Also, there's a multitude of reasons not to make it GPL I like the Id approach, where a company sells an app closed until it's substancially profitable and then releases it to GPL when the next big thing they make comes long Its not all that free, the not so free version is for professionals. But yeah this is a great software, but takes skills to know how to use. It runs fine in wine ;. I just found the MapZone-Site today again before reading this article now. How funny :D. Looks nice.
You may use, copy, reproduce and distribute the included textures in your projects either for personal, educational or commercial purpose.
Allegorithmic shall retain all rights, including Copyrights of all Media elements provided with the Software. In any case, for any use of the Media elements provided by Allegorithmic and owned by Allegorithmic, Allegorithmic's property and rights shall be clearly mentioned in your project.
Any breach to this requirement shall terminate this agreement. FxGen looks pretty cool actually. Only thing is I can't work out how to or maybe it isn't implemented yet export the result. If you don't you violate their copyrights and you have to pay. Mikkel: That is saying that the textures and examples that they include with the software may be used in any of your own works but, since they created those included examples, you have to give them credit if you decide to use them.
If you don't use any of the samples included, you don't have to credit them in your work. Shouldn't they say "the most complicated texturing tool ever"? Sorry I don't want to troll, but this editor seems painfully hard to use. Or am I too lazy to learn a new workflow? Fxgen looks very promissing and its still in Development! This is only a Idea!
Thats all! There exist other program free like Wood Workshop for making wood textures and Genetica Viewer for view and render textures from the Genetica Textures Packs there 3 packs with various textures all royalty-free or textures make with Genetica 2. All these free programs except for Genetica 2. I agree - as much as I struggled with Blender early on, the layout of the UI and the basic operation is frustrating to say the least. The output though is great. How about actually going through the tutorials they provide and looking at the uhhh It really is not a difficult application to grasp once you've actually made an attempt to learn something about it instead of trying to intuit everything.
Lost me at " Windows based Maybe most don't, who knows. I have been playing with MZ almost from day one of it's release and if you thought that blenders learning curve was hard then you better plan on spending a lot of time on this very powerful texture program. And not everyone in the creative world uses Linux either. If Linux reached out to a broader audience, maybe more cool software would point that way.
I didn't download the program in response to this article, it has been available free for a while. But your point is taken, if I were interested enough, I would learn. However, what drives interest in a particular piece of software for the hobbiest - and I am one , is the availability of alternatives at a reasonable price.
I will admit that the output of this software is excellent. I have gone thru the tutorials, and I may go thru them again. But I stand by what I said in my previous post. On the subject of free commercial software - do you think there will be any improvements going forward? It seems to me that once commercial software is offered for free, the company realizes that there would be little if any interest in anybody purchasing it. Spiral graphics offered wood workshop in an attempt to gain sales of Genetica.
UGS offers a version of their 2D package in hopes to further interest in their 3D solutions. Dasault offers a free modeler In each of these cases, I am willing to bet that development comes to a near halt. After all these are for profit corporations expecting a return on their investment. I will look in to the open source alternative fxgen - whatever its current state, I think it is safe to say that development will continue.
Too bad its not open source.. It would be great to intergrate a procedural tool like that into blender. Regardless, OSX is pretty large in the computer graphics industry, as well. Just about every time a tool or service is mentioned, the first "duty" seems to be to determine if it's open source or some close variety or not Is it part of some BIG commercial conspiracy?
Wait a minute, what does that line mean in their EULA, is it a trap? E-e-e-emo, look out! It's as if the validity of something is directly proportional to the degree to which someone is willing to offer that something for little or no cost to you. On and on and on it goes, where it will end no one knows You do realize that without proprietary and commercial solutions there would be no open source community. Most open source software is inspired by the impetus created by commercial ventures.
Be careful not to bite the hands that feed the open source community much of its inspiration. I know that this does not apply to everyone, but I'm beginning to think it's becoming a religion for some. Ahhh, the sweet aroma of sanity Thank You "madcello". And, thank you to the other few posters of relevant comments.
This looks like an amazing texture editor- I could care less if it's open source or not, as long as the program can create what I need to create. O come on kernon, you hang around this lot long enough to know that it's not "becoming" but reaching it's end.
And I knew the 30 mails in my blenderNation filter where going to be about the word "free" in your article. I love those debates. If you don't then in the future maybe better use the word freeware. It discribes the gratis a little bit better than free as in Mandela is free. O wait no, they must be using Maya, that's been on Mac since Well then again the adobe creative suite has been mac intel compatible for ages now Then, MapZone itself: It's a good practice for node based editing, I guess, for it being freeware.
Understand this and the nodes in Maya, Shake, AfterEffects will be a piece of cake. Seems to me it's very usefull for game creators who want big maps created on the fly. I would go for photoshop and and handpainted textures myself since the biggest export seems to be x, not really worth having a procedural in that resolution I have had a word with the guys who built MaPZone and i got a message back saying they are seriously considering a version that will work on Linux and mac.
Which is good to hear. I finished downloading this yesterday- it's an amazing program! I find it really easy to dirty textures up. MapZone is also useful in conjunction with a raster program such as Photoshop. I tried MaPZone, did the blood spatter tutorial, and i think that it is a very good and very powerful program for creating textures. I have played around in gimp trying to do textures and even tried photoshop, but i like the procedural process the most.
Not if you want to edit your texture in other apps. Someone on the mailing list recently tossed around the idea of developing the ability to synthesize textures in Blender. With Brecht saying that he would bless such an initiative, it is possible that we could see him or someone else develop Mapzone-like texture synthesis functionality in Blender itself considering he expanded the project to include creating seamless image textures from procedurals which would preferably include the option to use the texture nodes as well.
Zalamander, Thanks for the link. I guess it all depends what you type in google; never found that. Ace Dragon, Yes, I am also using that, but as with blender it is not as in depth as mapzone. However, as I started using it again today, I am finding it is, so far, working for what I need. It is also pretty easy to use.
Well theres no reason blender couldnt output the textures anyway. I rememeber in the old days there were brick gen addons.
0コメント