[battlescape] long term map and tile specs.

[moriarty]

Volutar, the main problem is that we absolutely, positively, unavoidably have to stick to the original game data.

what other data would you want to use?
do you have a team of graphics designers sitting somewhere who can provide us with completely new graphics?
even if you had access to new graphics and re-written stat values and all that other data we now take from the original files, there's the copyright issue: if it looks and feels like the original, it's a copyright violation, because then you would distribute a fully playable game that doesn't need the original files. and if it's so different that copyright does not apply, it's not the xcom we all love anymore.

I don't see a good way out of this. that's why I prefer the way openxcom does it: a new and more adaptable game engine for the original game, but within certain limits, which may seem backwards, but definitely ensure that the original look and feel are there.


so if you want to draft and start a new game that's more like your vision of xcom, go ahead!
if it's good: that's good.
if it's not: that's too bad.

but in any case it does not sound like anything openxcom needs right now. perhaps it can be merged later. but you said yourself, you don't see how xcom can be "improved" to fit your vision.

[Volutar]

Volutar, the main problem is that we absolutely, positively, unavoidably have to stick to the original game data.

That's what I disagree. We don't have to. Did Xenonauts stick to game-predecessor data? It positively have similar look and feel, still no copyright issues. So you seems to be exagerrating radius of copyright. There won't be an issue if this game won't be having anything of original, still will have successor spirit.
Look and feel cannot be copyright subject.

and if it's so different that copyright does not apply, it's not the xcom we all love anymore.

Jagged Aliance 2 also has tactic with similar look and feel. Without copyright violation. And many xcom lovers love this game too. So what?

If you love 320x200 256 colored - that's your personal preference, and with it you can play xcom1-2 downloaded from Steam and ufoextender is your option. What I want - a real successor, with better graphics, better look and feel, with even more solid game mechanic. Your approach seems deny any progress. What about those who don't want to be limited with original's? Though my approach doesn't deny visual style taken from original. Think about it.

BTW, the name "xcom" is copyrighted, for sure. But I don't see any problem with picking new name. For instance - v-com or something.

[LCSand]

I agree with Volutar on the copyright issue. But I feel he wants too much too soon. We dont have a whole bunch of artists that can create original art from scratch to avoid any copyright issues and besides that is not the focus of this project.
Lets get to 1.0 first, that is enough work right there.

P.S. The name "xcom" can not be copyrighted, only trademarked and from there it gets complicated. Lets just say it propably is not an issue and never will be. AFAIK and IANAL.

[Volutar]

LCSand, I don't want it implemented right now. I don't really expect it to happen. I aware it's not that easy. Quite a long way to, actually. But I don't see anything in that direction at all. Not even a plan. So I decided to highlight absence of this plan. I just given a sketch of my ideas of features I wish to be implemented. I just didn't see a place for them in current "sticked to xcom1" implementation.

It's not necessary to have bunch of artists to start this. We can create 10-20 "default" tiles which will be enough to create almost any building. Simple wall (even white), simple floor, simple grey door, simple stair tiles, simple boxes of different height. Even sketchy images of those will be enough to start this. Different visual appearence of these "basic" could be done later. So that's not a problem.

[Volutar]

SupSuper, quote from article you mentioned, about Netscape.

Netscape 6.0 is finally going into its first public beta. There never was a version 5.0. The last major release, version 4.0, was released almost three years ago. Three years is an awfully long time in the Internet world. During this time, Netscape sat by, helplessly, as their market share plummeted.

It's a bit smarmy of me to criticize them for waiting so long between releases. They didn't do it on purpose, now, did they?

Well, yes. They did. They did it by making the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make:

They decided to rewrite the code from scratch.

From russian wikipaedia:

In Noverber, 1998 Netscape 5.0 has been stopped, and Netscape decided to start new project from scratch. Why?
So Netscape decided to start new browser from the scratch, based totally on opensource. They've founded informal group "Mozilla Organization" which was funded mailny by Netscape. This group had to be working on coordination on Netscape5 development, based on source code of Communicator. But using old, obsolete code led to big problems, so they decided to write it from scratch. New code was named "Mozilla", which was used for Netscape 6.

Article.
So famous Mozilla Firefox - is result of "rewriting from scratch" of Netscape Communicator. Nice result, I must say.

P.S.

When you throw away code and start from scratch, you are throwing away all that knowledge. All those collected bug fixes. Years of programming work.

Sound like he wanted to put this code into frame and hang above his bed. Throwing old code doesn't mean throwing all that knowledge. At some point every long-living project goes through concept rework and refactoring, if it doesn't want to just die. New concept must take into account every bug faced previously. That takes its time, yes, but it results in better flexability, moddability/modularity and better bug handling. Getting into position "I love that code because I spent years on written it, I know every bug of it" is static and counter-productive.
P.P.S.
I have my own experience in "rewriting from scratch". Not of a game project, though pretty complex (for banking). I'm not saying openxcom should be rewritten from scratch. That insane. Only data structures and engine itself should be rewritten at some point. When it would be impossible to add new features, or beat some of bugs, connected with xcom1 data structure.
P.P.P.S. I haven't answered pmprog on every quoted line just because those statements was from having little knowledge of roots of those problems (north'n'west outer walls for example). And poor understanding of what I proposed. Maybe because my brief desctiption was not clear enough.