Index | FAQ | Search | Memberlist | Usergroups | Profile | Log in to check your private messages | Log in | Register

Decompiling a progs.dat Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

| Inside3d Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic
Author | Message
--- | ---
Biodude Joined: 27 Aug 2008 Posts: 83 |

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:34 pm Post subject: Decompiling a progs.dat |

Hello, every time I try to decompile with frik, It just says it overloads it or something. This is for like every mod! If anyone can decompile big mods, please tell me. -thanks

Back to top |

Downsider Joined: 16 Sep 2008 Posts: 478 |

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:45 pm Post subject: |

It's generally frowned upon. I'm glad you're getting errors

Back to top |

Biodude Joined: 27 Aug 2008 Posts: 83 |

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:11 pm Post subject: |

thanks downsider for being so nice but seriously, Its not like Im trying to hijack a mod and call it my own, I know this is frowned upon, but If someone knows how to do it, that would be great. I got the hl1 psp mod working on the dquake engine that supports hl1 models and maps, and I would like to fix up the code. I tryed to contact sisha, but he never replies. If anyone has a program that can decompile big mods, please provide

Back to top |

Downsider Joined: 16 Sep 2008 Posts: 478 |

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:29 pm Post subject: |

http://quakeone.com/forums/quake-help/servers-coding/4030-quake-life-source-open.html Quake-life is open source, use that instead.

Back to top |

Biodude Joined: 27 Aug 2008 Posts: 83 |

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:56 pm Post subject: |

Sishas mod uses all of the hl1 weapons, and a ton of stuff is already coded in, just buggy. Quake life just replaces entities with quake ones on maps.

Back to top |

r00k Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 483 |

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:49 pm Post subject: |

usually a decompiler doesnt matter about the size "really big mod", its how it's structured. I've noticed any void function = {} in defs.qc breaks frikdec compiler.if the "mod" is loading hl1 models then thats engine side and you dont need a decompiler to see that portion of the code. What mod are you talking about anyways? I'll dig around im sure i can find some hl1 model loading code on the net....

Back to top |

Downsider Joined: 16 Sep 2008 Posts: 478 |

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:01 am Post subject: |

r00k wrote:
usually a decompiler doesnt matter about the size "really big mod", its how it's structured. I've noticed any void function = {} in defs.qc breaks frikdec compiler.if the "mod" is loading hl1 models then thats engine side and you dont need a decompiler to see that portion of the code. What mod are you talking about anyways? I'll dig around im sure i can find some hl1 model loading code on the net....

They're HL1 models converted to QMDL.

Back to top |

Baker Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1538 |

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 1:04 am Post subject: |

Downsider wrote:
It's generally frowned upon. I'm glad you're getting errors

Is it? I don't agree with that. Maybe in closed source proprietary communities like the Half-Life community (I saw a post there about how decompiling a Half-Life map was considered taboo, LOL), aguirRe has made several patches to flawed mods using decompiling tools as I understand it.
My first use of a decompiler was to decompile Starship's progs.dat by Neil Manke to try to figure out how there were forcefields. By decompiling, I was able to determine that they were part of hipnotic (Mission Pack #1 | source code and devkit link) ... which 4.5 years ago I had never played.
Decompiling a mod depends heavily on the compiler used to compile the mod. Old mods (1997) era are a near automatic because the standard qcc compiler was used. Modern era mods using modified QuakeC decompilers like FTEQCC or FrikQCC with optimized compiling options, you won't likely find out much interesting or have any sort of luck.
p.s.: I subscribe the Sergey Brin (Google co-founder) school of thought that more knowledge is an absolute good. Well actually, I had that belief before I knew who he was, but I use him as an example of a high profile person who has this philosophy. It is no small coincidence that Google is kicking ass on all fronts as a result.

Back to top |

Downsider Joined: 16 Sep 2008 Posts: 478 |

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:06 am Post subject: |

So you're saying if it's someone's choice to not release the source, you should not honor that, and simply decompile it? That's funny

Back to top |

Baker Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1538 |

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:16 am Post subject: |

Downsider wrote:
So you're saying if it's someone's choice to not release the source, you should not honor that, and simply decompile it? That's funny

Putting aside your philosophical question for the moment:
This mod that Biodude wants to decompile has 2 options for terms of use of the source code:
1. The registered Quake license agreement.
2. The GPL
Whatever this mod is, it isn't a registered Quake mod. Therefore the registered Quake license is not available.
Since the only license available to a non-registered mod using progs 1.06 is the GPL and I would guess the mod author is not distributing the source since he wants to decompile it, but yet they are distributing a compiled progs.dat ...
What do you think about the wishes of authors of a mod that aren't even following the license agreement that permits them to use the code base they are using?

Back to top |

Downsider Joined: 16 Sep 2008 Posts: 478 |

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:19 am Post subject: |

Baker wrote:

Downsider wrote:
So you're saying if it's someone's choice to not release the source, you should not honor that, and simply decompile it? That's funny

Putting aside your philosophical question for the moment:
This mod that Biodude wants to decompile has 2 options for terms of use of the source code:
1. The registered Quake license agreement.
2. The GPL
Whatever this mod is, it isn't a registered Quake mod. Therefore the registered Quake license is not available.
Since the only license available to a non-registered mod using progs 1.06 is the GPL and I would guess the mod author is not distributing the source since he wants to decompile it, but yet they are distributing a compiled progs.dat ...
What do you think about the wishes of authors of a mod that aren't even following the license agreement that permits them to use the code base they are using?

Quake-C isn't GPL licensed, though.

Back to top |

Baker Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1538 |

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:26 am Post subject: |

Downsider wrote:
Quake-C isn't GPL licensed, though.

"The .qc files for quake1/quakeworld are now available under the GPL in source/qw-qc.tar.gx on out ftp site." -- John Carmack
http://www.team5150.com/~andrew/carmack/johnc_plan_2000.html#d20000508
If a mod does not require registered Quake, the only licensing available for a mod utilizing any part of the progs 1.06 .qc source code is the GPL.

Back to top |

Downsider Joined: 16 Sep 2008 Posts: 478 |

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:27 am Post subject: |

Baker wrote:

Downsider wrote:
Quake-C isn't GPL licensed, though.

"The .qc files for quake1/quakeworld are now available under the GPL in source/qw-qc.tar.gx on out ftp site." -- John Carmack
http://www.team5150.com/~andrew/carmack/johnc_plan_2000.html#d20000508
If a mod does not require registered Quake, the only licensing available for a mod utilizing any part of the progs 1.06 .qc source code is the GPL.

Putting aside your philosophical statement for the moment:
If the author doesn't want it decompiled, it shouldn't be decompiled.

Back to top |

Baker Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1538 |

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:06 pm Post subject: |

Downsider wrote:
Putting aside your philosophical statement for the moment: If the author doesn't want it decompiled, it shouldn't be decompiled.

Then why'd several people make QuakeC decompilers?
That's what they are for I can't think of many uses for decompilers with open source mods. How about you?
You are free, of course, to follow your philosophy. Others are free to follow theirs. Sounds like a reasonable compromise.
Please be careful to read web site license agreements and not click "view source" when visiting web pages with an interesting feature because, you know, you might accidentally not follow that web site author's wishes.

Back to top |

Chip Joined: 21 Jan 2009 Posts: 314 Location: Romania |

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:18 pm Post subject: |

Baker wrote:
Please be careful to read web site license agreements and not click "view source" when visiting web pages with an interesting feature because, you know, you might accidentally not follow that web site author's wishes.

Why would this be a problem? The Quake 1 developers community is small, and if you decompile a closed-source mod, you can just mention the original author. That is if you want to improve or fix something. And, as far as I've noticed since I've become a member of Inside3D, everybody here is trying to fix and improve.
_________________
My Projects: Quake 1 Mods | OpenQuartz 2 | ChipQuake

Back to top |

Display posts from previous:

| Inside3d Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion | All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2004 phpBB Group