Why are non-official modules not allowed to be posted?

[Threxx]

You seem to be having a lot of trouble around the concept of "official"

Glad we're jumping to the insults now; totally helps your point

I don't understand why it is so much to ask that people say that they are using a beta build, especially a beta build which is not backwards compatible with any previous builds. I mean, just make an announcement about it if it is too much trouble to enforce.

[jsr]

Frankly I think this is a major stifling to a lot of people who use different builds with extra features involved in them. As long as the OP makes it clear what the build they used is (and possibly provides a download link) I don't see what the issue here is. Any possible insight on this rule?

This is my view on it: FamiTracker is open source and anyone is welcome to contribute with additions/new features, it's not a dead project. If someone instead decides to make a fork then I can only assume there is no interest in making contributions and intends to keep it as a separate project (there are some exceptions, but these are few). I have enough work to do maintaining my own project so I don't see why this should have to be a hub for several different projects.

Really, if you want to post such files here then blame the fork authors instead.

Then there's the issue with files that pretends to be famitracker files but are not, something I personally dislike. But I guess that's unavoidable with open source software.

EDIT: I'd also like to note that there have been multiple postings of FTM's saved with the 0.5 beta (which has no compatibility with any previous versions) and it has not been stated; yet this has not been pointed out as something that should be corrected for future threads. If your module isn't compatible with the most recent stable version of the official tracker, why is that not a rule that it should be stated?

EDIT 2: Quoting from the original SOYW forum rules:

5. When posting FTM files, please only upload files that are compatible with the most recent version of Famitracker.

Interpreting this to mean the most recent stable build, then all 0.5 beta FTMs should be disallowed as well. This seems more and more like unfair discrimination against certain forks of Famitracker.

That's because beta builds eventually will become official and these files are guaranteed to work in future versions.

[retrodpc]

I can understand why non-official modules are not allowed (I believe I've said this before), but I still think that beta-specific modules should be labeled as such.

[rainwarrior]

Yes, it is polite to mention that you're using the beta when you post FTMs that require it.

[jrlepage]

I fully stand behind jsr on this. Also, regarding modules saved from beta builds, as rainwarrior said, it is mostly a courtesy thing to mention it. It definitely isn't worth the hassle to enforce any kind of rule that makes it necessary to mention it. Neither I nor any of the other staff members, I'm sure, will feel like trying to open every single module that gets posted to both the Cover and Original sections to make sure they work in the latest stable build, much less take care of the moderation business involved.

[TechEmporium]

Glad we're jumping to the insults now; totally helps your point

I don't understand why it is so much to ask that people say that they are using a beta build, especially a beta build which is not backwards compatible with any previous builds. I mean, just make an announcement about it if it is too much trouble to enforce.

I agree with this, to a certain extent. It's practical to make announcements IF you're using an official beta or official release version. But, for reasons that should be obvious to everyone, it's not practical to even post modules made in unofficial builds that support multiple chips, let alone announcing that it's made in whatever unofficial version.

Let's put it this way, Threxx; you post a module that has every soundchip hacked into it (yes; hacked, because that's not how the original NES ever worked at all) & someone who's totally new to FamiTracker wants to run it. If the guy reads what unofficial version is needed to run it, then it'd be up to him to find a copy & run it (good luck to this guy, though, as most unofficial builds are scattered on the old forum, rather than having their own websites). And then, there are those guys who don't bother reading your post & goes straight for the module; he'll then discover that the module doesn't work with the official version of FamiTracker & complains to JSR about it, without knowing that it's a hacked module.

Technically, these forks of FamiTracker that allow for multiple chips are realy allowing the use of hacked modules that go against the NES' specs (which is something JSR's trying to stick with). I'm sure you can create NSF files with multiple chips in MML (correct me if I'm wrong,) but the fact that there's no physical way to integrate all these chips together into a single cartridge (i.e.: without the use of hardware- or software-level emulation,) should tell you a lot about how the visions of some people differ from both the reality of the original system, as well as JSR's desire to stick to that reality.

And this ignores those users who are too ignorant to read posts, as well as those users who aren't savvy enough to know where to download these unofficial builds that support multiple chips.

And that's why I agree with the staff not permitting these hacked modules; as artistic as they may be, they're hacked modules that require an unofficial version that permits hacked modules (& to new people, these copies aren't exactly as easy to find unless they're well informed & know how to read). I'd rather not see this place get flooded with complaints to JSR about not being able to open a module that they don't know is a hack (as do all staff members).

[retrodpc]

...modules made in unofficial builds that support multiple chips, let alone announcing that it's made in whatever unofficial version.

Let's put it this way, Threxx; you post a module that has every soundchip hacked into it (yes; hacked, because that's not how the original NES ever worked at all) & someone who's totally new to FamiTracker wants to run it. If the guy reads what unofficial version is needed to run it, then it'd be up to him to find a copy & run it (good luck to this guy, though, as most unofficial builds are scattered on the old forum, rather than having their own websites). And then, there are those guys who don't bother reading your post & goes straight for the module; he'll then discover that the module doesn't work with the official version of FamiTracker & complains to JSR about it, without knowing that it's a hacked module.

Technically, these forks of FamiTracker that allow for multiple chips are realy allowing the use of hacked modules that go against the NES' specs (which is something JSR's trying to stick with). I'm sure you can create NSF files with multiple chips in MML (correct me if I'm wrong,) but the fact that there's no physical way to integrate all these chips together into a single cartridge (i.e.: without the use of hardware- or software-level emulation,) should tell you a lot about how the visions of some people differ from both the reality of the original system, as well as JSR's desire to stick to that reality.

And this ignores those users who are too ignorant to read posts, as well as those users who aren't savvy enough to know where to download these unofficial builds that support multiple chips.

And that's why I agree with the staff not permitting these hacked modules; as artistic as they may be, they're hacked modules that require an unofficial version that permits hacked modules (& to new people, these copies aren't exactly as easy to find unless they're well informed & know how to read). I'd rather not see this place get flooded with complaints to JSR about not being able to open a module that they don't know is a hack (as do all staff members).

I would like to point out that 0CC's main (and original) feature wasn't even multichip - it is the arpeggio scheme that has been long requested in FT itself. While I respect the final decision, and I respect your position, you chose a very bad example to use =P

EDIT: Personally, I have only used multichip seriously twice ever; the main reasons I used other forks were 5B support, arp schemes, and detune.

[rainwarrior]

Multichip is a planned feature for Famitracker, anyway, it's just not ready yet. (And for the record, there are non-emulating hardware solutions for it too.)

[RushJet1]

I think the biggest issue is that when you load a beta FTM into an older version, it tells you that this FTM was created in a newer version of FamiTracker. If you load a 0cc FTM into normal famitracker, it says nothing, then the audio potentially sounds wrong depending on missing features. This is why I think 0cc should have its own file extension. Even if people say to load it into 0cc, I'll come across the FTMs on my hard drive later and not know which ones open in which editor.

[ollaxe]

Couldn't unofficial modules be uploaded to the offtopic forum? Or get their own forum? I don't really care a whole lot, because I don't use any forks other than for listening, but it would still be nice having unofficial modules on the official forums. Otherwise, there'd be a ton of good chiptune tracks that I'd miss, because I don't want to sign up to the forks' forums.