Project Organization Thread

[Jupix]

It seems odd to me to not render sprites in normal zoom if rendering for extra zoom anyway, as only a handful of player will be running an extra-zoom capable build. But what I was pondering is, is it right to list unofficial stuff there, as it's supposed to be a meter for the progress of the official 32bpp effort. I'm not sure.

[GeekToo]

It seems odd to me to not render sprites in normal zoom if rendering for extra zoom anyway

True, but it's the situation at the moment: it seems most graphics artists like to work on the extra zoom levels, because of the extra room for details. But in most cases the final render is not repeated for the standard level.

But what I was pondering is, is it right to list unofficial stuff there, as it's supposed to be a meter for the progress of the official 32bpp effort. I'm not sure.

I asked the graphics coordinator and the wiki moderator before I added this page in the past:
http://wiki.openttd.org/wiki/index.php/ ... oom_Levels

and they had no problem with it, in fact they encouraged it. As you see, there's a note that it is not part of official development to avoid confusion.

So I guess there would be no problem if the status of the extra zoom graphics were listed in the table too.

But when you only want to show the 'official' status, then that's OK too, but then the status of the sprites should reflect the status in the normal zoom version.
Ie 'done' means a tar file available for normal zoom, it should not be set to 'done'when only an extra zoom tar is available, as currently is the case in the table

[Jupix]

I asked the graphics coordinator and the wiki moderator before I added this page in the past:
http://wiki.openttd.org/wiki/index.php/ ... oom_Levels

and they had no problem with it, in fact they encouraged it.

Of course, but that was a case of a separate wikipage. What we're talking about now is a page designed specifically with official builds in mind. I guess this is sort of analogous to adding a paragraph about refitting coal wagons to haul iron ore in the buying trains manual. It would only apply to those using NewGRF's that implement this feature, so it's not included in official documents. NewGRF's have their own documentation.

But this is all splitting hairs. I don't really object to adding a column about the extra zoom graphics, I'd just prefer it was in its own article, to prevent cluttering the list. If you do want to add it into the existing list despite all this, go ahead.

But when you only want to show the 'official' status, then that's OK too, but then the status of the sprites should reflect the status in the normal zoom version.
Ie 'done' means a tar file available for normal zoom, it should not be set to 'done'when only an extra zoom tar is available, as currently is the case in the table

This is supposed to be way it works. If there is an error, please fix it! (Or add specific info on what is wrong.)

I only rewrote the list, I haven't gone through the Blender thread so I only have a very rough idea of what is currently done (released) in normal zoom 32bpp.

[GeekToo]

I'd just prefer it was in its own article, to prevent cluttering the list.

Perhaps that's even a better idea than adding a column to your list

If you do want to add it into the existing list despite all this, go ahead.

I think I will add a separate list for the extra zoom level graphics ( basically a copy of your list, for starters).

I don't insist on having an extra column, my point just was that the information in the table has to be clear, to be of any use.
So if graphics for extra zoom exist, but not for normal zoom, then the status 'done' was confusing. But copying the list and refer to a similar list from the extra zoom patch article sound like a good way to avoid the confusion

[brupje]

It seems odd to me to not render sprites in normal zoom if rendering for extra zoom anyway, as only a handful of player will be running an extra-zoom capable build. But what I was pondering is, is it right to list unofficial stuff there, as it's supposed to be a meter for the progress of the official 32bpp effort. I'm not sure.

I don't think there is a problem. If you create graphics for the extra zoom level, you can easily render them for smaller sizes.


I am missing some information though of which I think we should add. As this is more of a replacement project than a project for new graphics, I think it should state what the sprite is actually replacing namely the sprite number(s). We could add that along with the name/description of the sprite I guess. More importantly it shoudld made clear if a blender files was release (true/false) and under which license (GPL, CC, etc).

[Mooияakeя™]

I will not be player extra zoom.

I like the feel of the standard way, but with these excellent new gfx. It all seems too mixed up for my liking. Even the wiki is a bit confusing with the steel mill. Listing it as normal, yet it's for extra zoom only.

If this is the thread for organizing, where are the links? Not being a s***, just asking. I did notice someone did a super pack, which is awesome. But a track of all things WIP and then what is release (the wiki site would be awesome if updated!)

[Timitry]

From my point of view, the whole 32bpp-project might need a little restructuring...

At the moment, i see those problems:
- There are a lot of great graphics, which are almost finished or only lack building stages, but the author disappeared, and since the .blend or similar working files are only rarely being uploaded, noone else can finish the work, but will rather have to start from scratch.
- Even if there'd be a .blend file, most authors do not state under which license they publish their work. So finishing their work if they disappeared would arise legal issues...
- There are two big threads for the graphic replacement, the "[32bpp] Extra zoom levels Graphics" and the "New Graphics - Blender ".blend" thread". Additionally, there are some smaller threads including the work of only one author, like the one: "Where do I sign up?" or others. This makes things quite confusing and you won't find a specific work if it's not tracked in the wiki.
- I don't know exactly about this one, but i think the division in "regular zoom" and "extra zoom" graphics is quite unneccessary, in my opinion, the sprites should always be rendered for the extra zoom levels, too, the people playing without extra zoom can then still use them.

My suggestions would be:
- All artists should pick a license under which they publish their work, preferably the gplv2, since this is the one OpenTTD itself uses (and the OpenGFX-Project, too), but other licenses would probably work, too.
- Artists should upload their "source"-files (.blend...), so that other people can finish their work if they disappear, or change their models a bit if that's get neccessary. For example, when a new signal like the path signal appears, one could easily modify an existing one to create the new one and they'd fit together nicely. If the source files are not available, either the signals look quite different, or someone has to remodel all of them from scratch.
- Maybe we should have more seperate threads, all beginning with [32bpp], for example: "[32bpp] Road Vehicles by CryingCorvus". This would make it easier to search for specific graphics and increase the overview.
- All sprites should be rendered for the extra zoom levels and the regular ones, which i think is not that much extra work, but later on re-coding or even redrawing all the sprites to have them for extra zoom would be.
- The wiki-tracker should be kept up to date (works quite good at the moment), and if all sprites are rendered for extra zoom, too, the two projects could be unified.

Just my 0,02€...

[maquinista]

- There are two big threads for the graphic replacement, the "[32bpp] Extra zoom levels Graphics" and the "New Graphics - Blender ".blend" thread". Additionally, there are some smaller threads including the work of only one author, like the one: "Where do I sign up?" or others. This makes things quite confusing and you won't find a specific work if it's not tracked in the wiki.

"[32bpp] Extra zoom levels Graphics" ---> This thread is for finished TARs, but some models has been publised here.

".blend" thread" ---> This thread is for models (not only Blender) and some TARs in testing state (like the new tunnels). The first TAR files released was published here (when there was a few TARs available).

"Where do I sign up?" --> This thread is for Wotan's graphics. Its useful because lot of GRFs from Wotan needs new GRF files (the stations and waypoints).

I think that the best way to make this less confusing is create a page in the Wiki with the latest additions and updates of 32 bpp.

- I don't know exactly about this one, but i think the division in "regular zoom" and "extra zoom" graphics is quite unneccessary, in my opinion, the sprites should always be rendered for the extra zoom levels, too, the people playing without extra zoom can then still use them.

The official release of OpenTTD works only with 32 bpp Z2 graphics (regular zoom), and does not work with 32 bpp and Z0 zoom level (extra zoom).

Most of my TAR files only work with the 32 bpp extra zoom branch of OpenTTD.

[Jupix]

- There are a lot of great graphics, which are almost finished or only lack building stages, but the author disappeared, and since the .blend or similar working files are only rarely being uploaded, noone else can finish the work, but will rather have to start from scratch.

We realize this and there's not much we can do. A repo for .blends would be nice, but we already have a place for uploads, and that is the forums. Seeing .blends uploaded is rare, but we cannot force authors to upload their .blends. Pretty much all we can do on this is inform and encourage.

- Even if there'd be a .blend file, most authors do not state under which license they publish their work. So finishing their work if they disappeared would arise legal issues...

Moot point at this point IMO. As long as the continuation of work is respectable (as long as the new author picking up where the original left off won't assrape the original contribution and will follow suggestions or restrictions placed by the original author), we don't need to worry about this.

- There are two big threads for the graphic replacement, the "[32bpp] Extra zoom levels Graphics" and the "New Graphics - Blender ".blend" thread".

This issue is twofold.

The extra-zoom project is separate from the normal-zoom project. The former is not acknowledged by the OpenTTD project, the latter is. Therefore there is a valid train of thought for keeping these two separate.

However, the contributions in the former are fully compatible with the latter (in agreement with your conclusion later in your post), so in principle, in my opinion, the correct place for modeling for 32bpp OpenTTD graphics would be the latter, and the former should exist for the extra zoom implementation of those graphics only (none of that should require discussion on the models themselves).

Additionally, there are some smaller threads including the work of only one author, like the one: "Where do I sign up?" or others. This makes things quite confusing and you won't find a specific work if it's not tracked in the wiki.

This is an issue.

Perhaps a strict moderation guideline could be implemented: keep the wiki updated, or no thread for you. If the wiki is found to be outdated on the subject, merge the thread into the modeling thread.

My suggestions would be:
- All artists should pick a license under which they publish their work, preferably the gplv2, since this is the one OpenTTD itself uses (and the OpenGFX-Project, too), but other licenses would probably work, too.

I don't like discussion on licensing. We're really not that important. We've seen time and again discussions on this subject go on for tens of pages and no satisfactory concensus is reached.

Before you or anyone else go further into this, please create another thread for it. This thread is for organization and administration only.

- Artists should upload their "source"-files (.blend...), so that other people can finish their work if they disappear, or change their models a bit if that's get neccessary. For example, when a new signal like the path signal appears, one could easily modify an existing one to create the new one and they'd fit together nicely. If the source files are not available, either the signals look quite different, or someone has to remodel all of them from scratch.

Yes.

- Maybe we should have more seperate threads, all beginning with [32bpp], for example: "[32bpp] Road Vehicles by CryingCorvus". This would make it easier to search for specific graphics and increase the overview.

I'd rather we create a new forum for threads on new models and 32bpp sprites, which would be a subforum of this forum. Basically the same function, with less clutter.

However, I'd like to say I feel we can do without this.

- All sprites should be rendered for the extra zoom levels and the regular ones, which i think is not that much extra work, but later on re-coding or even redrawing all the sprites to have them for extra zoom would be.

Absolutely, and I don't understand why we aren't already doing this for everything.

- The wiki-tracker should be kept up to date

I'd like that.

and if all sprites are rendered for extra zoom, too, the two projects could be unified.

Nice idea in principle, but I doubt it will happen. At most I can see a new column at the main 32bpp tracker for an "extra-zoom tickbox" for whether extra-zoom sprites exist.

[Moriarty]

The official release of OpenTTD works only with 32 bpp Z2 graphics (regular zoom), and does not work with 32 bpp and Z0 zoom level (extra zoom).

But if all the graphics were made to the extra-zoom standard, then the OTTD devs would catch on and make that work fully too. There's no hurry, neither is close to finishing at present. Having two seperate enterprises (Z0 and Z2) being developed at the same time in parrallel is somewhat redundent.

Moot point at this point IMO. As long as the continuation of work is respectable (as long as the new author picking up where the original left off won't assrape the original contribution and will follow suggestions or restrictions placed by the original author), we don't need to worry about this.

Unfortuantely not. Personally I think licensing is dumb and silly, but it's necessary. I agree it's something for another thread. Ideally that thread would come up with a collection of licenses that are compatible with OTTDs. It's best to cover these bases at the start.

---

Would I be correct in assuming the wiki is being used as the current repository? It seems to be. So what if we asked folks to upload their .blend files somewhere (either these forums or some other recognised place where they can't disappear through entropy) and link to them from the wiki?

[Jupix]

I agree it's something for another thread. Ideally that thread would come up with a collection of licenses that are compatible with OTTDs.

Zephyris did a lot of research on just that and actually came up with a list of compatible (and incompatible too somewhere) licensing methods: [8bpp] Graphics Replacement Project - OpenGFX License

But I suggest we take the licensing discussion elsewhere.

Would I be correct in assuming the wiki is being used as the current repository? It seems to be. So what if we asked folks to upload their .blend files somewhere (either these forums or some other recognised place where they can't disappear through entropy) and link to them from the wiki?

That is precisely the current procedure.

[Moriarty]

Thanks Jupix.
As I see it, there are currently two problems now.

1) Joining all the stuff together into one place, apparently the wiki. One downside to using the wiki is that someone else (other than the author) could potentially come and change the license stated for the content, though I suppose the wiki-history may solve that.

2) What can be done on the uploading-of-blend files front? Personally I think somewhere other than the forums would be ideal (they're seperate from OTTD really). Can we have any of the OTTD devs give us a hint as to what resources they have available in respect to server space etc that may be useable for this purpose? (I have no idea how large the .blend files will be).

[brupje]

Why not make a 32bpp and 32bpp+fullzoom of ottd? Distribute it along with the graphics, credits and licening.

Someone would have to maintain it, but that's probably not a big issue. It even might attract more people as we have a downloadable version.

The blend files should be considered sources.

[Jupix]

1) Joining all the stuff together into one place, apparently the wiki. One downside to using the wiki is that someone else (other than the author) could potentially come and change the license stated for the content, though I suppose the wiki-history may solve that.

It does indeed. What you're describing is effectively wiki vandalism, which cannot leave a lasting scar on content.

2) What can be done on the uploading-of-blend files front?

I'm seriously thinking of putting up a repository. I have a lot of code for such a thing running in production for another open project, where it hosts code, models, sounds and such - basically project contributions (sound familiar?). But first, let's take a history lesson.

This has been brought up many times in the past. Either the attempts stayed at a forum post level, or they died during development. One of the more prominent attempts was one by mexicoshanty. He had a clear vision, obviously the required skills to develop it into a webapp, and hosting from Owen. As we read posts by him amidst the licensing discussion taking place later in that thread, we see that the project died on him, and the only reason is lack of time and energy.

There was also another attempt at making a repo, in this very thread in fact, on page 2. Sadly I can't seem to find out where it ended up.

But take a look at this white paper by Alltaken. Now, Douglas as you know was previously a recognized leader for the graphics development effort. That document, as I understand it, is based on work for another project, but has been adapted to suit our 32bpp project. It lays out an online file repo. Most of the stuff in there I have already implemented for the online repo app I wrote roughly a year ago.

My repo app is really lightweight, meaning the only thing it does is host and organize files. If we were to adopt it for the 32bpp project, I'd like to keep it that way, and see if it takes off as a repository before implementing any significant new (OTTD specific) features.

So from a technical perspective we good. However, there's a problem that needs to be addressed first, and it's the worst kind to solve: it's the current thought process of contributors. See, when you have a piece of work, currently, what you do is attach it to a forum post and post questions - do you like it, what would you change - and comment on it from your own perspective. We would need to change this.

I fear there might be an imaginary barrier of entry to the repo, in the minds of some artists. They might think, "I could upload this, but it's not really ready to be hosted at anywhere official". "I need to work on this some more". And there's a big chance that piece of work never gets done, and that would be the exact situation the repo is attempting to avoid. And it would fail, because of a philosophical issue.

What I would request (to be more firm: require), is all work getting an entry at the repo. Source (.blend), textures, the lot. Regardless of how finished, unfinished or unpolished it is. Now, how do we get contributors to do this? All I can think of is mandation, and that doesn't go down well with otherwise completely voluntary work.

Perhaps we should just give it a go regardless of this, and hope that the problem solves itself in the long run. We might even contact some of the more productive artists in order to get a sustained flow of content in the repo, to make it credible in the eyes of new artists.

Why not make a 32bpp and 32bpp+fullzoom of ottd? Distribute it along with the graphics, credits and licening.

Someone would have to maintain it, but that's probably not a big issue.

The megapack effort was a lot less time-consuming, and look what happened to that one.

[Moriarty]

Yep, that history seems to be about right. I've been watching this sub-project for some time and there are efforts to organise it but they never seem to go anyway. :-S

Anyway, your current solution sounds fine. As stated, all we really need now is somewhere to host the things (.blends and textures, is there anything else?).
I've PM'd TrueBrain and Rubidium and pointed them at this thread (they're the two who seem to have most to do with the ottd website), hopefully they'll agree with the reasoning here and have some spare disk-space for your app, alternately we could probably beg Owen.


I'm not so sure about /requiring/ uploading of unfinished works. I'd certainly ask folks to upload incomplete works if they could, but not require, that seems a bit onerous to me.

[Jupix]

Well, I spent the day adapting the aforementioned repo app for our use and now have a candidate running. Unless there are objections, I'll put it into public use tomorrow.

[brupje]

Why not make a 32bpp and 32bpp+fullzoom of ottd? Distribute it along with the graphics, credits and licening.

Someone would have to maintain it, but that's probably not a big issue.

The megapack effort was a lot less time-consuming, and look what happened to that one.

It has been updated and is pretty up to date?

[Jupix]

Oh, thankfully, you were there to resurrect it.

[Conditional Zenith]

Unless I am missing something, only the zoom version has been updated.

[Moriarty]

Well, TrueBrain replied and stated "OpenTTD does not offer 3rd party hosting". Which seems very odd given this is an OTTD subproject so I wouldn't call it 3rd Party.

It appears none of the devs are actually interested in 32bit graphics at present (doesn't look like any are reading this thread after all). The cards really do seem stacked against this particular branch.

Suggestions?