These are some nice assets. However, if the package doesn't contain the character, the preview image should not display him.
<Das ist nette Kunst. Wenn das Paket das Zeichen jedoch nicht enthalt, sollte das Vorschaubild das Zeichen nicht anzeigen.>
Submission Guidelines: "Specifically, if someone must go to a different website to obtain a usable version of your submitted work, we cannot accept it (however, it is perfectly fine to request that someone go to your website)."
Hah! Well, the analog loophole is analogous to the difference between open-licensed and fair-use. People could use many assets under fair-use, but that doesn't make them openly-licensed. Yes, you could do that, but submitting such things on OGA would get a raised eyebrow from me. :)
The Flecktarn ones (#4, #5), as well as the Tigerstripe (#2) are most likely subject to the Berne convention under German and Republic of Viet Nam governments, respectively. The "tundra" variant of the ERDL pattern (#3) may be public domain, but I'll have to do some more research. I haven't seen #1 or #6 before, but they look like Mil-tec proprietary. Sorry. :/
Some are trademarked, yes. For example "Realtree" has a trademarked camo pattern. Most generic ones are not trademarked, but it depends on what you consider "generic". Do you know the clothing brand in the images? If they're official US military fatigues, it still depends because the newer gear is commissioned by a private clothing firm that may have a trademark on the pattern. I should be able to give a better answer after seeing the picture, though.
right above that, click the "remove" button next to the old version of the file (the one with a higher download count)
give a brief description of what you're changing in the "revision log message" box
click "save" button at the bottom of the page.
@spring: I agree the zelda perspective looks a bit goofy. Probably because it's mixing a 3/4 perspective with a shallow vanishing-point full-overhead perspective. This wasn't done as a stylistic choice. It was a limitation of how to convey the layout of the southern edge of the screen in a true 3/4 perspective; Everything on the south edge of the original zelda screens would be obscured by the wall itself. The player would be looking at the back of a wall where the doors and wall features would be on the other side, away from the "camera". By making the walls a full-overhead view with a shallow vanishing-point, the player is able to see the doors or other wall features on all 4 walls. TL;DR: It's artistically weird, but advantageous for conveying information to the player.
These are some nice assets. However, if the package doesn't contain the character, the preview image should not display him.
<Das ist nette Kunst. Wenn das Paket das Zeichen jedoch nicht enthalt, sollte das Vorschaubild das Zeichen nicht anzeigen.>
However, I see you have uploaded the character as a separate submission here: https://opengameart.org/content/nameless-characters
Why not link to the other submission in the description? :)
<Allerdings sehe ich, dass du den Charakter als separate Einreichung hier hochgeladen hast: https://opengameart.org/content/nameless-characters
Ich empfehle die Verknüpfung mit der anderen Einreichung in der Beschreibung.> :)
subscribed.
... and bumped.
Yeah, looks like it. Sorry.
Hah! Well, the analog loophole is analogous to the difference between open-licensed and fair-use. People could use many assets under fair-use, but that doesn't make them openly-licensed. Yes, you could do that, but submitting such things on OGA would get a raised eyebrow from me. :)
The Flecktarn ones (#4, #5), as well as the Tigerstripe (#2) are most likely subject to the Berne convention under German and Republic of Viet Nam governments, respectively. The "tundra" variant of the ERDL pattern (#3) may be public domain, but I'll have to do some more research. I haven't seen #1 or #6 before, but they look like Mil-tec proprietary. Sorry. :/
Some are trademarked, yes. For example "Realtree" has a trademarked camo pattern. Most generic ones are not trademarked, but it depends on what you consider "generic". Do you know the clothing brand in the images? If they're official US military fatigues, it still depends because the newer gear is commissioned by a private clothing firm that may have a trademark on the pattern. I should be able to give a better answer after seeing the picture, though.
@drummyfish: This is what I like to hear!
@duion: nice, all CC0! Quite a repository. I noticed you're adding some new stuff from your site to OGA as well. Thanks!
Are these textures from textures.com?
@Evert: I think you just missed step #5
@spring: I agree the zelda perspective looks a bit goofy. Probably because it's mixing a 3/4 perspective with a shallow vanishing-point full-overhead perspective. This wasn't done as a stylistic choice. It was a limitation of how to convey the layout of the southern edge of the screen in a true 3/4 perspective; Everything on the south edge of the original zelda screens would be obscured by the wall itself. The player would be looking at the back of a wall where the doors and wall features would be on the other side, away from the "camera". By making the walls a full-overhead view with a shallow vanishing-point, the player is able to see the doors or other wall features on all 4 walls. TL;DR: It's artistically weird, but advantageous for conveying information to the player.
I like it.
Ah. I see. I was mostly referring to DA's ability to afford the development costs of a custom app.
If the features of an app are predomenantly about compact layout, it may be more efficient to create a mobile version of OGA rather than an app.
Pages