CrimsonStrife

And Expanded Universe did a similar thing, too. They're all Star Wars, and they are all new angles on essentially the same universe and ever-changing grand story.

 

Disney declared the EU to be non-cannon, and has officially relegated its stories to the "Legends" non-cannon. At this point all that matters are the films, TCW and now Rebels and any future films or spinoffs.

I would but it spans two 27" monitors so it'd be a waste to only post the one now wouldn't it? lol.

I posted mine and it spans 3 monitors, just put it in a spoiler and it won't hurt anything lol.

Well, yes and no, because the animation director co-ordinates the visualisation process, and s/he is following direction from the director of the series, who in turn follows direction from the producers, who are Disney employees. So at the end if the day the one who invests money in the series is the one who decides how the series will look. If they say make it more childish, that's what the animation department will have to deal with.

 

Like I said, Disney does have the final say.  But when all this started one of two things likely happened.  Either the artists where given a basic idea of the project and came up with a selection of styles and designs that eventually led to this, OR they were provided with a direction in the form of some written style document.  The latter seems highly unlikely as typically a style is established after numerous concepts.  While you would be almost guaranteed to see visual differences in the two shows regardless if the same team created them, you would be far more likely to see resemblances in the designs.  To be honest it looks like someone started off with a model that was very much in the Clone Wars style, and then just hit the smooth tool in Maya one too many times.

 

 

 

 more like a regular cheap kids' Saturday cartoon

 

And there we find the root of the issue.  Likely this was the very reason this series was even envisioned.  Let's be honest, particularly towards the later seasons, TCW had started getting a lot darker.  Not a bad thing necessarily, but also not really Saturday morning cartoon material either.

And "The Inquisitor"? Really?? That's not the same of a sith.

 

Based on the videos and information I've seen, he isn't a Sith, hence the lack of a traditional name.  Just a dark side force user, so if anything you might call him a dark jedi.

That'll have to do with the new direction coming from Disney. I must say I honestly cringe from this new series. It's an awful insult on so many levels.

 

After the advanced themes and stylised designs developed for the Clone Wars, now we're going two steps back to a childish story with simple, childish visuals. I think this will be a show for children, and children only.

 

Seeing how they're twisting the story and characters here to suit a particular agenda and audience makes me really worried for what Disney will decide to do with the new Star Wars movies… :/

 

EDIT: Although, it's nothing that George Lucas hasn't already done with the new trilogy compared to the (unaltered) original.

My point was that typically animators have very established styles. And while yes, Disney gives the final say, the animation studios Art department would still have been the ones to create this style. Which if what I said is true, and much of the team is the same, is surprisingly jarring.

Looks fine to me O_O

 

-EDIT-

Upon re-visiting that page, it was then stretched like the image.

Yeh because you know everything about modeling, the list of files you've uploaded is insane!

Is this not the exact attitude that started all of this?

In the immortal words of Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw,

 

"The cruelest thing you can do to an artist is tell them their work is flawless when it isn't"

And also

 

"If I put people's balls in my mouth for a living I'd be a prostitute, or possibly a GameStop employee. But I criticize, so I'm a critic."

Yeah.Except I am out to get you.

Eez, I'd like you to consider that Captain tolerated two waves of criticism from two individuals, and then a selfish post about his project being challenged/taken-over by a staff member before reacting the way he did with an presumably exaggerated reaction. I don't feel that the reaction was an overreaction at all. It was quite natural and reasonable considering the circumstances.

 

I also think that staff are not meant to take sides. Isn't that the rule of thumb here? :/ Perhaps these things should better be discussed in a formal setting with all staff present.

As a retired staff member, I can tell you that if we DON'T take sides, things can get just as nasty as when we do. It is a no-win scenario.

 

You're also functioning under the idea that the original comments were negative, when in fact they were not. No one told him that it looks bad, simply that it was not optimized and would cause problems.

It was when Crazy openly rejected the ideas and mocked the practice of them that things became heated from both sides.

 

Neither side was the best at stating their opinions, so neither side is innocent.

 

Had Crazy led the conversation, or corrected Mini and co. early on that this model was destined for something like machinima use, and not for gameplay where performance is key, then much of the optimization talk would likely have never come up.

 

He also needed to understand that no one was insulting his abilities, and indeed none of the posts prior to him becoming defensive (which he does almost immediately) insult the model or him.

 

This, like many of the issues I have witnessed as both Staff and none, stem from people failing to communicate properly, inevitably someone becomes defensive and everyone starts picking sides. But as you will also see in that thread, once I actually explained the performance issues, and just what the limits mean, things seemed to get much more receptive.

 

Everyone needs to just calm the fuck down, learn to read, learn to converse, and stop assuming everyone is out to get them.

Simply because no-one from LucasArts could be bothered going around shutting down mods that were not endangering their interests, to put it in layman's terms.

 

Any creative work based on copyrighted material or intellectual property is an artwork whose fate is controlled by the copyright holder, and whose nature is legally questionable.

Exactly, doing so would cost them time and legal fees. Which is pointless on something with no money involved. It would also have resulted in a backlash from the fan base, and been a PR nightmare.

I'm going to point you back to my earlier post. The reason these freely produced items get a pass is because they are at that point more costly on both a financial and social level than they are worth.

 

It's when money comes into play that it is an issue.

 

 

I originally had edited this into my previous post, but given the replies since, I moved it here:

 

I dug around for a bit and found some articles that can kinda shed some light on why this is viewed as a negative thing:

 

While technically aimed at 'fan-art' (which is also technically what this would be considered) this is what the law says:

 

According to copyright law, copyright holders have the sole right to distribute derivative works based on an original creation. This includes sequels and any other work that includes copyright-able elements from the original creation.

As was confirmed in the “Catcher in the Rye” case, characters can be granted copyright protection as can many other non-expression elements of the original work. This is furthered that most fan creations are built upon plot elements and other copyright-able parts of the original material.

That being said, fair use may protect some fan creations from being an infringement, but that is handled on a case-by-case basis, looking at the facts of the actual work. However, most fan creations, by their very nature, don’t parody or criticize the source material, which would provide a great deal of protection, nor are they highly trans-formative, meaning that they are less likely to win in the even that such a suit takes place. It is also worth noting that fan fiction and fan art can be a trademark violation as well, especially if it uses names and titles in a way that causes confusion as to whether they are official. Trademark disputes over fan creations are rare, but still possible. (Essentially, simply calling a character in a fan creation by their actual name could be considered in violation of this, depending on how it was depicted)

 

Yet, despite a relatively strong legal position, lawsuits over fan fiction and fan art are extremely rare. This is especially odd considering that many of the rights holders who are the most common target of fan creations are also among those most aggressive at stopping other infringement of their work.

 

So the question you're probably asking now @, is why has fan art, and the selling and commissioning of it, thrived?

 

It is kind of an "unspoken rule", from a copyright holder viewpoint, fan fiction and art is usually not very harmful. Fans create works that are openly recognized to be non-canon to the story and are not replacements for the original. In fact, some feel these fan communities actually serve a valuable service to copyright holders by providing a thriving site for fans to visit, keeping them entertained and engage between official releases. In short, since fan creations don’t take away sales of the original work, they are often seen as free promotion and a way to grow the brand without cost or effort.

 

The bigger issue, however, is the cost of going to war with fans. Being litigious with creators of fan art can be very costly, not just in terms of court costs, but in terms of backlash. No creator wants to sue their fans, especially when the fans aren’t earning revenue, and as such most creators will tolerate fan fiction and art under most circumstances.

Some even go as far as to create fan site kits, for the purpose of aiding the creation of fan Web sites.

 

Fan fiction and fan art communities, in turn, usually have a set of rules that they follow to preserve their symbiotic relationship.

First, they agree to not profit from or sell copies of their creations. Though some of the communities run ads to cover hosting costs, most do not turn any profit and the individual authors never sell their works. Second, they always proclaim that their work is unofficial and has no connection with the creators. Finally, they respond to requests from the copyright holder to remove content and work with the creator as needed.

In short, the community works to ensure they don’t hurt the original creator’s ability to profit from the work and the creator tolerates what is technically a copyright infringement in many cases.

 

Granted, not every fan artist who sells copies of works is pursued, Magic the Gathering, for example, seems to have many artists that sell fan art of the cards but Wizards of the Coast, the makers of the game, don’t seem to actively be pursuing (at least not that I've heard).

Still, that is the most common tipping point between when a fan creation goes from being a “tolerated infringement” to a legal matter.

That being said though, every creator has right to make the choice for themselves where they want the line drawn and to enforce that line as they see fit, an important thing to remember when dealing with fan fiction and fan art.

 

The key point to remember is this: Fan fiction and fan art are, usually, an infringement of the right of the copyright holder to prepare and license derivative works based on the original. This is almost without exception.

However, many copyright holders, for good reasons, tolerate fan art and even encourage it, but this should not be taken as a free-pass to do what you want with the source material. There are many lines that a fan artist can cross and wind up in legal trouble.

Your best bet is to study the rules for your community and obey them closely. If you do that, you should be fine but always remember that your creations only exist through the good graces of the copyright holder and they can change their mind at any point.

 

 

tl;dr version:

 

It is a big messy grey area.

I think it's not ok to actually SELL a modification... But AFAIK the whole discussion started out as kenoi's request for just a 3D model for which he wanted to pay. IMO it's nothing wrong, it's normal that people pay 3D artists for making a specific model for them. So it's for his own use and he can do whatever he likes with it.

True, except he wanted the model of a copyrighted character, which while paying for such a thing is widely practiced, it IS by law a violation of copyrights.

 

Not to mention, he would still have needed the model rigged and placed in game, a task that he would either be paying the same person for or finding someone that would do it for free.

 

The fact of the matter is, even making such a model for free is a copyright violation, just one not likely to be enforced. Which is why we can do it.

I don't get what all the talk about LucasArts being gone is about, yes they no longer exist as a developer, but Disney kept them as a legal entity which licenses out the IP to other developers.

 

 

 

LucasArts will now focus on licensing its intellectual property to developers, handing off the task of making “Star Wars” videogames. In transitioning to this new model, the company wil lay off the majority of its staff, keeping a small team that will handle licensing.

 

So all of the contracts and copyrights of the company still exist.

 

References:

http://www.thewrap.com/media/article/lucasarts-cease-making-games-will-lay-most-staff-83891/

http://www.cnet.com/news/disney-shuttering-lucasarts-moving-to-licensed-games-model/

Have they just not added the other wings on yet?

 

The Z95 doesn't have the X-foils of the X-wing, also you'll notice it only has 2 engines, not four.

Looks like a Z95 Headhunter, not an Xwing

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Z-95_Headhunter

@@eezstreet it should be noted that LucasArts does still exist, but only as a licensing company and publisher, no longer a developer. As long as they remain a legal entity the EULA will still hold in that regard. Now the release of the source code might muck with it a bit, but it doesn't change the fact that, technically speaking, ANY mod made that references or contains an IP the maker does not own, is in reality a copyright violation.

 

So @, most mods are already technically illegal by copyright laws, but these are usually tolerated because there is no money involved and it would be stupid expensive to take someone to court over. However, copyright holders have to take action in some cases or risk losing their trademark.

 

The moment we start marketing mods, we become a financial threat, and while fair-use exists, it is viewed on a case by case basis, and typically will only hold water in parody situations.

I originally had edited this into my previous post, but given the replies since, I moved it here:

 

 I dug around for a bit and found some articles that can kinda shed some light on why this is viewed as a negative thing:

 

While technically aimed at 'fan-art' (which is also technically what this would be considered) this is what the law says:

 

According to copyright law, copyright holders have the sole right to distribute derivative works based on an original creation. This includes sequels and any other work that includes copyright-able elements from the original creation.

As was confirmed in the “Catcher in the Rye” case, characters can be granted copyright protection as can many other non-expression elements of the original work. This is furthered that most fan creations are built upon plot elements and other copyright-able parts of the original material.

That being said, fair use may protect some fan creations from being an infringement, but that is handled on a case-by-case basis, looking at the facts of the actual work. However, most fan creations, by their very nature, don’t parody or criticize the source material, which would provide a great deal of protection, nor are they highly trans-formative, meaning that they are less likely to win in the even that such a suit takes place. It is also worth noting that fan fiction and fan art can be a trademark violation as well, especially if it uses names and titles in a way that causes confusion as to whether they are official. Trademark disputes over fan creations are rare, but still possible. (Essentially, simply calling a character in a fan creation by their actual name could be considered in violation of this, depending on how it was depicted)

 

Yet, despite a relatively strong legal position, lawsuits over fan fiction and fan art are extremely rare. This is especially odd considering that many of the rights holders who are the most common target of fan creations are also among those most aggressive at stopping other infringement of their work.

 

So the question you're probably asking now @, is why has fan art, and the selling and commissioning of it, thrived?

 

It is kind of an "unspoken rule", from a copyright holder viewpoint, fan fiction and art is usually not very harmful. Fans create works that are openly recognized to be non-canon to the story and are not replacements for the original.  In fact, some feel these fan communities actually serve a valuable service to copyright holders by providing a thriving site for fans to visit, keeping them entertained and engage between official releases. In short, since fan creations don’t take away sales of the original work, they are often seen as free promotion and a way to grow the brand without cost or effort.

 

The bigger issue, however, is the cost of going to war with fans. Being litigious with creators of fan art can be very costly, not just in terms of court costs, but in terms of backlash. No creator wants to sue their fans, especially when the fans aren’t earning revenue, and as such most creators will tolerate fan fiction and art under most circumstances.

Some even go as far as to create fan site kits, for the purpose of aiding the creation of fan Web sites.

 

Fan fiction and fan art communities, in turn, usually have a set of rules that they follow to preserve their symbiotic relationship.

First, they agree to not profit from or sell copies of their creations. Though some of the communities run ads to cover hosting costs, most do not turn any profit and the individual authors never sell their works. Second, they always proclaim that their work is unofficial and has no connection with the creators. Finally, they respond to requests from the copyright holder to remove content and work with the creator as needed.

In short, the community works to ensure they don’t hurt the original creator’s ability to profit from the work and the creator tolerates what is technically a copyright infringement in many cases.

 

Granted, not every fan artist who sells copies of works is pursued, Magic the Gathering, for example, seems to have many artists that sell fan art of the cards but Wizards of the Coast, the makers of the game, don’t seem to actively be pursuing (at least not that I've heard).

Still, that is the most common tipping point between when a fan creation goes from being a “tolerated infringement” to a legal matter.

That being said though, every creator has right to make the choice for themselves where they want the line drawn and to enforce that line as they see fit, an important thing to remember when dealing with fan fiction and fan art.

 

The key point to remember is this: Fan fiction and fan art are, usually, an infringement of the right of the copyright holder to prepare and license derivative works based on the original. This is almost without exception.

However, many copyright holders, for good reasons, tolerate fan art and even encourage it, but this should not be taken as a free-pass to do what you want with the source material. There are many lines that a fan artist can cross and wind up in legal trouble.

Your best bet is to study the rules for your community and obey them closely. If you do that, you should be fine but always remember that your creations only exist through the good graces of the copyright holder and they can change their mind at any point.

 

 

tl;dr version:

 

It is a big messy grey area.

The game's EULA should provide somewhat of an answer to this, alas I do not have it on hand and cannot find an online version.  Anyone care to enlighten us?

@@CaptainCrazy

I'd wager based on this that his general idea, is to build models, but have them rendered out into 2D sprites. (animations included)

 

I just remembered I once saw some software that was specifically designed to do just that, for characters at least, and was able to do it with animations too.

If I can find it again I'll link it here for you.

Cool should be interesting then

 

Would we need to learn how to use it then in order to create models and such for it?

 

 

Nope.

It's a 2D engine, everything is done via spritesheets. If you know how to create an image, you know how to create content for the game.

 

 

@@CaptainCrazy

I'd wager based on this that his general idea, is to build models, but have them rendered out into 2D sprites. (animations included)

To what color?

 

if you can provide an RGB or Hex value for it that would be great.

Ahem....

I did this real quick.

If you want something a little more perfected I do freelance marketing.

 

The downloadable version below is a full-size PNG with transparency the Imgur link I embedded above is low resolution.

Download link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/y8rfnplq08l3lbi/PulsisLogo.png

Fixed it again. AT&T's proxy is bad, and AT&T should feel bad.

 

As someone who more-or-less works for AT&T (They are one of our clients, we handle some of their drafting), I can confirm almost everything they do is bad.  Hell even their internal systems are shit.

They force us by contract to use IE8 when working on their projects, and they also seem to think that the most effective way for our company's multiple offices to connect to their servers, is to have us connect THROUGH our office on the other side of the fucking country and run everything on a single connection.

 

If this sounds confusing and terrible, it's because it is.

 

 

 

It's the worst.

Non-video editor here, but I would imagine the VFX artist would be able to create a screen mask which covers the chain-link fence. Then you can move your 3D model about freely and have it not draw on top of your fence? Kind of like green screen except you're addng in the green areas yourself.

 

Yep, I did this recently for an indie film, needed a blood splatter to be coming from a torso, but it was a side shot and the actors arm passed in the way, so I created a mask that allowed the arm to overlay.