Page 3 of 3

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

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:34 pm
by Dr. Merio
Posting unofficial modules in the off-topic section wouldn't help much. They wouldn't be exposed publicly and they would clutter a section that wasn't intended for them.

People who really have an urge to post music made with unofficial builds of FT can post NSFs and probably a module that partially works in vanilla FT (although this defeats the purpose of tracking a song in another build). In my opinion, it's something that shouldn't be abused though, mostly because posting FTMs is a lot more encouraged than posting NSFs (although the latter is welcome regardless). However authors should be given the choice to not distribute the sources too, but this isn't related to this discussion.

jsr has stated in this thread that he's not interested in hosting songs that aren't compatible with vanilla FT, so a new subforum won't be coming anytime soon. Even then, this is the FamiTracker forums after all. It would be madness if we were flooded with files that can't be opened in the official version.

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

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:17 pm
by ollaxe
Dr. Merio wrote:Posting unofficial modules in the off-topic section wouldn't help much. They wouldn't be exposed publicly and they would clutter a section that wasn't intended for them.

People who really have an urge to post music made with unofficial builds of FT can post NSFs and probably a module that partially works in vanilla FT (although this defeats the purpose of tracking a song in another build). In my opinion, it's something that shouldn't be abused though, mostly because posting FTMs is a lot more encouraged than posting NSFs (although the latter is welcome regardless). However authors should be given the choice to not distribute the sources too, but this isn't related to this discussion.

jsr has stated in this thread that he's not interested in hosting songs that aren't compatible with vanilla FT, so a new subforum won't be coming anytime soon. Even then, this is the FamiTracker forums after all. It would be madness if we were flooded with files that can't be opened in the official version.


Sounds sensible. Thanks for the answer!
But what about if someone creates a song with a fork (no, not the cutlery... wat?) and uploads an NSF, but over 9000 (sorry for that horrible reference) people ask for the unofficial FTM, like seen in this thread on the old forums? Is the OP allowed to upload the FTM in that case?

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

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:44 pm
by Dr. Merio
In that case I'm not sure at all, jsr would have to answer your question. My guess is that it would still be disallowed.

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

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:54 pm
by ollaxe
Dr. Merio wrote:In that case I'm not sure at all, jsr would have to answer your question. My guess is that it would still be disallowed.


Okay, thanks! :)

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

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:06 am
by TechEmporium
retrodpc wrote: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.


I don't see how that was a bad example to use when it's still more than apt. Maybe you were just too passionate about your side to read what I was trying to say, so I just decided to clarify my side.

The problem is that, regardless of what fork you use, they all have features not yet present in the official FamiTracker build. Whether or not that fork entails multichip, a new arp scheme or detuning (or even all 3 for that matter,) either 1 of 3 things can happen when someone tries to open the file in the official program:

1. The program opens, but your detune/arp scemes won't work as they should.
2. The program will only run the first expansion chip detected in a multichip file.
3. The program will crash when trying to read a multichip file.

And quite frankly, the staff have enough about dealing with problems regarding the official build; they seriously don't need people complaining about the official build because of something that's not working thanks to a hacked module.

Regardless; one good thing about the project being open-source is that people can contribute code that can be implemented into the official build (like 5B support, multichip, etc.). Just as long as people make their additions to FamiTracker available to JSR, that's probably the only way this matter could ultimately be resolved.

The whole argument could also be applied to older versions of FamiTracker, but the thing is that older versions of FamiTracker aren't really used anymore (I know because I was one of the last hold-outs & have no need to worry about it anymore). Most people will upgrade to newer versions because older modules will still run in newer versions, but for someone to come in & complain at this time that they can't open a 0.4.6 module in 0.2.7, is the same as someone complaining that a hacked module from 0cc (or from some other fork) doesn't work properly in the official build. This is the prime issue with your whole side, really, regardless of if you take any of my points seriously or think that I've "used a bad example" (an example which was the whole premise of the debate from the very beginning).

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


Holy crap; that's one hell of a cartridge. I wouldn't mind getting my hand on one of those along with an NES2 (I still have my Honey Bee adapter). :o

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

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:47 am
by rainwarrior
I think you quoted the wrong part of my post. Aren't you talking about the TNS-HFX4 I linked?

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

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 2:33 am
by HertzDevil
TechEmporium wrote:2. The program will only run the first expansion chip detected in a multichip file.
3. The program will crash when trying to read a multichip file.

False. Since 0.3.5 beta 0 neither has happened for nearly all multi-chip FTMs, otherwise people would not have been producing them in the official build at a steady rate even before there was NSF export support. Using all expansion chips available in any given official release will fail FamiTracker while loading, but that is because of an unrelated assertion in CFamiTrackerDoc::ReadBlock_Parameters(CDocumentFile) that would be similarly fixed if the official build is to implement proper multi-chip support:

Code: Select all

ASSERT_FILE_DATA(m_iChannelsAvailable < MAX_CHANNELS); // should be <=

In particular, 0.4.2 beta 1 incorporated rainwarrior's text importer, so anything supported by the text importer should in principle match precisely what is allowed within the program without using the text importer; either TextExporter.cpp should be modified so that importation fails if more than one expansion chip is found, or ModulePropertiesDlg.cpp should be modified so that users can access multiple expansion chips without the use of the text importer. I fail to see how multi-chip modules are not officially supported if jsr has assumed the responsibility of maintaining the text importer in the official release.
RushJet1 wrote: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.

To clarify, the following builds are not backward-compatible:
  • 0.2.x stable
  • 0.3.0 re-release
  • 0.3.5 beta 0
  • 0.3.5 stable
  • 0.3.6 beta 1
  • 0.3.6 beta 4
  • 0.3.8 beta 1
  • 0.3.8 beta 2
  • 0.4.0 stable
  • 0.4.2 stable
  • 0.5.0 beta 1
However, the "newer version of FamiTracker" error should happen only if the major version number of FamiTracker changes. Therefore, a FTM saved in 0.3.0 stable, then saved without modification in 0.3.8 beta 5, could be reopened in 0.3.0 stable (although instrument sequences will very likely be trashed), but a 0.4.0 stable FTM cannot be opened in any of the 0.3.8 beta builds and will generate such an error. This error should not relate to whether the FTM was created in a stable or beta build.

The original argument against a separate file extension is that modules compatible with the official build will be unnecessarily rendered incompatible after one saves that FTM in 0CC-FamiTracker despite not using any of its extra features (taking advantage only of the interface improvements); but I have plans to somehow add support for every version of FamiTracker, even downgrading a module all the way to official 0.2.2, this will be done in a later stage.

That said, file extensions should not be solely used to indicate that the FTM is incompatible with the official build (multiple file formats are indeed using .FTM, and even FamiTracker itself uses both that and .BAK).

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

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 10:49 pm
by TechEmporium
About the FTMs not crashing the program or glitching out; thanks for that. The more I learn... 8-)

rainwarrior wrote:I think you quoted the wrong part of my post. Aren't you talking about the TNS-HFX4 I linked?


Yes; I quoted the wrong thing entirely. Thanks for pointing that out. But yeah; that cartridge is one hell of a monster. In any case, hurray for multichip being implemented officially.

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

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:57 pm
by retrodpc
TechEmporium wrote:I don't see how that was a bad example to use when it's still more than apt. Maybe you were just too passionate about your side to read what I was trying to say, so I just decided to clarify my side.

This seems like a personal attack, but the issue itself has already been resolved, so I'll continue to the next part...

TechEmporium wrote:And quite frankly, the staff have enough about dealing with problems regarding the official build; they seriously don't need people complaining about the official build because of something that's not working thanks to a hacked module.

Regardless; one good thing about the project being open-source is that people can contribute code that can be implemented into the official build (like 5B support, multichip, etc.). Just as long as people make their additions to FamiTracker available to JSR, that's probably the only way this matter could ultimately be resolved.

I completely agree on this.

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

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 1:21 pm
by jrlepage
The non-official modules debate was settled days ago. Further discussion is likely to only lead to disputes stemming from differences in opinion, so I'll take the liberty of locking this thread.