FiveM Client-Side Modification Format Discussion

Welcome everyone,

I have decided that it’s best we all come together in this situation and discuss the information with regards to the new modification format. By joining together to discuss, we may be able to figure out a working solution. I know I have came close. The main focus currently is (via legacy) “Common\data” and “Platform” folders.

Currently (via legacy) “Platform\levels\gta5” is working correctly. Modifications converted by “Terrov Series” such as LA Revo and LA Billboards have been tested via new format and are working 100% correctly, even over 16mb.

So lets focus on this together and figure out a solution.

Edit: When I mention “via legacy” I am referring to where the files used to be in the original “citizen” modification format.

If everyone does have discord I will gladly move this discussion to a group chat there.

1 Like

Hello James,
I am personally very interested in more information and foresight on this change because it is currently totally vague for me.
Since the update, I have part of the files streamed in “platform” and “common” that still works and part that does not work anymore, I wish to create my RPF to submit it to validation but some questions come to me:

  • is it a particular archifix coding?
  • what can I incorporate in terms of format (textures, 3D, collisions, metas, xml …)
  • how do I formulate the copyright of what is not my own creation?
  • is the update finished or will it still harden (to know if some file can remain easily malleable for a session without having to validate a modified archive, seen that to date they are still charge) ?

I don’t really know too much about coding so I won’t be able to answer any questions regarding anything related to that.

I will say that in theory, we are supposed to be able to import any type of file format as long as it matches the directory. So yes, Textures, Meta’s, etc… should work.

In terms of copyright, I assume your referring to if your using or uploading someone else’s modification. In those terms its best to contact them to get redistribution permission. If your also referring to the assembly.xml lines with “author”, you could also ask them what they would like.

Now the update as far as I know is not finished. I can tell as with the recent update from FiveM, they blocked about half of the functionality of the previous format. So there is some issues clearly on their side still needing to be worked out. It’s clear that it wouldn’t make sense for FiveM to leave it permanently in its current form.

Now starting off… The closest succession I have had was with a Visual V conversion as its file format is exactly the same layout as FiveM has it. Below I have made a template that is made to view via “Windows Explorer”. It has no actual Visual V content within it however things like “Assembly.xml” and “PLACEHOLDER” are directly from Visual V’s modification package. The one thing to mention is that the first initial “.RPF” is an actual RPF however the “update.rpf” is apparently only a folder and not actually an RPF.

VisualV.rpf.rar (2.7 KB)

and now for a direct “.RPF” file format to actually see what it looks like

VisualVTemplate.rpf (3 KB)

Now with this here… I do have a few issues (not sure what’s the cause).

So really now this is what I need to figure out.

@bismuth Thank you for making the post public! Appreciate it.

I’ve tried various formats, encrypted and unencrypted with archive fix and nothing was working.

I did notice that on the canary channel whilst launching the game normally (without mod dev mode) all of my old addons and client mods were functional again. I can only assume this was done until the mod situation becomes clearer and more stable.

Yeah most certainly. It’s very unclear of how things are supposed to be put together. I am still trying concepts but no luck yet.

FiveM modloader does not support encrypted archives. So fix/crypt the archive through AffluentFix/ArchiveFix/Affix is not required.

1 Like

Anyone have any idea how I would create a mod package for modified texture dictionaries that go in x64b.rpf/data/cdimages/scaleform_generic.rpf

and I modified some texture dictionaries (.ytd’s) in scaleform_generic.rpf, so should I have the scaleform_generic.rpf signed, the x64b.rpf, something else, or am I doing this entirely wrong?

Has anyone had any luck lately?