMs. Given documentation of how to hack, people will gain a better understanding of how to hack. Given an editor's source code will likely remove any ambition for using the documentation in the first place.

It's apparent that people aren't willing to do work. They don't care about the "why" behind things; only the "what." They just want their toys so they can make stuff and feel special. Is this the idea you intend to express? Is that in any way helpful to making better hackers?

Originally posted by Ailure
So you say that to understand my computer fully, instead of working with the Linux kernel source code (or any OS). I need to make my own OS? I don't really get that logic...
Not quite. Linux is an original piece of software intended to provide many people with positive capabilities. ROM hacking, being about technique and understanding, does not rely on software to do anyone's bidding. Documentation, on the other hand, provides the understanding in written form.

Originally posted by Ailure
Also, why this large fear for Open source in the ROM hacking community?

I don't understand the "MINE MINE MINE!" mentality a few ROM hackers have, instead of working together forward. I admit that I have a few unreleased hacking docs on my HD, but i'm going to release thoose as soon they're cleaned up.
Like I said, people tend to care about the "what" and not the "why." If they end up coming up with something good, they'll keep it to themselves to promote their own egos as well as draw attention to themselves.

Those activities don't matter to me, and I won't support them. If anyone wants to be a better hacker, they'll do it by learning, not by trying to make something to use as a leverage of power against everyone else.
MathOnNapkins

1100

In SPC700 HELL


 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6280 days
Last view: 6279 days
Posted on 01-31-06 05:54 PM Link | Quote
It's apparent that people aren't willing to do work. They don't care about the "why" behind things; only the "what."

Stop generalizing about Rom-Hackers. I'm sure you aren't like this. I know I'm not. I know a lot of people who Romhack care about the "why". It's just you have a majority of people who don't. And that's fine with me, b/c those people will be forever limited in what they can accomplish.
Guy Perfect









Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6281 days
Last view: 6280 days
Posted on 01-31-06 06:03 PM Link | Quote
I agree. That's why I feel that releasing documentation is more effective than source code. Those who want to learn will learn. I don't see anything that source code can do that can't be fully explained in a document. After all, there's a reason for everything, and the reason for something in source code may not be apparent.

(edited by BGNG on 01-31-06 05:03 PM)
Disch

Red Cheep-cheep


 





Since: 12-10-05

Last post: 6559 days
Last view: 6559 days
Posted on 01-31-06 06:27 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by BGNG
I don't feel that the benefits of knowing the intricacies of a game will typically come from looking at the source code. "cnmeerr = nins(0x67430, 0x6E3F0, 0x800D43F0, cnme[ i ]);" doesn't necessarily mean "Write next course name to deallocated ROM space" to most people.


Which is exactly why I was saying I didn't see the connection between having the source to an editor and having the desire to hack that ROM. And is also why I said you can't compare a source's use to documentation's use -- they're too different.

So we apparently agree on this point?

Who cares how many editors and mods are churned out by people? I don't, for one. What matters is that people have the capability to move on to bigger and better things, being able to make great works with what they know and can do.


Tell me again how having more information at their disposal makes it harder for people to progress in terms of capability. That's the part I really am having a hard time understanding.

And I don't mean by use of editors, either.


Well this is where you have to realize -- for most people it's not "if there's no editor, I'll do it by hand"... but rather "if there's no editor, I won't hack that game".

Without these editors people wouldnt' even get their foot in the ROM hacking door.

I'm going to use DahrkDaiz as an example here. He started hacking SMB3 using editors -- doing no more complicated work than the editor allowed. But as he progressed, he was able to go beyond that and learn more about both the game, and the system on which its run. Now.... were there no editor for him to use eventually... do you really think he would be where he's at today? If he even stuck with rom-hacking... he's progress would have been horribly slowed and he would probably be at best about half as knowledgable and capable as he is now.

Editors are a tool. What you get out of them directly relates to how you use them. And in the end... the more tools available, the better. (see note on "the true meaning of ROM hacking")

so its source code will not help much.


But will it hurt? I mean really. I hear you sort of complaining about the editors themselves -- but does the source really hinder anyone in any way? You still haven't made that connection clear to me.

And while not everyone will benefit from the source -- some people will. If it aids even 1 person, then it was worth it.

Does it matter if people have the source code? Not if understanding and skill are the focus of the mission. Source code provides little to that end.


Are you honestly going to stand there and tell me there is absolutely no manner of understanding or knowledge anyone can gain from viewing an editor's source code?

I really hope that's not what you're trying to sell here, because that's totally bogus. Ever hear of the concept of "learning by example"? Seeing how an editor works can give you ideas or show you improved ways of implimentation which you can reapply in your own projects.

It's almost like you're saying that trial and error is the only way people should be allowed to learn.

Originally posted by BGNG
If the source code is there, and application of the understanding provided by the documentation is already implemented, then there is little reason to look into things any further.
--snip--
It sounds rather lazy to me for people to request source code for ROM hacking when documentation is provided.


You're treating documentation and source code like they're the same thing. They're not. Read my paragraph above.

With just documentation, however, a working model will have to be created by research and experimentation.


Viewing existing source doesn't count as research in your book?

It is wasteful. And they may never hack the game at all if they have some arbitrary editor's source. They are more likely to do so given documentation and no source.


Having the source doesn't affect whether or not they will hack the game... I still don't get how you can say that. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Of COURSE documentation will help in the absense of an editor. I mean duh. But what does that have to do with the existence of an editor's source?



Given documentation of how to hack, people will gain a better understanding of how to hack.


So we agree. Documentation is good.

Now that that's out of the way let's talk about editors' source.

Given an editor's source code will likely remove any ambition for using the documentation in the first place.


So you're saying that if both the documentation and editor's source are available... the documentation somehow becomes less useful? Huh?

It's apparent that people aren't willing to do work. They don't care about the "why" behind things; only the "what." They just want their toys so they can make stuff and feel special. Is this the idea you intend to express? Is that in any way helpful to making better hackers?


What does any of that have to do with the SOURCE. I can see what you're saying if your beef is with the editors themselves -- then your argument is at least coherent... but none of this has anything to do with the source being available.

The source alone is not a toy. The people that would treat it like a toy wouldn't even know what to do with it -- it would be useless to them. But they're not my concern -- my concern is for the people who WOULD get use out of the source. Who would learn from it... build off it.

And yes -- I would consider people learning from other people's source a good thing. That's what I'm trying to express.




Since we seem to be spinning in circles around the "meaning of ROM hacking" -- I feel it should boil down to this one simple truth:

ROM hacking is a hobby. It's meant to be fun or otherwise enjoyable. Problem solving, design, creativity, programming experience...... there are several things people gain from ROM hacking. Different people gain different things. In the end... the "meaning" behind it is to be an enjoyable experience.

What good is ROM hacking if it's not enjoyable? Who really cares how much they understand about something they have no interest in? Without the desire, without the enjoyment... there's no point to anything ROM hacking has to offer.

That said -- the truth the matter is many people don't care about how the game works. Many people just want the toys they can make their games in. Many people don't want to get into further understanding of the game.. since they don't have any interest in that area of ROM hacking. If you think taking away their toys will encourage those people -- you're wrong. You'll just turn them off to ROM hacking completely -- they won't have anything to gain from it any more.

Not everyone operates with a technical mind like you and me, BGNG. The joy of knowing the details of a system and how things work doesn't appeal to others. In fact it downright bores them. Just as drawing original graphics to put in a game may be the most fun thing in the world for someone -- it bores the shit out of me...I hate it. If someone tried to "encourage" me to do something I didn't want to do... I'd just leave. You'd do the same.
HyperHacker

Star Mario
Finally being paid to code in VB! If only I still enjoyed that. <_<
Wii #7182 6487 4198 1828


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: Canada, w00t!
My computer's specs, if anyone gives a damn.
STOP TRUNCATING THIS >8^(

Last post: 6280 days
Last view: 6280 days
Posted on 01-31-06 06:57 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by BGNG
Originally posted by Hyper LOL
• Source > Documentation. Some people just suck at documentation. It also takes longer to write it after you've already written the code. Well-commented code is documentation. Also, you can't possibly document everything. Your own FZX editor is a great example. Since it's a 3D editor I can assume it does things like translate up/down/left/right/forward/backward camera movements into axis movements. I've never managed to get this working and there doesn't seem to be one single piece of documentation on Google (it's all about doing similar things that work totally different). If your program does indeed do this, and I have its source, I can just look at how you did it to get an idea of how it works. On the other hand, if you just release documentation, I think it's a safe bet that if I'd never said this, the documentation wouldn't contain any such information, because it's not information about FZX.
If people suck at documentation, then their documentation is not good. Good documentation is better than source code, as I don't know about you, but I would rather look at a file format specification than look at some source code that implements it. File formats, unless they are copied as comments, are never documented in source code.

Relative transformations for camera movement in 3D space is a rudimentary programming principle, so I'm certainly not going to document that for F-Zero X. According to you, I should explain my theory for file I/O as well as setting up an OpenGL rendering context. If you would like, however, I will write an article explaining how to do trigonometric relative transformations in 3D.
Exactly my point. Camera movement transformations and simple file I/O have nothing to do with actually editing the game, only with making a program to do it. Of course it wouldn't make sense to include these in documentation. This is why the source code would be more useful, as it provides a thorough, precise explanation of how the program does everything it does, be it hacking-related or not.

And if you were serious, I'd love to see such an article. I just hope you interpreted me right. I've seen such tutorials, but they're all about how to do what glRotate() does. I'm talking about having a nice little environment already set up in OpenGL, and being able to take any random object (camera or otherwise) and move it forward/backward/etc no matter what its rotation. That is, if you tell it to go forward, right, forward, right, forward, right, and forward it will have gone in a square back to where it started, no matter where it was or what direction it was facing. You'd think with all the 3D games out there, this would be easy to find...
Pages: 1 2 3Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - ROM Hacking - The Open-Source Exception |


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.023 seconds; used 518.34 kB (max 682.08 kB)