RealmWorks Database Format Documentation

[Acenoid]

Haters gonna hate jokes aside, I think most of us understand that the current way the economy works today lw has to protect their investment. and to ensure that they will be able to take partners into the project, they a forced to ensure a high level of security.

I really like it by the way how lw reacts to critismn. Hopefully such threads will lead even to more users instead of scaring some off, as it shows how you deal with 'hot' topics.

I hope that sometime in the future the export functions will be added, maybe a good way to ensure safety for copyrighted material would be a separate key. And the other key could be set in the gui by the realm owner.

Ok, back to work; habe a nice Friday and of course an even better weekend

[rob]

Originally Posted by Acenoid

I hope that sometime in the future the export functions will be added, maybe a good way to ensure safety for copyrighted material would be a separate key. And the other key could be set in the gui by the realm owner.

We're working through all these issues right now as we focus on the Content Market. So the basic distinction between copyrighted/published and user-created content is being designed into how it all works. It gets more complicated with the notion of users being able to share (i.e. publish) content to themselves so they can create a master realm that gets inherited into multiple instances for running different groups through the same world. But I believe we've got a handle on it all.

Please note that we're laying the foundation for this now - we're not actually implementing any export capabilities. The foundation has to be in place for many different aspects of Realm Works, and the export logic is simply one piece that will ultimately build on that foundation. I just don't want anyone misinterpreting my comments here, so forgive me if I'm restating something that you consider obvious.

[MaxSupernova]

Dude, stop pissing Rob off about export/print! It's the one feature I want the most! :-D

I keep trying to rein in my frustration about print/export/web view just so it doesn't turn into "That feature request they hate". I'm not very good at restraint, but I try.

Heck, if I kept getting abuse about something, it certainly wouldn't be on the top of my "want to do" list.

Hopefully Rob is a better man than I.

[AEIOU]

Thanks for the insights again, Rob. It's easy for us users to think something is simple. Heck, "export" is just one word. How much code can it take to make a button? But that button is just the tip of the iceberg that we can see. I don't even want to know how many countless hours have been spent planning and implementing the infrastructure already and how much is still ahead of you to code that export button many of us rabidly want.

[AutoDMC]

First off, I am apologizing directly to Rob, and to the rest of the Lone Wolf team, for the insulting tone of the last half of my posts. It's always recommended to not write when tired, a rule I constantly abuse, to my own demerit.

Secondly, I will give you credit for not banning my account. I'll admit, I've gotten rather used to the hot-headed insta-ban knee-jerk response some developers have for anyone who complains about their software. It says a lot about Rob and the crew here that I'm able to post this response.

However, I stand by my point that having a long-term license to my own data is not the same thing as owning my own data. Having my data locked in somebody else's system in such a way that I cannot extract it is not "owning" your own data. As nice as Realm Works is, and as much as I appreciate the complexity that goes into a programmed project (especially one as content driven as RealmWorks), I have to point out that not having data export as an early feature shows me what the company thinks my data is worth to them.

I recognize the complexity of third party content, but I also recognize the flexibility of a SQL database, and the ability to tell Firebird to encrypt specific columns or tables. In products I have worked on, many data nuggets have been encrypted and locked out to protect sensitive data (such as credit card numbers), but in no way was the ability to export a SQL dump ever taken away. And I've spent many, many months writing data export functionality; the complexity usually lies within permissions related to the data... beyond that it usually involves shoving a big data structure from the SQL server to a library that outputs files.

The upshot of this thread is I know that I can go back to my OneNote archives and OneCloud file sharing, using PoV aware mapping tools, secure in my knowledge that RealmWorks is, most definitely, not the product I need. Honestly, the BIGGEST feature of RealmWorks, the one that made me really, really desire an export, were the pre-structured ingame objects. I could create fleshed out content, easily, because the software had specific fields for specific questions. That was the killer feature for me; but I'm sure I'll find a workflow that doesn't require the software.

Thanks to those who spend the time reading to the bottom. If having a license to your own content is just fine for you, RealmWorks is a great product, and you will totally enjoy it's power. If you desire the ability to export your content, RealmWorks is not the product for you, and obviously will not be for a very long while (antangonism from the forums or not). Which is fine, you guys write the software you want to. I guess maybe I just suffer from a bit of buyer's remorse. Isn't the first time, won't be the last.

[rob]

Originally Posted by AutoDMC

However, I stand by my point that having a long-term license to my own data is not the same thing as owning my own data. Having my data locked in somebody else's system in such a way that I cannot extract it is not "owning" your own data. As nice as Realm Works is, and as much as I appreciate the complexity that goes into a programmed project (especially one as content driven as RealmWorks), I have to point out that not having data export as an early feature shows me what the company thinks my data is worth to them.

I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion here. This is NOT a reflection of what the company thinks of your data. Not having data export shows you what USERS (i.e. your peers) think the value is in getting their data out of Realm Works compared to all the other features we could be working on. If export had been a high priority across users within the recent survey we completed, it would have been prioritized accordingly. It wasn't.

Please don't personalize this, as such conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Your PEERS spoke very loudly. We're simply listening to them as a collective whole - instead of letting a few disgruntled voices from the crowd dictate our priorities.

And thanks for making this a much more civil discussion this time around.

[Viking2054]

Out of curiosity, how hard would it be to turn on/off the encryption of user entered data? I'm guessing that if he could simply turn off the encryption for his own content then he could theoretically write his own export/dump requests until you guys at LWD got around to giving us an export feature. Of course I would expect third party content we purchase off the market to not be affected by such a theoretically simple feature. You could potentially make the guy happy and just maybe he could provide some tools to the community as a stopgap for those that want to complain about exporting their stuff.

[rob]

Originally Posted by Viking2054

Out of curiosity, how hard would it be to turn on/off the encryption of user entered data? I'm guessing that if he could simply turn off the encryption for his own content then he could theoretically write his own export/dump requests until you guys at LWD got around to giving us an export feature. Of course I would expect third party content we purchase off the market to not be affected by such a theoretically simple feature. You could potentially make the guy happy and just maybe he could provide some tools to the community as a stopgap for those that want to complain about exporting their stuff.

How do we ensure that users are only ever allowed to apply this to THEIR content? How do we make sure someone can't exploit this capability to readily gain access to published content? Any openings we introduce like this become potential attack vectors for hackers, so we have to make sure they are well-conceived and carefully protected against such attacks. That process requires lots of thought, and usually lots of accompanying work, turning what seems like a simple and useful solution on the surface into a typically very complex problem to solve correctly.

I'm not trying to be dismissive of the idea. It's both appreciated and a good one in principle. The gotcha is that the devil's in the details, and things that seem easy at first often become nasty to solve once we really dig into them. This particular idea is a perfect example, and we run into these gotchas all the time with a product as complex and diverse as Realm Works. In fact, these sorts of gotchas are the primary source of all the delays we've incurred over the past few years.

[Viking2054]

I understand completely, it just sounded like you had at least considered the idea when you mentioned that it was at the request of the beta testing team that encryption be used for player entered content.

Personally, I'd rather have a really good printing system that would allow me to print out my own creations in the form of a semi-polished module. But I'm just wishing, not expecting, at that since layout and design would probably require sending the information to a desktop publishing program like Publisher for layout.

[Azombiod]

Just to reply to this thread and countless others I've been reading... I too feel slightly duped although I do understand this is my fault for a lack of research. To me this seemed like it was going to be a tool like Tabletop Simulator. With a user community building mods and sharing ideas for campaign and eventually selling them if they wanted. This DRM obsession is made this software useless for me but more importantly I think the survey is disingenuous. I personally think based on reading these forums all day and a few other gaming forums that it does not reflect the wider view of the audience. Tabletop games only survive still because of the user base support of them. It's literally the easiest form of game to pirate and I download every book I get in PDF (even if not released as such) as a backup/ease of use. I play EotE and some guy had to do high res scans of all the books but still did it. Even if you say make it so you can't used pirated material well what stops someone from simply making the go bots version with a understanding to go get a third party program that runs a macro and changes the necessary entries. Perhaps that's a bit extreme but I think the point needs to be made that piracy is unstoppable and this industry still exists in spite of it not because of measures to protect against it. Personally the DRM nature and lack of access or ability to simply give away or trade your data much less edit or print it for yourself makes this product go from something that would have made you money on sales alone to most likely a mostly online tabletop with a niche of a already niche market. Personally, and this is just my thoughts a model similar to tabletop simulator should have been used with player driven content being the focus and simply removing content as cease and desist orders come in like every other company on the internet. Anyway, that's my two cents and I thank you for the product... I really had hopes for it and will keep checking back but in it's current form it's useless to me. One more point to add is that perhaps encryption should have been added during the marketplace update so we could actually make our own stuff in the meantime... unless you're argument is what if you make a book in our software and distribute it in which case I would argue does Adobe or Microsoft Office get sued for the exact same thing? Or forums get sued for the exact same thing? I'm just confused on that point I guess. Anyhow, sorry for the stream of conciseness and thanks for reading.