Hmm, i was looking into something like this, but the only answer i found was to actually build a project myself. Then its just a case of swapping the sprites per asset release. So its just a room with a tile set, then the character moves around and attacks, showing the characters off in like a 'real time' showcase, and yeah, screen record each time, upload recording and export as a GIF. little long winded, but once you have built the project then thats most of the hard work done.
"Ok, here's a serious question for you. Sit down, take a deep breath, and think it through, before you answer: Why are you against making LPC better? Is it lazyness? Pride or jealousy this wasn't your idea? What? I would like to address your issues, but you're just keep complaining and running in circles."
If this is directed at me.
Complaining? i haven't complained. I asked questions, and given my opinions on why i think certain things things won't work, based from some of the experiences i see here on OGA. i am not against making the LPC better, it makes no difference to me, i don't use it. but if we are asking for user input and suggestions then i'm giving my view in hope that it may be of some help or highlight potential flaws at least. Instead you come across very dismissive. As for pride and jealousy? well, i take no pride in pointing out potential issues, or indeed highlighting them when they arise, but for feedback purposes i know they can be essential, so as long as its taken in good faith, i can live with it, and i'm not jealous that i didn't think about it first, I'm more than aware of what goes into things like this, and as i mentioned to you, i admire your commitment to the cause. Lazyness? C'mon, your 'complaint' is not having enough LPC content compatible with each other and want to see more, so your view would be to create a better specification and have content creators adhere to it, when what you should be doing is picking up a pencil and get drawing, or get the content that isn't compatable into a programming/editor software and do what you cn and fix those compatability issues, or editthem to suit your specification needs, like verybody else has too, and if you do, dont foget to share them back here for others to use.:)
If not directed at me.
Well, ive said it now, but may i suggest talking to those most involved with the LPC currently to find out what they think is a priority, and possible work with/alongside them, they may have already drafted a newer 'spec', so you could save yourself a lot of work and be going over things that have already been discussed here or elsewhere. :)
I'm not sure i can offer anything else to this discussion. So i wish you all well with it. :)
"This would suggest that they would need to work together and communicate though, which is someting that doesn't seem to be happening, at least not well enough currently"
"Sure that's happening. There's a lot of thought and coordination going into building out the spritesheet character generator, which is where most (all?) of the newer assets end up. Pretty much all of the LPC character assets that have been released over the last few years have been cleaned up and made available there."
Yes, sorry, i should of said, "at least not well enough currently, that i can see"
i know there are a few of you working together, and i forget that there are other places you all talk, as well as privately and i might not see conversations going on in other threads. My apoligies. :)
"who do you propse is going to police the use of the LPC-xyz tag, whatever it ends up being named?"
MedicineStorm has been nominated, being the only admin representative for OGA, as it seems having an OGA representative 'officiate' LPC content would go towards guaranting compatabilitys. But this approach is not going to work. Time to check the assets would take forever, and putting that burden and adding that expectation to them is not very fair. Thay have enough to do as it is.
Really the burden should fall to those responsable for setting the up 'specifications', as after all, they know what they are working with and what would constitute whats 'official' or 'compatable' or not. MedicneStorn has no input as to what the 'specification' entails, and would have to ask or get clarification from whom ever created the 'specification' in the first place to confirm 'official', 'revised' or whatever else.
Failing that, maybe a 'consortium' of LPC contributers could work as moderators. Each one verifying an new LPC asset upload. This would suggest that they would need to work together and communicate though, which is someting that doesn't seem to be happening, at least not well enough currently. and who gets to be part of this 'consortium', Whos gonna head this type of thing, and besides all that, it doesn't allow for freedom, who reallt gets to say what gos up or what gets turned away. Its totally against the OGA way of things.
The best thing to do IMO, is for every LPC character asset created, then just post the link to whatever base is was designed for/from, either the original, revised and what ever other fork/deriative there is out there.
I'm not really talking about a 'style guide'. I'm talking about the inconsistant/incompatable assets available now, and now including Eliza's assets, for which she has created her own 'style guide'so that goes someway to additions for those using Eliza's versions/fork.
I'm at the opinion that those that created LPC assets since its creation that didn't follow the original style guide and 'TEMPLATESS'(which are available) have maybe caused the issues that the LPC faces today and have in some way ended up creating more deriatives/forks as a consequence to that.
Creating a newer 'style guide' or whatever you want to call it WILL help LPC going forward from the point it is finalised, BUT ONLY if the comunity don't resort back to ignoring the 'style guides' and 'templates' that already exist. it wont help backwards compatability, or address the issues facing the already created LPC that exist today that have compatability issues. Which ideally needs fixing, but those will need to be manually fixed either by the original authors or another community member.
Most recognise that the 'style guide' needs updating to be clearer about things LPC. but it should stress about how important it is to stick to whats original and not deriative works based on the original. The only way you can gaurantee that newer LPC assetscomply with a set of 'style guide' is to moderate them, which as you know is not going to happen.
Creating a new tag line isn't going to work either, because tags will just be abused and used in the wrong way. Anything remotely LPC related will have the author use all tag's associated with LPC to help their work be found on the search.
Whilts i admire you commitment to creating an improved 'style guide', im at the opinion that its not gona cut the mustard, because of the reasons i have said above, or should i say "That would in itself solve nothing.".
"Eliza has standardized the head and hands positions for both male and female bases."
Head and hands? what about the bodys? Eliza'a body componants are the same as the originals?
Perhasp it might be a good idea whilst theres a 'spec guide' to have a 'compatability guide' too. least the community will know what isnt compatable and work on those in there own time.
"This is exactly what this specification addresses: using guides it creates defaults for the x & y coordinates, regardless to the base."
regardless of base, or depending on base? It certainly helps addressing the issue going forward, 2 different guides, for 2 different bases, but does it help backwards compatability, or now gives a choice as which one to use? one has more (at the moment) than the other currently?
"That would in itself solve nothing. First, you can already move layers with lots of tools; and second, the feature alone is useless if you don't know the exact coordinates where the layer needs to be moved."
Well, i it may not solve the issue , but it may be of some help, if some of the compatability issues are layer positioning. Might not be to hard to find/know what those co-ordinates are, perhaps we can ask? This doesn't just have to be an artists conumdrum, perhaps programmers can help find a solution too. Having something like it available within the generator tool may mean less time using different tools and take out all the editing etc. :)
I have my own sort of character generator, which uses male and female bases. Weapons i use are the same but dont quite fit the female bases correctly, so i just move the layers x/y to adjust them and it works great, so i just wondered if the same approach may work here. I didnt have to redraw all the weapon sprites all over again. :)
Im not sure how the generator operates, but is it not possible to allow/add code for layer movement for x & y axis for the 'layers'?
This feature could save a lot of 'reworks' and compatability issues for either sets?. Depending on 'base', having default x & y paremeters
Speaking of 'mirrored' sprites for left and right movements, its worth mentioning that head movements for up and down sometimes were coded in the frames, and not neccessrilly drawn with some games, if they heads are layered, which i suspect they are, then the same idea above could work.
Animations are nice, but you don't have to have them, someone from the community could create animations if they wanted and maybe share them. But theses are great as they are! :)
Text adventure:
As you attempt to leave the cave a mysterious creature appears from nowhere. His dragon like wings stretched across the entrance, blocking your exit. He howls and you feel his windswsept breath upon your face whilst gazing at his long teeth and drooling mouth. As you look down you notice the creature is holding something betwwen his talons.
If someone changes the license on the uploaded work now then anyone that have already downloaded it on a previous versions of the license(and can prove it) then they a free to use it under that license. If some one creates a deriative from a cc-by-3.0 they can upload and use a cc-by-4 license if the original author allows it, or ticked the box. (how do we know) if not, then you can't, your have to use cc-by-3.0. anyone downloading after the change then they will be bound by that updated license. Thats probably why we have so much cc-by-3.0 assets, as others havn't known they could use a newer license, and cc-by-4.0 isn't that old is it?
I not sure medicinestorm could upgrade licenses for works even if they wanted to, i beleieve that would be up to the author to decide to do that.
Hmm, i was looking into something like this, but the only answer i found was to actually build a project myself. Then its just a case of swapping the sprites per asset release. So its just a room with a tile set, then the character moves around and attacks, showing the characters off in like a 'real time' showcase, and yeah, screen record each time, upload recording and export as a GIF. little long winded, but once you have built the project then thats most of the hard work done.
"Ok, here's a serious question for you. Sit down, take a deep breath, and think it through, before you answer: Why are you against making LPC better? Is it lazyness? Pride or jealousy this wasn't your idea? What? I would like to address your issues, but you're just keep complaining and running in circles."
If this is directed at me.
Complaining? i haven't complained. I asked questions, and given my opinions on why i think certain things things won't work, based from some of the experiences i see here on OGA. i am not against making the LPC better, it makes no difference to me, i don't use it. but if we are asking for user input and suggestions then i'm giving my view in hope that it may be of some help or highlight potential flaws at least. Instead you come across very dismissive. As for pride and jealousy? well, i take no pride in pointing out potential issues, or indeed highlighting them when they arise, but for feedback purposes i know they can be essential, so as long as its taken in good faith, i can live with it, and i'm not jealous that i didn't think about it first, I'm more than aware of what goes into things like this, and as i mentioned to you, i admire your commitment to the cause. Lazyness? C'mon, your 'complaint' is not having enough LPC content compatible with each other and want to see more, so your view would be to create a better specification and have content creators adhere to it, when what you should be doing is picking up a pencil and get drawing, or get the content that isn't compatable into a programming/editor software and do what you cn and fix those compatability issues, or editthem to suit your specification needs, like verybody else has too, and if you do, dont foget to share them back here for others to use.:)
If not directed at me.
Well, ive said it now, but may i suggest talking to those most involved with the LPC currently to find out what they think is a priority, and possible work with/alongside them, they may have already drafted a newer 'spec', so you could save yourself a lot of work and be going over things that have already been discussed here or elsewhere. :)
I'm not sure i can offer anything else to this discussion. So i wish you all well with it. :)
"This would suggest that they would need to work together and communicate though, which is someting that doesn't seem to be happening, at least not well enough currently"
"Sure that's happening. There's a lot of thought and coordination going into building out the spritesheet character generator, which is where most (all?) of the newer assets end up. Pretty much all of the LPC character assets that have been released over the last few years have been cleaned up and made available there."
Yes, sorry, i should of said, "at least not well enough currently, that i can see"
i know there are a few of you working together, and i forget that there are other places you all talk, as well as privately and i might not see conversations going on in other threads. My apoligies. :)
"who do you propse is going to police the use of the LPC-xyz tag, whatever it ends up being named?"
MedicineStorm has been nominated, being the only admin representative for OGA, as it seems having an OGA representative 'officiate' LPC content would go towards guaranting compatabilitys. But this approach is not going to work. Time to check the assets would take forever, and putting that burden and adding that expectation to them is not very fair. Thay have enough to do as it is.
Really the burden should fall to those responsable for setting the up 'specifications', as after all, they know what they are working with and what would constitute whats 'official' or 'compatable' or not. MedicneStorn has no input as to what the 'specification' entails, and would have to ask or get clarification from whom ever created the 'specification' in the first place to confirm 'official', 'revised' or whatever else.
Failing that, maybe a 'consortium' of LPC contributers could work as moderators. Each one verifying an new LPC asset upload. This would suggest that they would need to work together and communicate though, which is someting that doesn't seem to be happening, at least not well enough currently. and who gets to be part of this 'consortium', Whos gonna head this type of thing, and besides all that, it doesn't allow for freedom, who reallt gets to say what gos up or what gets turned away. Its totally against the OGA way of things.
The best thing to do IMO, is for every LPC character asset created, then just post the link to whatever base is was designed for/from, either the original, revised and what ever other fork/deriative there is out there.
I'm not really talking about a 'style guide'. I'm talking about the inconsistant/incompatable assets available now, and now including Eliza's assets, for which she has created her own 'style guide'so that goes someway to additions for those using Eliza's versions/fork.
I'm at the opinion that those that created LPC assets since its creation that didn't follow the original style guide and 'TEMPLATESS'(which are available) have maybe caused the issues that the LPC faces today and have in some way ended up creating more deriatives/forks as a consequence to that.
Creating a newer 'style guide' or whatever you want to call it WILL help LPC going forward from the point it is finalised, BUT ONLY if the comunity don't resort back to ignoring the 'style guides' and 'templates' that already exist. it wont help backwards compatability, or address the issues facing the already created LPC that exist today that have compatability issues. Which ideally needs fixing, but those will need to be manually fixed either by the original authors or another community member.
Most recognise that the 'style guide' needs updating to be clearer about things LPC. but it should stress about how important it is to stick to whats original and not deriative works based on the original. The only way you can gaurantee that newer LPC assetscomply with a set of 'style guide' is to moderate them, which as you know is not going to happen.
Creating a new tag line isn't going to work either, because tags will just be abused and used in the wrong way. Anything remotely LPC related will have the author use all tag's associated with LPC to help their work be found on the search.
Whilts i admire you commitment to creating an improved 'style guide', im at the opinion that its not gona cut the mustard, because of the reasons i have said above, or should i say "That would in itself solve nothing.".
"Eliza has standardized the head and hands positions for both male and female bases."
Head and hands? what about the bodys? Eliza'a body componants are the same as the originals?
Perhasp it might be a good idea whilst theres a 'spec guide' to have a 'compatability guide' too. least the community will know what isnt compatable and work on those in there own time.
"This is exactly what this specification addresses: using guides it creates defaults for the x & y coordinates, regardless to the base."
regardless of base, or depending on base? It certainly helps addressing the issue going forward, 2 different guides, for 2 different bases, but does it help backwards compatability, or now gives a choice as which one to use? one has more (at the moment) than the other currently?
"That would in itself solve nothing. First, you can already move layers with lots of tools; and second, the feature alone is useless if you don't know the exact coordinates where the layer needs to be moved."
Well, i it may not solve the issue , but it may be of some help, if some of the compatability issues are layer positioning. Might not be to hard to find/know what those co-ordinates are, perhaps we can ask? This doesn't just have to be an artists conumdrum, perhaps programmers can help find a solution too. Having something like it available within the generator tool may mean less time using different tools and take out all the editing etc. :)
I have my own sort of character generator, which uses male and female bases. Weapons i use are the same but dont quite fit the female bases correctly, so i just move the layers x/y to adjust them and it works great, so i just wondered if the same approach may work here. I didnt have to redraw all the weapon sprites all over again. :)
Im not sure how the generator operates, but is it not possible to allow/add code for layer movement for x & y axis for the 'layers'?
This feature could save a lot of 'reworks' and compatability issues for either sets?. Depending on 'base', having default x & y paremeters
Speaking of 'mirrored' sprites for left and right movements, its worth mentioning that head movements for up and down sometimes were coded in the frames, and not neccessrilly drawn with some games, if they heads are layered, which i suspect they are, then the same idea above could work.
Animations are nice, but you don't have to have them, someone from the community could create animations if they wanted and maybe share them. But theses are great as they are! :)
Text adventure:
As you attempt to leave the cave a mysterious creature appears from nowhere. His dragon like wings stretched across the entrance, blocking your exit. He howls and you feel his windswsept breath upon your face whilst gazing at his long teeth and drooling mouth. As you look down you notice the creature is holding something betwwen his talons.
Fight (F) of Run (R) ????
If someone changes the license on the uploaded work now then anyone that have already downloaded it on a previous versions of the license(and can prove it) then they a free to use it under that license. If some one creates a deriative from a cc-by-3.0 they can upload and use a cc-by-4 license if the original author allows it, or ticked the box. (how do we know) if not, then you can't, your have to use cc-by-3.0. anyone downloading after the change then they will be bound by that updated license. Thats probably why we have so much cc-by-3.0 assets, as others havn't known they could use a newer license, and cc-by-4.0 isn't that old is it?
I not sure medicinestorm could upgrade licenses for works even if they wanted to, i beleieve that would be up to the author to decide to do that.
Pages