PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: Guest on January 18, 2004, 08:46:26 am
-
Is anyone aware of the NeL project? Here\'s a 3rd party review (http://\'http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2003/10/16/nel.html\') praising it.
I was very interested in creating a project like PlaneShift awhile ago, and NeL seemed like the wisest choice for a MMORPG engine. NeL consists not only of a 3D graphics engine, but also networking, AI, audio and other code necessary for the development of a MMORPG.
Compared to a commercial MMORPG 3D graphics engine like EverQuest, NeL, or so its developers claim, gives artists more flexibility for modeling outdoor settings, with better rendering, and lighting model capabilities. Its major features include:
* A landscape renderer that creates environments with \"patches\" of land,
blending together these sub-divisions with vertex shaders.
* Landscapes that can extend for more than 1 kilometer (0.62 mile) of virtual
distances.
* Physical ground features in the landscape, such as holes in the ground and
tunnels.
* An efficient lighting system for indoor and outdoor environments.
* A traditional indoor portal clipping system.
* Multi-Resolution Mesh (MRM) technology that can automatically scale down
the complexity of a character model to conserve processing power.
* An efficient and powerful special effects manager.
* A large set of interpolators which users can use to animate most model
parameters.
* A Level of Detail (LOD) balancing system that provides the best possible
rendering quality for the number of character models and special effects that
need to be rendered.
* Continuous streaming of textures from the hard disk during the game.
The most impressive (and of course proprietary) project that uses NeL (made by the same people- nevrax) seems to be Ryzom (http://\'http://www.ryzom.com/\') (screenshots (http://\'http://www.ryzom.com/downloads/screenshots/\')).
Looks very nice :-p Almost as nice as PS ;)
Anyway, I hope we\'re not reinventing the wheel. A functioning demo of the NeL system is Snowballs (http://\'http://www.nevrax.org/download/snowballs-windows-binaries-20030801.zip\') (windows binary in zip)... looks smooth. :)
I\'m not sure what exactly I am proposing, to remake PlaneShift under NeL is rather time-consuming, if not impossible... I guess I just want to know why the developers chose CrystalSpace over the other options availible.
-
yeah i saw that game a while ago. i signed up for beta testing ryzom but they havnt gotten back to me. its too bad cus it looks quite beatiful...
-
i agree with Guest\'s view entirely as NeL stands for Nevrax Library it\'s url is http://www.nevrax.org/ is far superior and more mature game engine compared to crystal space. that\'s it will be easier and better to use the Nel engine for this game :rolleyes:
:))
-
i hope those who regualarly visit these boards consider the advantages of Nel in the above post. i want to thank guest for bringing this up!!! :]
the nel enngine rocks man!!!
-
Well, I don\'t know the initial reason for them picking Crystal Space, but I do know that the people who develop it work with the PS devs and help them out if they need something added for the game...which, I think, pretty much keeps them covered...although I do know nothing about these things :P
-
Like Kiern said, the PlaneShift dev team works very closely with the CS team, I don\'t think they\'ll just switch to another 3d engine..
The screenshots of that game look really nice though, the grass etc. looks good and i don\'t think CS has this yet, but as PS, CS is still under construction and I beleive it will be just as good(or better) as this engine one day.
EDIT: I just read the NEL faq, and this is what I found:
Have you checked WorldForge/Crystalspace/QuakeForge/others... ?
We have looked carefully at the other Free Software projects available, before reinventing the wheel. They\'re all more or less compatible with ours, on a purely license level, thanks to the GNU GPL, but that does not mean they can fit in our development. We (the NeL maintainers) are a commercial entity with a specific product to be delivered on time.
We want to keep a tight focus on the game we are doing right now, and thus did not want to get involved in political struggles to get the code we would need in, and did not want to create resentment by \"taking over\" and steering other projects toward our goals, or creating a code fork for our own purpose. Our timetable requires us to be more or less in control of things.
-
hm... so the PS team and the CS team are very very close, and probably won\'t jump boats... and according to the PS lisence (http://\'http://www.planeshift.it/pslicense.html\') (quoted below), all artwork, sound, 3d models, etc. seem to be pretty much owned by the PS Dev\'s...
2. You may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, sell, participate in the transfer or sale or reproduce, create Derivative Works from, distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the Material released under this License unless expressly permitted by the PlaneShift Team.
3. You may use the provided Material, for personal use only, to connect to an Official PlaneShift Server only in conjunction with a Planeshift Client, distributed by the Planeshift Team. Offical PlaneShift Servers can only be designated by PlaneShift Team.
that seems harsh, very very harsh...
they say they do it to prevent people from splitting off and for specializing work on a single project, yet CS itself seems inferior to other Free Software projects out... which sounds just a little hypocritical to me...
the point of GPL is NOT to reinvent the wheel (which they are doing with the CS engine) and to ALLOW people to split and not be stuck to one project (which they are prohibiting with the PS lisence).
personally, I would think twice before submitting any artwork or music to PS, publishing it under GPL may seem a much wiser choice to me, and if PS dev\'s are too arrogant to use GPL\'ed material (which they seem to be- anything submitted must be covered under PSL:(), they will fail.
I\'m sorry to say it, but looking again at the game, it matches the quality of EQ1 at it\'s very beginning. Any MMORPG with a release date around the same date blows PS out of the water :(.
My suggestion would be either to ditch CS and work on NeL... or relax the PSL to allow the artistic work being put into PS to not be wasted if the project turns out to not be as amazing as the developers would like it to be (seriously look at what EQ2 (http://\'http://everquest2.station.sony.com/media.jsp\') is going to be like! The dev\'s mentioned a particle system that reads 3d models to make spell sparklets take shapes of animals, etc... If PS is to compete with this, we need to insist the devs either loosen up the PSL lisence or switch to a superior game engine.
-
im developing some theme music for planeshift at the moment and really when im done ill probally just donate it to the devs. credit to me isnt really important. if i hear my music in the game thats enough satisfaction to me..
-
Originally posted by Guest
personally, I would think twice before submitting any artwork or music to PS, publishing it under GPL may seem a much wiser choice to me, and if PS dev\'s are too arrogant to use GPL\'ed material (which they seem to be- anything submitted must be covered under PSL:(), they will fail.
We\'ve never really had a problem with this. The source code is all under GPL and the art is not. Why is that arrogant? If somebody writes a novel in Open Office are they required to give it away for free? There is a difference between function and content. The functionality of the engine is GPL. The PlaneShift content is not. And I don\'t see us failing anytime soon.
I\'m sorry to say it, but looking again at the game, it matches the quality of EQ1 at it\'s very beginning. Any MMORPG with a release date around the same date blows PS out of the water :(.
To me that is a high complement. As just a group of people working in our spare time with 0 pay and in different time zones we are already at the quality of EQ1 which took years to develop and had a large paid staff. What other MMORPG games in the same area ( ie free, volunteer based, nobody on salary ) do you see that will blow PlaneShift away? If you mean games like World of Warcraft and EQ2 then probably yes since they have millions of dollars to pour into it.
My suggestion would be either to ditch CS and work on NeL... or relax the PSL to allow the artistic work being put into PS to not be wasted if the project turns out to not be as amazing as the developers would like it to be (seriously look at what EQ2 (http://\'http://everquest2.station.sony.com/media.jsp\') is going to be like! The dev\'s mentioned a particle system that reads 3d models to make spell sparklets take shapes of animals, etc... If PS is to compete with this, we need to insist the devs either loosen up the PSL lisence or switch to a superior game engine.
Again you are trying to compare apples to oranges here. Of course there is no way we can compete with a game company with millions of dollars. That would be like somebody creating their own operating system and maybe trying to compete with Microsoft.... oh wait.
Everybody working PlaneShift is very dedicated to it. This is not some group of glassy eyed kids thinking \'Woot, we\'ll all be rich after this\'. We are doing this because we like to. If PlaneShift becomes world popular then that is great. If PlaneShift is only popular with a small group of people then that is great too.
-
hehe acraig pwns... lol. Good points made by acraig. You cant just blatantly compare a game like planeshift to games that have had millions of dollars to develop with. its not only unfair but just retarded. hopefully more and more people will find planeshift and contribute to its efforts and maby make it one of the best mmorpgs of the next decade.
-
Originally posted by whemyfield
im developing some theme music for planeshift at the moment and really when im done ill probally just donate it to the devs. credit to me isnt really important. if i hear my music in the game thats enough satisfaction to me..
what i disagree with is that if you ever wanted to use this music in any other project, game, etc. You\'d have to ask PS dev\'s for permission.
We\'ve never really had a problem with this. The source code is all under GPL and the art is not. Why is that arrogant? If somebody writes a novel in Open Office are they required to give it away for free? There is a difference between function and content. The functionality of the engine is GPL. The PlaneShift content is not. And I don\'t see us failing anytime soon.
It\'s arrogant because as I see it, you will not be creating a lot of the art.
From the PlanetShift Lisence: \"PlaneShift Team grants to the author of such material the right...\"
This sentance baffled me... YOU are granting the author that donated something to you rights s/he is to have with his/her donation?
Again: \"The [donated] material should not be given to or reused in other games or software products without the express approval of all the members of the PlaneShift Team.\"
If I donate anything to anyone, I expect to keep copyright to my donation, which is not what the PSL says.
I was hoping to see a project where art is created by the creative community, for the creative community, not donated and monolopized by one project. I guess I\'m looking in the wrong place :-p I\'m sorry if I\'m being bold, I know I\'m new :-p
-
Seeing his proposal turned down, Guest turns defensive....anyways, aren\'t those kind of names not allowed? That has been bothering me...
The art thing has been an issue, they\'ve heard the arguments, you will not be adding anything new.
-
its rather simple. If you want to donate art to the PS team then they claim full rights over it because they dont want it showing up in another game. Its your choise to donate it and fall under there rules, dont like the rules dont donate. simple
-
Originally posted by whemyfield
You cant just blatantly compare a game like planeshift to games that have had millions of dollars to develop with. its not only unfair but just retarded. hopefully more and more people will find planeshift and contribute to its efforts and maby make it one of the best mmorpgs of the next decade.
1st: lol :) you put a smile on my face, thanks
2nd: I didn\'t mean to compare PS and EQ. That was a conclusion in my argument. I really do hope more people will contribute more and more to Free Software projects, but I don\'t see any serious person donating COPYRIGHTS to their art. If you ever expect to seriously compete with anyone, if you ever expect \"more and more people will find planeshift and contribute to its efforts and maby make it one of the best mmorpgs of the next decade\" take a second look at your licensing and the definition of Free Software (http://\'http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html\') and see how it also applies to your art (since the art is created by the community, not only you).
-
There are several other projects out there that plan to have GPL or Creative Commons artwork that any kid can use in his Pr0n mod of your future game. I suggest you check out Arianne or Once, which are a couple that come to mind with \"free\" artwork.
Most serious artists actually view it as a plus that we have this license because they know that the purpose for which they are donating their work will be the only purpose it is used for.
Regarding NeL, we have certainly known about it for years. I think the reasons we don\'t use it were stated quite well by Nevrax themselves: \"We want to keep a tight focus on the game we are doing right now, and thus did not want to get involved in political struggles to get the code we would need in, and did not want to create resentment by \"taking over\" and steering other projects toward our goals, or creating a code fork for our own purpose. Our [long term goals] require us to be more or less in control of things.\"
Keep in mind, furthermore, that PS was started 3 years ago and NeL didn\'t exist then. We like CS and intend to keep using it indefinitely. CS is not a competitor to NeL, however--CS is just a 3d engine. PS codebase is more of a competitor, but we don\'t really view anyone as competition, as acraig alluded to earlier.
Also it just isn\'t any fun to work with something that is already done. :-) The whole point is to build it and see if you can do it--that is why Arianne and Once haven\'t merged with PS and never will. The journey is the point. Using NeL would turn PS into nothing more than a big art project.
- Venge
-
Wow Ryzom is finaly in beta testing, theyve come along way... damn havent been to there sight in ages (glad some one posted a working link, since all the ones ive looked for had stoped working).
There style has changed a little, still so original though.
**updates his moldy old link**
-
Originally posted by windwalker
its rather simple. If you want to donate art to the PS team then they claim full rights over it because they dont want it showing up in another game. Its your choise to donate it and fall under there rules, dont like the rules dont donate. simple
well put, I don\'t think serious developers will donate full rights to their work... it seems common sense to me... if you ever want to compete like linux does with microsoft (that\'s what acraig was reffering to), you have to understand Free Software: something created by the community should be open to the community to work with.
-
Thank you Vengeance. You were most insightfull. You\'ve answered all of my questions.
Best of luck, I hope my greatest fear (that the artwork donated to you guys isn\'t wasted) never comes to be.
Again, best of luck, I\'ll check out Arianne and Once. :)
-
Originally posted by Kiern
aren\'t those kind of names not allowed? That has been bothering me...
yeah, my other account never went through on activation, and when i tried to log in, the default user name in there was \'guest\', which made me wonder if i could make a name like that... maybe i should try \'administrator\' next
-
lol. ok. i\'m done.
au revoir. good night. arivederchi. do svidania.
have a nice life.
-
ok, one last question.
anyone know of any \"big art\" projects that use NeL?
-
To answer Guest:
At the time we choosen Crystal Space (year 2000), Nevrax was at the early stages of development, it had primitive network support, no AI, and most of the features were similar to CrystalSpace ones, with the BIG difference that they guys aimed for a commercial project, so you never know what may happen. They could easily stop development of the Open Source platform and make it closed source from that point on. Our choice on CrystalSpace has been made looking at the development team of CS and his potential. Given the fact that CS was a true GPL project, with aim to remain as such, we made our choice. Also the personal relations with CS team were quite good and that allowed us to work so closely with them to simply ask features we needed and see them starting implementing. On the other side PS has given a good speed up to CS since many of our developers worked on it also. Right now Nevrax seems a good engine, but surely CS has more support from the community and larger audience.
From the GPL point of view I think we are a lot more close to Free Software than nevrax people. They created a free engine for a commercial game, we and CS are creating a free engine for a free game (PS).
-
Thank you Talad.
May I still ask why it is that I must give up nearly all of my rights to a piece of art I have made when donating it to you?
-
Having art under GPL will have as a result a real loss in uniqueness and characterization. No game can share his assets with other games, no one has ever done that and for good reasons.
About property of assets, you are not donating those to me, but to the PlaneShift project, that is a free project made for the community of players. Becoming a developer you become part of the team and so you own the copyrights of all assets as part of the project. This is to highlight that assets are not mine at all, but are of the project PlaneShift itself, that will have a life even without all the current developers.
If you need more details the reasons behind the license and why it should be like that are explained in details in our license.
-
Yes, the \"art\" in a game is something wich gives a pretty unique feeling to it.
And don\'t think because it\'s under GPL you\'ll have more right on it.
Speaking of Arianne project, I\'ve contributed there for 4 years. After what I\'ve felt like a betrayal I decided to leave the project with all the graphics I made (almost all the Arianne GFX) wich has been refused because it was under GPL.
I feel safer with PS if you want my opinion.
And project like that are pretty interesting for \"serious\" artists, you have far more freedom.
I\'ve worked with someone from Rhyzom team on a free project, and even if it\'s cool to work on a commercial project, you\'re still limited he said.
Also, don\'t forget that actually the contribution from community to the art section is almost at 0.
This is the people from the team who are doing the graphics.
-
I just wanted to point out something that might be of interest for all those donating or accepting donated work here:
This works perfectly well in the USA and UK, I think, but... in European countries not related to any Anglosaxon tradition, the historical view on copyright is fundamentally different. This results in the fact that here in Europe (I am German) no one can donate a copyright, or give it up.
IANAL, sure thing, but the only thing you can donate or license is the right to use the created work, but the author will always remain the author and keep the copyright itself.
This makes the whole transatlantic licensing of digital music so ... interesting, but that is another story and shall be told another time.
My point is: check your contracts or whatever you use. You might end up with european donations that are suddenly used somewhere else. And rightfully so! Make sure that laws of some specific country are binding or something... not the country of the author or whatever.
-
Im IANAL too. And you are right you cannot give away \"Urheberrechte\" (\"autors rights\" ) , but AFAIK the equivalent in germany for donating copyright is donating \"Verwertungsrechte\".
AFAIK this concept originated from napoleons law book and is used in all countries Napoleon conquered.
I am pretty sure the PS Team has considered this, cause as the site states: \"The main headquarter is located in Italy.\"
-
We have a lawyer that takes care of that, and I assure you it\'s quite normal to donate copyright. The simplest example is when you work for a company. They keep the copyright of your work.
-
/me bows before the mighty Talad
there you have it :)
-
Originally posted by Talad
The simplest example is when you work for a company. They keep the copyright of your work.
yes, but they pay you (and therefore feed/house/entertain you) for the time that you work for them. that\'s the POINT (http://\'http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html\') of Free Software (FS): it\'s not about donating your time, it\'s about donating a copy of what you\'ve created (and therefore not giving anything, only sharing).
Asking for a donated copyright is like asking for ... money (ie you won\'t raise as much as a private competitor has). Which goes back to my original point:
You cannot create software that will compete with anyone, espacitally not with big games, by asking for people to donate copyrights. It has never (and will never) been done.
Open Office competes with MS Office for the same reason that
Mplayer competes with WMPlayer for the same reason that
Linux competes with Windows etc, etc, etc.
The reason being they are FREE SOFTWARE (http://\'http://gnu.org/\'). This means that are considered public, not private property. You consider your art to be private (your) property (and, if I am not being too bold, it is the only thing that your project really is worthwhile noticing for, simply because CS seems to be redundant in the light of NeL), and you ask people to donate copyright for it. I agree with the European perspective: if I spent 50 hours creating a BAUTIFUL 3d model that I\'m extremely proud of, I won\'t just give all of my rights for using that model to a private party. I may give away the right for someone to use it... and that\'s what Free Software is based on.
Releasing your art to the public may just make your project true Free Software (as opposed to a hobby project kinda thing)... do think about it... you won\'t compete with EQ otherwise.
-
You sound your a dev in NeL, trying to recruite projects buy talking negative on licenses.. :D
-
You\'re not really open minded for someone wanting Free software.
I don\'t see your point in fact, you appear to be not giving any argue.
Plus, you\'re totally wrong, yes I pass hours making models and I give them with copyright to PS.
Why?? simply because I believe in this project, and I trust all its member because I know them.
In free software (I already work in that) you can see your model taken by an unknown guy who makes 2 little changes to it and claimed he changes the world.
Also I think you forget that here at PS we are paid.
Yes, we are paid with all the compliment, the fun, the learning we got here! Every single encouragment is a reward!
Now, speaking of the engine, especially in a MMORPG, it\'s better to have an engine easy to change than an extra-beautiful one.
Anymore we\'re entering in a period where everyone wants the more photorealistic game. That\'s not obviously something good.
When we do our graphics at PS, we\'re trying to give a story to a place, we\'re trying to make BEAUTIFUL graphics but also USEFUL graphics!
And before saying PS has only gfx, try to do as good as our coders!
I can only say the future will show you\'re wrong.. I know what I\'m telling, this project is different.
-
The transfer of copyrights to the PlaneShift team has legitimate reasons I can understand. I don\'t agree with the statement that copyrights (where art is concerned) should be free for all. These issues have actually been covered in the whole Open Source discussion, and it is recognized that an open source license for art does not always work.
Free software and free art are not the same thing. Think of a good piece of music you enjoyed... What if it was Open Source? What if it was now being played by a band that you hated tremendously? What if that band made oodles of money because of that piece of music, that they didn\'t create?
Open Source is about choice - The choice of buying proprietry software and getting equivalents for free. Programmers, and hence artists, have the same right to decide whether their work should be made open to all, or kept within a closed group. The PlaneShift team has apparently chosen to open source the engine, while trying to protect their content.
It is completely legitimate. The reason this may not have worked before is mostly because this whole open source thing is a new movement, but straddling the middle ground does not always mean worse results, and on the surface there are many reasons (if you\'ve read), why the licenses were structured this way.
One powerful force that drives the team is passion. Given that almost everything is contributed (time, effort, software, hardware etc) for free, and the fact that the project is still going strong, it shows that the system has worked well so far.
Maybe it will fall apart in future? Maybe Open Source will die? Maybe proprietry licenses will die? Your guess is as good as mine.
-
When you write GNU software, you donate your copyright to the FSF. I don\'t see how this is different. An independent legal entity needs to own all the copyrights so that it can treat them as a group and make contracts about licensing that stuff as a group. If you can\'t understand that, then free software probably isn\'t for you.
- Venge
-
\"Open Source is about choice - The choice of buying proprietry software and getting equivalents for free. \"
\"When you write GNU software, you donate your copyright to the FSF.\"
\"When you write GNU software, you donate your copyright to the FSF.\"
No, no, and no.
But I am content, I have mentioned the PS lisence to several very knowledgeable friends as well as professionals, and many have agreed that your lisence is not enforcable. It is impossible to donate copyright (one must be paid for it), and I competely agree.
AFAIK, I win. Have a nice life. :)
-
I think I speak for pretty much everyone, Administrator, when I say...no one cares, if you do so much, take it to the IRC channel where people actually talk about those things
...and why is that name allowed?
-
\"When you write GNU software, you donate your copyright to the FSF.\"
\"When you write GNU software, you donate your copyright to the FSF.\"
Aren\'t those the same, or am I being blind here..
anyways, like kiern said, nobody cares.. so just be happy you \"won\", go make a party.. at least don\'t come back here again..
-
... its people like that who make these kinds of prodjects seems impossible. We all need to remember that this game was made for peoples passions, not there greeds
-
\"It is impossible to donate copyright (one must be paid for it), and I competely agree.\" - Guest/Administrator.. whatever
So one cant donate HIS copyrights??!?? what the!?
Is it impossible for ME to donate MY copyrights without being paid??? That sounds bad, its even worst then losing your copyrights !! YOU cant even donate them if YOU want !! sounds strange from the way i see it, to live is to fall.
-
Admin,
I was using the term \"donate\" loosely. The correct term is \"Assign\".
Regarding FSF copyright assignment, see the following text from the FSF FAQ:
Why does the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the FSF? If I hold copyright on a GPL\'ed program, should I do this, too? If so, how?
Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
We also ask individual contributors to get copyright disclaimers from their employers (if any) so that we can be sure those employers won\'t claim to own the contributions.
Of course, if all the contributors put their code in the public domain, there is no copyright with which to enforce the GPL. So we encourage people to assign copyright on large code contributions, and only put small changes in the public domain.
If you want to make an effort to enforce the GPL on your program, it is probably a good idea for you to follow a similar policy. Please contact if you want more information
See it here (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright) if you don\'t believe me.
Not only does the FSF get copyright assignments but they encourage other projects like ours to do the same. Go back to your friend and bitch-slap him, because he doesn\'t know what he is talking about.
- Your friendly neighborhood Venge
-
u got pimped :P
-
It\'s true that donating copyright is illegal in France. That also mean the GPL is illegal in France (from more than this reason btw)
The weak point of this is who will sue you and how? The receiver that didn\'t want to receive the copyright? The giver how didn\'t want to give it? Or someone else because he feel like he was harmed by this donate?
-- just my two cents
-
To come back to the topic: Ryzom beta2 looks really neat and their client engine NeL is not as hard on the CPU as MB.
-
thats b/c thats a beta, in fact a second beta ...and this is a pre alpha tech demo