Catoptromancy Posted January 4, 2009 You can now play all TNT pwads with latest daily build. I have made some decent replacements. But there are also many labelled as placeholders. We will need more patch submissions to replace the placeholders. Adding tnt pwad support is not just for compatability. It is mainly for the massive leverage mappers will have to use custom textures in their maps. This is where Freedoom can really stand out. There are many 4-5 frame animated textures of all sizes. Mappers can make their own custom animations specifically fit to their map. Example for mappers: If someone is making a Freedoom map and wants a certain texture for a wall that is not in the wad, they can just browse through and replace a placeholder texture and create their own custom texture or modify a current texture. The textures just need to be the same size dimensions as the one it will replace from tnt. There are many sizes to choose from, and most of what I submit can be considered a placeholder and may be replaced if used for a specific purpose in map or is a better quality. 0 Share this post Link to post
andrewj Posted January 4, 2009 Don't forget the crates! The number of new crate textures in the TNT Eviluation iwad is mind boggling. 0 Share this post Link to post
chungy Posted January 4, 2009 ... in b4 crate-hate Seriously, you did excellent work in support Plutonia. The fact that much of existing Freedoom textures were reused was good too, gives some more consistency to the IWAD. It'll be even better when Evilution support is done. Here's to having full Final Doom compatibility! 0 Share this post Link to post
t.v. Posted January 31, 2009 While working on Plutonia 2 I made replacement textures for several Evilution textures (including crates :-)). (Originally Pl2 was to use ripped textures but later we decided to make it as legal as possible.) The textures I made look/ feel similar to the originals. Some were based of Doom(2) but the following were from scratch: BLOD64A, BLOD64B, CEILVINE, CLWDS3, CRLWDL6, CRLWDL6B, CRLWDL6D, CRLWDS6, CRLWDT3, CRWD6B, CRWDL6D, CRWDS6, CRWDT3, CRWDVS3, DOBWIRE, DOGRMSC, DOPUNK4, DORED, PIVY3, GRNLIT1, REDLITE1 and YELLITE1 You can find them in the pl2.wad. Please feel free to use them for Freedoom. 0 Share this post Link to post
Catoptromancy Posted June 26, 2009 Moving ahead on tnt support. First post heavily rewritten and topic bump. 0 Share this post Link to post
andrewj Posted June 27, 2009 Catoptromancy said:First post heavily rewritten I've read it a few times now, and still can't understand it. Are you asking whether some new stuff should be added, or telling us that is has been added? 0 Share this post Link to post
Catoptromancy Posted June 27, 2009 I rewrote it again, hopefully more specific TNT pwads can now be played without errors or warnings. But we still need many patches, many more than shown here. This crate needs some blood on it. This wall needs a big mural. Some ceiling trim. Also fences. 0 Share this post Link to post
andrewj Posted June 29, 2009 Cheers, understandable now, and it's great that TNT is supported. I've been looking through wikimedia for a suitable BIGMURAL. But I'm not sure if the "public domain" assertions can be trusted. For example the following image might work well, but it was taken out of a book published in 1998: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tombof_Usheret01.jpg 0 Share this post Link to post
boris Posted June 29, 2009 andrewj said:Cheers, understandable now, and it's great that TNT is supported. I've been looking through wikimedia for a suitable BIGMURAL. But I'm not sure if the "public domain" assertions can be trusted. For example the following image might work well, but it was taken out of a book published in 1998: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tombof_Usheret01.jpg It's problematic. It seems to be ok under US copyright(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Public_domain last paragraph) and also for example in Germany (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Nicht_sch.C3.BCtzbare_Fotos_.28Reproduktionen.29_.E2.80.93_2-D-Regel). The english article states that it's different in the UK, and probably other countries, too. I guess the best way to to go to egypt and take the photo on your own :P 0 Share this post Link to post
RestlessRodent Posted June 29, 2009 boris said:It's problematic. It seems to be ok under US copyright(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Public_domain last paragraph) and also for example in Germany (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Nicht_sch.C3.BCtzbare_Fotos_.28Reproduktionen.29_.E2.80.93_2-D-Regel). The english article states that it's different in the UK, and probably other countries, too. I guess the best way to to go to egypt and take the photo on your own :P Then they will find hieroglyphics saying "Egyptian Copyrights last 5000 years." 0 Share this post Link to post
andrewj Posted June 30, 2009 GhostlyDeath said:Then they will find hieroglyphics saying "Egyptian Copyrights last 5000 years." Heh, or a death curse if you ever reproduce the work. I will take another look later, there's gotta be at least one safe-to-use pic in there somewhere.... 0 Share this post Link to post
Jon Posted July 17, 2009 Interesting timing raising that copyright concern. http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=865802 details the differences between US and UK law here: The copying of original works for commercial use requires skill and expertise and has a financial cost to the producer. The 1988 CDPA recognises this. 0 Share this post Link to post
andrewj Posted July 17, 2009 This part of the article made me LOL:It is one of the Gallery's primary purposes to make as much of the Collection available as possible for the public to view. and hence they must remove "their" images from Wikipedia? O_o 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted July 17, 2009 That's not surprising. View on their site, but not use (place) on other sites. Even some WADs do that, like the one with Eternal resources that says one should link to the resource WAD on the archive instead of putting it in the ZIP of one's project that requires it. If they can argue that somehow they put work on the public domain photos (when they are public domain), that extra work can be considered copyright of theirs. It looks pretty flimsy, British law notwithstanding, because they're just copies. And, heh, I recently made a post saying I didn't like common law copyright that much, and this case seems to show how commercially oriented it can get. 0 Share this post Link to post