Evert made north/south versions here: https://opengameart.org/content/wartotaur-4-directions . Despite the filename, there are 4 directions for both walk and attack animations. Their version is upscaled a bit compared to the original.
Hello! I'd suggest you start by looking through the code for the generator repo you linked above. Let us know if you have questions. The data about which spritesheets are mutually exclusive, what Z-order they should appear in, etc. is in the sheet_definitions subdirectory.
- BenCreating is experimenting with a new web-based generator, though its meant more as a replacement for the current generator web app, rather than a library for inclusion in games.
Good luck, and happy to answer other specific questions.
That spritesheet has the following animations, in order from top to bottom: cast, thrust, walk, slash, shoot, hurt. Each animation has north-, west-, south-, and east-facing versions, in that order.
The watering can, hoe, and shovel use the "thrust" animations, so the fifth through eighth rows of that spritesheet. Stack these images: hoe-bg.png, universal.png, hoe-fg.png (and heads/human_male/universal.png if you'd like :p), and it should be pretty clear how to use.
The "smash" weapons (hammer, axe, pickaxe), use the "slash" animations (13th-16th rows), but the frames of animation for the body need to be spaced more widely apart. For each 64x64px frame, place it in the middle of a 128x128px frame, like this (see attached). Crop to the relevant animation ([0,1536] to [767,2047]). Then layer the weapon images in order. Finally, the frames need but played in a slightly different order. See CREDITS-hand-tools.txt.
The fishing rod is more complicated, because frames need to be copied and pasted around. See the description in CREDITS-hand-tools.txt.
Makrohn adapted wulax's thrust and shoot animations to the female base https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-ladies . Nila122 created the lizard/drake heads, wings, tails, etc. for both the male and female bodies, but the assembled spritesheets herein which contain the female body should also credit makrohn.
Nila122 has given permission to use their LPC assets under the OGA-BY 3.0 license. Since wulax's thrust/shoot animations are now under OGA-BY 3.0, I believe everything in this submission, except for the portions containing the female body, could be used under OGA-BY 3.0.
I guess we just disagree, because I still think my approach is clearer :p Just to emphasize a few points:
- Separating into different questions per-audience makes it easier to answer the specific questions people actually ask (on the forum, on discord, etc.), namely "can I use this art in my game?" or "what license should I choose?". If I imagine answering such a question with the current text, I'm basically telling someone "look, just go understand the licenses," which feels less helpful to me than "you can use the art if you think about/address the following issues: A, B, C, D"
- Organizing by audience rather than by license means there is less duplicated information when talking about different licenses (e.g. the issue of credit is discussed once, the issue of share-alike/copyleft is discussed once, etc.). I don't really feel there is much duplication between the "can I use this art?" and the "what license should I choose" questions that I posted above, and together they are about the same length as the new/current "What do the licenses mean?" question
- Finally, my descriptions are more conceptual, introducing the reader to the issues at play (attribution, copyleft, open source, DRM), then explaining how they apply to the different licenses in the hypothetical question-asker's position (e.g. as an artist or as a dev).
Anyway, I'm not going to write much more on this; if you haven't been persuaded by my arguments so far, then we probably just have a different perspective and that's fine :) I'll allow others to weigh in, and/or MedicineStorm to decide; if the consensus is that withthelove's combined approach is clearer, that's fine.
Finally, I want to express again my gratitude to withthelove for working on this, years before I even thought about it!
Is my game a "derivative work" (also known as an "adaptation") of the artwork?
I prefer my approach (from the final section of my last post) here as well.
I think this approach is better because it:
1) clearly enumerates the known and agreed up cases where a work is a derivative
2) stops there with minimal speculation as to what else might or might not be a derivative.
Again, I prefer what I wrote :p I tried to achieve those same two goals, but with a few differences:
This "what is a derivative work" issue applies to both GPL and CC-BY-SA, so I tried to write an answer that applied to both
My answer makes clear at the beginning that this issue depends on copyright law and thus can't be answered except by a court. Your answer gets around to this point but, IMO, gives the misleading impression that CC (or the FSF, in the case of the GPL) could just give clearer guidance about games but refuse to do so for some reason.
Similarly, saying things like "CC has clarified..." doesn't feel quite right to me, because ultimately it's not CC who decides how the license is interpreted, but the courts. The person you spoke with at CC spoke with some authority because she was a copyright lawyer who had studied the relevant legal cases, not because she worked at CC per se. So I tried to speak more generically, rather than being like "CC says this." Maybe that's splitting hairs. (By the way, I found both that email exchange you reproduced and the conversation you had with the lawyer very helpful!)
I agree there probably should be a section that talks about the license version numbers. How about somethig simpler and more to the point, ie adding the question:
I agree with adding a separate question about this (it was on my list under "Why should I always choose "Allow later versions of the same license" when submitting to this site?"); I think what you have written is good for that. One thing I would add is that "Allow later versions" also allows your art to more easily be combined with art under later versions. There is some slight complication with combining CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0, for instance, which would be resolved by licensing work A under "CC-BY 3.0 and later".
@medicinestorm: I see the proposed changes have made it up onto the site. Excelsior!! I guess we can now start calling it the 'current site text' instead of the 'proposed text' :)
I have some minor comments about the current text, if that is what we end up keeping, but I'll save those for later.
Evert made north/south versions here: https://opengameart.org/content/wartotaur-4-directions . Despite the filename, there are 4 directions for both walk and attack animations. Their version is upscaled a bit compared to the original.
Hello! I'd suggest you start by looking through the code for the generator repo you linked above. Let us know if you have questions. The data about which spritesheets are mutually exclusive, what Z-order they should appear in, etc. is in the sheet_definitions subdirectory.
You may want to read the first post in this thread https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/lpc-spritesheetcharacter-generator-at... for some more history about similar efforts in the past. I'm only aware of the following active/recent efforts:
- This project by slackadults: https://github.com/Slackaduts/LPC-SpriteCreator
- BenCreating is experimenting with a new web-based generator, though its meant more as a replacement for the current generator web app, rather than a library for inclusion in games.
Good luck, and happy to answer other specific questions.
That spritesheet has the following animations, in order from top to bottom: cast, thrust, walk, slash, shoot, hurt. Each animation has north-, west-, south-, and east-facing versions, in that order.
The watering can, hoe, and shovel use the "thrust" animations, so the fifth through eighth rows of that spritesheet. Stack these images: hoe-bg.png, universal.png, hoe-fg.png (and heads/human_male/universal.png if you'd like :p), and it should be pretty clear how to use.
The "smash" weapons (hammer, axe, pickaxe), use the "slash" animations (13th-16th rows), but the frames of animation for the body need to be spaced more widely apart. For each 64x64px frame, place it in the middle of a 128x128px frame, like this (see attached). Crop to the relevant animation ([0,1536] to [767,2047]). Then layer the weapon images in order. Finally, the frames need but played in a slightly different order. See CREDITS-hand-tools.txt.
The fishing rod is more complicated, because frames need to be copied and pasted around. See the description in CREDITS-hand-tools.txt.
The Universal Spritesheet generator can do all of this for you as well; see there for examples (scroll down to the bottom to see the assembled weapon animation; use the dropdown on top to see the animation played back): https://sanderfrenken.github.io/Universal-LPC-Spritesheet-Character-Gene...
The bodies are the Liberated Pixel Cup (LPC) bodies; most recent version of those can be found here: https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-character-bases . Generator/repository with all compatible assets is here: https://sanderfrenken.github.io/Universal-LPC-Spritesheet-Character-Gene...
Thanks dude! I love that guy so much---a ton of personality in that sprite.
Yes, the beard issue is fixed! https://github.com/sanderfrenken/Universal-LPC-Spritesheet-Character-Gen...
https://sanderfrenken.github.io/Universal-LPC-Spritesheet-Character-Gene...
Makrohn adapted wulax's thrust and shoot animations to the female base https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-ladies . Nila122 created the lizard/drake heads, wings, tails, etc. for both the male and female bodies, but the assembled spritesheets herein which contain the female body should also credit makrohn.
Nila122 has given permission to use their LPC assets under the OGA-BY 3.0 license. Since wulax's thrust/shoot animations are now under OGA-BY 3.0, I believe everything in this submission, except for the portions containing the female body, could be used under OGA-BY 3.0.
Hello! Would you consider licensing this armor set under the OGA-BY 3.0 (and later) license?
OGA-BY has the same rules as CC-BY, but it also allows works to be used in games that contain DRM, such as on the iOS app store.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, withthelove.
I guess we just disagree, because I still think my approach is clearer :p Just to emphasize a few points:
- Separating into different questions per-audience makes it easier to answer the specific questions people actually ask (on the forum, on discord, etc.), namely "can I use this art in my game?" or "what license should I choose?". If I imagine answering such a question with the current text, I'm basically telling someone "look, just go understand the licenses," which feels less helpful to me than "you can use the art if you think about/address the following issues: A, B, C, D"
- Organizing by audience rather than by license means there is less duplicated information when talking about different licenses (e.g. the issue of credit is discussed once, the issue of share-alike/copyleft is discussed once, etc.). I don't really feel there is much duplication between the "can I use this art?" and the "what license should I choose" questions that I posted above, and together they are about the same length as the new/current "What do the licenses mean?" question
- Finally, my descriptions are more conceptual, introducing the reader to the issues at play (attribution, copyleft, open source, DRM), then explaining how they apply to the different licenses in the hypothetical question-asker's position (e.g. as an artist or as a dev).
Anyway, I'm not going to write much more on this; if you haven't been persuaded by my arguments so far, then we probably just have a different perspective and that's fine :) I'll allow others to weigh in, and/or MedicineStorm to decide; if the consensus is that withthelove's combined approach is clearer, that's fine.
Finally, I want to express again my gratitude to withthelove for working on this, years before I even thought about it!
Again, I prefer what I wrote :p I tried to achieve those same two goals, but with a few differences:
I agree with adding a separate question about this (it was on my list under "Why should I always choose "Allow later versions of the same license" when submitting to this site?"); I think what you have written is good for that. One thing I would add is that "Allow later versions" also allows your art to more easily be combined with art under later versions. There is some slight complication with combining CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0, for instance, which would be resolved by licensing work A under "CC-BY 3.0 and later".
I have some minor comments about the current text, if that is what we end up keeping, but I'll save those for later.
Pages