Skacky textures pack: request for review and submission to the core mod.

[Bikerdude]

Skacky's texture pack: - Amadeus and I have worked on this pack, its a mixture of various walls, floors, doors, drains and other architectural assets. 
The pack has the startingmap.txt file, so it can just be dropped into the FMs folder and will show up in the in-game FM list.

- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YfIEc4lUHLxk7P3c15L3xJqQ0yoZBDDR/view

Edited February 3 by Bikerdude

[Amadeus]

Here is a Google Doc link with the pk4: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YfIEc4lUHLxk7P3c15L3xJqQ0yoZBDDR/view?usp=sharing 

It also includes a testmap "skacky.map" showcasing the textures. 

Added note: It'll probably be too late for 2.14, but there is always 2.15

[Wellingtoncrab]

@Bikerdudeto start have Skacky and Daraan both consented to their assets being included and licensed CC-BY-NC-SA?

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en

I ask as Skacky's project does not include any license information, though I know he took these photos himself so we would just need consent from him. Daraan's pack includes a readme file which lists a few sources, one of which is CC0 but it also includes a free texture website and the unity asset store which would require carve outs in license.txt which I am not sure we would go for.

Either way Daraan has clearly licensed some of the assets themselves. Do you know which assets are which and where they individually came from? I would suggest you update the material definitions to include the information or compile it in some other way.

Looking at the assets themselves the mostly look quite nice. IMO in the skacky pack most of the flat stone textures read as a bit desaturated and lacking contrast compared to things like the wooden doors which look great.

[Bikerdude]

4 minutes ago, Wellingtoncrab said:

@Bikerdudeto start have Skacky and Daraan both consented to their assets being included and licensed CC-BY-NC-SA?

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en

I ask as Skacky's project does not include any license information, though I know he took these photos himself so we would just need consent from him. Daraan's pack includes a readme file which lists a few sources, one of which is CC0 but it also includes a free texture website and the unity asset store which would require carve outs in license.txt which I am not sure we would go for.

Either way they have clearly licensed some of the assets themselves. Do you know which assets are which and where they individually came from? I would suggest you update the material definitions to include the information or compile it in some other way.

Looking at the assets themselves the mostly look quite nice. IMO in the skacky pack most of the flat stone textures read as a bit desaturated and lacking contrast compared to things like the wooden doors which look great.

I spoke to Darann about this and he gave me links to where he got the textures from. And from everything I could see the original source are compliant. Relevant info is in the readme.

I am fairly sure Skacky's pack is compliant, but I forgot to create the readme. So will get that info and will update the archive.

[Amadeus]

2 minutes ago, Bikerdude said:

I am fairly sure Skacky's pack is compliant, but I forgot to create the readme. So will get that info and will update the archive.

He literally took the photos himself. These are all original photo-sourced images

[Wellingtoncrab]

19 minutes ago, Bikerdude said:

I spoke to Darann about this and he gave me links to where he got the textures from. And from everything I could see the original source are compliant. Relevant info is in the readme.

I am fairly sure Skacky's pack is compliant, but I forgot to create the readme. So will get that info and will update the archive.

I cannot reconcile the links in Daraan’s readme with your claim they are “CC0 compliance verified”. Some of them clearly are not.

That does not preclude their inclusion, but license.txt must contain explicit reference to assets under a given license. Unless the asset is explicitly compatible with the default (Which is CC-BY-NC-SA, not necessarily CC0) It is not enough to know the sources where the assets generally came from - you must know the the provenance of each asset.

Can you compile that information in some way?

As I mentioned you would likely only need consent from skacky - since he owns the assets. If you have that I would document it.

[Bikerdude]

Skacky Pack:

I have ping'd him on discord to confirm.
 

Edited February 1 by Bikerdude

[Bikerdude]

@Wellingtoncrab

From Skacky - 

"I'm happy to provide my textures for anyone and anything really, as long as it's free". I confirmed the definition of "CC BY-NC-SA" and his reply was "sounds about right"
 

[Wellingtoncrab]

9 minutes ago, Bikerdude said:

Architectural - 

- This has been discussed on the forum 

Pawing through a forum discussion from 11 years ago full of dead links is not clarifying. I cannot go to the unity asset store and verify anything about it at this point. The only thing tying the two events together is your statement they are related in some way.

If you have been given permission by the owner to relicense all the assets in this otherwise unrelated pack as CC-BY-NC-SA you should state that somewhere.

No else will be able to go back in time and verify that for you. You know all of this already frankly.

[Bikerdude]

All fair points, and had thought I had done due diligence. So in the mean time Ive ping'd Daraan over on ttlg and removed his pack from the OP.

Removed all but 4 of the books from, darran's Pack as I wasn’t able to reconcile the licencing situation. I have migrated them to another project that Amadeus and I are working on.

Edited February 1 by Bikerdude

[Bikerdude]

Evening

We have done some cleanup and updating of the pack, so we would like some feedback to see if we missed anything or there were are glaring mistakes on my part when migrating the textures or creating the normals etc.

I have updated the download link in the OP.

b. 

[Wellingtoncrab]

@Bikerdude the version on the beta mapper repository is current I presume?

[Amadeus]

yep, it's the current one

[Bikerdude]

On 2/3/2026 at 11:00 PM, Wellingtoncrab said:

@Bikerdude the version on the beta mapper repository is current I presume?

On 2/3/2026 at 11:09 PM, Amadeus said:

yep, it's the current one

@Wellingtoncrab Did you get around to having a look? if not and if there are no objections I can just create a standalone pack and link it in my assets thread.

Edited September 24 by Bikerdude