Art Revolution FAQ ?

[Crymson]

I noticed that some forum members have a Art Revolution banner, but I don't see any info about what it is, or the goals, or anything like that in one central post.
More or less, we need a AR FAQ.

Anyone care to shed some light on,
What you guys are doing?
What rules do you guys use (maximum poly count / colors / theme )
Is there anything you guys need to be changed in the source code to make your job easier?
When will we actually see some of this stuff in game?
How many members do you guys currently have? Are you looking for more?
Are there other things that are holding back a graphics revamp?


When I was talking to a dev, he informed me that he had done some testing with using a different container format for higher end graphic features, instead of png, but he couldn't say if it will be in the code base anytime soon. Just wondering if that is the issue that is holding things up ?

[Olrox]

Hello Flank4,

Well, the AR is an unnofficial project, currently being developed by me, Mangust and Colditz only. As we have limited personnel, adding to the fact that we are limited to work whenever we can (read that taking into consideration that it's all about artistical creation, that is both time consuming and demands inspiration for the best results), progress is going on slowly. The staff does support our efforts in some level, but all the content is being created by ourselves.

I'm going to create a specific topic about AR soon, where we will post our progress in a more organized manner. Currently, you can download the last release for the current releases (including 2.3 beta 11a) here:
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=4245&start=225#p47286
The models are being remade to support normal mapping, and most of them will also support TCMask, which is available only in trunk releases. That's because, in the future, we'll have all the standard releases with TCMask, so there's no point in working on something using the old "all teamcolors in one page" system anymore, sunce we're aiming for something so big.

Some short, objective pointers about AR, hopefully they'll answer your questions:

• We are going to remake all the models, we'll keep VERY few of them, if any, and at least retouch everything. That includes the meshes and textures of every model in the game, and that's a lot of things. We do have a priority planning, that will be published in the AR topic;
  -
• We always have things to do, so any help IS welcome. The quality must reach certain standards, so a few tests are required before we get anyone to work with us. Anyone can ask such test at anytime, for me, or simply post the work on the forums - I check everything very often so I'll notice anyone that's making a really good work, and an invitation will be made if the work's good;
  -
• We don't have release schedules of any sort. We can't afford to have such, especially because our team is very limited and we need inspiration and a large, continuous ammount of free time (usually 6 hours/entire model for me) to do a fairly good work, not taking into account post-release iterations of already made models;
  -
• The AR mod is released under GPL v2. Specific models may be released under CC0, like the truck model I've made: in this case, content is of public domain. That only applies to models that were released under CC0 by the choice of the creator artist. We only require that you attribute any modified version of AR to the AR team, but anyone may modify those models specifically released under CC0 and claim it as their own (mentioning the original creator is a matter of education in this case, but it's not required at all);
  -
• We aren't staff. Our work isn't directly related to the Warzone 2100 Project, at least yet - we aim for making models that are worthy of replacing the original ones, but if they are or not, it's a decision that should be made by the members of the staff, and I daresay that they won't answer a yes/no to you if you question them about that. It was already discussed some times, and the conclusion was that it's still too early to say anything about that. Again - we do not aim to replace the original graphics as the official releases, we aim for making work that matches any requirements;
  -
• We are already aiming to release our work in parts. "Release early, release often" policy will be retaken after we've created the proper Art Revolution topic. We are currently remaking the light bodies, due to forementioned reasons;
  -
• I am not the "chosen speaker" for the AR team, I only do that by natural leadership instinct. Other AR members may object to anything of what's stated above.

That's pretty much about it, I think you should wait for the real AR topic if you want to know in-depth info, we'll be glad to answer all your questions there. I hope this was insightful, despite being long

~Olrox

[Crymson]

Hello Flank4,

The models are being remade to support normal mapping, and most of them will also support TCMask, which is available only in trunk releases. That's because, in the future, we'll have all the standard releases with TCMask, so there's no point in working on something using the old "all teamcolors in one page" system anymore, sunce we're aiming for something so big.

Thanks for your answers.
Is there a chance the rest of us can play with the version of warzone that supports normal mapping? I didn't see a mention of this in any svn logs, only a inference by one of the devs.

[Olrox]

Is there a chance the rest of us can play with the version of warzone that supports normal mapping? I didn't see a mention of this in any svn logs, only a inference by one of the devs.

Normal mapping isn't supported yet by any version. We are making the models that will give the developers a reason to allow support to normal mapping.

~Olrox

[Crymson]

Is there a chance the rest of us can play with the version of warzone that supports normal mapping? I didn't see a mention of this in any svn logs, only a inference by one of the devs.

Normal mapping isn't supported yet by any version. We are making the models that will give the developers a reason to allow support to normal mapping.

~Olrox

Oh, so they are only testing the waters with it. Got it.

[Zarel]

Some clarifications.

The AR mod is released under GPL v2.

You mean dual-licensed GPLv2 + CC-BY-SA-3.0.

With a few exceptions, all new contributions need to be licensed one of:
- GPLv2 + CC-BY-SA-3.0
- GPLv2 + CC-BY-3.0
- CC-0

GPL for license compatibility with open-source code, and a CC license because of the legal problems that could occur from the fact that the GPL can't be applied to artwork.

but anyone may modify those models specifically released under CC0 and claim it as their own (mentioning the original creator is a matter of education in this case, but it's not required at all);

Depends on your definition of "claim it as their own". You can't directly take a CC-0-licensed work Olrox makes and say "Olrox didn't make this, I did". That would be libel, and still illegal.

If the only reason you're not using CC-0 is because you don't want others to pretend to have made things you make, rest assured that you will still be able to prevent them from doing that.

and I daresay that they won't answer a yes/no to you if you question them about that. It was already discussed some times, and the conclusion was that it's still too early to say anything about that.

It depends. It's obvious that Colditz's models will replace Warzone's current models if/when they're finished. The same goes for your tracked and half-tracked propulsions.

[Per]

Making artwork under the GPL license (and GPL only) is perfectly fine. Almost all our existing artwork is licensed that way.

[MaNGusT]

Making artwork under the GPL license (and GPL only) is perfectly fine. Almost all our existing artwork is licensed that way.

It means that I can release my new terrain textures,for example, under GPL v2 license and then they can be used for the trunk version?

[Per]

It means that I can release my new terrain textures,for example, under GPL v2 license and then they can be used for the trunk version?

Yes. Though the CC licenses listed above are more appropriate for artwork, using just the GPL is fine too.

Did you make the photographs yourself? (If not, you need to use the same license as the original work.)

[MaNGusT]

Did you make the photographs yourself? (If not, you need to use the same license as the original work.)

I don't use a photos for the my textures . Only texture generators, photoshop, paint.net and gimp. (all textures are "handmade")

[Zarel]

Some more clarifications.

You mean dual-licensed GPLv2 + CC-BY-SA-3.0.

By "you mean", I mean that Olrox is a friend of mine, so I can put words in his mouth and he won't mind. Don't worry, I don't do this to strangers.

With a few exceptions, all new contributions need to be licensed one of:
- GPLv2 + CC-BY-SA-3.0
- GPLv2 + CC-BY-3.0
- CC-0

And "need" is the wrong word here. I mean "should". Artwork that is licensed pure GPLv2, or pure CC-BY-SA-3.0, is still valid for inclusion for Warzone. We simply prefer them to be dual-licensed (and there's no reason not to - if you're fine with distributing your artwork under one license, you should be fine with the other).

GPL for license compatibility with open-source code, and a CC license because of the legal problems that could occur from the fact that the GPL can't be applied to artwork.

By "license compatibility with source code", I don't mean that pure CC works are incompatible in the "we can't distribute them together" sense, but rather in a "these licenses are incompatible - one cannot be relicensed into the other" sense, as in "we can't just say 'this game is GPL', we have to say 'this game is GPL, except for parts of it which are CC".

• FSF Licensing Compliance Engineer Brett Smith says that there are several problems that prevent users from combining CC-BY-SA and GPL components into a single work. "Perhaps the most straightforward one is that they're both copyleft licenses: each license wants the entire work to be released under its own terms, so no matter what you do you can't satisfy them both." (source)

By "legal problems with GPL on artwork", I mean that the GPL is written in a way that precludes it from being applied to artwork, and forcing it could be interpreted to simply result in an invalid license.

Here is a page that discussion a solution: http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/119212

"release them in a GPL-licensed and a CC-licensed form."

That is what I recommend all our artists do, because there is no reason to do otherwise.

[cybersphinx]

"release them in a GPL-licensed and a CC-licensed form."

That is what I recommend all our artists do, because there is no reason to do otherwise.

... unless the work is derived from an e.g. GPL-only work (like the original data), then it also has to be released under that (and only that) license.

[Zarel]

... unless the work is derived from an e.g. GPL-only work (like the original data), then it also has to be released under that (and only that) license.

Depends on how you define "derived".

If they're just two images on the same texpage, I believe they can have different licenses. If you're modifying an existing image, well... I don't think I've seen that happen. If it does, then yes, the derivative work would have to be GPL only (though the changes can be whatever license you want - i.e. the process of what you did to modify the original image can be applied to a different image without the GPL coming along with it).

Anyway the point is to release them as both whenever legally possible.

[Olrox]

You mean dual-licensed GPLv2 + CC-BY-SA-3.0.

By "you mean", I mean that Olrox is a friend of mine, so I can put words in his mouth and he won't mind. Don't worry, I don't do this to strangers.

Well, I've mentioned GPL v2 because it's indeed the license that Mangust used to release AR in frebuary, in the post I've linked in my post. But I'm sure that there'll be no problem with licensing it under CC-BY-SA-3.0 as well (as you said, there is no reason to do otherwise).

But yeah, you can put words in my mouth. It only makes me embarrassed often, but that's no problem, as long as you're right, I think

~Olrox

[Crymson]

But yeah, you can put words in my mouth. It only makes me embarrassed often, but that's no problem, as long as you're right, I think
~Olrox

heh

At least the FAQ will be clear on this.