Pruning image and sound assets distributed with the game engine
-
@Cernel said in General Map Making Questions!:
Australians and the Canadians
All maps with those players had units for it, with exception of just one, sleeping giant.
-
Funny enough, 'Dutch' would not be a bad one to include with the game engine, 35 maps use those units. The units included with game engine are used by over 100 maps each, with exception of italians (83). Essentially all other player units are used by under 15.
@Cernel here is a full listing of all players defined across all maps available for download with count of how many maps use that player:
1 Aalenian 1 Abyssal_Horde 9 AI 1 AI_Allies 1 AI_Americans 2 AI_Armenia 1 AI_Balkans 3 AI_Barbarians 1 AI_Blue 2 AI_Bosporus 1 AI_British 1 AI_Brown 1 AI_Carthage 1 AI-China 1 AI_Chinese 1 AI__computer 2 AI_Confederate_Commanders 1 AI_Eastern_Europe 2 AI_Egypt 1 AI_French 1 AI_Friendly 1 AI_GALAXY 1 AI_Germans 2 AI_GreekCityStates 1 AI_Green 2 AI_Macedonia 4 AI_Neutral 1 AI_Orange 2 AI_Parthia 2 AI_Pergamon 1 AI_Pink 2 AI_Pontus 1 AI_Purple 1 AI_Red 1 AirNavySupport 1 AI_RomanRepublic 1 AI_Russians 1 AI_Scandinavia 2 AI_Seleucid 1 AI-SinoPact 1 AI_Turkey 2 AI_Union_Commanders 1 AI_Yellow 1 AlAnfa 3 Albania 1 Alliance 2 Allies 134 Americans 2 Angmar 7 Anzac 21 ANZAC 1 Aquella 2 Arabia 1 ArabLeague 2 Arcadia 1 Archenland 1 Armenia 2 Army-Group-Center 2 Army-Group-North 2 Army-Group-South 2 Arnor 2 Arryn 1 Asai 1 Asakura 1 Asbirningar 1 Assyria 3 Australia 12 Australians 5 Austria 5 Austria-Hungary 3 AustrianEmpire 5 Austrians 1 Austro_Hungarians 1 Bajocian 1 Balkan 5 Balkan_States 2 Balkan-States 5 Baltic 2 Baratheon 2 Barbarians 1 Bathonian 1 Beiyang 1 Belgium 1 BlackArmy 6 Black-Sun 1 BlockhousesFire 6 Blue 1 BlueArmy 1 Blue_Army 1 Bolshevik 1 Bolsheviks 1 Borbarad 1 Borg 2 Bosporus 4 Brazil 1 Brazilians 5 Brigantes 9 Britain 135 British 1 British_Armament 1 British-Colonies 1 British-India 1 British_Movement 5 Brittonic 1 Brown 1 BrownZombies 5 Brythons 5 Bulgaria 5 Caledonians 1 Callovian 7 Canada 12 Canadians 1 Caravans 1 Cardassians 8 Carthage 5 Celtic 1 CentralAmericans 3 CentralCommand 4 Changer 1 ChihliClique 6 China 76 Chinese 1 Chmmr 1 Chosokabe 1 CitizensMilitia 2 ColonialFrench 2 Commonwealth 1 Communist 2 Communists 1 Confederacy 2 Confederate 1 Confederation 1 Constitutionalist 1 Conventionist 6 Corellian-Security-Force 6 Corporate-Sector-Authority 1 Croatia 1 Crowton 1 Dala-Sturlungar 2 Dale 2 Danish 2 DanubeAxis 2 Date 1 Denmark 1 Denmark-Norway 2 Diseases 2 DolGuldur 1 Dominion 2 Dothraki 1 Druuge 35 Dutch 5 Dwarves 1 Eastern 2 Eastern-Americans 1 EFF 12 Egypt 1 Egyptians 1 Egyptus 4 Elves 3 Empire 4 England 1 English 1 Erie 1 Escorts 2 EuroForce 1 Europe 2 ExiledAllies 1 Fallen_Empire 1 Federation 1 FengtianClique 6 Finland 17 Finns 1 Flame_Nation 1 Flemma 1 Forest_Folk 19 France 2 FreeCities 4 Freefolk 1 FreeFolk 1 FreeFrench 3 Free_French 1 FreeRussian 50 French 1 FrenchColonial 1 French-Colonies 2 Furyondy 1 Galatia 1 Gallia 1 GameSetup 1 Gaul 4 GDI 5 Germanic 128 Germans 1 Germans_Armament 1 GermansBlockhouseAA 1 Germans_Movement 16 Germany 6 G.Hisaichi 1 Gilcrest 6 G.Masaharu 1 Gnolls 1 Goblins 1 GoblinsAndOgres 3 Gondor 1 Graece 2 Grands 1 GrayZombies 2 Great_Kingdom 1 Greco_Serbian_Alliance 3 Greece 5 GreekCityStates 1 Greeks 4 Green 1 GreenArmy 1 Green_Army 1 Greenskins 1 GreenZombies 2 Greyjoy 1 Guominjun 1 Habsburg_Monarchy 1 Hannover 2 Harad 1 Haradrim 1 Hatakeyama 5 Hattic 1 Haukdaelir 5 Hellenic 1 Hettangian 2 HighElves 5 Hisaichi 1 Hispania 2 Hojo 2 Hoshida 2 Humans 4 Hungary 1 Huron 6 Hutt-Cartel 1 Illyrian 1 Ilwrath 1 Imperial 6 Imperial-Remnant 1 Independent 6 India 8 Indians 1 Iran 1 Iranians 5 Iraq 8 Iraqis 1 Iron_League 1 Israel 1 Italia 83 Italians 1 Italian_States 14 Italy 2 Iuz 1 Jandice 6 Japan 108 Japanese 6 Jedi-Order 4 Jordan 1 Kallela 2 Keoland 1 Ket 1 Khand 1 Kimmeridgian 2 KingdomOfPrussia 1 Klingons 1 KMT 1 KNIL 1 Kobolds 1 Kor-Ah 2 Korea 1 Kuomintang 1 Lancia 2 Lannister 1 LeagueofFiveProvinces 1 Lebanon 1 Lionia 3 Locals 1 Loch_Island 1 Lorenzia 2 Lorien 2 Low-Countries 6 Macedonia 1 Maflemia 1 Mali 1 Malliton 1 Manchukwo 2 Manchuria 6 Mandalorians 1 Manstein_Army_Group 2 Martell 1 Martians 2 Masaharu 2 Mazdak 1 MegaCorp 2 Meijou 1 Mexicans 1 Mexico 1 Michigan 1 MidEast 5 Minor_Axis_Powers 1 MinorClans 1 Minotaurs 1 Miyoshi 14 Mongolians 3 Mordor 1 Mori 1 Mula-Svinfellingar 1 Murlocs 1 Mycon 1 NAF 1 Narsia 1 Nationalist 1 NationalistSpain 1 NATO 1 NATO-America 1 NATO-Europe 1 NATO-USAN 1 Nature 1 NavalBombardment 1 Nemo_Pirates 6 Neutral 20 Neutral_Allies 18 Neutral_Axis 1 Neutral-China 1 Neutral_CP 1 Neutral_Greece 1 Neutral_MidEast 1 NeutralNations 1 Neutral_Nations 2 NeutralOcean 1 Neutral_Polish 1 Neutral_Russia 2 Neutrals 1 Neutral_Skandinavia 1 Neutral_Spain 18 Neutral_True 1 Neutral_Turkey 1 Neutral-USA 1 Neutral-USSR 1 Neutral_Yugoslavia 6 New-Republic 1 NightsWatch 1 N.Japan 2 N.Korea 4 Nod 2 NonAligned 1 noone 1 NorAm 1 Nordur-Sturlungar 1 North 1 Northern 3 NorthernCommand 2 Northmen 5 Numidia 1 Nylita 2 Nyrond 2 Oda 1 Oddaverjar 1 Ogres 1 Ontario 2 Orange 3 Orcs 1 Orz 1 Others 1 Otomo 3 Ottoman 4 OttomanEmpire 1 Ottoman_Empire 1 Ottoman_Empire-Ukraina_Cossacks 6 Ottomans 1 Oxfordian 1 ParaSurprise 5 Parthia 1 Pergamon 1 Persia 1 Persians 2 Philipines 3 Picts 1 Pink_Army 1 Pirate_Federation 5 Pirates 1 Pkunk 2 PLA.China 1 Pliensbachian 1 Poland-Lithuania 2 Polish 1 Polis_League 1 Pomarj 1 Pontus 1 Portsmouth 1 Portugal 2 Portugese 2 Pro-Allies-Neutral 2 Pro-Axis-Neutral 2 Pro-Confederate 2 Pro-Union 1 Prussia 2 Puppet_States 1 Raiders 6 Red 1 RedArmy 1 Red_Army 1 Republic 3 Rhun 2 RoChina 3 Rohan 1 Roma 4 Roman 5 Romania 16 Romanians 5 Romanic 6 RomanRepublic 1 Romulans 22 Russia 1 Russian_Flanks 133 Russians 1 Russian_Stalingrad_Defenders 3 Ryuzoji 1 Sacred_Order 3 Saruman 1 Satellites 1 Satomi 1 SaudiEgyptians 1 Saurian_Alliance 2 Saxony 2 Scarlet_Brotherhood 1 SCO-China 1 SCO-CIS 1 SCO-PSC 3 Scrin 1 SEATO 3 Seleucid 3 Serbia 1 Sharn 1 Shevik 2 Shimazu 1 Sinemurian 1 sixth_Army 1 Skaftafells-Svinfellingar 2 S.Korea 5 Slavic 1 Slovakia 1 Slylandro 1 SmallRaces 1 South 2 SouthAfrica 2 South_Africa 1 South-Africa 1 SouthAmericans 1 Southern 3 SouthernCommand 1 Soviet_Union 4 Sowjets_Puppet_States 1 Space 4 Spain 3 Spanish 1 Spathi 2 Stark 1 Suel 1 Superior 1 Surda 1 Svedic 6 Sweden 1 Swedish 1 Syracuse 5 Syria 2 Takeda 2 Targaryen 1 Terrabania 7 Thai 4 Thailand 7 Thais 1 Thorwal 1 Thraddash 1 Tithonian 1 Toarcian 1 Tokugawa 1 Toyotomi 2 True-Neutral 2 Tully 9 Turkey 1 Turks 1 Turquoise_Army 3 Tusken-Raiders 2 Tyrell 1 Uesugi 1 UK 15 UK_Pacific 1 Umgah 1 Undead 3 Union 5 UnitedKingdom 1 United_Kingdom 1 United_States 1 Urakami 1 Ur-Quan 2 Usa 6 USA 1 USAirforce 1 USArmy 4 USSR 1 Utwig 1 Uyghur_Khaganate 1 Varden 1 Vatnsfirdingar 1 Veep-Neep 1 Vestur-Sturlungar 2 VichyFrance 1 VichyFrench 3 Vichy_French 2 Viet.Minh 2 Vietnam 1 Violet 1 Visigoth 1 Vulcans 1 Vux 1 Warlock_Council 1 WarsawPact 5 Welsh 1 Western 2 Western-Americans 1 WFF 1 WhiteArmy 1 White_Khanate 1 Winged_Dominion 1 Winter_Kingdom 2 WoodlandRealm 1 Xenuria 5 Yamamoto 1 Yamana 1 Yaroslav 1 Yellow 1 Yellow_Army 1 YunnanClique 1 Zeep-Zeep 1 ZoqFotPik -
@LaFayette Definitely the Dutch deserve to stay in assets. Not sure if more or less than the Finns. Of course, they don't matter for the usual spring 1942 or later scenarios.
To be sure, when you say maps are you actually meaning maps or games? For example, if a map has inside 3 xml, all of them having Dutch, does that count for 1 or for 3?
I really don't see what is the problem providing even scarcely important nations like Canada in the default assets (tho Canada itself was economically about as strong as Italy, due to much higher productivity per person). That is really almost no additional download time or whatever other costs, and the benefit is that whatever new mapmaker will easily have the units for it available, without having to go search for the secondary assets repository in GitHub. The fact that many other maps have the units don't count, as the noob mapmaker will not know if he's allowed to liberally grab whatever he wants from repositories of unclear copyright state.
The puppet states I hate that as a country, so I would be glad the name disappears totally, instead. I cannot stand those maps that have a single country for all of them.
-
Definitely the Dutch deserve to stay in assets.
'Dutch' would not be a bad one to include with the game engine,
To be clear, 'dutch' were never part of the assets in the game engine.
Assets in the game engine are there to avoid massive duplication and redundant downloads. Canadians were duplicated in every map that used them except for one. The other unit images were duplicated in every map that used them.
-
@LaFayette Yes I knew that Dutch were not in assets. I meant they are a miss.
What is duplicated and what is not is really not a good basis for any decisions. It is virtually random really; you can have some maps that duplicate them or don't without a clear reason to it, either ways, also for the basic maps. You can easily find many cases in which you could remove those assets from those maps, or not, and I don't think there is much reasoning behind it, in terms of wanting to fix the units images rather than having what TripleA offers overtime.
Also I don't see why having so much more concerns about what is currently duplicated. That's just what happened in the past; it doesn't mean anything more, and it is not necessarily more important than what it is going to be for the future. For example, if an important country would be currently absent in assets, of course no games would use it, cause they can't, but this doesn't mean it shouldn't be there.
That also for the units. For example, I strongly believe that a "cavalry" unit should be added to all subfolders in assets, due to its historical relevance for WW2, even tho, obviously, it would have no use in the moment you add it (as, of course, no maps use something that doesn't exist yet).
Also, just to be sure, are you considering also the cases in which maps duplicate some units subfolders, but still rely on assets for some of the units of those players?
-
What is duplicated and what is not is really not a good basis for any decisions
Can you elaborate and describe what you think would be a good basis? Are you thinking the assets folder downloaded with the game engine should be more of an image repository for map makers? I'm completely unaware of that being the recommended way to find images, usually map makers look at existing maps to find starter examples of what they are looking to build.
You can easily find many cases in which you could remove those assets from those maps, or not, and I don't think there is much reasoning behind it
I suspect there were at times reasoning behind the choice whether to include assets with a map or not. It could be freedom to change them, additions and modifications to the core set, and/or perhaps just ignorance that it was unnecessary.
Also I don't see why having so much more concerns about what is currently duplicated. That's just what happened in the past; it doesn't mean anything more, and it is not necessarily more important than what it is going to be for the future.
The duplication indicates non-usage.
Basically it comes down to that there is a real cost to including images, particularly unused images with the game engine. Whether you choose to look at or respect that cost is up to you. Again, the full set of maps is over 7GB on disk. It seems you are suggesting the game engine should be a repository for map maker images, " I strongly believe that a "cavalry" unit should be added to all subfolders in assets,". The answer is a hard no, the game assets never were a repository for game images, it's more of a cache to avoid redundant downloads and map's being larger than they need. Do recall that maps were typically downloaded over 100Kb/s connections and most took a few minutes. Optimizing the balance between game engine and map download was a decision struck some years ago.
-
@LaFayette said in General Map Making Questions!:
What is duplicated and what is not is really not a good basis for any decisions
Can you elaborate and describe what you think would be a good basis?
Other than looking around what it is used and what is not, mostly just to take care not breaking maps by removing something, the TripleA assets should provide a high coverage of any possible needs for historical WW2 games (items currently missing may be cavalry, transport plane, train, railways, lorry/track units, etc., if anyone would want to work on such images and the developers would like such additions), in line with offering at least a main way to use what the program offers currently (for example, it would make sense adding a train and railway units for all asset players, since when the option "requiresUnitsToMove" was added; as currently a mapmaker cannot really use that option realistically in a ww2 setting, without having to do graphic work for it). Little point being stingy, as I doubt that any numbers of such additions would increase download time of more than 1 second.
Are you thinking the assets folder downloaded with the game engine should be more of an image repository for map makers? I'm completely unaware of that being the recommended way to find images, usually map makers look at existing maps to find starter examples of what they are looking to build.
Not sure what you mean with "starter examples" here. In case, maybe make a clear statement somewhere that all TripleA maps are to be fully considered public domain and anyone can take anything from them with no limits whatsoever, comprising no need of giving any credits. If you are not doing that, I don't think that maps' assets grabbing would be a good substitute of getting stuff from the surely free program's assets, if that is what we are saying here.
You can easily find many cases in which you could remove those assets from those maps, or not, and I don't think there is much reasoning behind it
I suspect there were at times reasoning behind the choice whether to include assets with a map or not. It could be freedom to change them, additions and modifications to the core set, and/or perhaps just ignorance that it was unnecessary.
You can simply find an example of this in the basic maps, from "world_war_ii_classic" onwards:
v1: Has no units folder.
v2: Has no units folder.
v3: Has the units folder, fully covering (I suppose).
v4, v5, v6: Have the units folder, fully covering (I suppose) (and with also a second "Chinesev3" variant subfolder, for a different colourization of "Chinese", except that "Chinese" is not even a player...).
Global: Has the units folder, fully covering (I suppose)
the pact of steel (can we rename the folder just as "pact_of_steel", instead of "the_pact_of_steel"?): Has the units folders, but only for some additional units, not covered in assets (for example, "air_transport").I believe the default colours of assets are tailored for "the pact of steel", so the v3 folder needs at least the Chinese subfolder, to have the different colourization for such player. Other than this, I think v4, v5 and v6 having the units folder is purely redundant, and I assume they could (or should?) do without it, like Classic and Revised.
So, I doubt that the fact that v1 and v2 don't have the folder while v4, v5 and v6 do is due to some actual reasoning behind it, but I suppose it is just kind of random; some mapmakers adding it, some others not (let me know if I'm not seeing something).Also I don't see why having so much more concerns about what is currently duplicated. That's just what happened in the past; it doesn't mean anything more, and it is not necessarily more important than what it is going to be for the future.
The duplication indicates non-usage.
The duplication, in all those cases in which maps are just using the same assets that were in the program when the map was made, or at some point in the past, probably just means that the mapmaker dumped the units folder there just to be safe (maybe for mistrusts of TripleA's assets reliability overtime?), or because it liked it better that way, for no particular reasons, or maybe even because he didn't realize that he didn't actually need to provide a units folder, in that case.
Basically it comes down to that there is a real cost to including images, particularly unused images with the game engine. Whether you choose to look at or respect that cost is up to you. Again, the full set of maps is over 7GB on disk. It seems you are suggesting the game engine should be a repository for map maker images, " I strongly believe that a "cavalry" unit should be added to all subfolders in assets,". The answer is a hard no, the game assets never were a repository for game images, it's more of a cache to avoid redundant downloads and map's being larger than they need. Do recall that maps were typically downloaded over 100Kb/s connections and most took a few minutes. Optimizing the balance between game engine and map download was a decision struck some years ago.
I guess that's your opinion. Of course, that also means that TripleA would be definitively stuck supporting the needs of the past only, with no possibility whatsoever to redefine it for the future, cause if an image is not currently provided, then of course no maps are currently using it. If such a point of view would have been actually the official one for this program, then now we should see in assets only the players and the units needed for WW2 Classic, so no artillery, no Italians, etc., cause those were obviously added to assets at some point, then used by WW2 Revised, Pact of Steel, etc., instead of having to add such assets in the maps themselves. Notice also that in case of Pact of Steel (the Chinese assets are for that, not for v3), we are not even talking of "clones", but a custom map, like whatever custom maps may be made now on.
-
By the way, of course, not necessarily just a repository. Adding a "cavalry" unit for all players means that if a mapmaker wants to make a map like Revised, but with also a "cavalry" unit, it can do it without having to provide any units folder in the map itself. That would just mean supporting future games having "cavalry" units, like now you are supporting old and new games having "artillery" units (not requiring the mapmakers to make or grab artwork for such needs). Of course, I'm just talking theorically here, as clearly we don't have anybody that wants to provide such images, nor a developer that wants to accept any of them, looks like. No idea if you are, instead, thinking about a process in which, if a mapmaker would want to make a "Revised with cavalry" map, he could provide the units and ask for them being added to the assets right before adding the otherwise working map using them to download list; that would work too, but it would be a very conservative process, even if documented anywhere (which I don't think it currently is).
-
I think you guys are having this discussion in the wrong thread
-
@ff03k64 You're probably right; I'll move this and the latest 9 posts over to the thread you linked:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1536/pruning-image-and-sound-assets-distributed-with-the-game-engine/18
from:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1534/general-map-making-questions/47?page=3 -
@Cernel i didn't care, just thought it was funny
-
TripleA assets should provide a high coverage of any possible needs for historical WW2 games
I do not necessarily disagree but suspect you're conflating the perspective of map maker with that of game player.
(1) There are other ways to provide example assets without distributing it with the engine executable.
(2) The size/cost of those assets is not insignificant and is payed by every player whether map maker or not. There are lots of benefits to a quick download and install. 95%+ of players are not map makers.If you are not doing that, I don't think that maps' assets grabbing would be a good substitute of getting stuff from the surely free program's assets, if that is what we are saying here.
I'm not an expert in copyright. I would not necessarily call it "asset grabbing", but okay.. I'd point out that is the case for most maps, it seems the horse is out of the barn already. Given TripleA is GPL3.0, the maps and contained works, by being made available might fall under that license as well.
I guess that's your opinion.
You seem to be of the opinion that including assets has no costs. It does. I've measured the time to install and looked at file download sizes and it's correlated to distributable size. There are many components involved and the assets are just one, but a significant one. Perhaps you forget when TripleA was nearly 600MB, it was a long road to get it under 50MB and with Java bundling again we're somewhre ballpark 60MB.
I strongly believe that a "cavalry" unit should be added to all subfolders in assets,".
That you're suggesting this for the game engine is your opinion that you'd like for all map maker assets to be made part of the game engine. Why do we have a forum thread and not see those images landing in the game engine some years ago? In part the assets that were included were a dumping ground as people did not find a better place or consider the cost. I'd still like to hear where you draw the line of what to include vs not, lest we have a 7.2GB download as your bar seems to be anything that would be of any use at all.
TripleA would be definitively stuck supporting the needs of the past only, with no possibility whatsoever to redefine it for the future,
TripleA is stuck supporting the needs of the past, perhaps 70%~90% of development work is dedicated to this overhead and tax. It's one reason why a lot of contributions in the last few years has been to drop half-done and never used features to help alleviate that ongoing tax. Keeping maps working is something that we have to do and it adds a lot of extra effort.
with no possibility whatsoever to redefine it for the future,
This is hyperbole, it's possible to redefine, but not necessarily easy. Bundling with the game engine is a step away from that goal as you then require releases and can't readily change items. You also have to do mass analysis of all maps to identify 'blast radius' of changes. Given we have so many maps, it takes very non-trivial scripting abilities that I think only 2 people in the entire project possess (doing that analysis by hand is possible too, but very time consuming as there are 100+ maps).
, then now we should see in assets only the players and the units needed for WW2 Classic, so no artillery, no Italians, etc.,
This is getting to be non-pragmatic and ignores that the bar is to avoid repeated downloads. Some images are included in 100+ maps, rather than have all those maps be 25% or more large in size and duplicating images, they are consolidated so they are downloaded just once with the game install. If we were to ever update unit images, it would be more feasible. Updating identical unit images over that many maps is a non-starter, nobody has the weeks of free-time to do that. We do need to have focus on delivering the right features to TripleA, it is a shrinking community and spending time in the wrong places will not help.
Of course, that also means that TripleA would be definitively stuck supporting the needs of the past only, with no possibility whatsoever to redefine it for the future, cause if an image is not currently provided, then of course no maps are currently using it. If such a point of view would have been actually the official one for this program, then now we should see in assets only the players and the units needed for WW2 Classic, so no artillery, no Italians, etc., cause those were obviously added to assets at some point, then used by WW2 Revised, Pact of Steel, etc., instead of having to add such assets in the maps themselves. Notice also that in case of Pact of Steel (the Chinese assets are for that, not for v3), we are not even talking of "clones", but a custom map, like whatever custom maps may be made now on.
-
@LaFayette said in Pruning image and sound assets distributed with the game engine:
I'd still like to hear where you draw the line of what to include vs not
Obviously, that would be up to the developers to decide. You can decide if the "cavalry" or the "train" deserves to be there just like you decide if the "Canadians" deserve the same. In the moment something new gets added, that is just a bet on the future, more or less like adding a new feature. What I said is that following the concept to "provide a high coverage of any possible needs for historical WW2 games", especially with respect to be at least able to use in sensible ways all that the program currently offers (mostly xml) would be a better basis than looking at what is currently being used, as that is just mostly the consequence of what has been available so far and what the mapmakers happened to decide, hardly with coherence amongst maps, even for the basic WW2, as I detailed.
-
@Cernel said in Pruning image and sound assets distributed with the game engine:
Of course, I'm just talking theorically here, as clearly we don't have anybody that wants to provide such images, nor a developer that wants to accept any of them, looks like.
The idea of adding random artwork for the sake of future benefit to the game engine, to actual detriment (adds to maintenance cost), seems to be a bad idea. Particularly when there are other, easier to find and more appropriate places to place such artwork. It's not a matter of 'accepting' it or not, it's about adding assets to the right location and making them available properly.
If just a couple maps use images, let's say that the map is new and maybe will not be played by more than a dozen players, why should the thousand plus TripleA players all have to download that image when they could just download it with the map?
Given bundling with the engine means images are now dependent on more than one map and dependent on a game engine release, it does not seem to be a flexible or very desirable thing to do, particularly if it's just for the sake to distribute those images to potential map makers. It's much better to provide them in a consolidated context with documentation.
No idea if you are, instead, thinking about a process in which, if a mapmaker would want to make a "Revised with cavalry" map, he could provide the units and ask for them being added to the assets right before adding the otherwise working map using them to download list; that would work too, but it would be a very conservative process, even if documented anywhere (which I don't think it currently is).
I'm not thinking about as a process, no. 'Dutch' might be added to the game engine assets, but nobody has volunteered to do the analysis of whether all dutch players actually have the same images. Given the status-quo is to leave it as is, it'll probably be left as is. Particularly now that the maps download quickly, the need to bundle with the game engine is far, far less than previous when map downloads were very slow and took a very long time. In other words, because maps download faster, it's fine for them to be a bit 'fatter', particularly if it means the game engine is slimmer (which provides a benefit to all).
-
@Cernel said in Pruning image and sound assets distributed with the game engine:
Obviously, that would be up to the developers to decide. You can decide if the "cavalry" or the "train" deserves to be there just like you decide if the "Canadians" deserve the same. In the moment something new gets added, that is just a bet on the future, more or less like adding a new feature. What I said is that following the concept to "provide a high coverage of any possible needs for historical WW2 games", especially with respect to be at least able to use in sensible ways all that the program currently offers (mostly xml) would be a better basis than looking at what is currently being used, as that is just mostly the consequence of what has been available so far and what the mapmakers happened to decide, hardly with coherence amongst maps, even for the basic WW2, as I detailed.
You're ignoring there are other ways to distribute images, they 100% do not have to be downloaded with the game engine to distribute them.
It's also not a matter of 'deserve', it's a probabilistic assessment based on how many times we expect an image to be downloaded. The original roots came from SVN days when downloading maps was very slow, adding to the main download a single set meant maps using those images could be downloaded much more quickly. It was significant as waiting many minutes for map download, and repeatedly was a deal breaker. Over the 10 WWII maps, if they all each took 5 minutes to download, which at one point was the case before we migrated to a faster server, and before it was possible to download in parallel, that meant a player had to in serial download maps over the course of an hour to have the core WWII. That is the original reason why much of any assets were bundled at all, to avoid that scenario.
Now that is no longer the case, the reasoning to bundle assets with the engine is far weaker. In many ways it's simply better to include what is needed with a map and not create dependencies on other maps nor the game engine.
-
@LaFayette I'm not ignoring anything. It's obvious enough that assets are not required at all for any new maps that I don't believe me or you need to state it. At this point I wonder if the assets are just legacy, an nothing more, for you.
-
@Cernel said in Pruning image and sound assets distributed with the game engine:
At this point I wonder if the assets are just legacy, an nothing more, for you.
That sounds like putting words into my mouth. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "legacy and nothing more".
-
@LaFayette That means that the assets are there just to support the existent maps.
-
@Cernel The reason they were there originally is due to download time.
See:
The original roots came from SVN days when downloading maps was very slow, adding to the main download a single set meant maps using those images could be downloaded much more quickly. It was significant as waiting many minutes for map download, and repeatedly was a deal breaker.
It does not seem worthwhile or particularly beneficial to reverse that.
I'd agree it's unlikely for a new map to contain assets that are going to become so widespread used that it meets that bar.
Do you consider it a good thing for assets to be downloaded with the game engine? As stated, beyond download and install time, there are reasons to not do that. Particularly as well for lack of ownership. Maintainers are not going to want to modify existing artwork, a random artist is not going to want to make a change that is probably going to impact many existing maps. And finally:
(1) There are other ways to provide example assets without distributing it with the engine executable.
-
@Cernel I feel like you're confusing whether to bundle or not is a value judgment of artwork or 'historical significance'. The reasoning to bundle or not hopefully has been made clear and it's not a value judgement of the artwork.
I hope the repository of sample assets does grow and will eventually include far more than it does today: https://github.com/triplea-game/map-maker-assets
As discussed late in this thread: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/918/map-maker-resources/ and for the reasons stated there, for now adding images to that repository of sample assets is the best idea we have so far for how to host the files and make them available.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login