Posts made by Dark0ne

Hello,

We've refreshed the cache. Please try now.

Hello,

About a month ago we started consulting with some members of the community and users in the RDR2 modding scene about whether we would make a new site based off of the 5Mods codebase, or whether we would make use of Nexus Mods for RDR2 mods instead.

To that end I created a "pros" and "cons" document for both sites that I could share with people. The point of the document was to highlight the functional differences between the two platforms and extenuating issues that might have been relevant when we were deciding on the right platform to use. Here is what I came up with.

5Mods

Pros:

• Largest modding site for Rockstar's games so well recognised and known amongst the community.
• It's own site, rather than being a game underneath a larger site - which has its own pros and cons.
• More relaxed rules on uploaded files but questionable in legality - e.g. 5Mods policy is typically "if you use it, you credit the original author" whereas Nexus Mods policy is "if you want to use it, you must get or have permission first". This could also be considered a "con" as it is dubious when it comes to copyright law, and some mod authors like having creative control over their work.
• No download speed restrictions.
• Easier file adding process.

Cons:

• Not possible to easily link the 5Mods userbase with any new site based off of 5Mods - thus you would need to create and use a separate account for a RDR2 site - you would not be able to use your 5Mods account on another site based off of 5Mods.
• Not impossible to integrate Vortex with 5Mods, but harder to do on our end.
• Does not take priority over Nexus Mods and no plans to extensively develop (or redevelop) the codebase with new functionality. Mostly bug fixing and maintenance only. What you see on 5Mods now, in terms of functionality, is likely all there is ever going to be.
• No Donation Points system, so no decent way for us to give back to mod authors and tool creators. Definitely will not happen on any 5Mods-based site as the workload is simply too much.
• New mod uploads require manual moderator approval which can take anywhere from 1 - 48 hours.
• File size limit of 400MB.

Nexus Mods

Pros:

• Very well known on the PC platform as a whole, with over 18 million members.
• Easier to integrate our mod manager, Vortex, with any modding system made for RDR2. Which is something we'd like to do.
• Better backend tools, especially in regards to moderation and SPAM prevention.
• More stable platform, including extensive DDoS protection which 5Mods lacks without enabling strict CloudFlare settings which lessen the user experience.
• Donation Point system allows us to fairly and regularly reward mod authors who use the site. In 17 months Nexus Mods has paid out over $150,000 to mod authors (https://www.nexusmods.com/about/donation-points/).
• Mod Collections integration in the near future (like mod packs, but more mod author friendly).
• Mod authors get an ad-free browsing experience after receiving 1000+ unique downloads on their mods.
• Nexus Mods wiki can be leveraged for modding guides and tutorials.
• Terms and Conditions that respect "author rights" more.
• File size limit of 10GB.

Cons:

• Not as well known in the Rockstar modding community.
• Download speed restrictions for non-Premium Members of 2MB/second, though mod file sizes are typically a lot smaller on Rockstar games so unlikely to be a major drawback
• Upload process might be perceived as being more cumbersome in comparison to 5Mods due to having a lot more features and functions.
• Forums are part of a larger board which has less focus on specific discussions for RDR2.

Ultimately we decided to go with the Nexus Mods route as, in the long term, we think it would be better for both us and the community.

We know a big point of contention for mod authors in the GTA5 modding community is that they would like to receive more financial compensation for their work, or at least more avenues by which they can be rewarded. Nexus Mods has committed to giving back and supporting our mod authors financially, with $156,000 donated to mod authors in the past 17 months with a view to increasing that amount moving forward. The Donation Points system works by us filtering money earnt from advertising and Premium Memberships into a Donation Points pool from which authors earn those points based on how many unique downloads their mods receive each month. In this way, mod authors earn more, while it costs nothing directly to mod users. We would not be able to do this with a RDR2 site based on the 5Mods code, so the RDR2 modders would miss out on (potentially, if it gets as big as GTA5 modding) tens of thousands of dollars in donations each year through our Donation Points system.

On top of this, we would like to work with tool developers, such as Open IV, Codewalker, the script hooks et al to try and make modding easier for the end user in RDR2 than it is in GTA5. We've already got over 3 years of work put into our open source mod manager, Vortex, which is used by millions of users already to mod over 80 games, with a further 6 years experience on our previous (also open source) mod manager, the Nexus Mod Manager. We'd like to get mod manager support integrated for RDR2 and try and make the process as simple as possible for end users. The aim is to make modding the game as accessible as possible for as many people as possible so that everyone can enjoy modding the game without having to jump through a multitude of technical steps first. Whether we can ultimately achieve that is going to depend a lot on how willing the toolmakers are to work with us, but it's a definite goal.

Since Vortex is integrated closely with the Nexus Mods website, it would be difficult, cumbersome and time-consuming to try and integrate it into a 5Mods-based site as well.

I understand some of you might not like this decision, but I wanted to provide you with the reasons why we came to this decision.

Either way, I wish you all well, no matter what site you use to get your RDR2 mods.

We hope to review the search system again soon, and hopefully fix some niggling bugs/issues with it.

Please can you upload it to somewhere like DropBox or a Google Drive and PM me the link? I'll try uploading it myself. If I can reproduce the error then it will be easier for us to find out why it's happening and if we can fix it.

Hello,

The person who worked on this part of the code is off today (and over the bank holiday weekend in the UK). I will try and get an answer for you ASAP, however, there might not be one until Tuesday.

I, too, cannot replicate this issue.

I need to know what browser you're using (and what version), and what extensions you are using that could mess with javascript on the site (i.e. "noscript", "adblockers" or similar "security" extensions).

Please can you put your description in a Pastebin and DM me the link to it? I'll test it out.

I've just woken up and now I cannot reproduce this error.

Can people confirm whether they are still seeing the error or whether it's now fixed?

Thank you.

We're aware of the issue and think it's a change that the ad provider has made today to their code, which has screwed us over. The fix, believe it or not, is to use an adblocker.

It's 10.40pm in the UK right now, so the programmers won't be online for another 10 hours or so to see if they can do anything to fix it.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

PS. We intend to make the site completely ad free for verified mod authors in the next coding run we do for 5Mods.

They definitely should not be auto-playing sound. We've informed the ad provider of this issue.

Nope, that's not correct, @Reyser

The avatar issue was a bug for some time while Rappo was still maintaining the site. He was making live changes to the database manually to "fix" this issue on a case by case basis, but we do not do that as it's not a good practise to do any more.

Right now, there is no fix. I hope we can get someone to fully look at the issue in the not too distant future just to confirm once and for all whether it can be fixed at all!

It doesn't escalate any further than me.

The author of the vehicle you are skinning specifically states his terms on his page, saying:

Random parts of the model have been mapped to the skin. Changing the skin will make textures look dodgey. On this note, please DO NOT upload reskins without first asking permision.

As such, the moderation team have done nothing wrong.

Since you have threatened legal action, however ridiculous the notion, I will now suspend your account as per our Terms of Service and leave this to my solicitor, should I hear anything from yours. You shall receive no further direct communication from me on this matter, or any matter to do with the site.

Have a great day.

Thank you for all the superfluous sarcasm. It was really helpful and will no doubt help us to resolve this issue faster.

Regardless, we have placed a ticket in our bug tracker to take a look at the issue of spaces causing complications in the search.

Unfortunately there's nothing we can do as we do not own the copyright on the mods made.

Authors need to DMCA the site, and their host, as I think it is safe to assume the site owner is the one who is actually doing this and therefore he's unlikely to give a shit about DMCA takedowns or, you know, copyright law.

They are currently pushing their traffic behind CloudFlare, so first port of call is to file a copyright/DMCA takedown request using their form here: https://www.cloudflare.com/abuse/form

If you're a mod author whose mod is on that site and you care about this person reuploading your work and making money from it, you need to be the one to file the complaint as you are the copyright owner of your mod. No one else can legally file the complaint for you.

I can't reproduce the issue with the links. On my test file, if I add the following, it works fine:

<a href="http://www.google.com">Testing Links</a>

We're finding it very hard to lock down exactly what it is that is causing the issue in a repeatable fashion across multiple files, i.e. what doesn't work on some files, does work on others.

Taken another look at this today and your code actually works absolutely fine on my test page. Still exploring what it could be.

Yes, I think it's to do with how you've formatted the HTML. Some tags are in the wrong place/order which, on top of those special characters, is causing an issue. But it's late and I don't want to refactor all your description HTML to try and find where the exact issue lies.

@Gta5KoRn Ok so, after testing, the problem isn't the length of the description. The problem seems to have something to do with the special characters in your description. If I remove the down arrows at the bottom, the right arrows and the bullet points at the top, it works. If I leave them in, it gives that error.

It's likely a bad mix of special characters and HTML which is causing the error. I advise removing those items and just having a little play around with it.

@Gta5KoRn please can you post the description you're trying to enter into https://pastebin.com/ and let me know the link? I can then copy and paste it, and try it.

We haven't made any changes to the Long Description length so it shouldn't be an issue, @Gta5KoRn

Are you still getting this error?

Search on the site or on the forums? Both work for me.

Is that what happened 16 hours ago, or what just happened now? Have you been able to repeat the error since 16 hours ago?