Free Medieval Unity Modules

[Springheel]

Do a search for various unity architecture sets, dungeon, mansion, town, medieval, fantasy, gothic, baroque, roccoco, etc.

 

Any of them free for use? I'm bound to burn out on this project at some point.

 

edit: stumbled on these to answer my own question. Here's a free medieval set that looks quite decent on first glance...can anyone take a look and see what format they're in? Do you have to have the unity editor to use them? I see a list of .dae files, which supposedly can be opened by Blender. Also what the license is.

 

 

https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/3592

[HMart]

They are in the collada format (.dae), any 3d modeling tool can open that format by now, about the licence or if you can only use them on Unity, theres no mention of that on the asset store only that is free, is best to contact the maker and ask.

[Springheel]

The EULA page is here: http://unity3d.com/legal/as_terms

 

As far as I can tell we would be able to use them, though it would be nice to hear from someone with more legal experience:

 

Licensor grants to the END-USER a non-exclusive, worldwide, and perpetual license to the Asset to integrate Assets only as incorporated and embedded components of electronic games and interactive media and distribute such electronic game and interactive media. Except for game services software development kits (“Services SDKs”), END-USERS may modify Assets. END-USER may otherwise not reproduce, distribute, sublicense, rent, lease or lend the Assets. It is emphasized that the END-USERS shall not be entitled to distribute or transfer in any way (including, without, limitation by way of sublicense) the Assets in any other way than as integrated components of electronic games and interactive media. Without limitation of the foregoing it is emphasized that END-USER shall not be entitled to share the costs related to purchasing an Asset and then let any third party that has contributed to such purchase use such Asset (forum pooling).

 

[Bikerdude]

As far as I can tell we would be able to use them, though it would be nice to hear from someone with more legal experience:

Calling Demagogue..

[demagogue]

Well the first question is if it's consistent with the CC license our assets are under, which I can't tell offhand. I mean CC doesn't have the integrated restriction, so technically there's a gap, but we're releasing integrated anyway.

 

We might have to put a note in our own license readme for it, though, to cover it with its own license that people shouldn't use the listed assets packaged here but get them from the original source.

 

As far as the terms themselves go, we can modify and we'd release as integrated componants, so I don't see any immediate red flags. And if they're free, there's no incentive for anyone to pick a fight. So I think practically it's workable.

 

Edit: Wait, the "no forum pooling" restriction doesn't sound great for us since we're a community project. Everyone would still use them inside TDM, not their own thing, though, but it might chill anyone wanting to branch with TDM or an FM that takes the object and modifies it, etc, since then it's their project, which doesn't seem allowed. They want people to pay if they ever decide to charge in the future. So even if they're free, they still have money in mind I think.

 

I'd feel better if we had assets with full control over, though. It would suck for any outside entity to feel they had any justification to tell us what we can do because something of their's is in it. E.g. there's a line somewhere that contributors consent to their assets going CC, and if we stuck with that we'd just not take them. That's the other argument.

 

But these people already put them up in the unity store for free expecting use like our's. We might even ask the maker's for permission to put them in TDM under our license.

[Bikerdude]

But these people already put them up in the unity store for free expecting use like our's. We might even ask the maker's for permission to put them in TDM under our license.

Also, if Springheel sufficiently modified the models so they don't look like the originals (like I did with the D3 cave in St Albans Cathedral, changed textures, shape and poly count) surly the assets then becomes ours?

 

If we get perms of the original author to do the above then we should be good to go?

[demagogue]

Modifying it would be a derivative work under the license unfortunately, no matter how altered.

 

Edit. It means the original author may practically care less about making an issue of it. But the base assets should be under stricter scrutiny than just an FM too.

 

If we got permission of the author, yeah, I was thinking since they put it up for free, they might be in a frame of mind to let us use it under our own license.

 

Any specific question we should ask on the Unity forum, or start with just a search. I bet these kinds of questions have come up a lot in the past. I just know general things, not specifics.

[Bikerdude]

I've droped the author an email -

Hello

I am one of the devs from The Darkmod, and we have been recently looking for pre-made assets to add to our mod –

• http://forums.thedarkmod.com/topic/16883-free-medieval-unity-modules/?do=findComment&comment=363641

The issue we ran into is that we use the Creative Commons licence, we would really love to incorporate your “Medieval Buildings Collection” into our mod for an upcoming mini campaign.

Kind regards

Biker.

I have joined the unity forum and installed a copy of unity to see what export options we have avaiable.

[SteveL]

This question probably deserves a new thread or a sticky if there's a straightforward answer, but what exactly do we have to ask IP owners in order for them to give a "yes" that means their IP can be used as a core component of TDM? And is it different depending whether they provide that permission for free or for a fee?

 

Presumably they have to give their consent to their assets being released (with attribution) under a non-commercial CC license.

 

I've seen a few assets that offer free use for any purpose--- commercial or otherwise -- but whose licence says that users must not add extra restrictions. Our license has an extra restriction -- non-commercial use only. Does that mean we can't use those assets in the core game without seeking specific permission from the copyright holder? And if so what permission do we need to ask for?

[demagogue]

There's probably an answer, and it's probably a long one.

 

The simple answer is we ask for assets to go in under our existing license if their compatibility isn't clear (if it is, then we just put them in directly). Then if that doesn't work or we don't get an answer, there are different options, different things we can do (put it in under its own license and put a footnote in our readme? ask for consent to our license?), although even if we can do something, it might not be a good idea as a policy matter, which isn't a legal question but a policy one. E.g., if we let an asset that allows commercialization in under its own license, does that limit us in anyway? We're not commercializing it ourselves, and the Unity assets we're not supposed to be redistributing it to 3rd parties anyway, so I don't know if practically it limits us too much, although having everything formally noncommercial is always simpler. I was more worried about the "can't redistribute on to 3rd parties" part anyway.

 

The "fee or free" doesn't matter to the license part; only we should get something in writing. If the creator is changing the license, we have to be sure they haven't given up their right to do that, e.g., to the Unity Store. I don't know if the Unity Store takes the creator's rights over the asset away, but I wouldn't think so.

 

I think the catch is, we're an amorphous entity, so the line between "Broken Glass Studios" as an entity and fans out there in the public is sort of blurry. So we want a license that's friendly for public use in practice, or at least an idea that the IP holder is okay with it whatever the formalities of the license. The way I was thinking about getting in contact with the IP holder, it was as much about making sure they're cool with us using it (since the license opens up the question) as the actual formalities.

[Gestas]

Having their free models used in a mod of the year would be good advertisement for them. As it is they may or may not ever be used in anything worth mentioning.

 

Maybe you guys should just ask them and explain what it is for.

[SteveL]

Good points, both. As long as the creator still has rights over their creation (surely the case for assets being offered freely) then we just ask them for permission to redistribute with attribution under our licence. It might be trickier to get that permission for commercial assets but again as long as the creator holds the rights, we can try to negotiate something.

[Bikerdude]

The way I was thinking about getting in contact with the IP holder, it was as much about making sure they're cool with us using it (since the license opens up the question) as the actual formalities.

Still haven't heard back as yet.

[Springheel]

This one isn't free, but damn, is it perfectly suited for TDM!

 

 

 

https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/18634

[Bikerdude]

Talking of which I heavent heard back from the authors of the free unity models in the Op, I will chase them.

[Obsttorte]

This one isn't free, but damn, is it perfectly suited for TDM!

 

 

 

https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/18634

At least it is a god-damn inspiration for us. I think due to the many screenies provided on the page it is possible to rebuild them (roughly).

[Springheel]

The artist's website has a lot of really inspiring stuff on it: http://triplebrick.com/

 

This one reminds me very much of a more colourful Thief4.

 

[Goldwell]

At this link you can play through that haunted town level

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13155015/fantasyTown/web.html

[Springheel]

Wow, super cool! That's going to be an awesome reference.

[grayman]

Me ready to go back to mapping.

[Bikerdude]

At this link you can play through that haunted town level

Can this be played in the unity app, rather than the webplayer..?

 

And the guy has more demos -

 

http://triplebrick.com/unity-web-player-demo-level/

[Melan]

Ironically, I believe these assets are too good for TDM, and would mostly break its visual consistency. You could assemble much of a level if you had a steady supply of them; but placed alongside the mod's regular models and the kind of brushwork most of us are capable of, they would look out of place.

[demagogue]

I think the solution to that is slowly assembling a steady supply of them, and raising the bar on builders' ambitions.

 

Or rather, if you're still a beginner, you can be content with the old assets and methods. But if you want to put in the work for more ambitious levels, it'd be great to have the assets to do it. We can at least set our sights on it as a longterm project. Also, since they use a modular building style, I don't know if it's even harder to build with them; if anything, maybe it's easier.

 

Edit: Another point I wanted to make. I don't know if we even need that much content to get a consistent look within an FM either. So many FMs use the same urban and interior environments. It's the gameplay and stories that set most FMs apart. So having those environments as a base would cover a lot of territory, and then slowly adding some variety over time.

[Springheel]

When you try out the level, you can see that the models are actually fairly low-poly. The barrels are much blockier than ours, for example, and you can see the lamp in the image above is nothing special. What makes it look good is the consistent palette of colours, and the fact that they are using models for things that would be difficult to do with brushes and patches, like the archways, corner pieces, and detailed windows. TDM mappers simply haven't had access to those kinds of models up until now. But I'm working on it.

[nbohr1more]

I'll agree that there are inspiring elements there.

 

I think that the textures are far more repetitive than almost any TDM mission so the visuals rely heavily on

geometric variety and lighting. The lighting, IMHO, looks much worse than TDM other than the baked AO everywhere.

It's an artistic rather than realistic portrait of lighting and it works OK in screenshots but is less than convincing in

a real map. (I'm not a big fan of Unity's vertex light behavior in general, they need better shader artists).

 

So the geometry is the last comparison point. In this case, the generous use of wood planks for facades, supporting

structures, etc seems to be the magic ingredient. Not sure how well such dense geometry will fare in the current

TDM versions but we'll see. The modular approach may yield some unexpectedly good performance for the

polygon budget. This demo was clearly using some modularity too with many repeated geometric elements.

 

Still, I find Kvorning's modular city area in Lords and Legacy more appealing than this visually