FreeGameDev

qubodup {l Wrote}:Does anybody else dislike the use of real-life open source logos as decoration in open source games?

(at least when they are 100% identical to the actual logo in shape, like for example ubuntu seems to be.

+1

I fixed all the mistakes pointed out(plus a few others) and low-poly-afied the bridge. the only thing I didn't de was the texture problem on the pyramid. I couldn't see any problem in blender, and it looked fine in STK, so I left if how it was(mostly). the bug I mentioned before is fixed(dunno how), and there are no other problems, except sometimes reseting moves you all the way beck to before the pyramid(which can be used for cheating)

what license are you releasing this under?

Under the Free Art License. =)

Does anybody else dislike the use of real-life open source logos as decoration in open source games?
(at least when they are 100% identical to the actual logo in shape, like for example ubuntu seems to be.

I agree, that was an example, I can modify. In any case I have to improve it. What do you recommend to me ?

---

Anyway, track is better. (and we have water falling in the right diection ! )
Just a few details :

(and the same at the right but it's less visible)



In my memories of Egyptology, an obelisk is more like this - with a little pyramid at the top. Can you edit it ?

And thank you to improve this track !

jymis {l Wrote}:

what license are you releasing this under?

Under the Free Art License. =)

errr..... thats not compatible with GPL maybe you should release this under one of the CC licenses? (http://creativecommons.org/)

jymis {l Wrote}:

where is the picture on the right?

ctdabomb {l Wrote}:

jymis {l Wrote}:

what license are you releasing this under?

Under the Free Art License. =)

errr..... thats not compatible with GPL maybe you should release this under one of the CC licenses? (http://creativecommons.org/)

Not just "one" of them. There are exactly three cc licenses that are free/open source compatible: http://freegamedev.net/wiki/Art_licensi ... _your_work

ctdabomb {l Wrote}:

jymis {l Wrote}:

what license are you releasing this under?

Under the Free Art License. =)

errr..... thats not compatible with GPL maybe you should release this under one of the CC licenses? (http://creativecommons.org/)

As long as it's listed as a Free Software license in here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-li ... erLicenses and the requirements of the specific license is met, I think we are safe to use it. And this license is.

errr..... thats not compatible with GPL

Ah, the big question ! ><
For me it is. Words are just different but FAL is, in a way, similar to CC-BY-SA 3.0.

And, in the french translation of this page, FAL is no more present in " licenses not acceptable ". And we have a comment of traductor at the bottom wich subject is " mixture of licenses ". So I didn't know for the english page, sorry for the surprise !

As long as it's listed as a Free Software license in here

Thanks for this page, Arthur. It help us.

Let me improve this work and I'll send you (xcf and png again) with license in a file text.

Arthur {l Wrote}:As long as it's listed as a Free Software license in here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-li ... erLicenses and the requirements of the specific license is met, I think we are safe to use it. And this license is.

These are not "Free Software" licenses.

FSF doesn't seem to care care much about non-software. The two CC licenses that they recommend have been proven unacceptable in the versions prior to 3.0: http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Cre ... 29.2C_v2.5
I have asked them to update that page but without success.

Debian has not settled on FAL, but the consensus seems to be "This license is badly worded, please use ccbysa3 or gpl instead" http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Lic ... _unsettled

EDIT: the French version is not a translation, it's the original. The English version is a translation.

I understand that the translation of free art license is inconvenient.

So I release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Just let me improve it.

here is another version with the bugs jymis pointed out fixed, and I added some trees like in the screenshot kolado posted a long time ago

OK, thanks for the replies, both qubodup and jymis.

Keep up the good work ctdabomb.

ctdabomb {l Wrote}:where is the picture on the right?

Ok, is just a detail.

With trees is very nice !

Some objects to add :
. one or two rows of egyptian columns before arch (visible on picture) and connected to it
. a mastaba/old step pyramid (see here and there)
. more statues inside (something like this) =P

ctdabomb {l Wrote}:here is another version with the bugs jymis pointed out, and added some trees like in the screenshot kolado posted a long time ago

Good, You Work on my idea ?

The egypt improved version is here ! I've received help from my wife (better graphic artist than me ^^) for colors. I've edited the license.txt as you can see, if you still like the picture. (zip attached)

Are you able to translate what is written in binary ? =P

Also :

jymis {l Wrote}:HERE.....

oh, ok you are just on the wrong side of that objects normals and so you can't see it. I don't really think that that is a bug though because most people don't go back there

jymis {l Wrote}:Some objects to add :
. one or two rows of egyptian columns before arch (visible on picture) and connected to it
. a mastaba/old step pyramid (see here and there)
. more statues inside (something like this) =P

hmmm....... i might

Ludsky {l Wrote}:Good, You Work on my idea ?

if people think I should I might, but IMO I think the path is fine right now

jymis {l Wrote}:The egypt improved version is here ! I've received help from my wife (better graphic artist than me ^^) for colors. I've edited the license.txt as you can see, if you still like the picture. (zip attached)

Are you able to translate what is written in binary ? =P

do you have a higher resolution version of this I can use? and no I cannot read binary.

Erf no, I'm a stupid guy who worked directly from the resolution of the first picture v.v
Why does it matter ? (I'm starting with texture...)
What resolution do you need ? I can remake it if you want.

It would be nice if it were at least 128px high though preferably 256px
I need it just so It doesn't look too stretched if it's in a big place, and stuff like that

Here we are !

Two other versions. Can you, everybody, give me your preference ? - don't forget the first picture at my previous message.
Don't hesitate to test in game.
Thank you.

(personally I prefer the third)

I think either the first, or the third. probably the third. anyone else?

I think the first is too smooth, and the second too rough. I'd go with the third as well. Of course, this depends on where they are placed..

I would prefer the third, since I guess that it would look best in game. It would be too hard to recognize the sencond version properly during a race.

This track certainly is different. The current sands feels very big and spacious, this one is very narrow by comparison.

comparison of the egypt.png in-game:
1
http://i.imgur.com/DHFnN.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xwaNb.jpg

2
http://i.imgur.com/xC5wE.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/oRmw1.jpg

3
http://i.imgur.com/Ahft1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QHEfY.jpg

I like the texture of 3 and think that the lightness of 1 is the best.

qubodup {l Wrote}:I like the texture of 3 and think that the lightness of 1 is the best.

I agree; mixing those two aspects would be best in my opinion.