Where are the new maps?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by IceFire

No idea... I see a lot of WIP on SAS. Some of that stuff must get finished, not be under any other external copyrights, etc.

I find that hard to believe, since there are so many excellent mapmakers on SAS and literally dozens of completed modded maps.

While I don't want to start an argument or waste TD members time, I'd be interested in their analysis of why certain modded maps don't make the grade. If nothing else, it would be instructive to new mapmakers as to what they need to do.

I'm also wondering if TD isn't being a bit sensitive over what constitutes copyright. At least in the U.S., you can claim that it is an original work of art if you modify a someone else's work in a significant fashion. For example, taking a copyrighted Google Earth image, cropping it, editing it to make it consistent with 1940s era terrain and otherwise manipulating the image in a photo editing program ought to be good enough to make it an "original work of art."

[Artist]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I'm also wondering if TD isn't being a bit sensitive [...] to make it an "original work of art."

Sure, you're right of course, this is a sustainable position once you're in court - but this is not an option for TD. Having no lawyers, assets, and money for defending, it will never get there. Overcautiousness is a sheer necessity here.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Artist

Sure, you're right of course, this is a sustainable position once you're in court - but this is not an option for TD. Having no lawyers, assets, and money for defending, it will never get there. Overcautiousness is a sheer necessity here.

Valid point. And, they might also be contractually bound to follow certain procedures per their agreement with 1C.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I find that hard to believe, since there are so many excellent mapmakers on SAS and literally dozens of completed modded maps.

While I don't want to start an argument or waste TD members time, I'd be interested in their analysis of why certain modded maps don't make the grade. If nothing else, it would be instructive to new mapmakers as to what they need to do.

I'm also wondering if TD isn't being a bit sensitive over what constitutes copyright. At least in the U.S., you can claim that it is an original work of art if you modify a someone else's work in a significant fashion. For example, taking a copyrighted Google Earth image, cropping it, editing it to make it consistent with 1940s era terrain and otherwise manipulating the image in a photo editing program ought to be good enough to make it an "original work of art."

Part of it might be that none of those map makers have ever bothered to see if they might get their stuff in an official patch. Or how much work it would be to get one ready... perhaps a couple of quick changes and it's all good to go.

I think the copyright issue point has already been made but to reiterate.. an overabundance of caution is extremely important here.

[Lagarto]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Part of it might be that none of those map makers have ever bothered to see if they might get their stuff in an official patch.

Finally someone has said that out loud. Of course they don't care. Why would they? For all I can see, there's no thrill out there in being included in anything 'official'

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Lagarto

Finally someone has said that out loud. Of course they don't care. Why would they? For all I can see, there's no thrill out there in being included in anything 'official'

Or they haven't considered it is my point as well.

There are a variety of reasons why... I'm hoping someone who maybe connects with these guys more regularly might point them in the direction.

[Lagarto]

Actually, I don't see much point in dragging maps that had been released as mods into DT's patches. What for? I'd rather see DT include new stuff in their patches, like the New Guinea map I had mentioned before.
If you want mod maps, you can install HSFX, for example, and simply enjoy them. Then you can add a dozen or so other maps (or re-textures of older ones) not originally included in a given mod pack of your choice. It's easy. Then you can use unlocked FMB to customize your favorite maps, re-populate them with objects and/or re-texture them. It's fun. Much more than compiling wish lists, pleading,arguing and waiting. Be free. Have fun. It's a game

[CzechTexan]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I find that hard to believe, since there are so many excellent mapmakers on SAS and literally dozens of completed modded maps.

While I don't want to start an argument or waste TD members time, I'd be interested in their analysis of why certain modded maps don't make the grade. If nothing else, it would be instructive to new mapmakers as to what they need to do.

I'm also wondering if TD isn't being a bit sensitive over what constitutes copyright. At least in the U.S., you can claim that it is an original work of art if you modify a someone else's work in a significant fashion. For example, taking a copyrighted Google Earth image, cropping it, editing it to make it consistent with 1940s era terrain and otherwise manipulating the image in a photo editing program ought to be good enough to make it an "original work of art."

I have a WIP map of the Kweilin-Changsha region of China on SAS.
TD has strict requirements for maps and that's why it's harder to do them for TD. Example is all rivers at zero altitude is very difficult to do in mountainous maps where elevation is significant from one side of the map to the other.

Also, not getting textures from Google earth (or other places) puts a damper on map building for TD.... how else can good decent real-life looking textures be made??

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by CzechTexan

Example is all rivers at zero altitude is very difficult to do in mountainous maps where elevation is significant from one side of the map to the other.

That's also just WRONG! Rivers flow downhill for a reason! Of course, TD does say that there can be exceptions for tarns and the like, so it makes sense that a river flowing through the mountains could be above zero altitude.

Is there any particular reason why rivers all have to be at zero altitude?

Originally Posted by CzechTexan

Also, not getting textures from Google earth (or other places) puts a damper on map building for TD.... how else can good decent real-life looking textures be made??

Satellite and aerial pictures released by various governments are inherently copyright free. They're just not as readily available as Google Earth images.

And, as I said in my earlier thread, arguably cropping, tiling, retinting and photoshopping an existing photograph turns it into an original work of art.

[MicroWave]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

That's also just WRONG! Rivers flow downhill for a reason! Of course, TD does say that there can be exceptions for tarns and the like, so it makes sense that a river flowing through the mountains could be above zero altitude.

Is there any particular reason why rivers all have to be at zero altitude?
...

The game engine renders properly only water at zero altitude.
Even on high altitude lakes you can see that the shadows are wrong (for example Slovakia).

Here is something for you all to do during the summer. Make a list of best MOD maps and suggest them here. Imagine that only top 2 on the list will make it into official patch. So argue among yourselves why your favorite ones should be on top. Bear in mind that they should satisfy conditions posted in this thread before. Of course, some deviations are possible (I don't see a reason for winter version of objects on Pacific maps).