You can move the camera around with the keyboard. Use Ctrl with the arrow keys and PgUp/PgDown. But there's a bug: it only works when the command line is focused. Swing is weird like that. I'll try to figure it out.
Moving the camera with the mouse is another story. I'll think about it. Maybe with drag&drop to pan, and the mouse wheel to scroll. All right, noted. And thank you!
Edit: there you go! New version uploaded and mailed. Thanks again for the suggestion.
Look at real-world ship plans and adapt them? It's the best way to ensure realism. Or for fictional ships, if you insist, see if you can find Spelljammer ship plans. It's fantasy, not sci-fi, but they may provide some inspiration.
That said, intuition suggests that a ship carrying all that stuff would be mostly cargo and hangar space, with engines at the aft end, big doors at the prow, and living quarters tacked on to every side. And it would still be painfully cramped. Real world ships invariably are, even large ones, and a spaceship has even more overhead in the way of conduits, cables, pumps and whatnot.
Alternatively, maybe something not unlike the Space Shuttle would make sense? It would still be mostly hangar space.
I second the complete art packs proposal. Also larger packs you can pick and choose from. Too much content here consists of a single 3D model, or a single sound loop, that are hard to match with anything else (I'm guilty of that too.) Such content can find uses, it's just not easy.
I recently made a visual novel demo using art from here, here and here. (Sorry for the shameless plug, my original announcement got lost.) During the creation process, I discovered that the background set is sorely lacking in interiors, while the portraits are not in fact so suitable for a visual novel, being designed to sit in a frame. So I say what we need is more content that was actually used in a game or tech demo -- anything real -- and as such had the kinks ironed out. The assets I mentioned need little improvement, but that just makes it more obvious that they DO need improvement. It's not their fault, but artists do need a little direction as to what a game developer actually needs in a real game...
To comply with GPL, I don't have to allow the source to be extracted from my program, I just have to make it available to anyone interested. And, technically I could release a GPL'd program with DRM.
That's because software without source code isn't the same as a sprite sheet only available as a PNG. You can easily change and repurpose the latter if you can extract it, unlike with machine code. Also, when the GPL was drafted, DRM for software wasn't yet an issue (whereas patents were, for example, hence the dedicated clauses in the license), and the GPL only concerns itself with software. Art simply faces different issues in the digital world, and the more modern Creative Commons licenses reflect that.
DRM is evil, there are no two ways about that. If you haven't butted your head against it, you probably don't believe me. But consider a question: why was it necessary to create an special license -- OGA-BY -- just so people can use free art on a single, specific platform (iOS)? Is that single platform so incredibly important? Really?
I apologize for sounding rude. I tried not to and failed. I did say unpleasant things, but that's not the same.
Look, licensing is a mess. The best crafted free software / free culture licenses give raise to conundrums like that all the time. (Goes to show how wrong it is to try and "protect" infinite goods.) In fact, I suspect most creators don't really understand the licenses they apply to their own work. I do it as a general statement of intent. It's not like I could enforce my rights should someone breach the license. If you need to ask the author for clarification, or a lawyer, then Creative Commons licensing just plain doesn't work.
That said, all Creative Commons licenses have the same anti-DRM clause, I think (apart from CC0). And if you say art can be trivially extracted from an app file, that shouldn't even apply. But do the App Store terms of use allow such art in the first place?
Well, since the thread has been necro-ed already, I might as well throw in my two cents.
kheftel, short answer: you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Long answer: you apparently want to take advantage of open culture without participating in it. Doesn't work that way. The anti-DRM clause in the Creative Commons licenses is there to prevent exactly this kind of abuse. What Apple does by banning open source and mandating DRM on their apps is highly damaging: culture can't go on, let alone progress, if we can't build on what came before. If you truly believe in "protecting your intellectual property", you should put your money where your mouth is and pay for what you use. Can't afford it? Welcome to capitalism.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. You like how it sounds when you're on the receiving end?
Wow, cool! I considered doing just that in a recent game, but I was told it's not so easy to get it right, and besides, I had already found regular music that fit very well. (Also, these particular loops are in a different style.) But I still like the concept and want to try it sometime. Imagine waves of enemies in a shooter, where enemies come in at regular intervals and each type of enemy has its own loop. Tempting, huh? It's basically a procedural tracker. So thanks for making these.
I am not a lawyer, but the consensus appears to be that Creative Commons licenses only apply to the art itself, not bundles of it such as a game. Of course, for that buyers of your game would need the ability to easily extract and reuse the CC art from the package you sell. So I guess the latter option.
As for dual licensing, that means you can apply either of the licenses, whichever best fits your project.
You can move the camera around with the keyboard. Use Ctrl with the arrow keys and PgUp/PgDown. But there's a bug: it only works when the command line is focused. Swing is weird like that. I'll try to figure it out.
Moving the camera with the mouse is another story. I'll think about it. Maybe with drag&drop to pan, and the mouse wheel to scroll. All right, noted. And thank you!
Edit: there you go! New version uploaded and mailed. Thanks again for the suggestion.
Oh wow, I love it! It's the kind of music that makes me want to create something that would fit. Thank you!
Look at real-world ship plans and adapt them? It's the best way to ensure realism. Or for fictional ships, if you insist, see if you can find Spelljammer ship plans. It's fantasy, not sci-fi, but they may provide some inspiration.
That said, intuition suggests that a ship carrying all that stuff would be mostly cargo and hangar space, with engines at the aft end, big doors at the prow, and living quarters tacked on to every side. And it would still be painfully cramped. Real world ships invariably are, even large ones, and a spaceship has even more overhead in the way of conduits, cables, pumps and whatnot.
Alternatively, maybe something not unlike the Space Shuttle would make sense? It would still be mostly hangar space.
I second the complete art packs proposal. Also larger packs you can pick and choose from. Too much content here consists of a single 3D model, or a single sound loop, that are hard to match with anything else (I'm guilty of that too.) Such content can find uses, it's just not easy.
I recently made a visual novel demo using art from here, here and here. (Sorry for the shameless plug, my original announcement got lost.) During the creation process, I discovered that the background set is sorely lacking in interiors, while the portraits are not in fact so suitable for a visual novel, being designed to sit in a frame. So I say what we need is more content that was actually used in a game or tech demo -- anything real -- and as such had the kinks ironed out. The assets I mentioned need little improvement, but that just makes it more obvious that they DO need improvement. It's not their fault, but artists do need a little direction as to what a game developer actually needs in a real game...
Very much on topic, I just ran across this article criticizing license proliferation: http://questioncopyright.org/letter_against_stm_license_proliferation.
And cdoty, fighting for freedom is political, pretty much by definition.
That's because software without source code isn't the same as a sprite sheet only available as a PNG. You can easily change and repurpose the latter if you can extract it, unlike with machine code. Also, when the GPL was drafted, DRM for software wasn't yet an issue (whereas patents were, for example, hence the dedicated clauses in the license), and the GPL only concerns itself with software. Art simply faces different issues in the digital world, and the more modern Creative Commons licenses reflect that.
DRM is evil, there are no two ways about that. If you haven't butted your head against it, you probably don't believe me. But consider a question: why was it necessary to create an special license -- OGA-BY -- just so people can use free art on a single, specific platform (iOS)? Is that single platform so incredibly important? Really?
I apologize for sounding rude. I tried not to and failed. I did say unpleasant things, but that's not the same.
Look, licensing is a mess. The best crafted free software / free culture licenses give raise to conundrums like that all the time. (Goes to show how wrong it is to try and "protect" infinite goods.) In fact, I suspect most creators don't really understand the licenses they apply to their own work. I do it as a general statement of intent. It's not like I could enforce my rights should someone breach the license. If you need to ask the author for clarification, or a lawyer, then Creative Commons licensing just plain doesn't work.
That said, all Creative Commons licenses have the same anti-DRM clause, I think (apart from CC0). And if you say art can be trivially extracted from an app file, that shouldn't even apply. But do the App Store terms of use allow such art in the first place?
Well, since the thread has been necro-ed already, I might as well throw in my two cents.
kheftel, short answer: you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Long answer: you apparently want to take advantage of open culture without participating in it. Doesn't work that way. The anti-DRM clause in the Creative Commons licenses is there to prevent exactly this kind of abuse. What Apple does by banning open source and mandating DRM on their apps is highly damaging: culture can't go on, let alone progress, if we can't build on what came before. If you truly believe in "protecting your intellectual property", you should put your money where your mouth is and pay for what you use. Can't afford it? Welcome to capitalism.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. You like how it sounds when you're on the receiving end?
Wow, cool! I considered doing just that in a recent game, but I was told it's not so easy to get it right, and besides, I had already found regular music that fit very well. (Also, these particular loops are in a different style.) But I still like the concept and want to try it sometime. Imagine waves of enemies in a shooter, where enemies come in at regular intervals and each type of enemy has its own loop. Tempting, huh? It's basically a procedural tracker. So thanks for making these.
I am not a lawyer, but the consensus appears to be that Creative Commons licenses only apply to the art itself, not bundles of it such as a game. Of course, for that buyers of your game would need the ability to easily extract and reuse the CC art from the package you sell. So I guess the latter option.
As for dual licensing, that means you can apply either of the licenses, whichever best fits your project.
Pages