If you have any interest in taking over this project, PM me. If there are any other projects I have posted about that you would like the source code to… let me know. I’ll make them available to whoever and then I’m stepping out.
Because @zarch released and documented code he did for himself anyway? Idk what @nehon told you but as far as I know we still have an insufficient particle system and no other system was yet scrutinized for core inclusion. Also we have ample time until 3.1
So, I want this to sound as unoffensive as possible, I just don’t get it: Whats the actual problem?
Wait, what? This does not make me a happy camper.
Mind telling us what’s behind this? I sense some major miscommunications.
@normen Please go back and read the thread posted about the original influencer based particle system. I was asked by @nehon to post the code so it could be reviewed and integrated into core. This was not a misconception… it’s in black & white. Whether or not it was accepted was yet to be seen… but the offer was made. Everyone has been busy with 3.0 release… I didn’t think anyone wanted to be bothered at such a critical time. You say @zarch wrote this code himself… I’d be surprised if he even changed the file names (well… before this post anyways), nevermind rewrote any of it. Don’t credit him for my work. Rub your salt in someone else’s wounds.
@madjack You were my first thought about taking this over. It doesn’t need much attention to keep it going.
@erlend_sh There was no miscommunication… I’ve obviously associated myself with less than desirables if what @zarch is doing is not only acceptable, but justified by the core developers. I think I would rather put my time & effort towards something else, at this point. It’s unfortunate… but hey! I’m sure @zarch can find other people’s work to contribute even further.
Anyways… I’ll be available for the next week to pass along anything that people would like access to. After that… I’m out.
@t0neg0d said: @normen Please go back and read the thread posted about the original influencer based particle system. I was asked by @nehon to post the code so it could be reviewed and integrated into core. This was not a misconception.... it's in black & white. Whether or not it was accepted was yet to be seen... but the offer was made. Everyone has been busy with 3.0 release... I didn't think anyone wanted to be bothered at such a critical time. You say @zarch wrote this code himself... I'd be surprised if he even changed the file names (well... before this post anyways), nevermind rewrote any of it. Don't credit him for my work. Rub your salt in someone else's wounds.
Well, did you read his code?
Congratulations. So far I actually felt a bit bad since you are in a bad situation. You just managed to get rid of all of that though, now I’m just annoyed. Being upset is one thing, direct character attacks are entirely another.
I’m don’t even need to reply to that accusation since you just demonstrated that you haven’t even looked at my code at all…so clearly you have your head so far up your arse you have no idea what you are talking about.
…after all it isn’t like anyone here has ever released a library doing the same thing as another library someone else was working on… is it? 
Wrong place for this guys… This thread is not related to your library @zarch I’m looking for someone to take over the other contributions I have added.
@t0neg0d said: Wrong place for this guys... This thread is not related to your library @zarch I'm looking for someone to take over the other contributions I have added.I was asking why, you gave me an answer that led me to a question that is still unanswered.
If you don’t want me here, don’t attack me here. It’s not complicated.
<cite>@normen said:</cite> I was asking why, you gave me an answer that led me to a question that is still unanswered.
I looked through the code. I see a reorganization/cleanup of my work… minus a few very valuable features (which were apparently either not understood… or just disregarded because of ignorance). This is BS, no matter how you spin it. I would think that people would be slightly interested in keeping my contributions coming… whether or not you like me.
This could have been handled SOOOOOO many different ways that would have produced better results all the way around and benefited everyone. But someone got all wet in the panties about it and did the wrong thing… and is arrogant enough to feel justified about it. Amazing that you would be willing to help try and justify something so underhanded.
I truly hope this works out for everyone… I really do. But I don’t plan on being around to see it first hand. And I am sure you (and others) will be happier for it.
I liken this to amputating an arm for a hangnail… Yep… you have a new particle system (not as feature rich… but hey… whatever). What you won’t have are any other future contributions I may have made.
@t0neg0d
I’m a lot of things but tool-maker isn’t one of those. Tool user, tool bug-pointing, contributor? Yeah, but I’ve proven times and times again that I can’t maintain (or finish) them. It would be a great disservice to jME3’s community to accept this.
This only thing I can see is making the changes I might do to it (if I don’t revert to Nifty) publicly available once it’s done and finished. Anyway, that wouldn’t be very thrilling to me. I guess I can think about it…
@t0neg0d said: I looked through the code. I see a reorganization/cleanup of my work... minus a few very valuable features (which were apparently either not understood.... or just disregarded because of ignorance). This is BS, no matter how you spin it. I would think that people would be slightly interested in keeping my contributions coming... whether or not you like me.This could have been handled SOOOOOO many different ways that would have produced better results all the way around and benefited everyone. But someone got all wet in the panties about it and did the wrong thing… and is arrogant enough to feel justified about it. Amazing that you would be willing to help try and justify something so underhanded.
I truly hope this works out for everyone… I really do. But I don’t plan on being around to see it first hand. And I am sure you (and others) will be happier for it.
I liken this to amputating an arm for a hangnail… Yep… you have a new particle system (not as feature rich… but hey… whatever). What you won’t have are any other future contributions I may have made.
You do realize you complain mainly about yourself here as you’re about the only person close enough to doing some particle system one of those “sooooo many different ways”? Also I am seeing that you are in fight stance as you divide people into “on my side” or “on his side” and put me into one category. I genuinely try to find out whats the issue here and it mainly seems to be ego issues.
And if its about whats the best way to proceed to get a particle system for jME I’m afraid you didn’t increase my confidence in you doing this at all with your latest posts. Giving up a GUI library with existing users because of a fight with one person on the interwebz is exactly the kind of thing that makes us protect the engine from premature core additions.
<cite>@normen said:</cite> You do realize you complain mainly about yourself here as you're about the only person close enough to doing some particle system one of those "sooooo many different ways"? Also I am seeing that you are in fight stance as you divide people into "on my side" or "on his side" and put me into one category. I genuinely try to find out whats the issue here and it mainly seems to be ego issues.And if its about whats the best way to proceed to get a particle system for jME I’m afraid you didn’t increase my confidence in you doing this at all with your latest posts. Giving up a GUI library with existing users because of a fight with one person on the interwebz is exactly the kind of thing that makes us protect the engine from premature core additions.
This has everything to do with deciding what type of community I would want to be associated with. If this is the type of community that promotes plagiarism, even justifies it, then damn straight I am going to walk away. No matter what type of spin you put on this @normen , there is no justification for it.
- I share my progress on an influencer-based particle system.
- I am asked by a core dev to make the code available for review as it would be a welcome addition to core.
- A third party downloads the code, tweaks it, and decides to publish as their own plugin.
Which part of this sounds like an ego issue?
dont fight ppl 
still im not worried about this, already got his lib src, and fixed some bugs altered some stuff and keeping it for myself 
1 Like
My take on this is simple.
As long as it’s not fully released, what I’m proposing/sharing remains MY thing. As long as it’s not fully “feast on this” publicly released it will remain MY work and anyone modifying it for their own purposes (or actually trying to do the same thing I was going to do) prior to be in the hands of the community is an ass.
If you count this as ego, then so be it, it’s ego. I rather view it as “it’s not ready for prime-time yet, don’t effing use it!”.
1 Like
@madjack said: My take on this is simple.As long as it’s not fully released, what I’m proposing/sharing remains MY thing. As long as it’s not fully “feast on this” publicly released it will remain MY work and anyone modifying it for their own purposes (or actually trying to do the same thing I was going to do) prior to be in the hands of the community is an ass.
If you count this as ego, then so be it, it’s ego. I rather view it as “it’s not ready for prime-time yet, don’t effing use it!”.
Regardless of one’s personal feelings on the matter, if you post code publicly with an open source license then it is open source. So if you want to post something and still own it then leave the open source licenses out of it.
And regardless, it’s irrelevant because this level of copying wasn’t done anyway.
@pspeed The code was made available at @nehon 's request. Which part of this are people missing? No one would have had it otherwise.
EDIT: And obviously you have been through both sources, which means you were very aware this was happening and made no attempt to suggest another approach. So, I take it, you find this sort of behavior acceptable… thus my decision to remove myself.
@t0neg0d said: This has everything to do with deciding what type of community I would want to be associated with. If this is the type of community that promotes plagiarism, even justifies it, then damn straight I am going to walk away. No matter what type of spin you put on this @normen , there is no justification for it.
- I share my progress on an influencer-based particle system.
- I am asked by a core dev to make the code available for review as it would be a welcome addition to core.
- A third party downloads the code, tweaks it, and decides to publish as their own plugin.
Which part of this sounds like an ego issue?
Number 4 and 5, which you omitted:
4) You leave the community
5) You fail to see me as anything but defending him
The latter one also suggests to me you have no other argument, if you had digged deep enough into his code you’d probably have actual things to complain about rather than general comments about the code being bad and plagiarism. For the latter, it would only be if @zarch had failed to include the creator credit as required by the BSD license.
What I also completely fail to understand without using ego problems as an explanation is why you wouldn’t want to release your particle system anymore if its so much better. Be it for ass kicking purposes or just as a contribution to scrutinize for inclusion as nehon suggested.