- Idle: Not really necessary for the most part, but it could be a simple bob. - Taking Damage: ...it can be reflected with a red overlay or something like that as well. We don't necessarily need a "I took a hit" animation. - Death/defeat: ...Typically enemies just "fade away" when being defeated. This is not necessary and completedly optional. - Spellcasting/Special Attack: ...A special attack isn't really all that necessary. - Optional Auxiliry Action: I'd argue this would be the "Special Attack". Not sure what else would fit this category. - 4-directional:... isn't necessary.
Well, yeah. Any action can be represented simpler than the standarts suggest they could be. The only thing neccessary for a monster "animation" is a single frame of the monster. Idle: that one frame. Taking damage: That same frame replicated, but flash it white on the second frame. Death: Same frame, but red, or with a code-side dissolve effect. Movement? Just use the one frame, but implement code that bounces the one frame along like a south-park character.
I don't think these standards are defining the minimum complexity that each monster should have, are they? Artists aren't required to do extra work to fill out every animation action slot for every monster just because the slot is there, are they? I assumed these standards would just be a common outline for how the monsters should be organized. On the other hand, anybody that wants more animations/actions than the standards account for would be breaking standards. Meaning, any developer wanting to use that non-standard monster would have to go rework their code because they coded their animation engine according to standards that don't account for anything but the bare minimum. For example: The original LPC guidelines don't account for climbing, archery, jumping, etc. I'm not suggesting we rework all LPC assets to include those neccessarily, but they have since been popular requested additions, and it has caused a lot of difficulty incorporating them retroactively (such as to ULPCG) because there's no standard place for such additions.
"Special attack" isn't going to be used by all monsters, but there will certainly be enough monsters that do have more than one attack. If a given monster doesn't use it, just replicate the "Basic Attack" frames in that slot. Similar situation for "Auxiliary Action". It could be a 3rd attack, or it could be a special mutation animation for Boss monsters: "this isn't even my final form!" It's just a catch-all slot for anything the monster concept needs but the standards don't otherwise have a place for it.
The reason I was suggesting more than was neccessary is because making animations simpler than the standards allow is much easier than making animations more complex than the standards allow later.
Understood. After you submitted these, the submission guidelines changed to require listing of the GAN (which you've done) and the version (which might actually need to be the version number of StyleGan, not the pytorch project based on it.) and a link to the GAN's Terms of Use. The MIT license is the code license for the pytorch project, not the usage terms for StyleGan. The usage terms appear to be some form of academic-use-only terms, but as you said this may have been so early in the AI hype-train that Terms of Use weren't even a consideration at the time. All that to say, you didn't do anything wrong, the rules changed while you weren't looking. Haha!
Well, I don't know if it will make you feel better or worse about it, but another thing that changed after this was submitted: all AI assisted submissions will be download-disabled until the courts figure out what to do about AI generated artwork. We already know any AI generated artwork cannot be copyrighted, but that doesn't preclude it from possibly violating the copyright of its training data. See https://opengameart.org/content/artificial-intelligence-assisted-artwork and let me know if you have any questions. Sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused you.
I think there is a concept for enemy sprite sheets, but it may not be a very robust concept. The LPC enemies generally do not need any equipment or clothes, as Guarav says, so they are generally simple animations + North,South,East,West facing frames. To illustrate Guarav's point: Non-humanoid LPC monsters
A few other enemy spritesets are more involved, such as William's wolf but, as Guarav says, most of the more complex enemies are humanoid, like a goblin or minotaur which are modifications of the LPC character base. Not a bad thing, but also not the kind of enemy that adds a lot of diversity to the foe list.
I don't have very good answers to these questions, but I am very interested in the discussion:
Standards, yes! but I suspect it will be difficult to have any sort of dimension standars since "enemy" implies such a huge variety of sizes. Some monsters being very long, but not tall, and vice versa. If there is a standard size, it would have to be very large, and all smaller enemies would fit within it... Or there would need to be a separate third standard for huge boss enemies, yes?
Animations:
Moving North,
Moving South,
Moving East/West (mirror? this works for humanoid characters because we're a symmetrical species. Not so all monsters.),
Moving West (if assymeterical)
Idle,
Taking Damage,
Death/defeat,
Basic Attack,
Spellcasting Special Attack,
Optional Auxiliry Action (just a slot for an additional attack or atypical feature. many monsters won't use this slot but it's available if needed)
As implied by my suggested animation list above, I think there should be all four cardinal directions for enemies to be truly compatible with LPC. Although full 4-directional movement animations are not usually necessary for turn-based JRPG style combat, that is hardly the only system the LPC assets are being applied to. The LPC characters move around in 4 directions. For the enemies to fully exist in the same world, they must also be able to move around in 4 directions, IMHO.
I cannot imagine incorporating non-humanoid enemies into the character generator. I agree about the needless restrictions that would impose. It seems like it would be far less work to create a separate "enemy spritesheet generator" considering how weird these non-humanoid enemeies are compared to the humanoid characters. Or even humanoid enemies that are very diverse in size: Cyclops, Ettin, Leprichaun, Brownie,.. Centaur?! Do all the weird Greek mythological half-human crossbreeds count as "humanoid"?
Well, yeah. Any action can be represented simpler than the standarts suggest they could be. The only thing neccessary for a monster "animation" is a single frame of the monster. Idle: that one frame. Taking damage: That same frame replicated, but flash it white on the second frame. Death: Same frame, but red, or with a code-side dissolve effect. Movement? Just use the one frame, but implement code that bounces the one frame along like a south-park character.
I don't think these standards are defining the minimum complexity that each monster should have, are they? Artists aren't required to do extra work to fill out every animation action slot for every monster just because the slot is there, are they? I assumed these standards would just be a common outline for how the monsters should be organized. On the other hand, anybody that wants more animations/actions than the standards account for would be breaking standards. Meaning, any developer wanting to use that non-standard monster would have to go rework their code because they coded their animation engine according to standards that don't account for anything but the bare minimum. For example: The original LPC guidelines don't account for climbing, archery, jumping, etc. I'm not suggesting we rework all LPC assets to include those neccessarily, but they have since been popular requested additions, and it has caused a lot of difficulty incorporating them retroactively (such as to ULPCG) because there's no standard place for such additions.
"Special attack" isn't going to be used by all monsters, but there will certainly be enough monsters that do have more than one attack. If a given monster doesn't use it, just replicate the "Basic Attack" frames in that slot. Similar situation for "Auxiliary Action". It could be a 3rd attack, or it could be a special mutation animation for Boss monsters: "this isn't even my final form!" It's just a catch-all slot for anything the monster concept needs but the standards don't otherwise have a place for it.
The reason I was suggesting more than was neccessary is because making animations simpler than the standards allow is much easier than making animations more complex than the standards allow later.
Understood. After you submitted these, the submission guidelines changed to require listing of the GAN (which you've done) and the version (which might actually need to be the version number of StyleGan, not the pytorch project based on it.) and a link to the GAN's Terms of Use. The MIT license is the code license for the pytorch project, not the usage terms for StyleGan. The usage terms appear to be some form of academic-use-only terms, but as you said this may have been so early in the AI hype-train that Terms of Use weren't even a consideration at the time. All that to say, you didn't do anything wrong, the rules changed while you weren't looking. Haha!
Well, I don't know if it will make you feel better or worse about it, but another thing that changed after this was submitted: all AI assisted submissions will be download-disabled until the courts figure out what to do about AI generated artwork. We already know any AI generated artwork cannot be copyrighted, but that doesn't preclude it from possibly violating the copyright of its training data. See https://opengameart.org/content/artificial-intelligence-assisted-artwork and let me know if you have any questions. Sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused you.
I think there is a concept for enemy sprite sheets, but it may not be a very robust concept. The LPC enemies generally do not need any equipment or clothes, as Guarav says, so they are generally simple animations + North,South,East,West facing frames. To illustrate Guarav's point: Non-humanoid LPC monsters
A few other enemy spritesets are more involved, such as William's wolf but, as Guarav says, most of the more complex enemies are humanoid, like a goblin or minotaur which are modifications of the LPC character base. Not a bad thing, but also not the kind of enemy that adds a lot of diversity to the foe list.
I don't have very good answers to these questions, but I am very interested in the discussion:
SpellcastingSpecial Attack,Beautiful photos and model. Well done.
That is some fantastic detail. Where did the texture come from?
Please link to the specific page where the truck came from. Just mentioning the author's name is incomplete attribution.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
LOL! Ok, thanks. :)
Why does it say "Totally created by AI." In the description?
Because this submission contains both, the other submission was removed for being duplicate content.
Done.
Pages