Free Content.
Moderators: MR.D, Moderators
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
In terms of unUVed models.... The thing is, I don't see the point in enforcing a UV map policy if the UV maps are so poorly done that slightly decent texturing is impossible to do. Anyone can throw a model into an automated UV suite and auto generate crap blank white in 2 seconds flat, and while that's technically a UV map, it's so crappy it might as well not have ever been done.
If you are enforcing that UV maps must be there, but not enforcing any standard of quality on the UV map, you might as well just not enforce that UV maps must be there, because they are just wasting the modelers time for something that must be deleted and redone anyways.
If you are enforcing that UV maps must be there, but not enforcing any standard of quality on the UV map, you might as well just not enforce that UV maps must be there, because they are just wasting the modelers time for something that must be deleted and redone anyways.
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
To the tl:dnr crowd: maek models, send Open License + models to Argh, Argh will provide promo and make it easy for ppl to find ur werk. If model == borked, Argh will send back. Credit == yours, always. KK? GG, no re, bye.
Secondly, as for "content control", or "credit issues"... er, I am completely open to solutions that will remove those barriers. People's worries and perceptions of this, that "Argh maed all this", etc., should be addressed, that would be stupid and moreover I'd have to disavow "my work" all the time- I already have to do this with Freelancer stuff I never had anything to do with, I have no desire to add to the random email I get
We can host on UF, that's totally fine with me. People can just submit links to UF locations, for whoever agrees to review model submissions, when they'd like something to be reviewed. That is probably the best way to go about this.
In fact, if Cuppeh could just provide a sub-section of UF that would be labeled "Free model repository", or whatever, and then provided some method whereby authorized users could upload to that section, it'd be fine, so long as there was a human being available and willing to maintain it. There's no way to get around the need for a real, live, human maintainer, though. Just putting up an open section of UF for models is not a solution, and will just lead to it getting filled with useless junk.
As for "credit issues"... We can use "MODEL BY WHOMEVERMADETHIS" in giant caps, or whatever, within the thread.
That's a problem that needs to be resolved, but I don't see it as a reason to exclude yourself from what is potentially a good idea, Smoth.
Thirdly...
There is no one piece of software that will, every time, without fail, find a proper unfolding sequence for an object. I don't think there ever will be, either- I did some reading about this awhile ago, and it appears there are certain computational difficulties which require human choices to resolve properly at this time. If you guys want to start a thread about that, go ahead or whatever, but it's irrelevant to this one.
Now, I guess we might see stuff that's "uvmapped", in the sense that people just put a model into Wings, select all objects and hit "unfold", then neglected to provide any cuts to the map, sort out the pieces, etc... but that doesn't meet my technical requirements. It's one of the reasons why this process cannot just be a random post-a-model thing, people- somebody will actually need to review the meshes. Aesthetics and quality arguments belong in WIP- the only thing that requires human review is technical quality. And you can't get around the need for human review.
So long as the meshes are submitted in anything but a bizarre format that nobody else uses (Nendo, Infini-D, etc.- mainly stuff from the Dark Ages, or a few Open Source packages which are still unable to export to a decent format), this is not an unreasonable drain on time- I can load models in my sleep, and getting 5 in a week is not exactly a huge time-drain, if all I'm doing is checking to make sure they aren't totally borked, and checking the uvmap.
The requirement for a uvmap, without a barrier regarding quality, except in the limited sense of technical quality, is very simply thus:
It requires the person submitting to:
A. Know what a uvmap is.
B. At least learn enough about the process to make one, even a crappy one.
While all of the "leet" around here may sneer at the final quality of the results (and are, of course, welcome to improve the maps and submit their revisions- Open License means that's all AOK), and I would agree that that means that initial submissions may be poorly mapped, I would argue that it would strongly encourage newbies to include that step as part of their learning curve, instead of neglecting it, as most are wont to do.
Moreover, without a map, as PressureLine wisely pointed out, we will receive all sorts of utter crap, because people won't even bother, and will send stuff that... er... you can uvmap... but you'd rather poke your eyeballs out with a hot poker. I don't even wanna try reviewing that kind of junk- providing a uvmap that meets basic requirements... serves as a useful bozo filter.
Fourthly: I agree with the condensed version of the Requirements For Submissions, I was writing at mile-a-minute, was in a severe time-crunch (yes, folks, my posts get longer when I do not have time to edit) and was rather more wordy and OP than necessary.
Lastly, while I think using the Wiki has its merits, it doesn't allow for content control- no editorial control makes that a non-starter, imo. By all means, post there if you want, I do not want to discourage it or disparage it. But I do not think it will ever get used extensively, and I'm not interested in trying to maintain it. It'd put me in the position of having to either zap / not-zap stuff in a reference section of the Spring forums, point endless modding newbies towards that area, etc., etc., etc.
I don't want to bother. I am not offering to become Spring's librarian of models- sorting wheat from chaff and providing basic promo seems like more than enough work. Now, if somebody does want that job and is qualified to perform editorial functions... that's another thing entirely. PressureLine's already indicated he might want to participate in such a process, and is obviously qualified, and I'm sure that others might be willing to consider it as well. The only reason why I started this in the first place, is that:
A. Previous attempts have all been miserable, quiet failures.
B. I know that I can provide the technical resources to evaluate most model formats, understand the technical problems associated with them, and can perform the editorial duties.
C. I also know that when I say, "I will not attempt to control aesthetics, aside from pr0n", that I actually mean it.
So, basically, I will probably just get going, then if people want to review stuff, I'll send them stuff to review... if they reach the same conclusions I do, on acceptance, or better my analysis, well, gee, I guess they can review stuff, and I can add them to the list of "people you can send email / PMs to, if you want your model reviewed and posted"... it's not terribly complicated. In fact, lemme just put up the initial post, so that you can all see what I wanna do, and how it should look, and we can go from there.
Secondly, as for "content control", or "credit issues"... er, I am completely open to solutions that will remove those barriers. People's worries and perceptions of this, that "Argh maed all this", etc., should be addressed, that would be stupid and moreover I'd have to disavow "my work" all the time- I already have to do this with Freelancer stuff I never had anything to do with, I have no desire to add to the random email I get
We can host on UF, that's totally fine with me. People can just submit links to UF locations, for whoever agrees to review model submissions, when they'd like something to be reviewed. That is probably the best way to go about this.
In fact, if Cuppeh could just provide a sub-section of UF that would be labeled "Free model repository", or whatever, and then provided some method whereby authorized users could upload to that section, it'd be fine, so long as there was a human being available and willing to maintain it. There's no way to get around the need for a real, live, human maintainer, though. Just putting up an open section of UF for models is not a solution, and will just lead to it getting filled with useless junk.
As for "credit issues"... We can use "MODEL BY WHOMEVERMADETHIS" in giant caps, or whatever, within the thread.
That's a problem that needs to be resolved, but I don't see it as a reason to exclude yourself from what is potentially a good idea, Smoth.
Thirdly...
Swift, I know you mean well, but that's not strictly true, unless I define "uvmapped" in a way that defies common sense.In terms of unUVed models.... The thing is, I don't see the point in enforcing a UV map policy if the UV maps are so poorly done that slightly decent texturing is impossible to do. Anyone can throw a model into an automated UV suite and auto generate crap blank white in 2 seconds flat, and while that's technically a UV map, it's so crappy it might as well not have ever been done.
There is no one piece of software that will, every time, without fail, find a proper unfolding sequence for an object. I don't think there ever will be, either- I did some reading about this awhile ago, and it appears there are certain computational difficulties which require human choices to resolve properly at this time. If you guys want to start a thread about that, go ahead or whatever, but it's irrelevant to this one.
Now, I guess we might see stuff that's "uvmapped", in the sense that people just put a model into Wings, select all objects and hit "unfold", then neglected to provide any cuts to the map, sort out the pieces, etc... but that doesn't meet my technical requirements. It's one of the reasons why this process cannot just be a random post-a-model thing, people- somebody will actually need to review the meshes. Aesthetics and quality arguments belong in WIP- the only thing that requires human review is technical quality. And you can't get around the need for human review.
So long as the meshes are submitted in anything but a bizarre format that nobody else uses (Nendo, Infini-D, etc.- mainly stuff from the Dark Ages, or a few Open Source packages which are still unable to export to a decent format), this is not an unreasonable drain on time- I can load models in my sleep, and getting 5 in a week is not exactly a huge time-drain, if all I'm doing is checking to make sure they aren't totally borked, and checking the uvmap.
The requirement for a uvmap, without a barrier regarding quality, except in the limited sense of technical quality, is very simply thus:
It requires the person submitting to:
A. Know what a uvmap is.
B. At least learn enough about the process to make one, even a crappy one.
While all of the "leet" around here may sneer at the final quality of the results (and are, of course, welcome to improve the maps and submit their revisions- Open License means that's all AOK), and I would agree that that means that initial submissions may be poorly mapped, I would argue that it would strongly encourage newbies to include that step as part of their learning curve, instead of neglecting it, as most are wont to do.
Moreover, without a map, as PressureLine wisely pointed out, we will receive all sorts of utter crap, because people won't even bother, and will send stuff that... er... you can uvmap... but you'd rather poke your eyeballs out with a hot poker. I don't even wanna try reviewing that kind of junk- providing a uvmap that meets basic requirements... serves as a useful bozo filter.
Fourthly: I agree with the condensed version of the Requirements For Submissions, I was writing at mile-a-minute, was in a severe time-crunch (yes, folks, my posts get longer when I do not have time to edit) and was rather more wordy and OP than necessary.
Lastly, while I think using the Wiki has its merits, it doesn't allow for content control- no editorial control makes that a non-starter, imo. By all means, post there if you want, I do not want to discourage it or disparage it. But I do not think it will ever get used extensively, and I'm not interested in trying to maintain it. It'd put me in the position of having to either zap / not-zap stuff in a reference section of the Spring forums, point endless modding newbies towards that area, etc., etc., etc.
I don't want to bother. I am not offering to become Spring's librarian of models- sorting wheat from chaff and providing basic promo seems like more than enough work. Now, if somebody does want that job and is qualified to perform editorial functions... that's another thing entirely. PressureLine's already indicated he might want to participate in such a process, and is obviously qualified, and I'm sure that others might be willing to consider it as well. The only reason why I started this in the first place, is that:
A. Previous attempts have all been miserable, quiet failures.
B. I know that I can provide the technical resources to evaluate most model formats, understand the technical problems associated with them, and can perform the editorial duties.
C. I also know that when I say, "I will not attempt to control aesthetics, aside from pr0n", that I actually mean it.
So, basically, I will probably just get going, then if people want to review stuff, I'll send them stuff to review... if they reach the same conclusions I do, on acceptance, or better my analysis, well, gee, I guess they can review stuff, and I can add them to the list of "people you can send email / PMs to, if you want your model reviewed and posted"... it's not terribly complicated. In fact, lemme just put up the initial post, so that you can all see what I wanna do, and how it should look, and we can go from there.
-
Tim Blokdijk
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18
