Offering materials to BMS…
-
Yes from scratch, and yes have rights……
Great
giving away our work would not allow us to make revisions, corrections for MP events/theaters. And am afraid even by submitting any of our works to BMS, they wouldn’t be capable of making any valuable changes to the cockpit model. This is a touchy subject for us. I cant see giving up 30 .max files for BMS to go through. If they are interested in a model WE have, then my position is they know where to find us. We would gladly help with BMS Dev, but not at the cost of losing our resources.
Times before I can see why BMS want the files, but here its different. We don’t make 1 or 2 models, and their not hidden away in some theater. They are here for all of the community fo fly on a MP server 24/7. Its more important for US to hold the .Max files than BMS. IMO
Sorry Nizmo I don’t get you here. I think u misunderstand the idea.
BMS don’t need to hold onto the resources for fun, it was decided as lessons from previous cases. See the last C-130 issue with the Janhas model (which we already removed from the DB). So that was the last time that we let something like that to happen. BMS will not accept anything from 3rd party unless the 3rd party will handover and give full permissions and control over the related items.
Now, I don’t understand the interest of a 3rd party developer to not including an appropriate (aka fits the demands) item in the default DB. I don’t understand how will that be a kind of a problem for anyone. How does that fact that you make a model, hand it over to BMS for DB inclusion, affects you from using/modifying it on some other DB/theater/whatever???
U create a model, u get it into the DB if you like (and if we like), then it will sail forever with the BMS versions without the need to install it with LE, that is alone IMHO a HUGE advantage. win-win situation. You want to make changes to the model/textures/whatever, you make the changes and you send BMS the updates if you like. Why we need the sources? let’s say 5 years from now we need to modify the model/texture and you already not around the scene, so instead of looking fro you out there, asking permissions etc, it’ll be easier to do that once we have the sources.
If anyone bring to his mind the awful thought that BMS wants the sources for fun or for some other ridiculous reason, please don’t get funny. If we ever wanted any kind of control over art/DB, we could in a couple of code lines to lock the DB, so you won’t even be able to change a single texture without permission.
-
IMHO, the bms rules as officially known to public should be updated a bit. I always had this thought (as I said IMHO), but it is a matter of time that an “issue” would arise that will force these rules to be considered; for updating as below.
Although I IMHO agree that bms should have the total of files available by creators as and the full permissions to use these files anytime, even if the original creator suddenly decides to un-approve the usage of his work by bms group in any future releases, the issue which arise is who is or will be in better position to update/upgrade/convert etc these models other than the original creator, something that with the current form of bms policy it appears that it leaves-out any future cooperation with these original creators.
This specific detail IMO is one big gap in any form of contribution between bms devs and external people who have the knowledge and passion to create and share stuff with the whole community, but (fear maybe; ) they will not be selected afterwards to “service” their creations.
Simply, bms should receive and host the latest gadgets by users along with full approvals, but contributors as long as they are tight to the bms improvement should be considered active assets anytime in future to work on requested updates or changes of their work as these updates are aligned by bms devs and their latest standards.
-
If they are interested in a model WE have, then my position is they know where to find us.
Except some exceptions … , we prefer not to ask anyone. In a rule of thumb, now we prefer waiting that ppl offer their work by themselves rather than having to ask them for.
giving away our work would not allow us to make revisions
Of course no!
Giving “all rights to BMS” just means that BMS can modify, change, suppress a part or totally the model or associated textures in case of needs without asking any authorization to original author.
It does not mean that original author can’t share his model to anyone else, modify it, update in a separate mod. But the model given to BMS will be under total BMS control.
You see?
-
Great
Sorry Nizmo I don’t get you here. I think u misunderstand the idea.
BMS don’t need to hold onto the resources for fun, it was decided as lessons from previous cases. See the last C-130 issue with the Janhas model (which we already removed from the DB). So that was the last time that we let something like that to happen. BMS will not accept anything from 3rd party unless the 3rd party will handover and give full permissions and control over the related items.
Now, I don’t understand the interest of a 3rd party developer to not including an appropriate (aka fits the demands) item in the default DB. I don’t understand how will that be a kind of a problem for anyone. How does that fact that you make a model, hand it over to BMS for DB inclusion, affects you from using/modifying it on some other DB/theater/whatever???
U create a model, u get it into the DB if you like (and if we like), then it will sail forever with the BMS versions without the need to install it with LE, that is alone IMHO a HUGE advantage. win-win situation. You want to make changes to the model/textures/whatever, you make the changes and you send BMS the updates if you like. Why we need the sources? let’s say 5 years from now we need to modify the model/texture and you already not around the scene, so instead of looking fro you out there, asking permissions etc, it’ll be easier to do that once we have the sources.
If anyone bring to his mind the awful thought that BMS wants the sources for fun or for some other ridiculous reason, please don’t get funny. If we ever wanted any kind of control over art/DB, we could in a couple of code lines to lock the DB, so you won’t even be able to change a single texture without permission.
As long as “authors” can make changes and submit them to you, example, a switch state update or f4 callback update etc… then I have no problem allowing you to use models.
The impression we had, is submitting a model to “BMS” would un-authorize the original creator to even posses the max file in which was submitted.
-
I am volunteering my services as the official negotiator for Dev/BMS relations and model sharing. My fee will be access to all models pre-release!!
-
…
Although I IMHO agree that bms should have the total of files available by creators as and the full permissions to use these files anytime, even if the original creator suddenly decides to un-approve the usage of his work by bms group in any future releases, the issue which arise is who is or will be in better position to update/upgrade/convert etc these models other than the original creator, something that with the current form of bms policy it appears that it leaves-out any future cooperation with these original creators.
This specific detail IMO is one big gap in any form of contribution between bms devs and external people who have the knowledge and passion to create and share stuff with the whole community, but (fear maybe; ) they will not be selected afterwards to “service” their creations.
Simply, bms should receive and host the latest gadgets by users along with full approvals, but contributors as long as they are tight to the bms improvement should be considered active assets anytime in future to work on requested updates or changes of their work as these updates are aligned by bms devs and their latest standards.
Let take an example:
Imagine Harpoon sending me a MP saying:
Hi Dee-Jay! What about you Pyjama? …
I’m coming to you just to offer to BMS team the Pilot Leg mod
It includes authorization to modify, share, suppress or add some parts etc … whatever BMS wants/think is necessary.
By!Me:
Thank you so much mate! Ok … maybe we can do something with it
…
Then … 3 - 4 week later:
Hi Harpoon! …
We have a little problem with “your” legs. We would like to make the knees a little bit closer from the center of the pit in order to reduce the consoles obscured visibility issues.
Could you help us?Possible answers:
Yes … I can …
or
No … sorry, no more time ATM. and since I’m personaly quite happy with it, I do not want to spend time working on it.
Me:
Ok fine! Thank you anyway … We will try to do it by ourselves.
Take care and see ya soon!
…
-
The impression we had, is submitting a model to “BMS” would un-authorize the original creator to even posses the max file in which was submitted.
Of course not!
As long as “authors” can make changes and submit them to you, example, a switch state update or f4 callback update etc… then I have no problem allowing you to use models.
… however … BMS can refuse to implement this update in stock install and keep the old version.
Things a clearer now ?
-
Of course not!
… however … BMS can refuse to implement this update in stock install and keep the old version.
Things a clearer now ?
Sounds fair.
-
I sense missunderstanding along this thread between Nizmo and BMS (maybe not), so just to make sure i get this correct BMS team.
For 3D model you guys NEED the SOURCE in order to be able to address probable issues. I get that and it makes sense.
I also understand this:
Giving “all rights to BMS” just means that BMS can modify, change, suppress a part or totally the model or associated textures in case of needs without asking any authorization to original author.
But i suppose if you say “source” in terms of 3D models, then you mean the LOD files for Falcon and not the 3Dmax source, because NO 3D art-developer will give you those.
-
@A.S:
because no 3D art-developer will give you those.
Why?
…
In fact … 3Dmax files would highly be appreciated. But I do not think it is absolutely mandatory. (it would be just better in case of needed)
-
Why?
In fact … 3Dmax files would highly be appreciated. But I do not think it is absolutely mandatory.
Because its “capital” and the true “product” of every art-designer who “sits” hundreds of hours to make those.
As BMS only needs the derivative aka the LOD models (plus the right to do what they want with it) … it should be enough!? NO? -
Why not A.S.?
U create something for Falcon BMS. That source is the solution for many stuff. Great last example the very pit we fly.
In case the creator fears that the model will be used or get leaked etc then he can send BMS a disclosure and BMS sign it.
Maybe even better BMS create the disclosure and sent it to the creator as a proof that they will use the model only for BMS.I don’t agree with such action though as I don’t think BMS will sign anything with real names and second is a pure act of lack of confidence… they give us their masterpiece for free and all their hard work and a 3D creator can’t share a few models?
Do u think this is fair A.S.?
-
Arty, we here worked MONTH on the FO theaters, plus UI etc etc etc…and everything is FREE without drama and “license” and “rights” etc etc.
But i CAN understand that some 3D art designers have a different or an ownership perspective on their RAW data (3D max).IF the author gives away the rights on his real source (3Dmax), that means not even he himself is afterwards allowed to change what HE originally created. Makes sense now?
IF BMS likes the 3D model and the derivatives of it (LOD1, 2, 3 etc) then the 3Dmax fils is unnessary or even useless for BMS, UNLESS they want to change something again.
-
@A.S:
because NO 3D art-developer will give you those.
And why not? just curious what is the reason for that…
But in any case, you guys think too much. The idea is to deny any possibility of a dev giving permission then after sometime deny this permission. Again see the Janhas C-130 as a classic case if you like, so we will make sure it’ll not happen.
Think simple - If a given model/texture is in good quality, standing by the standards, what interest does BMS folks have to modify it anyway? you think we don’t have enough work?
But still we would like the sources because in case of a future change is necessary, classic example - BMS runs from LOD and need to convert all models to some new format, so having the source will be easier for sure, don’t you agree with that?And saying again, don’t think we are going to chase anyone, if a modeler want to contribute and has something to offer, it should be his interest to integrate his stuff with the default DB. If for some reason, someone doesn’t feel like sharing his stuff, or maybe keep it solely to some usage of some group or as a part of some patch (for example some PVP theater), of course it’s his rights to not share. But this is wrong behavior IMHO. After all, we are 1 community and we should all have the same interest to push the sim forward.
Cheers!
-
@A.S:
Arty, we here worked MONTH on the FO theaters, plus UI etc etc etc…and everything is FREE without drama and “license” and “rights” etc etc.
But i CAN understand that some 3D art designers have a different or an ownership perspective on their RAW data (3D max).IF the author gives away the rights on his real source (3Dmax), that means not even he himself is afterwards allowed to change what HE originally created.
Makes sense now?And what is the problem with it?
BMS will integrate the model as it feels best.
If the creator wants a different way he can always publish his version.
Changing the model is way easy lod editor replace save done.
And users can choose what they like or want.
Makes sense now?
IIRC BMS doesn’t ask for exclusive rights…
-
@A.S:
Because its “capital” and the true “product” of every art-designer who “sits” hundreds of hours to make those.
In that case … in the “same logic” we shouldn’t keep BMS’s database and .dat files open and free to be modified?
As BMS only needs the derivative aka the LOD models (plus the right to do what they want with it) … it should be enough!?
I guess yes.
But like in my example with Harpoon pilot legs… in that case (if we have all sources and .max files) we could do it ourselves easily without bothering Harpoon with it (especially if he does not want to spend time on it) , be able to do as we need without long and deep explanations (to fit in a models not present in current public version) and reduce the time needed for question/answer process (helping to reduce the 3 - 4 weeks time unit.)
In other words … better, easier, faster.
EDIT:
Why do you think the CABIN TEMP button and some other stuff (moving arm rest, defroze handle, …) are still not implemented in current F-16 pit? … because we do not have Narard pit .max files.
-
And why not? just curious what is the reason for that…
IF the author gives away the rights on his real source (3Dmax), that means not even he himself is afterwards allowed to change what HE originally created. Makes sense now?
Realistically spoken, everything here is a modding of mods, meaning the legality is questionalbe from the root - if at all - and you know what i mean.
You guys try to avoid ownership dramas and side-effects, which is understandable. This is the reason why we also decided not to change any “stock” files in FO installers until we are able to do so in our “own” simdata add-on structure -
@A.S:
IF the author gives away the rights on his real source (3Dmax), that means not even he himself is afterwards allowed to change what HE originally created.
Why?
-
@A.S:
IF the author gives away the rights on his real source (3Dmax), that means not even he himself is afterwards allowed to change what HE originally created. Makes sense now?
A.S, where did you get this idea that BMS will deny the creator from changing his own product?? I mean where do you read that, exactly?
The idea is simple - If something goes into the BMS DB, then BMS will have full control over it, preferably along with the sources (be it 3D max or PSD for a skin…), why? so BMS will be able to make changes possibly in the future if a change is necessary (read my post above). Why do you think that this fact will deny the creator from changing his work?? if the creator wants to improve/change his model for whatever reason, he can do that and again submit it to BMS or not by his choice. The fact that BMS has the source, doesn’t mean that BMS now control the entire item, but BMS controls the item that exists in the BMS DB. If the modeler wants to improve the model, send it to other sim, sell it on the internet, it’s his right of course to do whatever he wants, it’s his stuff!! but he can’t ask BMS to remove the version that he approved to use. Clearer now?
IF BMS likes the 3D model and the derivatives of it (LOD1, 2, 3 etc) then the 3Dmax fils is unnessary or even useless for BMS, UNLESS they want to change something again.
BMS has no interest nor time to change or modify good items for no reasons. If the item is good and is included in the DB, it’ll probably stay this way forever. If at some point BMS needs to do a change (like again, for example using other format instead of LOD) then it’ll be able to do it without having to ask the creator for permission. And the creator isn’t able to suddenly come at some day and ask BMS to remove his stuff, sorry you approved it once, that ship already sailed.
-
This example is totally realistic and valid, and one of the main reasons the bms policy should follow this logic in this exact example. No dump about that.
But, considering a bit more your previous answer lets populate a bit the scenarios, the ones that might result in “issues” for the original creators.
Giving “all rights to BMS” just means that BMS can modify, change, suppress a part or totally the model or associated textures in case of needs without asking any authorization to original author.
It does not mean that original author can’t share his model to anyone else, modify it, update in a separate mod.
Harpoon offers his pyjama version1 to bms group, along with original files, 3ds/max, skin templates or even reference material. Probably this version1 is added right away to a future update for the community.
Next month Harpoon decides to update a bit some details of his Pyjama model, adding and a new high-res photorealistic skin. BMS receives this version2 and is included in a future update.
A little later some bms dev probably from the modelling department decides to update the pyjama to reduce polys as it makes heavy the pit and is dropping fps. So he works on it and creates version3 for the next update release. Policy:
@Dee-Jay:BMS can modify, change, suppress a part or totally the model or associated textures in case of needs without asking any authorization to original author
And here the issue arise.
Harpoon want to make new changes to his pyjama. He has his latest modification version2, but currently the model is in version3, which is created by someone else, without Harpoon been notified as per current policy, so harpoon doesn’t have the new raw model data (3ds/max) or core changelog to continue from there. He is just left behind, only has (will have) the new toy following upcoming public update release. So exactly here is the bug in the up to now collaboration, since he cannot continue updating his stuff for bms team or others (maybe theater creators; ). The version he currently has in his hands to work is old, outdated, and causes high fps in-sim.
The current policy does not cover the back-forth collaboration, only the “forth” -part in regards of the bms team. And although it is created to ensure it will eliminate issues with creators that “don’t have the time currently to work on updating their latest stuff”, and for issues kind of “I don’t want you to use my work again in future”, it does leave black the “back” -part collaboration with the creators that are active and have time and passion to update their stuff as will be instructed by the team.
If my example is wrong or somewhat unrealistic please correct me, but anyway ensure that bms devs should consider any possible theory that might result to unhappy issues between collaborations or “donations”.