OpenGFX - Graphics Base Set

[athanasios]

Come on, they both have their merits.

[Killer 11]

good or not is subjective opinion anyways...

[Jupix]

For the record, personally I would choose the CSRailSet rails.

[Lakie]

Just wondering shouldn't the tunnel sprites be in two parts?
Otherwise it is looking quite good, if it is to replace the default TTD graphics, it would most likely be preferable to most players if they followed the classic TTD style for things like roads and tracks. But as has been previously mentioned this is all opinion.

~ Lakie

[Nite Owl]

/off topic curiosity begins

If all that is being done is taking the original 8bpp graphics and enhancing them (they do look great by the way) is that enough to get around the copyright issues? The tunnel entrance, while much better then the original in terms of shading and such, it is still easily recognizable as the original tunnel entrance. Would not an entirely new design be needed in order for it not to be considered as a reworking of the original? In other words if I paint a copy of the Mona Lisa with different shading is it a new work or a rework of the original that may still be subject to problems of copyright? (Yes I know the Mona Lisa is too old to be copyrighted but I am just using it as an example.) I cannot claim to know the subtleties of copyright law but I would think that, despite it being a lot more work, completely new designs might be needed in order to get around this.

Years ago I played a lot of online golf with a game that had a golf course designer included in the program. Similar to this community there were many talented artists there who spent their free time recreating some of the greatest golf courses in the world. The issue of copyrights came up several times in relation to those courses. Fortunately there was a lawyer (several actually) amongst that community who did some research and found that since what was being created was not a 100% totally accurate recreation (I doubt that level of accuracy is even possible) then it could not be called into question.

The point is would that same inaccurate recreation principle apply here if the graphics are only being reworked as opposed to being completely redesigned? You may be able to get around copyright infringement if you are creating a reworked version of something famous but would the same hold true for something that is technically rather obscure? Is it easier to prove infringement against obscurity then against something that everyone recognizes? After all if it is famous you could be recreating it as a parody which is allowable. If it is obscure then supposed profit would be your only motive for its recreation.

I am sure it does not really matter in the long run as nobody is going to go to court over the graphic representation of a tunnel entrance but it is food for thought. Keep up the good work!

/off topic curiosity ends

[Zephyris]

Copyright of artworks (including digital artworks) is a fun area:

The original artwork is copyright.
The artist has a right to make money by the sale or view or their artwork. Similarly they have the right to make the artwork freely accessible, and not claim the copyright they are entitled to. Copies of their artwork which infringe these rights are illegal, copies which do not (for example sale of replicas produced with permission) are legal.

An exact copy of an artwork is breach of copyright.
In real art: If you trace all or part of the mona lisa you have made an exact copy, this is illegal.
In digital art: If you copy and paste all or part of the original art you have made an exact copy, this is illegal.

A derivative work which uses part of the original artwork is breach of copyright.
In real art: If you use a traced image of the mona lisa as part of a painting of the art gallery, this is illegal.
In digital art: If use parts of, trace over, or use filtered sections of the original art, this is illegal.

A non-exact copy of an artwork is not breach of copyright.
In real art: If you sit down and paint a copy of the mona lisa with minimal reference, you have not made an exact copy, this is legal.
In digital art: If you draw a ground sprite using the same colours as the original sprite, you have not made an exact copy, this is legal.

Hence I have been drawing terrain and infrastructure sprites from scratch, my only reference is the colour and shading of the originals.

[Zephyris]

And a little Christmas present: OpenGFX - newTerrain v0.1, all my terrain in a newgrf for your enjoyment.

Not included: coasts, water, toyland
Problems: very steep snow transition tiles (N/S/E/W facing slopes) are incorrect
Coming soon: road, rail, maglev and monorail - look out for OpenGFX - newInfrastructure!

[LordAzamath]

Zephyris, you--you did it yourself :D Yeeppii. I really don't have much time so the coding is veeery much appreciated...I thank you soooooooooooooo much. Thanks Zephyris

[Killer 11]

there's another bug there, the rough ground sprites are too dark in all climates they stand out too much and look like they are from completely different set.

[Sir A. Boey]

Fabulous realy marvelous!!!

Great work

[Jupix]

That ground sprite set does look very good, only criticism I would have is the plain desert tile which has that red blurb in the corner (which makes it tile quite badly), and the snow tiles have those dark spots - looks very odd.

[Zephyris]

In summary the problems are:
snow transition 1, 2 and 3 tiles 0121, 1210, 2101, 1012 are incorrectly drawn
snow transition 1 tile 1100 has an ugly 3px vertical white line
desert tile 0000 has reddish shade to north west edge which tiles badly
farmland stage 4 tile 0010 is 2px too far right
all rough tiles are too dark for peoples tastes
[all snow has too much of a bumpy appearance] - I quite like this, it reduces the glare from very snowy areas, but if there is significant pressure I will change it

(tile descriptions correspond to the heights of each corner - starting at the west, then north, east and finally south.)

sooo..... does anyone feel like drawing water? I will gladly make all the coast sprites using the basic water tile, but I am having problems with grfcodec and palettes so I can't reliably draw things with action colours.

[Jupix]

[all snow has too much of a bumpy appearance] - I quite like this, it reduces the glare from very snowy areas

That would be fine if there was variation in how the bumps are located but as it is now, it just results in some bad tiling effects in snowy areas, which nulls the positive effect(s) of the bumps. (IMHO we have to hold off visual tricks such as this until we implement the tile randomizer, and use genuinely dark tiles instead.)

[Zephyris]

New rough ground? I like the dark look because rough ground is often found under trees, old ttd graphics have a much brighter appearance for rough ground.

Attached are previews of the old (current newgrf) and new rough ground for sub-arctic in 32bpp

[Slye_Fox]

The new rough looks better, it flows with the colouring better

[DeletedUser5]

I like older and darker ones. They look better for me. Or maybe thats because, I'm too lazy to cut all those 19 graphics again to sprites.

[Killer 11]

The new ones are perfect there's nothing wrong with them now

[athanasios]

The new ones!

Some spots like the ones on arctic snow and non-snow slopes, the orange ones on tropic, have to be removed.

[Zephyris]

So people like the new rough ground! good, because I do too

athanasios: arctic non-snow, do you mean the transition, or the arctic grass?

[LordAzamath]

sooo..... does anyone feel like drawing water? I will gladly make all the coast sprites using the basic water tile, but I am having problems with grfcodec and palettes so I can't reliably draw things with action colours.

Can't we use Leppka's new water? If BigBB finishes his patch Missing Shores, we can use them right? If I ask for permission...