Animation export to glTF?

[arno]

You could provide each developer a unique GUID, which could be recorded into the model. No key, no access. You’d have to decide whether to maintain a database on their behalf. You could code your user ID so it couldn’t be hacked out of the model.

This is what I support. It would be great!

I get your basic idea, but neither the MDL format nor the glTF format have a good way to store such a key. So it would be very easy for people to remove such a fingerprint again.

Or do you mean that MCX should just not open a model that does not has such a fingerprint? That would give you a chicken-and-egg problem you would have to export it with MCX first to add it, but you can't import it without it

But hopefully by discussing ideas like this further we can find a workable approach. At least this is an on topic discussion that might help us forward.

 

[Essex]

Well it is there for simple scenery objects already.

Thanks for this compromise.

With the new stable version in mind, was it intentional to have the same restriction on glTF models that are packaged in a MSFS20 bgl library?

 

[arno]

Thanks for this compromise.

With the new stable version in mind, was it intentional to have the same restriction on glTF models that are packaged in a MSFS20 bgl library?

That's a good question, I need to double check. When a model is read from glTF I think there are no animation export restrictions. So if that logic is followed a glTF packed in a MDL file should maybe also have no restrictions? But I can't remember exactly how it is coded now.

 

[=rk=]

With the new stable version in mind, was it intentional to have the same restriction on glTF models that are packaged in a MSFS20 bgl library?

A few pages back, I'd had the same concern, but with a little coaching from Arno, I was able to export a simobject with several ambient animations. If I am not mistaken, the block affects only individuals trying to convert .mdl to .glTF, presumably on the basis that those of us who own .mdl files, can go about our leisure converting these to glTF format, without fear that Arno will enable pirates to do so first. Those of us who lost our original source files, might as well get a parrot and eye patch.

Because, why else have the block? Developers, like Milton Shupe, Virtavia, Nemeth Brothers, that will never convert their .mdl's to MSFS, are unaffected. Developers that develop the MSFS platform are unaffected. Arno is protecting Manfred, so he can go about exporting his .3ds to native glTF, finally once and for all, proving to the hosting sites that HIS is the original.

Anyway, we should be able to export our waving flags and rotating radars, without stepping on any toes.

 

[arno]

Thanks for this compromise.

With the new stable version in mind, was it intentional to have the same restriction on glTF models that are packaged in a MSFS20 bgl library?

I have checked now, when reading the object from a MSFS MDL file (a wrapped glTF file) the animation export is also limited indeed. I'll do some more thinking to see if that restriction is really needed.

 

[Hiroshi Igami]

I don't want to Hi-Jack this thread but want to say this.

>Developers, like Milton Shupe, Virtavia, Nemeth Brothers, that will never convert their .mdl's to MSFS, are unaffected. Developers that develop the MSFS platform are unaffected.

Sir If Releasing and without a permission from them.
It violates their copyrights.
You MUST get permissions to do those first.
Unaffected or not is nothing to do with can do or not,
It's about the rights and who to decide is original author.

 

[=rk=]

They remain unaffected, sir. It is generally understood already that Virtavia has surrendered all rights, Milton Shupe has allowed derivative works, glad to inform, but you are advocating on behalf of a hypothetical and beyond that, you advocate that Arno should curtail his own development in order to enforce rights for authors that have surrendered them.

 

[arno]

Guys, can we please keep the discussion on topic. I don't think for this discussion that it makes sense to name specific developers and whether they are affected or not.

The general rule is that you can not release a converted work unless you have permission from the original developer. If some developers have given this permission fine. But making statements that developers who will not convert their work to MSFS are not affect is just not true, the copyright on their work still holds and you would need their permission. But this discussion is about animation export ability and not about the conditions to release converted work.

 

[=rk=]

" this kind of thinking is going against the community thoughts"
Don't think you are the community.

Did you read the whole thread ?
Many people thinks different way.
Everyone is not same , each has each thoughts.
Everyone has a different back ground.

Well, by your very definition, to have thoughts, he is a member of the community. FYI, It is the Microsoft way of teaching, to publish examples and samples, from which developers can generate derivative works. Experimentation with components and parts is the way I have accomplished anything in the simulator and by experimenting, one is not stealing. Perhaps you learned differently and if you consider Microsoft to be part of the community, you would want to also factor the nature of it's participation, into your understanding of community.

The general rule is that you can not release a converted work unless you have permission from the original developer.

The general rule is that people release their own work, period. That is by far the overwhelming application, deployment and use of MCX. The subject of "stolen work" is a hypothetical and in this very long thread, we have had one or two examples of developers to which this applies. I would go so far as to say the subject is less about publishing other peoples models, as it is about publishing one's own lost source models. Perhaps in that, I am mistaken.

So, that is my point. I could have messaged, "no one is affected." I had not realized that naming retired developers, would trigger an opportunity to raise objections over the arguably noble concern to protect their estate. Additionally, the scope of the presumed threat had not been altogether understood, you are not considering conversions within the franchise.

The main reason for not releasing the functionality at this moment is that it would make it easier to pirate on the work of developers and take it outside of the FS world.

So, to be clear, this would affect FSX/FS9/P3D developers, who have not yet published to MSFS, because the glTF thieves could simply purchase one legal copy at the Microsoft Store and be off to Second Life with it.
Because of this "wild west" and the fact that someone may convert the software of someone very specific who has made this case to you - and the normal legal process for piracy is inadequate, we go through this. We go without MCX mdl to glTF conversions and we post here, if it is exactly on topic.

 

[arno]

Guys, thanks for all the inputs. I think all the opinions have been voiced by now and we are going around in circles now debating this topic from two different standpoints without trying to understand the position of the other side. As I don't think further discussion will add much new insights I am closing this thread now.