I wasn't planning to mirror the E/W heads, since you went to the trouble of fixing the reflections on the scalp :p Good point about the hurt animation.
Do you happen to still have a headless version of the bodies? I have cutout the unique heads and distributed them with lpctools, then planned to make headless bodies by deleting the corresponding regions from the bases (probably taking the union of [(human - human head) + (wolfman - wolfman head)], if that makes sense, to cover as much of the neck/shoulders as necessary). But if you already did that before, I wouldn't need to!
Actually, same question as above for the "jump" animations, some of which I know you worked on.
I expected some cleanup/adjustment would be necessary for the necks; hopefully it's not too bad, though we'll see. Thankfully I can do the arm cutouts easily with lpctools.
After some investigating, I can tell that other than the heads, the bodies are only recolors---I am emboldened! Still interested if you can think of a reason why the modular heads would be a bad idea. So far the only think I can tell/think of is that some shirts might not like the lizardman's neck, but I'll have to experiment a bit more and see.
Another thing I was wondering: the second frame of the north-facing thrust animation has been changed for the female and teen bases; it is now the same as the first frame, but right-shifted by 1px. Previously, the character stepped back slightly (this is still the case for the male animations). Any special reason you changed this?
Allow `lpctools colors recolor` to take multiple color `--mapping`s and either combine them in series, *or* take the cartesian product, i.e. all combinations of one palette from each mapping. This is useful for cases where the image contains multiple materials (e.g. wood, metal, fabric) and you want all combinations of different palettes for each material (e.g. black hat/gold trim, blue hat/gold trim, black hat/silver trim, blue hat/silver trim, etc.)
Implement `lpctools arrange distribute-repack`, which takes a spritesheet instead of a collection of images, performs offsets and/or masking, and re-packs into a layout (the same or different). This can be used, for example, for the "nudge" function I described earlier (although I will implement specific CLI interface for that) by running "distribute-repack" from one layout to the same layout, with an offset image.
Next up is `lpctools color coerce` and `lpctools color audit`!
How different are the bodies between human, orc, lizardman, and wolfman? Other than the heads, are they just recolors?
I am wondering if we could make a headless version of each of the "primary" body types (adult male, adult female, teen, pregnant, muscular), then combine any of those body types with any of the heads (human male, human female, orc male, orc female, lizard, wolfman, boarman, minotaur, skeleton, etc.). This would essentially finish/continue what basxto has started here https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-modular-bodies-and-heads , and allow for female/pregnant boarman, muscular minotaur, teen/muscular orc, etc.
Minimum 9 (4 directions + 5 hurt frames), maximum 15 (6 frames in cast where the human characters close their eyes) images per head would be needed, and those images could be placed automatically with `lpctools arrange distribute`. Cutouts where the arm passes in front of the head could also be handled by lpctools.
Of course something similar could be done for the children too, but that would probably require different (smaller) heads.
What do you think? Looking quickly at the images, I don't see why this couldn't work, but you have spent more time with these images than I have...
I will be working with castelonia to use these tools to improve the Universal Spritesheet Generator https://github.com/sanderfrenken/Universal-LPC-Spritesheet-Character-Gen... , in particular, creating many more automatic recolors of clothing and re-introducing a process for automatically building hairstyles, hats, and shields with these tools.
I'd really appreciate your comments and suggestions!
I reported some of this guy's stuff earlier and it got taken down. Will report some of these later.
Incidentally, I don't recognize the shirt here: https://kingpx.itch.io/pixel-rpg-pirate ... might actually be original? :p Does anyone know where it's from?
I can separate out the "slash" sheet from the walkcycle, and put the walkcycle in the "universal" format, but the smash animation itself is oversized (128x128px), so it won't fit in the "universal" format. It will have to be a separate oversized animation, like slash or thrust.
I'd like to polish this animation a little more, make a north- and west-facing version (I don't think south-facing will really work for this animation, based on how the character's arm moves), etc. I also would like to make a less-square hammer. This was just sort of a proof of concept :)
Just to elaborate: these tileset images are really intended to be used like, well, tiles---you assemble multiple 32x32 px tiles into a larger image. I usually use Tiled https://www.mapeditor.org for this, and if you download Tiled and the example scene on my submission, you can see how the preview image was built up from tiles. Unity has a similar function, I believe it's this: https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/class-Tilemap.html . Of course, if you just want a few static objects, it would be easiest to cut them out as MedicineStorm suggests.
tl;dr: IANAL, but my analysis is that combining CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0 assets is possible; however the terms of *both* CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY-4.0 licenses are applied to the resulting asset. I believe this is consistent with guidance from the Creative Commons: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0_upgrade_guidelines#Dealing_with_mixed-version_.28e.g..2C_4.0_and_prior_versions.29_content . Practically speaking, this probably just means you need to include the title of the original work(s) when attributing (a good practice anyway), in addition to listing the author, the license, and the URL.
Longer answer:
Each CC-BY license governs the distribution and creation of adaptations, for works distributed under that license. To my reading, there is nothing in either CC-BY 3.0 or 4.0 that prohibits different parts of a work being subject to different licenses. As a trivial example, nothing could prohibit you from creating an adaptation by combining a CC-BY 3.0 work (asset #1) with a public domain work (asset #2), to create asset #3. The inclusion of the public domain work (asset #2) does not invalidate or change the requirements of CC-BY 3.0 as they apply to asset #1---why would it? Likewise, license #1 does not affect any users' rights to use asset #2, which is in the public domain. Since asset #3 adapts asset #1, you (and any other users) must comply with the terms of CC-BY 3.0 (i.e. credit author #1, no DRM, etc.). Asset #2 does not impose any additional requirements or restrictions on users of asset #3, since it is in the public domain. An appropriate license for asset #3 would be CC-BY 3.0, which preserves author #1's rights, but CC-BY-SA 3.0 could be used as well.
Extending that logic to your original question, consider consider that there are three parts to your new combined asset (asset #4):
The original CC-BY 3.0 work (asset #1, license #1)
The original CC-BY 4.0 work (asset #2, license #2)
Your contributions, which can be licensed however you want (asset #3, license #3)
The resulting work (asset #4) is an adaptation of asset #1, so you (and anyone else) needs to comply with license #1. Likewise, it is an adaptation of asset #2, so users need to comply with license #2. Finally, you will choose to license your contributions to the artwork however you like. You could choose CC-BY 3.0 or 4.0 (or 1.0 or 2.0 for that matter, but why would you?), and then users would have to comply with that license as well; you could choose OGA-BY; or you could even choose CC0 for your contributions, and impose no additional terms on the user. (Note: if asset #1 or #2 were -BY-SA, you would be required to license your _contributions_ and the resulting adaptation as -BY-SA as well.) Therefore, as long as the user complies with the terms of all 3 licenses when using asset #4, then their use is permissible. So how should asset #4 be licensed? I would argue an appropriate license is (CC-BY 3.0 AND CC-BY 4.0). That is, a license that requires the user to comply with the requirements of BOTH CC-BY 3.0 AND CC-BY 4.0. More on what that means practically below. OpenGameArt does not currently have a way of indicating that terms of multiple licenses MUST ALL be followed (e.g. conjunctive "AND"), only that users may choose from among multiple license options (e.g. disjunctive "OR"). Other groups/systems such as SPDX do allow for this distinction; see their documentation.
In many cases, a work will have multiple rights at play because there is more than one contributor to a work. This often means there are multiple license versions applicable to a work. In those cases, reusers must comply with all relevant license versions when reusing the full work.
For, example, reusing a 4.0-licensed translation of a 3.0-licensed essay would require complying with the conditions of both versions 3.0 and 4.0. This means attributing the original author as specified in v3 and attributing the translator as specified in v4.
... As a practical matter, compliance with a later version of a license is typically compliant with the earlier license. There are certain exceptions with respect to attribution. A comparison of the attribution requirements is here
Basically, if (as a user) you are following the rules of the later license, you are generally following the rules of the earlier version. The major exception is that later versions have different requirements for attribution. As far as I can tell, the only practical difference is that CC-BY 3.0 required you to include the title when attributing an asset, whereas CC-BY 4.0 does not. There are other differences about linking to the license and such, but here complying with CC-BY 4.0 should satisfy the requirements of CC-BY 3.0. See details here: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Detailed_attribut... .
I don't know what Botanic means by "You can not use BY-SA 3.0 and BY-SA 4.0 because CC is silly in how they did the liscense." You can combine a CC-BY-SA 3.0 work and a CC-BY-SA 4.0 work. The license of the resulting work is (CC-BY-SA 3.0 AND CC-BY-SA 4.0). All the same analysis above applies to combining a CC-BY-SA 3.0 work with a CC-BY-SA 4.0 work. If anything, the situation is more clear, since the CC-BY-SA 3.0 says you MUST distribute an adaptation under the same license or a later version of the same license (CC-BY is silent on the exact license you can use for adaptations). See here https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7430/can-i-upgrade-the-ve... . See also this question which presents a similar analysis to mine: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/6782
I do agree that "CC is silly in how they did the license," insofar as this is very confusing, and it would have been nice to have terms like "use this version or any later version of the license" in CC-BY 1.0, but nobody is perfect, and they are trying to improve the licenses over time to make it easier to use content.
Makes sense, thanks for the clarification.
I wasn't planning to mirror the E/W heads, since you went to the trouble of fixing the reflections on the scalp :p Good point about the hurt animation.
Do you happen to still have a headless version of the bodies? I have cutout the unique heads and distributed them with lpctools, then planned to make headless bodies by deleting the corresponding regions from the bases (probably taking the union of [(human - human head) + (wolfman - wolfman head)], if that makes sense, to cover as much of the neck/shoulders as necessary). But if you already did that before, I wouldn't need to!
Actually, same question as above for the "jump" animations, some of which I know you worked on.
I expected some cleanup/adjustment would be necessary for the necks; hopefully it's not too bad, though we'll see. Thankfully I can do the arm cutouts easily with lpctools.
After some investigating, I can tell that other than the heads, the bodies are only recolors---I am emboldened! Still interested if you can think of a reason why the modular heads would be a bad idea. So far the only think I can tell/think of is that some shirts might not like the lizardman's neck, but I'll have to experiment a bit more and see.
Another thing I was wondering: the second frame of the north-facing thrust animation has been changed for the female and teen bases; it is now the same as the first frame, but right-shifted by 1px. Previously, the character stepped back slightly (this is still the case for the male animations). Any special reason you changed this?
Do you have the faceplate and plumage as separate layers?
Also, OGA-BY 3.0 license? :)
(also, since I never commented when they first came out---beautiful!!)
Several updates:
Next up is `lpctools color coerce` and `lpctools color audit`!
How different are the bodies between human, orc, lizardman, and wolfman? Other than the heads, are they just recolors?
I am wondering if we could make a headless version of each of the "primary" body types (adult male, adult female, teen, pregnant, muscular), then combine any of those body types with any of the heads (human male, human female, orc male, orc female, lizard, wolfman, boarman, minotaur, skeleton, etc.). This would essentially finish/continue what basxto has started here https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-modular-bodies-and-heads , and allow for female/pregnant boarman, muscular minotaur, teen/muscular orc, etc.
Minimum 9 (4 directions + 5 hurt frames), maximum 15 (6 frames in cast where the human characters close their eyes) images per head would be needed, and those images could be placed automatically with `lpctools arrange distribute`. Cutouts where the arm passes in front of the head could also be handled by lpctools.
Of course something similar could be done for the children too, but that would probably require different (smaller) heads.
What do you think? Looking quickly at the images, I don't see why this couldn't work, but you have spent more time with these images than I have...
Hi everyone -
I know it's been a while, but I did follow up on my threat to create a set of command line tools for editing LPC spritesheets (and other pixel art images). More details here https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/release-lpctools-tools-for-manipulati... tile-sets and examples in the github repo https://github.com/bluecarrot16/lpctools .
I will be working with castelonia to use these tools to improve the Universal Spritesheet Generator https://github.com/sanderfrenken/Universal-LPC-Spritesheet-Character-Gen... , in particular, creating many more automatic recolors of clothing and re-introducing a process for automatically building hairstyles, hats, and shields with these tools.
I'd really appreciate your comments and suggestions!
I reported some of this guy's stuff earlier and it got taken down. Will report some of these later.
Incidentally, I don't recognize the shirt here: https://kingpx.itch.io/pixel-rpg-pirate ... might actually be original? :p Does anyone know where it's from?
I can separate out the "slash" sheet from the walkcycle, and put the walkcycle in the "universal" format, but the smash animation itself is oversized (128x128px), so it won't fit in the "universal" format. It will have to be a separate oversized animation, like slash or thrust.
I'd like to polish this animation a little more, make a north- and west-facing version (I don't think south-facing will really work for this animation, based on how the character's arm moves), etc. I also would like to make a less-square hammer. This was just sort of a proof of concept :)
Just to elaborate: these tileset images are really intended to be used like, well, tiles---you assemble multiple 32x32 px tiles into a larger image. I usually use Tiled https://www.mapeditor.org for this, and if you download Tiled and the example scene on my submission, you can see how the preview image was built up from tiles. Unity has a similar function, I believe it's this: https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/class-Tilemap.html . Of course, if you just want a few static objects, it would be easiest to cut them out as MedicineStorm suggests.
Hope that helps!
tl;dr: IANAL, but my analysis is that combining CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0 assets is possible; however the terms of *both* CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY-4.0 licenses are applied to the resulting asset. I believe this is consistent with guidance from the Creative Commons: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0_upgrade_guidelines#Dealing_with_mixed-version_.28e.g..2C_4.0_and_prior_versions.29_content . Practically speaking, this probably just means you need to include the title of the original work(s) when attributing (a good practice anyway), in addition to listing the author, the license, and the URL.
Longer answer:
Each CC-BY license governs the distribution and creation of adaptations, for works distributed under that license. To my reading, there is nothing in either CC-BY 3.0 or 4.0 that prohibits different parts of a work being subject to different licenses. As a trivial example, nothing could prohibit you from creating an adaptation by combining a CC-BY 3.0 work (asset #1) with a public domain work (asset #2), to create asset #3. The inclusion of the public domain work (asset #2) does not invalidate or change the requirements of CC-BY 3.0 as they apply to asset #1---why would it? Likewise, license #1 does not affect any users' rights to use asset #2, which is in the public domain. Since asset #3 adapts asset #1, you (and any other users) must comply with the terms of CC-BY 3.0 (i.e. credit author #1, no DRM, etc.). Asset #2 does not impose any additional requirements or restrictions on users of asset #3, since it is in the public domain. An appropriate license for asset #3 would be CC-BY 3.0, which preserves author #1's rights, but CC-BY-SA 3.0 could be used as well.
Extending that logic to your original question, consider consider that there are three parts to your new combined asset (asset #4):
The resulting work (asset #4) is an adaptation of asset #1, so you (and anyone else) needs to comply with license #1. Likewise, it is an adaptation of asset #2, so users need to comply with license #2. Finally, you will choose to license your contributions to the artwork however you like. You could choose CC-BY 3.0 or 4.0 (or 1.0 or 2.0 for that matter, but why would you?), and then users would have to comply with that license as well; you could choose OGA-BY; or you could even choose CC0 for your contributions, and impose no additional terms on the user. (Note: if asset #1 or #2 were -BY-SA, you would be required to license your _contributions_ and the resulting adaptation as -BY-SA as well.) Therefore, as long as the user complies with the terms of all 3 licenses when using asset #4, then their use is permissible. So how should asset #4 be licensed? I would argue an appropriate license is (CC-BY 3.0 AND CC-BY 4.0). That is, a license that requires the user to comply with the requirements of BOTH CC-BY 3.0 AND CC-BY 4.0. More on what that means practically below. OpenGameArt does not currently have a way of indicating that terms of multiple licenses MUST ALL be followed (e.g. conjunctive "AND"), only that users may choose from among multiple license options (e.g. disjunctive "OR"). Other groups/systems such as SPDX do allow for this distinction; see their documentation.
Practically speaking, what does it mean to comply with CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0? From the Creative Commons Upgrade Guide for v4.0 :
Basically, if (as a user) you are following the rules of the later license, you are generally following the rules of the earlier version. The major exception is that later versions have different requirements for attribution. As far as I can tell, the only practical difference is that CC-BY 3.0 required you to include the title when attributing an asset, whereas CC-BY 4.0 does not. There are other differences about linking to the license and such, but here complying with CC-BY 4.0 should satisfy the requirements of CC-BY 3.0. See details here: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Detailed_attribut... .
I don't know what Botanic means by "You can not use BY-SA 3.0 and BY-SA 4.0 because CC is silly in how they did the liscense." You can combine a CC-BY-SA 3.0 work and a CC-BY-SA 4.0 work. The license of the resulting work is (CC-BY-SA 3.0 AND CC-BY-SA 4.0). All the same analysis above applies to combining a CC-BY-SA 3.0 work with a CC-BY-SA 4.0 work. If anything, the situation is more clear, since the CC-BY-SA 3.0 says you MUST distribute an adaptation under the same license or a later version of the same license (CC-BY is silent on the exact license you can use for adaptations). See here https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7430/can-i-upgrade-the-ve... . See also this question which presents a similar analysis to mine: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/6782
I do agree that "CC is silly in how they did the license," insofar as this is very confusing, and it would have been nice to have terms like "use this version or any later version of the license" in CC-BY 1.0, but nobody is perfect, and they are trying to improve the licenses over time to make it easier to use content.
Pages