Working with artists who don't own Leadwerks

[Azazel226]

Hi,

 

I was wondering how you would go about approaching asset creation/assessment for the Leadwerks engine utilizing artists who are not licensees.

 

There are tools available to help assist an artist in visualizing what their work would look like in the engine in the /tools/ directory, but the license agreement explicitly forbids handing these tools over to anyone.

 

This SOFTWARE PRODUCT is for personal use only and may be installed and used by on only one computer. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer. SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be accessed through a network only after obtaining a site license. All components accompanying the software are copyrighted by LEADWERKS CORPORATION and may not be taken apart, modified, used or published with other software or means except with the SOFTWARE PRODUCT software and may not be distributed or copied in any manner.

 

At any rate, I'm merely curious as to how people solve this problem. I wouldn't want to have to babysit an artist I commission through the entire creation/verification process to ensure that their work is solid and usable in the engine, but it also seems a bit of a waste to write my own asset viewers when this functionality already exists for the most part. Am I missing something?

 

Thanks for any clarity you can provide,

Dell

[Canardia]

Make a git repository where the artists can put their assets in and you can share your game. Then the artists can run the game to see their assets in-game. You can make a testmap which has all the assets used in your game.

[Rick]

Kind of like Lum said, make an exe that reads a file. Inside this file the artist can put the name of his model followed by a location. Then your program would read this file, load each model, and position them where the artist defined. Make the program use WASD and the mouse to freely move around. Now your artist can make sure his art loads and looks good using LE.

[Azazel226]

Thanks for the replies. It seems you both are suggesting the option B approach; which is to write my own asset viewer/verifier(s) to send out to hired artistic help so as to adhere to the agreement.

 

Not the end of the world by any means, but it seems pretty lame to have to rewrite existing, fairly basic tools that would serve the purpose just fine if 3rd parties could utilize them for the purposes of checking and verifying media in Leadwerks.

 

Thanks for the help,

Dell

[Canardia]

I don't think it's allowed to do what Rick said, to write an asset viewer for non-registered people. You can only distribute games, so the artists can't even use Editor and place models in the testmap, but you have to make the testmap for them. This only works when people are working with a git repository.

 

The essential difference between your game and a general purpose asset viewer is that the game serves only the purpose to make people play the game, and it can't be used for any other purpose (that's what the EULA says also). A testmap can be seen as a map to test the game, since it has also game specific assets only.

 

If you make a general purpose asset viewer, you can easily violate the EULA sentence which says it's not allowed to make universal programs which allows people who don't own LE to make games. And with an univeral viewer which can run Lua scripts, that danger is close. That's why making games is a safer choice, since you will need to hardcode game specific things anyway, and you can even add deliberately some anti-piracy/anti-misuse code which locks your game to be your specific game only, and not somekind of moddable game engine.

 

Besides, a game has lots of specific environmental effects also, so a pure asset viewer would not show the models as they appear in the game, and it would not show how the FPS in the game behaves with higher/lower poly models.

[Rick]

Fine. Make the map, and just realize that the sbx file is a simple text file that your friend can edit to do exactly what I said. Honestly, there is no technical difference. If one was making a game they would have sbx files and as far as I remember we don't have to do anything to encrypt the sbx file so nothing stops people from making their own maps from notepad if they wanted to.

 

It would seem more logical that just showing a model would be OK, but giving the source to make logical things (ie able to code) would be what's bad. If anything my suggestion is more safe than Lum's because if you make a game using LE as it is today, anyone can code via Lua because there I don't think there is anything saying you have to protect the Lua files, which means anyone could then program your game. At least with my suggestion you can take the scripting part out of it so people can't do any logic. They can just view the models.

[Azazel226]

Thank you both for your input. I honestly didn't expect this to be much of an issue, but apparently it can be. I've been trolling around the boards for a while now, and I understand that the primary Leadwerks developer is working on the next major release, and is also drumming up ideas/interests on how to improve the product and worthwhile features. Has this topic come up? It seems pretty backwards to be honest to have to worry about breaking the agreement just because you want to be able to outsource artwork that can be independently verified without buying copies of the engine for all would-be contractors.

 

I appreciate the input and guidance given,

Dell

[Canardia]

@Rick: But Lua scripts are an essential part of models, which the artists need to make too. Many artists still can't code though, since they have been spoiled by the GUIs and graphical tools of expensive/pirated modelling programs. But that opens a new job opportunity for programming artists too. Instead of doing hardcoded animations, artists should make their models from submodels and rotate/animate them with Lua. So you can't take out the scripts folder for a decent model viewer. But you can lock down the game code not to allow to do anything which is not part of the game in C++. So my approach is safer

[Canardia]

@Azazel226: There's an easy solution: buy a LE license for all members of the game project. It's the only right choice to do anyway, and Josh gives often decent discounts when you explain the situation to him. If your game makes any profit, you will get easily your money back, plus maybe even more since you can finish your project faster and easier. Each day of game sales means money, so the faster your game is on the steamshelves, the more money you will get.

[Rick]

So my approach is safer

 

If you say so.

[Josh]

If you want to make your own model viewer for your artists to use, that is fine. The SDK tools are part of the SDK, and are only for use by licensed developer. The Leadwerks Engine SDK is a product for both programmers and artists, so owning a license doesn't allow you to give away the SDK to artists.

 

If they're just making models or textures, they may not even need to do anything special for the engine, if they can send you a .psd or .max file.

[Canardia]

I've only ever had success with .fbx (and .png for textures) format across different engines and different artists I worked with. Any 3DSMax and Maya artist can export to .fbx.

[Azazel226]

First, thanks to everyone that's offered advice on this.

 

@Azazel226: There's an easy solution: buy a LE license for all members of the game project. It's the only right choice to do anyway, and Josh gives often decent discounts when you explain the situation to him. If your game makes any profit, you will get easily your money back, plus maybe even more since you can finish your project faster and easier. Each day of game sales means money, so the faster your game is on the steamshelves, the more money you will get.

 

 

In the case where it's me working as the programmer and a steady, solid member of my project working as the artist, of course buying an additional license would be the right thing to do. Most bedroom programmers though don't have access to a dedicated artist however, and thus commission/buy work as they can and from whom they can. I think we can both agree that buying a license for every artist you could potentially contract or commission to generate art for your project is unrealistic in this situation.

 

If you want to make your own model viewer for your artists to use, that is fine. The SDK tools are part of the SDK, and are only for use by licensed developer. The Leadwerks Engine SDK is a product for both programmers and artists, so owning a license doesn't allow you to give away the SDK to artists.

 

If they're just making models or textures, they may not even need to do anything special for the engine, if they can send you a .psd or .max file.

 

Thank you for clarifying this issue for me. I suppose when I boil it down, what I was expecting is a freely available, simple method for any artist out there with an asset to be able to visually verify that their artwork is indeed Leadwerks compatible and engine/game ready.

 

In most engines I've dealt with, the content import process is always hampered by some "gotchas" and format/engine oddity that need to be taken into account, least problems arise. In those instances, it's nice to have a simple viewing program to verify the model/material/etc is indeed working properly, animates properly and looks as intended.

 

Accepting the files and doing this step myself of course is always an option. I believe that's what most people do now. I suppose I don't see why more people haven't raised this issue to simplify the process and allow a more streamlined system to positively impact the pipeline. Perhaps I've personally had too many conversion/format/incompatibility headaches to think about this objectively.

 

In any event, I apologize if I appear argumentative. That's not my intention. Thank you for your time.

Dell

 

P.S: An example of what I'm trying to convey is here: Verify that this model pack functions and looks correct in Unity

[Canardia]

Your link doesn't work, it wants to install some virus/java application which my computer told me not to install under any circumstances.

Do you have a working screenshot as .png, youtube video, or some easy to run .rar/.exe file instead of those horrible web plugins which are full of adware and viruses?

[gordonramp]

Azazel226,

Just had a look at that Example and was impressed. Who couldn't be. What an inventive way to Demo Game content. Leaves Turbosquid behind.

[Laurens]

You seriously do not trust the Unity web player?

 

Or perhaps I did not grasp the sarcasm

[Rick]

That's just Lum being Lum.

[Canardia]

Every **** which is installed into a browser is full of viruses and adware, you should only trust real exe files (since then your anti-virus program can also check them). Besides, why would you run a game in a browser? What has a game to do with a browser? It's about the same as if you would want to run a game in Microsoft Word, or Excel, or any other app. A browser is just an app. I rather run the game from DOS without screwing up any other apps.

[Josh]

The link you posted above goes to a third-party website where someone made a simple visualization program. You are free to do the same with Leadwerks. The Leadwerks Engine SDK tools are not freeware.

[Azazel226]

I feel like everyone is missing the point, but the question has been answered. Thank you for your time.

[Josh]

This brings up a good question. For LE3 what I might do is have a simple model viewer that is free, and then the more advanced tools are part of the full SDK.

[ZioRed]

Every **** which is installed into a browser is full of viruses and adware, you should only trust real exe files (since then your anti-virus program can also check them). Besides, why would you run a game in a browser? What has a game to do with a browser? It's about the same as if you would want to run a game in Microsoft Word, or Excel, or any other app. A browser is just an app. I rather run the game from DOS without screwing up any other apps.

ehm.. I disagree with this, a browser is more than an app, it's a container of apps, facebook and many other (Google Chrome OS?) are only few example of what a browser is capable to do.. it's not so impossible that in the future some good 3D games will be deployed on a browser, take a look at O3D

 

 

For LE3 what I might do is have a simple model viewer that is free, and then the more advanced tools are part of the full SDK.

This is good

[Michael Betke]

I worked for people with other engines some times and just submitted the models withthe requested setup.

 

Your artist could use a realtime shader tool for previewing the assets right in the modelling app. For example in 3ds max:

 

http://www.3pointstudios.com/3pointshader_about.shtml

 

http://www.game-artist.net/forums/support-tech-discussion/9181-xoliul-s-3ds-max-viewport-shader.html

 

This would give him a good direction how his textures are working.

 

A small executable would also be a good way to help him. But I would definitly stick with the above mentioned preview plus maybe a revision if the assets look very different so he knows where to take care of.

[Josh]

They could also install the demo and use it for 30 days.

[L B]

They could also install the demo and use it for 30 days.

Projects that require multiple artists and organization normally don't last 30 days.