Quote from: Michiel = mi-shi-el on June 03, 2010, 04:22:06 PM
What is possible in bf2 sometimes is in bf1.

All you posted is a video with extra audio dubbed over.

There are eight holocrons to pick up, offhand I can give you some vague locations (that may or may not be correct - it's been a long time since I've played it, but you should still ignore them if you want to get them on your own)
[spoiler]1 ) landing pad
2 ) Wookiee catamaran (side of island opposite town)
3 )underwater in shallow inlet on same side of island as catamaran
4 ) behind Acklay cave
5 ) behind building in town
6 ) behind Jawa building
7 ) small island in inlet towards the mountains (near where the Black Sun guys are)
8 ) Rebel island[/spoiler]
You can get all of these before you even set the story in motion (for the most part). Also, make sure you get the shield bonus (the Black Sun sidequest) as early as possible, since each levelup adds to your shield if you have it. With a high-leveled shield and player, you can get the eighth holocron just by walking out to it through the water.

Also, if you're having problems with Rebel Ops:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=67950E584D0BCB8F

Find all the holocrons, conquest becomes much easier. You haven't gotten all the CPs if you are losing - you only lose by running out of reinforcements. First you capture the CPs in the town and in the forest, then the CP by the hill, then you proceed into the mountain.

And OFM is definitely one of my favorites, too. It got me interested in learning mission scripting, and it's probably the reason I made my Rebel Ops series (which you have played, right?  )

Quote from: Jedikiller on May 29, 2010, 11:07:52 AM
I thought the general rule was that as long as you credit those originally responsible for the work, it's OK to redistribute. Nobody releases these under license so there isn't a clear set of rules defining what to do. I mean, in the end, unless they specifically state they don't want it on any other site, then it should be ok, right? More publicity and all that.

The reviews are property of Filefront and yes, should probably not be posted up (we can easily fix that though) but Gametoast has pretty much the entire archive on their server. Including reviews, screenshots, ratings, and a lot more. That's essentially the same thing.  I know some of my files are in that archive, and I didn't give permission for them to be hosted there. Granted, I don't really care, but still.

I know that any of the files hosted at Gametoast have been posted there with the original author's permission. Once hosted on any site that's not the property of the original author, whatever is hosted there becomes the joint property of the host and the author (because it's the host's webspace), and of course anything posted there that's original to that site (like reviews) are sole property of that website. The "original" file (or whatever is directly on the author's computer) is really the only thing that the author has total explicit legal control over.

I've been pretty lenient (certainly moreso than some of the other Filefront Network sites, who are incredibly strict about rehosting Filefront's files) about rehosting of things like that so long as it stays within the community proper (larger community-affiliated sites), and I wouldn't have any problem with it [Filefront addenda] hosted here either but for the fact that I'm pretty sure no one even bothered to ask (I know no one asked to repost my reviews). For courtesy's sake, the author should really always be consulted on their files being rehosted - I know that for my own case, I'd want to be contacted for permission if for no other reason than to know where my files are and who's using them!

I'm not here to sic legal dogs on anyone; just pointing out that it's a bit of a faux pas to just start moving people's stuff around without doing them the courtesy of letting them know.

Do you have permission from the authors to rehost their files? Do you have permission from anyone associated with the reviews you copied to repost them?

Quote from: Soap Mactavish on May 09, 2010, 05:48:59 PM
Yes! please, lets start a war over who made it below [insert sarcasm here]

I'm never interested in starting an argument. The tone of your post seems to indicate that you don't think it's worth correcting the name of the person who should receive the most credit for a particular release - I disagree, because authorship is important ("made by" and "converted by" are two very different things). If this thread is to be a proper set of "reviews" as it purports to be, it's important to highlight the author who did the most work on a specific map - there are lots of "thanks JK!" and "looks great, JK!," and while he did do a bit of work in converting the map, the vast majority of the work on the map is due to another author who hasn't gotten a lick of thanks (past JK's original post). I know that if I were that author, I'd want someone to have my back and mention my name. That is why I make a correction like that one, not because I'm interested in inciting debate.

Quote from: Jedikiller on May 09, 2010, 06:31:02 PM
No, I didn't make it, but I did do some work, so I think that while Sky should get 90% of the credit, I deserve at least 10% for converting it.

I won't apportion percentages of credit; I know you did some work in converting it. I was just troubled by the lack of mention of Skyhammer's name anywhere beyond the first post where you mentioned you were going to do it. I mentioned it here since this topic purports itself to be a review topic - surely the map's author should be mentioned at the very least here.

And, as you yourself said:

Quote from: Jedikiller on May 01, 2010, 09:49:01 PMSky gets all of the credit here- I just convert.

Quote from: Ryanoceros on May 08, 2010, 11:28:45 AM
The latest release is the "cto" map made by Jedikiller. It's a swbf2 conversion map. It's pretty good.

It's not "made" by Jedikiller. All he did was convert it.

Quick question - since I assume most of his models didn't have collision geometry built-in, does SWBF1's munge auto-generate collision geometry for meshes like SWBF2's does?

The real question is "why are you looking on SWBFFiles for tutorials?"
SWBFFiles = Files
Gametoast = Tutorials

http://www.gametoast.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=20144

I can almost guarantee that it's Caleb's model. I can confirm my suspicions for sure if you tell me which model and/or post the .msh.option, but it's likely that it's using an .option tag to force a shadowvolume to be generated from the LOD 0 model (the highest poly version of the model; the visible one). Usually a shadowvolume is a lowpoly model that preserves only the basic shape of a model; if you're using a high-res shadow it can take a long time to munge. Don't ever stop a munge, just wait for it to finish (because it will finish eventually).

Quote from: gogo12 on April 23, 2010, 12:06:23 PMI think the model was made by Maveritchell 

Ugh, it'd be a lot better if you made your own model. That was the first model I made and it's really only suitable for a lowrez/distance model. It's pretty bad.

Quote from: Nikoli on April 22, 2010, 08:22:45 PM
How is this illigal? http://www.jpcommunications.net/discount/buy_cheap_Avid_SoftImage_XSI_Advanced_5.0_download.html

I would be interested to see how they are selling license keys since XSI|Softimage (now Autodesk) no longer sells them and hasn't for years, and since any full copy of XSI Foundation requires a digital product key. And I sincerely mean interested, as XSI Foundation had a price tag of a few hundred dollars - if that were legitimate (I do not believe it is), then I would leap at the opportunity to get the software for that low a price, especially since it is not available for purchase.

In any case, you don't have to prove anything to me - I'm not looking for validation or refutation of what I believe I know. Did you manage to find the rotoscope option and give it a try?

Quote from: Nikoli on April 22, 2010, 08:01:15 PMI thought there were rules against junior admining and if you have a beef with me it should be better discussed in PMs

I don't have any problem with you personally; I've just been trying to help you figure out how to make your model better. I'm not making any judgements either, I was simply pointing out that if you're not using XSI Mod Tool, like you said:

Quote from: Nikoli on April 22, 2010, 06:50:28 PM
I'm using XSI not the mod tool.

...and you're not using the XSI trial, like you said:

Quote from: Nikoli on April 22, 2010, 07:23:36 PMAnd I'm not using a trial version but thanks for the advice anyway.

...then you are consequently using a pirated version of the software (assuming there is not simply a terminology confusion). Not doing anything more than putting you on alert in the event that you were unaware that the software you're using is technically illegal in most countries. 

Quote from: Nikoli on April 22, 2010, 07:23:36 PM
Thanks, I'll try that out next time. And I'm not using a trial version but thanks for the advice anyway.

If you're not using a trial version then you're using a pirated (and illegal) version, since the version of Foundation needed hasn't been available for purchase for several years.

It might be worthwhile to start learning XSI Mod Tool, since your trial will eventually run out for XSI Foundation.

In any case, either version has an option in the viewport to add a rotoscope:


Once added, the rotoscopy options give a couple fairly self-explanatory means of manipulating the image (e.g. size, positioning) to help you line it up with your model.