Modding Discussion .Pak files What are they, how do they work?

I've always been a bit concerned when I hear about the *.pak files, I mean, if we can install mods easily, great (though, I doubt there is much of a difference in user difficulty between dragging a folder to the mods folder, and dragging a file there, but I'll assume that I'm wrong here), the fact that more people might be able to install mods is terrifying, but that's not my concern right now.

My concern is the ability of users to open the .pak files to see what changes have been made.

I'm sure that if they can't be opened, people who are insecure about the usefulness of their mods will expound the virtue of the user's inability to make changes to their mod, but I'm not happy with that, if I can't know what's going on inside the mod, it remains one of life's pointless (and exceedingly frustrating) mysteries.

If it's really just a .zip file with a different extension (I would feel a strange mix of irritation that there would be no difference), at least I can open it to find out how it ticks; something I might not be able to do with a strange, and probably unwieldy file format which may or may not (I tend to doubt this unless the techniques are explained) provide some variety of optimization.

In any case, I would just ask for some clarification as to the nature of the *.pak file format.

 

A .pak file is another way of archiving and compressing groups of files like .rar or .zip. AFAIK the popular programs for .rar/.zip aren't able to open .pak files. When I used to do stuff for Crysis 2 they had a tool that extracted/compressed the files for you. I assume this will work the same way. I don't think it's much to worry about, it will just be one extra application you may need.

 

Why would they develop their own format, when .zip is fine?
I'm saying that if it isn't an off the shelf archive format, then it's only a hassle for us and the devs.

 

Why is this terrifying? What's wrong with people installing mods?

 

Just to add though, .pak isn't that uncommon and it seems to be widely used I games anyway, I'm fine with using .pak as it would be no more of a hassle than archiving in any other format imo

 

from Wikipedia

This sounds like a perfectly awful format to me, but imo.

 

There's probably more reason behind the choice than meets the eye. I'm sure the .pak use cases in the wiki article you linked must all be absurd and no-nothing developers and are dumb for not using .zip or .rar or .tar.gz or .7z or even

 

What makes it awful? They can be much faster than .rar/.zip while still providing decent compression.

 

.pak IS NOT a format.
Therefore it CANNOT be awful in and of itself for being a pak file.
It is a generic extension that people use to indicate packaged content.
Most games use some either common or proprietary compression or packaging method, because its generally nicer than having 1000's of small files laying about. (*cough* starbound assets folder).

So it can even be a zip file. (just renamed)

Many file extensions are actually just renamed for some reason or other.

For instance Java .jar files are just zip files, relabled as jar, so that the operating system has an easy way of distinguishing them.

It is perfectly possible that .pak files for starbound will just be zip files renamed as .pak, so that its easier to tell them apart from other zip files.

Personally I suggested using the extension .starmod and just having that as a renamed .zip, but if they go with .pak, so long as its easily openeable I have no objections.

 

Again, that doesn't matter, What I was complaining about was the non-standard part, I want it to be a .zip file(uncompressed will be fine).

Thanks. You understand what I was saying.

 

A lot of games using mechanics like this, but all have the same bad issue. The decryption & encryption increases the CPU usage. I guess for online gaming to sync the data between server & client should this be a nice method.

 

Makes me think of Garry's mod, almost, .pak files would make syncing and cleanup easy and concise on the clients end. Since .pak isn't actually a real bonafied format, either, and the fact that this is starbound we're talking about, a game that requires mere kilobytes of pixel art and text files, it probably wouldn't be that big of a hit to the CPU either (but hey, what do I know?). Doesn't Minecraft use some sort of .pak file now as well?

Personally, as a modder, I would like an extra step standing between anyone just commandeering all of my mods assets. But that's my point of view, not as a user. I'm honestly torn because I do peruse otehr mods for inspiration and as guides to reach my personal goals and projects. I guess we'll know for sure how this will all work soon enough.

 

^Above user is correct.

Also, they are taking the .pak file router because its been proved to work well with sending from Server side to Client side when client connects. Use a version file, (or modified date of pak file) on the server and when client connects whether it be the first time, or after it can quickly check all related and required .pak files for this server, send them to the client in a compressed quick format. And bam be done, client had to do nothing.

Also as far installing it, it's still technically 1 step for the end user which is what matters here. Just drag, and done. Even if it is just a .zip with no structure different except .pak on the end, .pak is better and more distinguishable than having a metric ton of .zip's strewn about the folder. At least you can differentiate between them with it being a .pak.

 

From a modders standpoint, having the assets be loose and easily accessable is essential. Modding Oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas, and Skyrim, you had to extract the assets from their .bsa files if you wanted to retexture or remodel, so it wasnt uncommon for install directories to reach 20GB+

Loose files can be a pain, but when you want to or like to dig in the files, having everything packaged up is an annoyance.

Minecraft uses zip files, purely for ease of installing. You can still use resource packs in a folder.

I am the kind of person that likes to tweak mods I download. I have no intent of redistributing them, just for personal use. IE ill download an item mod and only want some of the items, so I will remove the ones I don't want, or tweak values, etc.

Personally, I feel if you are worried about someone stealing your assets, then don't post your mods. This is the internet, and there will always be assholes out there ruining it for the rest of us, and you should know and understand this before posting anything. If you cant accept this reality, then its best you don't post anything. I'm not trying to be rude or attack your or your opinion, I am just submitting my own view. Obviously I cant stop you from doing anything.

 

I just think we should have the ability to hash pak files sent from our server -> client so there encrypted and cant be unpacked (easily). Then i would feel just fine. Now for singleplayer mods, meh..

 

My hope about this is that it does come along with said server pushes content to client synchronization.

 

I was never really worried about people stealing my mod as much as avoiding the headache of random Joe Shmoes making poor attempts at stealing it. It's not high on my priority list that a change like this be made, but I'm just assuming that there's got to be some benefit somewhere if the devs decided adding .pak file support was a good idea. Again, I'm torn because the extra step to reaching files would be nice, but I myself like to explore files easily. In the end though, I'm just interested to see what I can do with it, and am more excited about this next update for plenty of other reasons.

You weren't being rude, I totally see what you mean and agree, people that are too worried about others messing with their work are the kinds of people that make it worse for everyone by creating things like DRM and always-online features.

 

Is the tool for opening .pak files available?

 

it's in the win32 folder, and doesn't work. (at least not for me)

 

Same here, maybe i'm writing the paths wrong.. gives me ntdll error..