FF StevieJs' Way

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Blocking reselling, however, is something we'll need to do sooner -- because opening the library for submissions of V2.0 filters is a good opportunity to roll out a new licensing for these new filters. Incentives for authors can be added later.

I'm glad that you are considering this.....because I do believe the benefits will greatly outweigh the concerns.....

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Incentive for authors and blocking easy reselling are two separate problems.

IMO, blocking easy reselling (copyright protecting the reselling of straight texture results) would set up and "justify" taking advantage of it towards creating further author incentives (beyond the program rewards), creating new customer "draws", drastically increasing customer "traffic", etc.....as I have previously described in this string.....

Consider this..... I believe that texture resellers and texture sites aren't that profitable because they are disjointed, scattered, don't offer full compliments of needed textures, and force customers (especially those who have specific use needs, want a cheap solution, and don't want to spend the $$$ on FF or Genetica) to bounce all over the place to find what they want. I believe that if someone "consolidated" an extensive selection/library of texture packs, it would consolidate that customer market as well.....and be very profitable. Now, who better than FF is set up and more appropriate to do something like this.....especially if straight texture copyrights are pulled back over to the FF/author side of the fence???

Another reason why I think FF should jump on this..... Consider if someone else (besides FF) creates an elaborate texture pack shopping mall on a royalty split with authors. I think this would end up hurting FF over the long run because authors would hold onto their best texture filter work and not submit them to FF in order to make $$$ off of them.....which has kinda already been happening with Sign Guy recruiting several skilled authors from here.....

Finally, I believe that there is quite a collection of skilled authors who would prefer to take advantage of their filterwork here to help this program grow and be enhanced.....than go elsewhere to do it.....and I'm one of them.....

In conclusion It just seems to me that FF is perfectly set up to do something like this and take advantage of it in several mutually-beneficial ways for itself and its' authors.....

LONG LIVE FILTER FORGE.....AND DEATH TO ALL WHO OPPOSE US!!! ..... LOL.....

i'm sorry, but i side more with sign guy on this issue... just as we debated it months ago. i had thought that vlad had pretty much abandoned this. the bottom line for me comes with usage of the public filters. i dont want restrictions, of any kind, and therefore, keeping it as non-hypocritical as i can, i dont want restrictions for others, either. and yes, that means resellers too.

the original eula has been a VERY successful model. despite what some may think, the facts are there are over 6000 filters in the library, free to all to use as they see fit. this is a very smart move on FF, inc.'s side of thing. it's simple, it's clean and nobody gets hurt. there's no contracts to sign, no royalties to worry about and no hassles with copyrights. i like that!

if the eula were to be changed now, all filters currently in the library still fall under the original eula. you cant make the new eula retroactive. legalese doesnt allow that. it's called grandfathering. the grandfather, the older contract, basically still applies to anything produced during that time period. so, all current filters will still fall under the current eula no matter what you do to change things. period. so, a new eula can only affect filters put out after the new eula is in force. that's a very old principle of law and it's not going to change any time soon.

FF, inc.'s incentive program was very innovative! i know of no other software company that has done anything close to that. that was somewhat groundbreaking in this industry and i applaud vlad and company for it!

however, it is true that these two factors are somewhat working against FF, inc. now. the incentives were/are limited. the authors resent seeing their work being commercialized to the extent that some have done without so much as a whiff of credit to the author or even to FF, inc. and i agree with the authors that this is a bit of a slap in the face and not what folks thought they were agreeing to when they submitted their filters, at least in some cases. well, on that point, too bad. read the bloody eulas before you submit your first filter. lol. sorry, i know that's a bit blunt, but it's nonetheless how one shld do. know what you're agreeing to BEFORE you do it! that's also a simple principle that folks need to follow more.

but, that being said, it still leaves a bit of a bad taste, not against FF, inc. and for me, not even much against the resellers, because i did read the eula and i wasnt doing all this for money...mostly... at first. but, with the incentives being offered by the company and seeing that i was gaining nothing any more by submitting, i began to quit submitting. and this follows the old principle of 'you get what you reward'. you want filters, reward filters. it's that simple. FF, inc. did do and still does do this up to a point. this is good. it even has a benefit i havent heard anyone else mention; it brings in new blood. this is a must for a program like FF. new folks can still earn the rewards and the program and lifetime updates. excellent! so, we still get new filters by new authors.

now, i can almost hear steviej shouting, 'but what about us old-timers?!' i know, i'm coming to that and this really seems to be the jist of the complaints. the old-timers are left out in the cold, no more incentives and their potential profits going to the resellers. so, if you change the eula to curtail the easy reselling of presets and such, you really dont change that much, authors still go hungry and nobody really wins. new blood is still going to come in. and as fred (sign guy) says, FF textures arent selling that well in his market. but, what fred doesnt say is are the other resellers doing any business? i know FF has a high potential in the online/web application side of things. i have no figures on this, but i know some of these textures are very usable in an online capacity. so, fred's market isnt the only market. in fact, i'd be more inclined to believe that the photoshop market is more where FF would shine, backgrounds, game industry stuff, and other software type graphic applications. again, i have no real data to back this up, but i do recall vlad talking about some of the big company's that were helping beta test the original FF and these included some VERY recognizable and very BIG software houses. whether they're actually using FF or not, i couldnt say, but when ID software takes an interest in software, you can be others are as well. so, FF, inc. didnt and isnt surviving on just us poor few who hang out here and dont every think otherwise. FF is a good product and it's being used in commercial venues or FF, inc. would already be broke and we'd all be going 'where can i find a product key for FF now that FF, inc. is out of business'

so, what this all really seems to be about is us poor few down in the trenches trying to make a buck, get a little accolades for our work and not have folks exploiting out labor as if we were slaves. i dont think changing the eula is going to change a lick of that, except to maybe make a few of the resellers alter a few things a little bit to hide where it came from better. that tends to be all that happens with something like what's being proposed in the eula. if jffe were here he'd even be more cynical about it and tell you why

so, the eula change, in my opinion, is only going to hurt FF, inc, the authors and the end users. it's going to complicate things where the complication is only going to drive folks away... like me. i dont want to see it and i'm an author, so go figure that one out (i'm also a user).

so, fred's idea of FF, inc. doing some kind of licensing with the authors is the right path, if they want to keep their established authors. make a new, second library that is a pay for library and let the good filters go there. FF inc. sells these for whatever and the author makes a royalty from it. that's how i'd do the whole thing. no eula changes needed, we would now have a 'Pro Library', FF, inc. monitors this library closely and only allows the very good. this would handle the old protest of 'there's too much crap in the library'. ok, so go pay for the good stuff. but, fred might have a better model. i kinda like this one, though. this would also force the resellers into paying for the best stuff. the rest we do open source like we have been. you want to get paid, then make excellent filters. simple. FF wins, authors win, filters get better, end users have a choice, and new authors come in not only to win their program but to learn and get better so they can earn royalties. it's simple and fairly easy to implement. they only downside to FF, inc. is, they'd have a new headache to manage in the new library and the whole royalty thing. the upside is, the new library shld pay for the extra help needed to run it and then some.

i think all of this would iron out most all of the complaints and woes we've been hearing about. let the resellers sell out of the open source library. that's fine. but, if they want the best of the best, they gotta pay. authors have a new incentive, and FF, inc. has a new revenue source that shld only get bigger and better. i see no real downside to this, but i'm not running FF, inc. either. but, that's my dollar forty nine (that used to be 2 cents, but inflation and cost of living, you understand... ).

Quote
Kraellin wrote: so, fred's idea of FF, inc. doing some kind of licensing with the authors is the right path, if they want to keep their established authors. make a new, second library that is a pay for library and let the good filters go there. FF inc. sells these for whatever and the author makes a royalty from it. that's how i'd do the whole thing.

This is something we definitely consider to be a viable solution -- but originally I wanted to do it via "paypacks" (as opposed to our freepacks), which will be installable separate plugins, each of which will get its own store page, help document etc.

This model looks like a win-win for everyone (we increase FF's lifetime customer value, top authors get recognition and royalties, end-user customers get polished filters with dedicated documentation), but it remains to be seen whether it will perform well or not.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: whether FF compensates the authors with a royalty or an outright purchase

So far, we'd prefer a royalty-based model, similar to microstock models.

Good thoughts Kraellin

I'm glad to see the ideas for a market shifting focus from selling textures to selling filters. That's one step in the right direction.

Personally, I can't say I like the idea of any sort of market where I have to pay for content where in the past (v1 filters on existing library) it was free. I'll miss the days when I could go in the library, find a really nice filter, download it for free and grab whatever I need from the guts to learn from and use in my own work.

That said-- a system like this shouldn't be a problem as long as everyone isn't able to put the filters up to market and as always: EULA says you can do whatever you want with the outputs. There has to be some sort of judge and jury to decide acceptable quality (controls, speed, looks, etc). Forming "filter packs" as Vladamir mentions, would be a good way to facilitate this.

Fun hypothetical idea: give a name/theme for a filter pack and have users submit (via an alternate submission pathway) their entries for the pack. FFinc gets to pick the good ones from those submitted and (next part optional) those not selected go into the library!

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: but originally I wanted to do it via "paypacks"

I did suggest this a few months back (yeah, I´m rubbing it in ) as I really think it´s a more professional and profitable solution, it will increase creativity and competition thus creating better filters. I think it was KGtheway2B that said something along the line of "FF is in the filter business, not texture selling." I fully agree and this way FF would stay true to their nature, authors will be rewarded for their work and be encouraged to submit more quality filters.

And honestly, won´t the customer benefit more from a filter that can create n number of textures than a pack of textures?

I think people will be more inclined to buy a filter that can create say 100 different textures than to buy a pack of 30.

Quote

Kraellin wrote: i'm sorry, but i side more with sign guy on this issue... just as we debated it months ago. i had thought that vlad had pretty much abandoned this. the bottom line for me comes with usage of the public filters. i dont want restrictions, of any kind, and therefore, keeping it as non-hypocritical as i can, i dont want restrictions for others, either. and yes, that means resellers too.

Just a snippet of what craig said..
My thoughts exactly on this subject Craig..(to tired latley to even begin a post like that..To much work not enough sleep)..

Quote
Kraellin wrote: i hadnt written a book in a while, CF, so it was about time Wink

hehe..

Very well said Steve!

I vote YES, to all of the above!

I have wanted to go into, or join a texture pack business for quite some time,I have been looking into the market. Strange how this all came about.

I feel this is an excellent opportunity for Filter Forge to step up, & allow the authors to join in, & make some extra money, authors who want to participate in this new program. The Filter Forge Texture Library,or what ever they want to call it. A-Z Texture packs, per category. Packs created by authors, whoever the author is, gets a % of the sale. Filter Forge makes money & so does the authors. Is that such a bad idea? I feel, better to get in the market now, than look back 2 years later when some one else / ______ Company, is making good money, selling those Texture packs ....well, I know we all get the drift.

I love Filter Forge! Great program, with so much potential! I feel we have just begun to see how great this program is, & can be!
This could very well be a NEW beginning for Filter Forge.

Have a WONDERFUL evening!

Ron

Craig, please give me a break!!! You want Vlad to create "tangible" copyright protection for FF's best filters and "restrict" access to them so that customers can be charged extra for them.....the "EXACT" same thing that I was suggesting to be done with texture results so they could be sold in texture packs.....and you guys "vehemently" opposed my suggestion because you did not want any restriction of any kind placed on access or use of FF. That is about as hypocritical as it can get, IMO.....

To be perfectly honest about it.....I feel that opposition to my suggestions here were more about finding some way to support Fred's (Sign Guy's) opposition.....and less about what would really be in FF's best interests. Opposition went out of their way to not find one positive thing about my suggestions.....and I found that to be very telling.....

Quote
Kraellin wrote: fred has offered you and me and others, his software for free if you want to make your own texture selling site. that's quite remarkable!

Quote
Kraellin wrote: go talk to fred, have him send you his software, and set up a texture site and sell to your heart's content. no one is stopping you. i'm guessing that vlad would even give you a bit of free advertising here on the FF, inc. site

Hmmmmmm.....interesting.....your "loyalties" are showing .....you and KG wouldn't happen to be involved with Fred (Sign Guy), would you??? That would explain the "modus operandi" of support behind Fred's position.....

What I'm suggesting is for FF to do something like what Fred (Sign Guy) is doing with texture packs.....which I think would grow expotentially, consolidate the texture pack market, and be much more successful if done from here.....it would pull authors away from Fred and back to FF.....potentially put Fred out of business.....I think Fred is well aware of that.....and thus his vehement opposition to my suggestion for FF to get into texture pack sales.....

Quote
Kraellin wrote: vlad is talking author incentives and you're now crying about it. give me a break!

All I've been doing is making "suggestions" for what I think is in the best interests of FF and its' authors.....and that's it. All of my suggestions have come under attack in one form or another.....so I don't think I'm the one doing the "crying" here.....so I would appreciate it if you would read what I say and not misrepresent it just because I don't agree with you......

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Anywho, I'm glad that at least "something" new is being considered here.....

See.....this wasn't so hard to say, was it??? LOL....

Quote
Kraellin wrote: i'm not opposed to FF, inc. allowing texture pack sales by authors on the FF, inc. site/storefront and maybe they even will,

I guess I struck a nerve.....and rest my case..... LOL....

Well Fred, obviuously you don't know much about psychology.....because if your arguments were forthright without any alternate agenda here.....then you wouldn't feel a need to react like you just did.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: So tell me Stevie what in your background qualifies you to be so right

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: business development that you've accomplished successfully?

Yes....

I have no need to recite my resume to you as you have felt the "need" to do with me.....but I'll take a wild guess and say that I've made just a tad more $$$ than you in my lifetime.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: I have purchased filters and published renderings in return for royalties from several members of this forum, spent almost $10K and six months of my life developing a seamless tile website that bombed.

Just because you bombed at it doesn't mean that the same thing would happen from here. FF doesn't have to spend 10K on it.....authors would be cranking them out and posting them free of charge to FF.....I think it would grow expotentially, fill all texture catagories in no time, consolidate the texture pack market here, and the increase in traffic would surely translate into increased sales of FF.....which is something that I don't think will happen by creating a "pro" category of filters and charging customers extra for them.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: your vision of how to modify and restrict the licensing of Filter Forge is flawed and totally out of step with the graphic software industry.

Well, I know you want people here to believe that.....but I think my suggestions are right in line with preserving what has been working for FF and correcting what is now not working for FF.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: your need to be right?

I like to be right.....but by your last post, I think you clearly have me beat in the "need" to be right department..... LOL.....

Quote
Kraellin wrote: i mean, why buy the milk when you can have the cow?

I've already answered that question way too many times.....see previous posts.....

Quote
Kraellin wrote: so i'm not sure what all this debate is about any more. vlad IS interested in selling filters (paypacks) and IS NOT interested in selling textures. this does seem to follow more with their model and business objective. so, what's your point here? what are we not getting?

It sounds to me like Vlad really hasn't landed on what he wants to do yet.....other than putting that V2 straight texture reselling restriction in the EULA.....so it's still wide open for discussion as far as I'm concerned.....

If people think this subject is now mute and there is nothing more to discuss, then I don't have a gun to anyone's head to keep people posting here, reading my posts, and continue responding to them.....ya know what I mean???

Quote
Kraellin wrote: so i'm not sure what all this debate is about any more. vlad IS interested in selling filters (paypacks) and IS NOT interested in selling textures. this does seem to follow more with their model and business objective. so, what's your point here? what are we not getting?

Well, let's see if I can help you out here.

You remember when Vlad WAS interested in changing the EULA, were you and Fred not sure what the debate was about and just fell silent? I mean if the only thing of importance is what Vlad IS interested in, why didn't the debate just end 2 years ago?

Talking of what Vlad IS interested in, you seem to have missed this -

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Blocking reselling, however, is something we'll need to do sooner -- because opening the library for submissions of V2.0 filters is a good opportunity to roll out a new licensing for these new filters. Incentives for authors can be added later.

So, in addition to discussing paypacks, you can add blocking reselling to the list.

Now, Vlad may well be interested in selling paypacks at this point in time. But then Vlad has not yet, I'm sure, discussed this matter privately with the likes of Flaming Pear and Redfield and how selling paypacks on the Internet actually works out in practise. Maybe once he hears about torrenting and having let the genie out of the bottle, it can never go back, he may think again.

In which case, he may well declare, 'Hot damn! I never knew that, I IS interested in blocking reselling by not only changing the future EULA, but in also making it unprofitable for that to happen by undercutting resellers and selling texture packs direct from FF itself, which the existing authors will be happy to help out with.' ...and StevieJ will advise him.


BTW - just one small thing perhaps you could help me with, lots to read, etc. Could you provide the specific link to where Vlad said this? TIA.-

Quote
Kraellin wrote: vlad ... IS NOT interested in selling textures

Actually I think I did at the time.

Frank, your animosity towards me is legend. It's wonderful to see such consistency in an individual who knows nothing about me and chooses to also remain a mystery. You're just another who chooses to issue slurs and personal insults instead of engaging in polite discussion.

Quote
Carl wrote: you guys realize what it's like to read this petty bickering

Yep
In My ever so Humble Opinion the bickering turns people off just as much as the blasting of re-sellers and talking of the EULA change as if it has already happened...I remember the last discussion..
I found a legal site where they were asking and complaining about this very subject and it was because of that very discussion...It was about FF....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: If you don't have facts or logic on your side then slur the reputation of your antagonist.

C'mon Fred, you and I both know the facts and logic are solidly behind my suggestions.....and you yourself are basically suggesting the same formula.....only you are suggesting it be done with filters and I am suggesting it be done with textures. I'm not trying to slur your reputation.....just pointing out that you have an obvious interest in FF not getting into texture pack sales.....and that's it. I've said several times before.....if I were in your position, I would be making the exact same arguments here as you.....

Quote
Carl wrote: you guys realize what it's like to read this petty bickering

Please excusy for my part in it.....got a little carried away and put people on the defensive.....

Quote
James wrote: I agree with everything StevieJ has said apart from the Genetica comments as it's a great app.

Sorry about that.....I actually have and use Genetica for a few things.....which reminds me.....under my suggestion, using Genetica to create and/or help create tiles for selling texture packs here would be included.....any other texture editting program for that matter.....openning the door to offering every possible texture under the sun here.....

Quote
James wrote: Genetica also doesn't have the same problems as with FF as a users work is down to them so if someone wants to use something they have to contact the user.

Exactly.....part of the formula that I'm suggesting be used here with straight texture results.....

Quote

Frank2 wrote: Now, Vlad may well be interested in selling paypacks at this point in time. But then Vlad has not yet, I'm sure, discussed this matter privately with the likes of Flaming Pear and Redfield and how selling paypacks on the Internet actually works out in practise. Maybe once he hears about torrenting and having let the genie out of the bottle, it can never go back, he may think again. In which case, he may well declare, 'Hot damn! I never knew that, I IS interested in blocking reselling by not only changing the future EULA, but in also making it unprofitable for that to happen by undercutting resellers and selling texture packs direct from FF itself, which the existing authors will be happy to help out with.

Frank, excellent points!!! I earlier mentioned something to that affect with the demise of Filtermeister.....

Quote
James wrote: Texture re-sellers will never want anything to change and will always try to stop anything from happening im sure. I can't help but think that a lot of people will buy the program just to sell the library content rather than make original work.

That is soooooo true!!! My thinking is that if FF broadens into texture pack sales, piles the author incentives on here, and turns this into a place where everyone comes for all their graphics needs.....the upward sales curve would end up dwarfing any and all effects from piracy.....much like how Adobe, Autodesk, etc continue to grow even with their programs being pirated by the thousands everyday.....

Quote

StevieJ wrote: C'mon Fred, you and I both know the facts and logic are solidly behind my suggestions.....and you yourself are basically suggesting the same formula.....only you are suggesting it be done with filters and I am suggesting it be done with textures. I'm not trying to slur your reputation.....just pointing out that you have an obvious interest in FF not getting into texture pack sales.....and that's it. I've said several times before.....if I were in your position, I would be making the exact same arguments here as you.....

No I don't know that because of my own experience. The only concession I would make is that my experience is limited to sign makers and wide format printers and is non-existent with other markets.

Since I have already pointed out that the only tiles I plan to create and market in the future will be those made from photographic originals, I do not have any obvious or otherwise interest in whether FF gets into texture pack sales. Simply put, procedurally generated tiles don't sell very well to my markets and I don't generate them anymore. My comments were offered from a business perspective.

From that perspective, selling filters is clean and neat and both FF and filter authors needs are harmonious, with the exception that the likelihood of quality filters hitting the free library are not much different than they are at present. FF selling textures is, IMHO, and from a business perspective, a risky can of worms to open. It puts FF in the position of wearing two hats and competing with itself.

This will be my last post on this topic since my motivation is suspect. I sincerely hope a resolution to this issue is achieved that is satisfactory to all.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: my motivation is suspect

My intent was not to drive you off.....and if I have jumped to the wrong conclusion, then you have my most sincere appologies.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: selling filters is clean and neat and both FF and filter authors needs are harmonious

It is much tidier I'll agree.....but I don't think FF and authors' needs will be met.....for reasons I've already mentioned.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: FF selling textures is, IMHO, and from a business perspective, a risky can of worms to open. It puts FF in the position of wearing two hats and competing with itself.

IMO, yes and no.....there will be alot who will just buy the textures and not FF.....but at least they will be buying "something" here. Many one-time and sporatic/infrequent texture users will just buy the textures.....many will just buy the textures because they can't afford to buy the program.....and many will buy the textures as a time-saving shortcut to try and create them with filters.....

The biggest reason I think people will buy the texture packs is because there will be unique textures created by or with the help of other programs beyond textures created solely by FF filters.....which is the "hidden beauty" of all this.....tiles created by other programs and/or tiles created with the help of other programs can be submitted.....as well as photograpic tiles.....

Quote
Kraellin wrote: what's your model on all this?

Glad you asked!!!

My first choice, if FF had the resources, would be to set something up that would also entise authors in the creation and customization of their storefronts.....similar to the "draw" of using Second Life to sell things.....

The more likely way FF would start out doing it would be to (1) give each author a storefront linked from homepage authors/storefronts tab, authors filters, etc, and (2) create a texture pack submission application by which authors load the tiles, submit to FF, cover is automatically created with small samples of each included texture, and added to authors storefront on pay/digital download system....

Next is how FF uses this to get endless submissions of HQ filters.....

1) The first HU reward level "beyond" achieving lifetime program updates would be an author achieving access to having a storefront and the ability to submit texture packs.....

2) The next HU reward levels beyond that could be lowering the royalty split with FF in increments so that the author receives more of the sale.....

3) Other reward levels could be allowing authors to sell other work like art etc, greater storefront personalization/customization ability, better storefront sales tools, more server space, more storefront pages etc etc etc.....

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`

KGtheway2B, I know that that wasn't particularly helpful to the discussion, but that's pretty much how I'm feeling about this debate.
In other words: THIS

I'm replying because you chose to bring me back into this with misinformation.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Maybe I should phrase questions like this: "Hypothetically".....If Vlad placed a restriction on straight texture reselling and he decided to take advantage of it by getting into royalty-based texture pack sales.....how would you suggest he go about setting it up???

Stevie, you're starting to sound like you're off your meds. First off, the horse is out of the barn when it comes to restricting "straight texture reselling" ... whatever that means. It can't be done legally as a retroactive measure and, since they've already accepted orders for V2 upgrades with no restrictions announced, that issue would also require attention and probably more than a few refunds. Secondly, to my knowledge, they have not indicated anything other than an interest in selling filter packs. Thirdly, and strictly from a business point of view, why on earth would FF ever put up textures that weren't totally created with a filter from the library or available in a pro filter pack? To do so would result in complaints from licensees that an image they saw couldn't actually be created with Filter Forge.

Quote

StevieJ wrote: Consider that Fred (Sign Guy) is "still" very much into CG texture tile sales (http://allcompu.com/pastt/index.htm).....alot of those textures have been created by authors from here and it is "still" going on.....Fred says that he is now into selling photographic tiles.....so obviously Fred must be having some success at it or he "still" wouldn't be doing it. So the 10-million-dollar question is.....Why wouldn't sales of CG and photographic tiles be a viable and successful way to go from HERE???

What you see at that link are the two collections we published in late 2007 and early 2008. They do not contain any textures created by authors here. They do contain textures generated by Allied Computer Graphics, Inc. with Filter Forge using filters created by authors here under the terms of the license agreement. None of them are presets however. And, what I said, was that all the interest we see is in photographic tiles. There is a huge "IF" as to whether or not we will even be developing any more tiles at all for our clients. The answers to your $10 million question have already been posted. I don't think you have fairly considered them because you hold my motivation as suspect.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Speaking of photographic tiles..... Devil How about FF incorporating something like "Image Synth" into the FF program by which to create/edit photographic tiles???

Well judging from the FF beta, using synthesis techniques, patches, pattern selection, partial image selection, image manipulation, shadowing and multiple images is not a significant part of FF's thinking. Whereas, Genetica 3.5 provides this and a variety of sophisticated ways to arrive at a very nice result. FF is very much locked into procedurally generated textures image effects and fares poorly in a comparison when it comes to dealing with generating tiles made from photo images. Something like this, for example, is a breeze in Genetica but very difficult in FF.

Oh Stevie, Stevie, Stevie ...

First you make it personal and then you are offended when you get some of the same back. I have tried to drop out of this discussion and keep hearing attacks from you on my motivation and my hidden agenda. Yet to me it was just a simple discussion of some business ideas. I COULD CARE LESS WHAT FF DECIDES TO DO AND ONLY PLAN TO DEVELOP PHOTOGRAPHIC TILES IN THE FUTURE, IF I CONTINUE TO DEVELOP ANY TILES AT ALL.

I believe in the logic of my arguments so let's try a different tack. A simple wager or four. I will wager a $50 dinner at the restaurant of yours or my choice (winner chooses) on each of the following:

1. Filter Forge will not change its license to restrict the use of RENDERINGS generated with Filter Forge V2.

2. Filter Forge will create a profit center for filter artists based on selling their filters but will not become involved in selling their renderings.

3. If Filter Forge does create a profit center for filter artists that does include the selling of rendered textures, you will see a total of less than $100.00 in royalties or earnings from texture renderings from FilterForge.com in the year following the availability at FilterForge.com of your first rendered texture.

4. If Filter Forge does create a profit center for filter artists that does include the selling of rendered textures, they will not accept or permit the sale of textures which have not been created in Filter Forge or which cannot also be created with available filters in the open or pro libraries that are available to all licensees for free or for purchase from Filter Forge or from approved filter artists.

My money's where my mouth is. How about you ?

Quote
meyendlesss wrote: Can I get in on that bet too?

I am willing to wager once on each of the four items I listed. Since my wager was directed at StevieJ, I will give him the right of first refusal. After that, you are welcome to any bet he declines.

Quote
meyendlesss wrote: I gave it a shot with v2 beta... It's just a quick job, but it's pretty close. Needs some work on the gumball texture, and the lighting is a bit off...

It also needs to be seamless, which your rendering is not, but it's nice to actually see such a discussion. To expand on it a bit, the specs on what we supply our clients is that the rendering is 3600 x 3600 pixels and is seamless on all four edges.

Comparing FF and Genetica 3.5 with this particular approach (random bombing), 1) The isolation and selection of individual gumball images is totally self contained in Genetica while a separate image editor is needed with FF. 2) All control features for images is written as part of the application ... ready-to-use without the need to add nodes. 3) Comparative rendering times for Genetica on my quad core are about 25% of what they are with FF. 4) In addition to random bombing of an unlimited number of images, Genetica 3.5 also provide synthesis blending and pattern selection capabilities for generating seamless tiles ... FF does not. 5) Image resources and their locations are stored in the individual saved filter in Genetica making modifications in the future much easier.