Offering materials to BMS…
-
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”.
-
In that case … in the “same logic” we shouldn’t keep BMS’s database and .dat files open and free to be modified?
Dee-Jay, personally i have no problem with “openess”. Everything i do is for FREE without even “anal” questions (see Janhas case).
But don´t expect this kind of mindset from everyone. If someone works many hours on a 3D model and offers the LOD files… don´t ask for his arm, if he gives you a hand.PS: Btw, that would defeat the whole purpose of an “open” and thus well progressing developement or “product”. Then it would be only a “pirate product” for few “elitists”.
Dee-Jay, remember this: Community dead = Sim dead (soon or later)
-
@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?
Do not forget that author is free to offer its work … or not.
This is why we prefer not to ask ppl.
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.
This is the point. What is true today could not be true tomorrow.
-
I am sure you guys and Nizmo figure something working out. I prefer to make things less complicated, especially if there are no finacial interests or “legal” boundries involved or restricting
At the end of the day we are ALL community here…and work for the same goals and dreams….…. but he can’t ask BMS to remove the version that he approved to use. Clearer now?
That would be retarded I-Hawk.
-
@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?
I’m sorry … No.
-
What would be reasonable to ask from BMS would be to give changes back to creator (3dsMAX files) in case the creator has in mind to make additions or changes to his model. That way BMS team will save time as some errors or mistakes or forgotten things will not have to be redone.
-
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”.
I see this question - I assure you that BMS folks will of course let Harpoon those latest sources with the necessary changes in such a case. And BTW BMS will always prefer the creator to modify and optimize his work, even after submission was made and used in the DB. Only in case of technical issues maybe, BMS modelers will involve and modify the item.
-
I’m sorry … No.
If a “licence” is provided, the original author still can edit his own original work. If the “rights” are given (or sold) to someone else, even the original author has no permission anymore to change anything. Commerce… .
But the truth is THIS: Once something is out on the i-net… it IS OUT there on the i-net …and we all know that