@pspeed said:
Well, when you retell a story and change things around to make it sound better on your end... don't you think it's worthwhile to provide the other side of the story?
You were gone for really good reasons. I’m glad you’re better now. At the time we had no idea when you’d be back. It sounded awful and it was easy to imagine you gone for months and months. So zarch wrote entirely new code based on ideas discussed in that collaborative thread. This is exactly why his is more limited than yours and has an entirely different set of bugs or whatever.
I’ve had to take multiple… and I do mean MULTIPLE extended breaks. I get that… And I will have to take more, no way around it for me.
Truth of the matter is, no one fucking cares… they just want a useful particle system. I could be a baby killer and they’ll still use my code.
All I said in this thread (or alluded to, anyways) is, if the source wasn’t available, dude couldn’t have written the code. And said this was my reason for not making the code public this time. Now, whether I am right or wrong, doesn’t really matter, does it? I still have that choice and should at least explain why.
@t0neg0d said:
I've had to take multiple... and I do mean MULTIPLE extended breaks. I get that... And I will have to take more, no way around it for me.
Truth of the matter is, no one fucking cares… they just want a useful particle system. I could be a baby killer and they’ll still use my code.
All I said in this thread (or alluded to, anyways) is, if the source wasn’t available, dude couldn’t have written the code. And said this was my reason for not making the code public this time. Now, whether I am right or wrong, doesn’t really matter, does it? I still have that choice and should at least explain why.
Read the OP, it’s there.
ROFL. “I don’t have to prove shit, I can just go crazy without any reason, HA!”
@normen said:
Yep, nobody from the core team commented on your stuff until you started to put out your lies about "people stealing code" here again. Now you're all the way down in the mud again, calling me names and whatnot. You wouldn't have to get so agitated if you had actual code to show that proves that anything was "stolen" at all. I bet you still didn't look at the code just to keep telling yourself that.
Your lies!! your lies!! Do you squint your eyes when you type this crap?
I have, and there are changes, no doubt. Point is, was and will be… dude could not have written it otherwise. And had ZERO respect for my request to not publish it, because he just HAD to share it with everyone!
I wonder if I kissed your all’s ass like he does, if you would have backed me instead?
@t0neg0d said:
I'd be more likely to do this on a case-to-case basis. I'm not interested in "keeping it to myself". I'm more interested in keep it away from people who are unscrupulous and feel it is totally appropriate to claim someone else's work as their own.
And just to prove the point, without the source code available, I’m sure you will start to see a HUGE gap in possible functionality between this emitter system… and… the… “other” one.
If the roles were reversed, how would you have responded to this?
For the record, I think zarch has lost the heart to work on his version since every serious mention ended up getting shut down… and now he has more contract work than he can work. It’s as disheartening to be incorrectly accused of stealing as it is to believe your work has been stolen.
@pspeed said:
If the roles were reversed, how would you have responded to this?
For the record, I think zarch has lost the heart to work on his version since every serious mention ended up getting shut down… and now he has more contract work than he can work. It’s as disheartening to be incorrectly accused of stealing as it is to believe your work has been stolen.
He got slapped down by other people… not me. I had at him once in the original thread… it was others who told him to walk with it.
EDIT: Actually, fuck that. That is inaccurate and you know it. Every time this story is told, he is made to look more and more like a saint. It was wrong… no matter how you paint it. He gets a hold of my code and two weeks?? later announces a plugin that does as much as he could figure out.
@t0neg0d said:
Your lies!! your lies!! Do you squint your eyes when you type this crap?
I have, and there are changes, no doubt. Point is, was and will be… dude could not have written it otherwise. And had ZERO respect for my request to not publish it, because he just HAD to share it with everyone!
I wonder if I kissed your all’s ass like he does, if you would have backed me instead?
Can we try to stick to the facts or just let this die?
No infringing code has ever been posted. I think the only “evidence” ever actually pointed to was zarch’s own statement on the wiki. If you’re going to say that he stole “ideas” from a thread we all collaborated in then well, that’s your right, too. Though you should make that part clear, too.
He doesn’t kiss our ass… not by a long shot. We get our ‘balls’ busted regularly when he’s around.
…but in this case we have a unique perspective because we saw day to day how his code went from a blank slate to what he ended up releasing. We were involved in offline conversations about design decisions and so on. We even revisited that stupid argument about business logic in enums a few times. So it was hard to stand by and watch the false accusations.
@t0neg0d said:
Your lies!! your lies!! Do you squint your eyes when you type this crap?
I have, and there are changes, no doubt. Point is, was and will be… dude could not have written it otherwise. And had ZERO respect for my request to not publish it, because he just HAD to share it with everyone!
I wonder if I kissed your all’s ass like he does, if you would have backed me instead?
Again you make up things and just say “I have proof” without showing it, like any good conspiracy theorist. Its as if we were saying "You couldn’t have written this code here without looking at the engine code, so please next time ask us before you release such things, yeah?"As paul said, zarch did quite the opposite of kissing our arses here when he contributed for the first time.
@pspeed said:
Can we try to stick to the facts or just let this die?
No infringing code has ever been posted. I think the only “evidence” ever actually pointed to was zarch’s own statement on the wiki. If you’re going to say that he stole “ideas” from a thread we all collaborated in then well, that’s your right, too. Though you should make that part clear, too.
He doesn’t kiss our ass… not by a long shot. We get our ‘balls’ busted regularly when he’s around.
…but in this case we have a unique perspective because we saw day to day how his code went from a blank slate to what he ended up releasing. We were involved in offline conversations about design decisions and so on. We even revisited that stupid argument about business logic in enums a few times. So it was hard to stand by and watch the false accusations.
And this would be why @nehon apologized to me for pointing him to the sources? I mean… why would need those if he started from a blank slate.
He didn’t even bother to change the f’ing file names for most.
@normen said:
Again you make up things and just say "I have proof" without showing it, like any good conspiracy theorist. Its as if we were saying "You couldn't have written this code here without looking at the engine code, so please next time ask us before you release such things, yeah?"As paul said, zarch did quite the opposite of kissing our arses here when he contributed for the first time.
It may just be a language barrier, but you should let @pspeed speak for you, you are not helping your cause. Seriously.
@t0neg0d said:
And this would be why @nehon apologized to me for pointing him to the sources? I mean... why would need those if he started from a blank slate.
He didn’t even bother to change the f’ing file names for most.
What? Maybe because he is french and rather apologizes even if its not his fault and the other person is a crazy bitch. PROVE it with code or just shut up, you’re grasping at straws now.
@t0neg0d said:
And this would be why @nehon apologized to me for pointing him to the sources? I mean... why would need those if he started from a blank slate.
He didn’t even bother to change the f’ing file names for most.
You mean the file names that were discussed collaboratively in that thread.
@nehon was being nice, I guess… since he didn’t point zarch to the sources. You did. Anyone can go back and look at the posts where you published the link and the subsequent posts where zarch did a nice code review, etc… So it should be no surprise that he saw those source files. You even agreed with his numerous suggestions.
There was no nefarious collusion going on. zarch couldn’t get it to work so he took the ideas from that thread he liked the best and started his own.
@pspeed said:
You mean the file names that were discussed collaboratively in that thread.
@nehon was being nice, I guess… since he didn’t point zarch to the sources. You did. Anyone can go back and look at the posts where you published the link and the subsequent posts where zarch did a nice code review, etc… So it should be no surprise that he saw those source files. You even agreed with his numerous suggestions.
There was no nefarious collusion going on. zarch couldn’t get it to work so he took the ideas from that thread he liked the best and started his own.
@pspeed said:
You mean the file names that were discussed collaboratively in that thread.
@nehon was being nice, I guess… since he didn’t point zarch to the sources. You did. Anyone can go back and look at the posts where you published the link and the subsequent posts where zarch did a nice code review, etc… So it should be no surprise that he saw those source files. You even agreed with his numerous suggestions.
There was no nefarious collusion going on. zarch couldn’t get it to work so he took the ideas from that thread he liked the best and started his own.
If this was his own, why would he bother to inform me that he had based it off the source code he got from nehon and inform me he was going to release it as a plugin?
@t0neg0d said:
I think once you have played with the builder and try out the gravity and radial velocity influencers (as examples), you'll see why the influencers are combined the way they are.
If I was to create a new influencer for all of the possible alignment options for radial velocity, you’de need to buy another harddrive just to store the influencer classes
For instance… radial pull can be aligned to:
Emission Point or Emitter Center
However! There is a secondary option of setting that alignment to use:
Absolute position
Relative X, Y or Z (i.e. Y = the particle continues to move up, away from the emitter, however the pull still revolves around x/z coords of the emission point or emitter center.
These have DRASTICALLY different results in how the particle orbitis… say… the difference between an orbiting planet and the cyclone.
And this doesn’t even cover the idea of altering the up-alignment relative to:
Normal,X, Y, Z, etc
The combination (i.e. potential number of influencers) is now growing exponentially.
Lol :lol:, i still have 1To and more free ^^.
Ok. I don’t really mean one influencer by effect…more by kind of behaviour…it’s a bit hard to see options for now…i will see when i’ll try it.
A bit more info on the choice to output the code for emitters: (and thoughts, ideas for this would be greatly appreciated)
The thought behind this was:
Most people will have a very unique way of pooling & reusing emitters for effects. Likely, they will setup influencers that are clone-aable and have a pool of emitters they re-configure for each effect type.
There is also the problem of what to do with emitter shapes that references your in-game assets… if you modify the asset (by setting a new animation, etc) the emitter reacts to the change in the mesh.
The physics influencer checks against a geometry list that is defined by the user. This list will need to be maintained by the user and will be completely different soley based on where the emitter is and what needs to reflect particles.
The designer spits out everything you need to create a a group of emitters that produce an effect. It is highly doubtful that you would not take the code, break out the influencers and emitter settings and use them with your FX pooling system.
The code output is more to minimize (or hopeful negate) the time it takes to learn to use the particle system.
Hum, i think .j3o still are the best way cause assetManager handle cloning itself even if you load them without custom pool.
For these reference problem, you’re right…i think i will not save them…every influencer that needs a ref to a spatial, a geometry list or anything else needs to be reconfigured when a new instance is created…j3o will just be a common base for each kind of effect.
PS : please stop this debate…once again…everybody have it’s own reasons…we go round in circles there…tonegod doesn’t want to share the code…you can choose to use the lib or not as it is. Can we speak about the lib itself now ?
@t0neg0d said:
If this was his own, why would he bother to inform me that he had based it off the source code he got from nehon and inform me he was going to release it as a plugin?
Why bother? it was his…
Thats how open source works. We looked at jme2 and wrote jme3. Theres absolutely no need to go completely ballistic, rather you should be happy that theres interest in extending your code at all and that the extensions are made public.
@t0neg0d said:
Not according to him... in the thread you posted
As stated previously, he tried to salvage some of your influencers by porting them. He was trying to be nice.
But the other parts are important, too, his system is different enough that he is missing functionality from yours. It’s not like he ripped it out. The architecture is different enough that it was harder to support and so he didn’t add it.
Then there is this, too:
So some of the mesh handling, too… but I never spotted exactly what back then. It looked very similar to the existing standard particle emitter.
