OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Posts: 933
- Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04
OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
I'm starting this thread as a branch of a bunch of discussion we had in the BA model replacement thread. Essentially, the idea is to get all the TA based mods to bury the hatchet and work together. I know there's a lot disagreements and anger from every TA based mod to every other TA based mod, but I'm hoping we can get past that to work together on some joint goals:
1. Replacement of OTA models / textures / unit scripts: A lot of units have already been remade by various projects. Hopefully, the mods could work together and come up with a roadmap for replacing the rest. It'd suck for multiple mods to be working on the same set of units when they could just be splitting it up instead.
2. Public GIT repo for Lua gadget / widget collaboration: This could make it a lot easier for all the OTA mods to use the same gadgets. Given the popularity of chicken / space bugs, cooperative mode, and LUPS this seems like a no brainer.
3. TA based mod chat channel: Either everyone hanging out in #lua and #moddev or maybe a dedicated #tadev channel. This would be great for coordinating the two projects above, and any other joint efforts like marketing. I haven't decided on a channel name yet, so feel free to suggest one or maybe everyone will end up using #lua and #moddev.
4. "No public bashing" pledge: Everyone associated with the TA mods should pledge to not bash any other Spring mods in their marketing material. Feel free to complain about aspects of their mods you don't like on the Spring forums, but only in a constructive manner. If you're marketing offsite, don't go negative. The most negative thing you should say about another Spring mod off site is "I don't particularly enjoy it because it doesn't fit my playstyle, but feel free to try it for yourself." Encourage people to try Spring in general, and even other mods you don't like or are feuding with.
The key is to get more users for Spring as a whole, not for your mod in particular. If we get more users, there's going to be more users for everyone. The true popularity contest is Spring versus Supreme Commander, Company of Heroes, Red Alert 3, Dawn of War 2, and other RTSes, not BA vs CA vs NOTA.
1. Replacement of OTA models / textures / unit scripts: A lot of units have already been remade by various projects. Hopefully, the mods could work together and come up with a roadmap for replacing the rest. It'd suck for multiple mods to be working on the same set of units when they could just be splitting it up instead.
2. Public GIT repo for Lua gadget / widget collaboration: This could make it a lot easier for all the OTA mods to use the same gadgets. Given the popularity of chicken / space bugs, cooperative mode, and LUPS this seems like a no brainer.
3. TA based mod chat channel: Either everyone hanging out in #lua and #moddev or maybe a dedicated #tadev channel. This would be great for coordinating the two projects above, and any other joint efforts like marketing. I haven't decided on a channel name yet, so feel free to suggest one or maybe everyone will end up using #lua and #moddev.
4. "No public bashing" pledge: Everyone associated with the TA mods should pledge to not bash any other Spring mods in their marketing material. Feel free to complain about aspects of their mods you don't like on the Spring forums, but only in a constructive manner. If you're marketing offsite, don't go negative. The most negative thing you should say about another Spring mod off site is "I don't particularly enjoy it because it doesn't fit my playstyle, but feel free to try it for yourself." Encourage people to try Spring in general, and even other mods you don't like or are feuding with.
The key is to get more users for Spring as a whole, not for your mod in particular. If we get more users, there's going to be more users for everyone. The true popularity contest is Spring versus Supreme Commander, Company of Heroes, Red Alert 3, Dawn of War 2, and other RTSes, not BA vs CA vs NOTA.
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
I still haven't heard a decision on one issue: how close to the OTA models will the new models be? Cremuss and Mr. D's remakes are obviously meant to be remakes of their OTA counterparts. They're not like the SphereBot variants in CA, which look nothing whatsoever like PeeWees and Jethros and Warriors.
Legally speaking, that's a copyright violation - but it's not one that the gaming world enforces very often.
Which way will you be going on this? Will you be including "remake" units, or will the new units have to 100% divorce themselves from the visual styling of their OTA counterparts?
Legally speaking, that's a copyright violation - but it's not one that the gaming world enforces very often.
Which way will you be going on this? Will you be including "remake" units, or will the new units have to 100% divorce themselves from the visual styling of their OTA counterparts?
-
- Posts: 933
- Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
Personally, I think "remaking" the units would be best just because that's what people expect. Something like high poly versions of all the existing units, maybe with some (minor) styling changes so all the units on each side have a design theme. Yokozar has already pointed out there's a few units on each side that don't look like the rest anyway, so those are the units that will probably see the most changes.Pxtl wrote:Which way will you be going on this? Will you be including "remake" units, or will the new units have to 100% divorce themselves from the visual styling of their OTA counterparts?
I'd rather not have the "copyright violation" talk again which I think has been beat to death. The only license bit I'd like to say is "We should pick some license for the new models / textures / scripts that is acceptable to all the mods and could be used in a Linux repository."
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
CA is already doing this the only difference is that its not trying to be OTA its trying to be its own game with varied/different gameplay. The CA license means you can take the models and use them in your mod tho so GL
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
Im working on something like this, but with focus on CA remake
http://planet-wars.eu/ModelBase
http://planet-wars.eu/ModelBase
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
Really the OTA mods just need the same units with better poly and normal textures...If that is done the game can go on without gfx changes for another 10 years..
They have a certain emotional/historical value to them in their current form so straying too far will just make them have much less character.
If they will just be patched up they will still be tied in with the history of OTA.
The fact OTA mods can rely on that background is very important...Like WOW relying on the background of warcraft games..
They have a certain emotional/historical value to them in their current form so straying too far will just make them have much less character.
If they will just be patched up they will still be tied in with the history of OTA.
The fact OTA mods can rely on that background is very important...Like WOW relying on the background of warcraft games..
-
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
Actually this is nothing you really can ask for as it actually already is the case right now. All of the replacement models can be used freely and there are no modeller/texturer teams that are exclusively working on OTA models so there's neither anyone to administrate nor any roadmap to make...el_matarife wrote:1. Replacement of OTA models / textures / unit scripts
Well what's the advantage? While a central place to get all your Lua stuff from won't hurt pretty much everything here is free to use and open to everybody anyway...el_matarife wrote:2. Public GIT repo for Lua gadget / widget collaboration
Well except for whatever you mean with "marketing" it probably won't hurt although I don't see any need for it. What should be discussed there? There's nothing really going on in terms of things that all OTA mods are going to use in any way. Mod specific stuff can be discussed in mod specific channels and so there's pretty much nothing left imo you might want to talk about...el_matarife wrote:3. TA based mod chat channel
That's part of a "polite" behavior anyway. Imo the mod developers also pretty much keep with this - the extensive bashing that's going on is in most cases found among the playerbases. You won't really be able to change that...el_matarife wrote:4. "No public bashing" pledge
-
- Posts: 933
- Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
The point is that some widgets made by one mod are widely reused across the rest of them. FatController's version of chicken is the basis of NOTA spacebugs and whatever Argh calls it in pure. LUPS is in practically every mod for Spring right now. There's several other widgets that are being used by a lot of mods at once. The point is that by jointly developing them every mod using it could benefit. The chat channel could assist in that joint development effort.[Krogoth86] wrote:Well what's the advantage? While a central place to get all your Lua stuff from won't hurt pretty much everything here is free to use and open to everybody anyway...el_matarife wrote:2. Public GIT repo for Lua gadget / widget collaborationWhat should be discussed there? There's nothing really going on in terms of things that all OTA mods are going to use in any way. Mod specific stuff can be discussed in mod specific channels and so there's pretty much nothing left imo you might want to talk about...el_matarife wrote:3. TA based mod chat channel
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
noel_matarife wrote:LUPS is in practically every mod for Spring right now.
-
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
Well I still don't see any real advantage. Usually gadgets & widgets are done by just one guy and they often also have a forum topic here to discuss so you can give feedback (although you also could do that in the lobby). So I don't know what another discussion base should improve on e.g. LUPS - it's not like we have dozens of people here working on the same thing - it pretty much is all about one-man-shows so I don't know what else you want to deliver than a platform for feedback?
The same pretty much also applies to your chicken example: It was free to use for anyone and so some picked it up and used it. Apart from the fact that it's "abandoned" in terms of development what would you really want to improve / discuss that can't be done with the recent way of doing things?
So my point is that there pretty much exists no "jointly developing" as you describe it and so your idea gives little to no advantages...
The same pretty much also applies to your chicken example: It was free to use for anyone and so some picked it up and used it. Apart from the fact that it's "abandoned" in terms of development what would you really want to improve / discuss that can't be done with the recent way of doing things?
So my point is that there pretty much exists no "jointly developing" as you describe it and so your idea gives little to no advantages...
- Pressure Line
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
Don't forget sounds 

Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
Not many of the games, however.el_matarife wrote:LUPS is in practically every mod for Spring right now.
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
Only person working on LUPS is its author - jK ..
if someone wishes to improve it, they certainly can.
I have huge list of ideas/todos for it, in case this horde of volunteering expert coders runs out of ideas :)
AFAIK lups is only used in CA and BA
if someone wishes to improve it, they certainly can.
I have huge list of ideas/todos for it, in case this horde of volunteering expert coders runs out of ideas :)
AFAIK lups is only used in CA and BA
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
Fair enough - just wanted to get that cleared up upfront. TA models for TA mods, just re-made so they're no longer ripped-content. Gotcha.el_matarife wrote:Personally, I think "remaking" the units would be best just because that's what people expect. Something like high poly versions of all the existing units, maybe with some (minor) styling changes so all the units on each side have a design theme. Yokozar has already pointed out there's a few units on each side that don't look like the rest anyway, so those are the units that will probably see the most changes.
I'd rather not have the "copyright violation" talk again which I think has been beat to death. The only license bit I'd like to say is "We should pick some license for the new models / textures / scripts that is acceptable to all the mods and could be used in a Linux repository."
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
Wasn't it "just re-made so they're pretty"?Pxtl wrote:TA models for TA mods, just re-made so they're no longer ripped-content. Gotcha.
Ok, both, but beauty comes first.YokoZar wrote:Replacing the models with something beautiful and free
- Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
WHy not put it in a manageable fashion?
SImply open 3do with upspring, export to obj, port into wings or max or whatever, uvmap it properly (While fixing geometry), then texture it, stick it back into upspring, do your thing, viola, s3o unit.
Doesn't get rid of the IP violation, but at least it puts part of the violation to rest.
And lets be honest, mapping a TA unit would take all of a few minutes to do it properly, maybe 15 minutes to do it really well.
And texturing them? Get real, that's gonna be worth all of about 20 minutes of your life. It's pretty easy to make a really nice texture of a cubed unit.
SImply open 3do with upspring, export to obj, port into wings or max or whatever, uvmap it properly (While fixing geometry), then texture it, stick it back into upspring, do your thing, viola, s3o unit.
Doesn't get rid of the IP violation, but at least it puts part of the violation to rest.
And lets be honest, mapping a TA unit would take all of a few minutes to do it properly, maybe 15 minutes to do it really well.
And texturing them? Get real, that's gonna be worth all of about 20 minutes of your life. It's pretty easy to make a really nice texture of a cubed unit.
- Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
*remembers how long ago it was that Forb stated he categorically could not texture*
*raises tea cup in salute*
*raises tea cup in salute*
- Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
lol, I got bored, took me about 30 minutes or so:
The layered PSD file and everything needed is in the zip (including script), it's the exact same model as the original flash tank. You'll need to change the effects of course. I have it set to fire simultaneously from both barrels in the script.
http://evolutionrts.info/random/lolflash.zip
They don't really HAVE to be remodeled, they just need some .s3o lovin.



The layered PSD file and everything needed is in the zip (including script), it's the exact same model as the original flash tank. You'll need to change the effects of course. I have it set to fire simultaneously from both barrels in the script.
http://evolutionrts.info/random/lolflash.zip
They don't really HAVE to be remodeled, they just need some .s3o lovin.
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
Converting 3dos to s3os doesn't alter the legal situation and doesn't look better either. Cavedog made better textures than what 95% of the people here are capable of, most likely the s3o'd versions would look WORSE.
Re: OTA-Based Mod Collaboration thread
they need proper remakes just pasting an s3o texture on a 3do unit is fail
alot of the models are missing pieces just because OTA was seen in top down view and there was no need to see units at an angle. Theres no excuse for missing pieces in a 3d rts
+ they could use more detail anyway
alot of the models are missing pieces just because OTA was seen in top down view and there was no need to see units at an angle. Theres no excuse for missing pieces in a 3d rts
