Stone Home Exterior Tileset
Thursday, December 28, 2017 - 16:53
Collaborators:
Art Type:
License(s):
Collections:
Favorites:
26
Share Icons:
Preview:
This tileset was created for Hero of Allacrost. The art follows a format of 32x32 pixels for each tile. Jetrel created the original designs and I expanded upon his designs so that the tiles were a bit easier to use in a repeatable fashion and added a lot of variations so that you can build variable shaped structure, as you can see in the preview.
Most of the art in this tileset is an original work. There is also derivative art borrowed from other artists here. This art has been modified, but the originals are hosted up on OGA and the original authors are credited below.
A good tileset to use in conjunction with this one can be found here and represents the interior of these structures.
Copyright/Attribution Notice:
Credit goes to Richard Kettering (Jetrel), Tyler Olsen (Roots), and Casper Nilsson (C.Nilsson)
Windows: Hyptosis + Zabin (CC-BY 3.0)
Signs: Reemax (CC-BY-SA 3.0)
Flower boxes: C.Nilsson (CC-BY-SA 3.0 & GPL 3.0+) https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-cnilsson
File(s):
desert_house_exterior_01.png 132.6 Kb [1489 download(s)]
Comments
Looks really nice. Thank you!
Hey Roots nice to see you and good job putting that art together. The buildings look good with the variations you added.
I want to help you with HOA more directly but I'm busy recoloring assets - pretty much everything in HOA, everything Jetrel ever made and everything that works on OGA using my DB32+Z8 color palette.
I did work on that house years ago and made these. I don't know if you even want them (seeing as there's no room in your sileset ;P)
Thanks! I'm always glad to give back original assets to this community that has gifted our own so much.
Zabin, whenever you have time to help out, it would be extremely appreciated. We're getting close to a major release (a snapshot of it is coming in January) and I'm currently the only active artist on the team. Considering I also do programming, writing, and map design among other things, I'm spread pretty thin. Our discord channel is at http://chat.allacrost.org so stop on by whenever, even if only to idle for now.
Hey Roots, the lamp in this submission originates from Hyptosis's Mage City Arcanos. It was discovered that it is from the RPG Maker XP runtime & is not usable:https://opengameart.org/node/11192#comment-66182It should be removed/replaced in this submission.There are some variations of a lamp that Sharm created. Some of them can be seen here. Maybe you can use one of those as a replacement.Edit: Fixed by MedicineStorm
On another note, the flower boxes in this submission appear to be from Casper Nilsson's LPC submission. Unless I'm mistaken, he should be credited.
He also requests that you link back to his submission page in the README.txt.
Unfortunately I have to mark this with a licensing issue until the issues AntumDeluge outlined above can be resolved.Resolved.
@AntumDeluge: what file in Casper Nilsson's submission are you referring to? I can't see any flower boxes in there.
The file is "Victorian house/victorian house.png". There is nothing in the submission that indicates another author, so I'm assuming it is Casper Nilsson's original work.
Edit: If this has LPC components, shouldn't GPL 3.0 be listed in the licenses?
Edit: Casper Nilsson does mention that some of the works in the entry are based on LPC base assets, but I haven't found the flower box in those. So, again, I think the flower box is 100% Casper's work. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Edit: Unrelated, but just to mention, I used the flower box in my LPC Windows Rework submission.
Thanks. Fixed. Roots, let me know if anything looks out of place.
It would be ideal, but it is not required. All components that went into this derivative were multi-licensed (or license-convertable) with CC-BY-SA, so just having CC-BY-SA as the license here is allowed. It may even be that GPL is not an option despite it being one of the LPC licenses; If any of the other non-LPC components don't also include GPL as an available license, this derivative can't include it either. I don't know if that's the case, though. I'm not clear about which non-LPC content is derived above.
Does that mean that GPL 3.0 -> CC BY-SA 3.0 is inherently okay (I'm guessing not)? Or is it because LPC licensing specifically states that dropping one of the licenses in favor of using the other singly is okay?
Option B. :) Though people are encouraged to keep both if possible. Unfortunately it isn't always possible due to the licenses of other works in a derivative.