Updating other people's assets... what do you think ?

[Cool_Z 1,547]

8 minutes ago, boformer said:

I wish that contributors could update stuff. That would solve so many issues. Usually the original creators are ok with a LOD/illumination update, but the update process is so difficult.

Agreed... I have to talk to BloodyPenguin about modtools, because the export seem to have one of the maps missing.

[boformer 3,169]

23 minutes ago, Cool_Z said:

Agreed... I have to talk to BloodyPenguin about modtools, because the export seem to have one of the maps missing.

Which one?

• Red and Green channel of XYS is the normal map
• Blue channel of XYS is the specular map
• Red channel of ACI is the alpha map
• Green channel of ACI is the color map
• Blue channel of ACI is the illumination map

Some of the maps are inverted or the colors are scaled somehow. Would be great to know how exactly we must alter them to match with the originals. Can someone make a test?

[Turjan 1,048]

Just a note: while the building says "updated for AD", it doesn't have an illumination map. The creator never got around to that, he just added exterior spotlights.

Although I assume you knew that.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

Yep first thing I spotted...

 

I also searched for a free model of that same building... and I found one. 

 

(it's a sketchup model... which now gives me nightmares... but it's something).

 

 

[Cool_Z 1,547]

51 minutes ago, boformer said:

Which one?

• Red and Green channel of XYS is the normal map
• Blue channel of XYS is the specular map
• Red channel of ACI is the alpha map
• Green channel of ACI is the color map
• Blue channel of ACI is the illumination map

Some of the maps are inverted or the colors are scaled somehow. Would be great to know how exactly we must alter them to match with the originals. Can someone make a test?

What ? The specular is packed with the normal ? Isn't a normal map supposed to use three axes ? And the file is named xyz, not xys 

[Cool_Z 1,547]

30 minutes ago, AJ3D said:

I just grabbed the model from mod tools. It only has a diffuse and normal maps, and they both exported ok.

The base shape of the mesh is off,  it should be much wider and less top heavy.

Do you want to contact the author as see if hes willing to post an update?

 

If the model is average at first... might be better to start off new

[pxljce 17]

To the original question. I think that this stickied post under steam workshop discussions probably gives a good overview of where things stand in terms of updating/changing and re-uploading assets. I'd pretty much agree with it, with one exception. If the original creator is clearly still active and has, for whatever reason, stated that she is not in favor of her work being changed and re-uploaded that wish should be respected. The current wording does not seem to cover that possibility:

Quote

If you are posting a modified version of someone else's mod, you MUST get permission from them first before doing so OR state where the original content was from.

 

[Cool_Z 1,547]

Quote

If you are posting a modified version of someone else's mod, you MUST get permission from them first before doing so OR state where the original content was from.

100% agreeing with this !!

I wouldn't post a rework of someone's stuff without giving a link to the original and saying it's someone's work I updated.

Some people post other's buildings and add a few trees and a parkplace. They just post it as it's theirs. Grrrrrr

[pxljce 17]

15 minutes ago, Cool_Z said:

I wouldn't post a rework of someone's stuff without giving a link to the original and saying it's someone's work I updated.

Yup, that seems to be the right way to go. The question is what happens in this situation? The author has expressed the wish that the asset be taken down in the comments. I think it should come down (whether the reasoning for it makes sense or not), but the current official stance seems to say credit and link is enough.

16 minutes ago, Cool_Z said:

Some people post other's buildings and add a few trees and a parkplace. They just post it as it's theirs. Grrrrrr

Yeah that does suck, but most people can see it for what it is...

[Cool_Z 1,547]

Quote

Yup, that seems to be the right way to go. The question is what happens in this situation? The author has expressed the wish that the asset be taken down in the comments. I think it should come down (whether the reasoning for it makes sense or not), but the current official stance seems to say credit and link is enough.

The big difference is that the original asset was neither broken or in need of an update. i think the original author should have been asked for an authorization.

[pxljce 17]

18 minutes ago, Cool_Z said:

The big difference is that the original asset was neither broken or in need of an update. i think the original author should have been asked for an authorization.

True. It would be much easier if all uploaded assets had to have a clear usage policy or some such chosen by the creator. Then fixing/changing and uploading would be more straightforward.