16x16 is often hard to blend with 32x32. The 16x16 have to be pretty remarkable to be good enough to contend with a similar texture containing four times the detail.
I've used 16x16, 32x32, 48x48, 64x64, and briefly 96x96. In my opinion, the sweet zone is 32. The jump in detail and flexibility from 16 -> 32 is more significant than the jump from 32 -> 64. Actually, I'd say the jump from 16 to 32 is about the same level of significance as the jump from 32 -> 96, so I feel like the optimal efficiency of creation vs maximization of detail peaks at 32x32. The "best bang for your buck" as they say. Going larger tends to provide only slightly more enjoyment for the player, but massively more effort for the artist (and game engine). This is, of course, only ONE developer's opinion. I've seen AMAZING work at 16x16 and 64x64, so my opinion is hardly fact.
Ivan Voirol's "Slates" sets provides a great example of the aforementioned "AMAZING" work, as well as an excellent case for comparing 16x16 to 32x32
Ah I see. Attributing textures embedded in 3D models is not a licensing requirement, it's a site requirement. This is because so many people were sharing CC0 models that included proprietary textures that it was causing huge copyright problems.
It seems like you may be under the impression you have done something wrong. I would like to assure you that is not the case. The only reason I ask so many follow-up questions is to ensure there is no inaccurate information in the FAQ or on the site that may be perpetuating confusing instructions to other people.
I see you are referring to this part of the FAQ:
In the case of Public Domain (or CC0) art that you didn't create yourself, we appreciate if you include a link back to the source of the content. We make an effort to verify that PD content is actually in the public domain before we approve it for the archive, and it speeds things up a lot if we know where you got it. If you're the author of the work and you want to remain anonymous, just mention that in the description.
Yes, your understanding of that is correct; it is to check if CC0 work is legit and to double check the validity of said asset. We are not asking you to credit CC0 works, we are asking you to share the source of derivatives with us so we can confirm it is truly CC0 / PD. There are a lot of people who share assets on the internet for "free" but don't really understand the implications, so when you are getting assets from such people and sharing it here, the concern is the original version wasn't actually CC0 to begin with.
As you said "my work is always 100% original," so this doesn't apply to you. If you created it yourself, there is no question about the CC0 status.
"I viewed the front page yesterday and maybe one of my comments got removed as I said the same thing and I guessed at the time I was wrong to say it. The poster had to change his response to include details he didn't need to."
I don't know what this is referring to. As of this post, you have made 8 comments total on the site. All of them are accounted for, none removed. All 8 comments were posted on your own forum topics, so there could be no other "poster [that] had to change his response". Do you recall what page or submission this is in reference to?
Actually, more than half the submissions in that collection are music and sound. It only seems like there are very few music and sound submissions because submitters of AI generated audio tend to prefer their submissions be unpublished (black icons to admins, invisible to you) rather than leave them as download-disabled.
Are you talking about https://opengameart.org/users/pro-sensory ? He's not missing. He's an active user. He submitted a new song 30 minutes after you made this post.
16x16 is often hard to blend with 32x32. The 16x16 have to be pretty remarkable to be good enough to contend with a similar texture containing four times the detail.
I've used 16x16, 32x32, 48x48, 64x64, and briefly 96x96. In my opinion, the sweet zone is 32. The jump in detail and flexibility from 16 -> 32 is more significant than the jump from 32 -> 64. Actually, I'd say the jump from 16 to 32 is about the same level of significance as the jump from 32 -> 96, so I feel like the optimal efficiency of creation vs maximization of detail peaks at 32x32. The "best bang for your buck" as they say. Going larger tends to provide only slightly more enjoyment for the player, but massively more effort for the artist (and game engine). This is, of course, only ONE developer's opinion. I've seen AMAZING work at 16x16 and 64x64, so my opinion is hardly fact.
Ivan Voirol's "Slates" sets provides a great example of the aforementioned "AMAZING" work, as well as an excellent case for comparing 16x16 to 32x32
But others do. What happens when you don't see the chess pieces as good art anymore? What happens to the people who already made plans to use them?
Why remove good art, then?
Ah I see. Attributing textures embedded in 3D models is not a licensing requirement, it's a site requirement. This is because so many people were sharing CC0 models that included proprietary textures that it was causing huge copyright problems.
It seems like you may be under the impression you have done something wrong. I would like to assure you that is not the case. The only reason I ask so many follow-up questions is to ensure there is no inaccurate information in the FAQ or on the site that may be perpetuating confusing instructions to other people.
I see you are referring to this part of the FAQ:
Yes, your understanding of that is correct; it is to check if CC0 work is legit and to double check the validity of said asset. We are not asking you to credit CC0 works, we are asking you to share the source of derivatives with us so we can confirm it is truly CC0 / PD. There are a lot of people who share assets on the internet for "free" but don't really understand the implications, so when you are getting assets from such people and sharing it here, the concern is the original version wasn't actually CC0 to begin with.
As you said "my work is always 100% original," so this doesn't apply to you. If you created it yourself, there is no question about the CC0 status.
I don't know what this is referring to. As of this post, you have made 8 comments total on the site. All of them are accounted for, none removed. All 8 comments were posted on your own forum topics, so there could be no other "poster [that] had to change his response". Do you recall what page or submission this is in reference to?
Where are you seeing "OGA wants recognition of work only if another user modifies and/or distributes any CC0 work they haven't made themselves"?
CC0 doesn't require attribution. Some people give it voluntarily, but that isn't a requirement.
Actually, more than half the submissions in that collection are music and sound. It only seems like there are very few music and sound submissions because submitters of AI generated audio tend to prefer their submissions be unpublished (black icons to admins, invisible to you) rather than leave them as download-disabled.
Rest assured we check all submissions.
What ai songs have you found on OGA?
We review sound submissions, too, but submissions from known users tend to get checked less thoroughly.
@johndekale: We already tried ads. https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/yes-thats-an-ad-heres-why-were-runnin...
Should we try them again? If so, what has changed that may make them more viable this time around?
Are you talking about https://opengameart.org/users/pro-sensory ? He's not missing. He's an active user. He submitted a new song 30 minutes after you made this post.
Pages