Fazor Object

[Novabrain]

This object still stands, to me, as a very important time-saver and a step in a new direction where you can easily set ranges, toggling, and automation for object rotations, sizes, etc.

An example would be that you want an AO to rotate to and for a certain number of degrees at a given speed, (perhaps speeding up and then slowing down). You also want it to grow and shrink over a range, etc. This is only one aspect of using this kind of object. The events and actions and testing/tweaking needed cover at least a few lines and some variables to control the range and toggle the motion. If you have many objects, you are going to be doing much more work than you would if a "Fazor" type of object where available. That means more creativity and enjoyment with less setup and effort.

While I would like to see objects themselves have easily set ranges/and speeds that would work like this object, it still represents a milestone for quick, dynamic control with far fewer events and actions. A streamlining, if you will.

It is as important and impacting as the new Drag & Drop Custom Movement now in beta.

I don't have MMF 1.5 installed currently, so anyone who does could perhaps be so kind as to relist the events, actions, and capacities of this unfinished object that I am attatching. Perhaps we can get it going again, and I mean, as a paid project.

The object's name could/would be changed since someone else started this object a while back. Plus, I feel it may be nondescript as to its uses and potentials.

My goal is to get this one to the public and then hope/push for this kind of functionality in future versions of MMF after its benefits are truly realized ... at least starting with the AO and AP.

[vortex2]

I could try recreating it I suppose, however I would want to get permission from Xtraverse before doing so.

[Novabrain]

I have long felt that this kind of object is as pivotal and essential to MMF as the new and simple, but pivotal, drag/drop movement.

I know it does not, at first, seem that way, but the simple can be obscured by the complex ideas of more grandiose extensions.

I don't currently recall what Xtraverse's status is in regards to the recent defections, but I don't think there is a patent on ideas and I hope to get something published that he started within our company context, support, and feedback, back into production for the sake of the product and the users.

I really don't care if it takes renaming, various changes, and new menus/options/conditions/actions. In other words, I don't want the MMF2 clone, along with its various, stolen/borrowed ideas and testing to stand in our way after all is said and done.

However, I would note that we have documented proof that any development that has gone on in our private forum areas was clearly defiend and outlined from the beginning. Regardless of any challenge presented, the onus of proof is on the allegations presented to contest what we were, and are, doing. It is my understanding that anything we do with what was developed within our documented framework belongs to us and anything that goes outside it is a breech of contract -- plain and simple. I do not feel that we need to be anything more, but certainly no on the defensive in this situation.

We really have to move on and protect and grow what is rightfully ours as a community and company without respect for those who feel they must use what we have to better our efforts. In the end, the contest will be in other arenas that are legal and not our current concern. CT is already on the ball with this, though we should tread with a reasonable caution on these grounds.

As far as I have observed and see it, Construct is an affront to what years of work, experience, blood, sweat, and tears by a group of people have produced. I am confident that we are legally, intellectually, morally, and realistically capable of confronting that challenge if we tread cautiously for now. For the most part, we must proceed without letting a project that may never come to fruition take its course. Clickteam and MMF2/TGF2 have been through a lot and we are not going to be easily deterred by exploitations, no matter what its purported reasons and purposes may be. Years of precedence stand behind what we have done as a company that is a good ground to stand on. We have so much working for us and so much to look forward too, so we must be realistic about weighing our risks.

I hope everyone is with me on this stance. We are not going to to back down to a small challenge that represents only defection and duplication for the most part.

I am really hoping, from all my years of using MMF, that we an get his one going and online. I know I have a few pet ideas that keep coming up, but the drag/drop movement fired me up after I saw how easy it made something that really should be with this product.

Thanks!

[James]

It is my understanding that anything we do with what was developed within our documented framework belongs to us and anything that goes outside it is a breech of contract -- plain and simple.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, but do you mean that if we make an extension, the code is then property of CT and we can't use it for anything else?

[Jeff]

I think what Rhon is saying if we purchase an extension we expect a bit of exclusivity from the creator of the extension.

[Novabrain]

I think was also venting a bit too much there Yes, Jeff summed it up.

Some of the extensions made were based on requests and ideas I contributed, and this is one of them. In fact, often, I tended to spend a lot of time with developers, testing and suggesting to make sure the extensions were full-feature, etc.

[vortex2]

Naturally if you guys purchase an extension, then I would expect for you to have exclusive rights to the code.

As a programmer, I would hope that you can understand why I would be a bit nervous to engage in what might seem to the outside public to be "copying". Sure the idea is not copyrighted but care would have to be taken to avoid directly copying the actions, conditions, and expressions which can be seen as an implementation.

Now I can understand why Clickteam wants to get innovative ideas out into the fold, but we must be careful while doing so. Personally I do not like the precedence that “remaking” this extension would set, as I feel it would put my own work out of my hands. If I do not feel that my work is getting enough protection, I will withdraw from the EDT and rejoin with a detailed written contract that gives me more control over my work. However hopefully that will not be necessary.

I really hate stirring the pot and causing this sort of trouble, however I felt it was important to raise my concerns in the hope that they could be reasonably addressed.

[Jeff]

Yes vortex if your not comfortable remaking an extension that is perfectly fine I would suggest you not do it.

Just like if other people copy the entire MMF interface they should feel odd about doing that while a member of a privileged group.

The fazor was not an xtraverse only idea -- rather it was an idea Nova and xtraverse worked together on to develop the actions/events and conditions.

So Nova is looking for someone to complete the object.
Since the source code does not exist anymore this means its needs to be recreated.

Not copied .. not stolen .. recreated since it does not exist.

[joewski]

Sure the idea is not copyrighted but care would have to be taken to avoid directly copying the actions, conditions, and expressions which can be seen as an implementation.

Copying a list of menu's does not constitute a copyright violation, it is not a derived work. The work must be looked at in it entirety. Since the code is being written from scratch I doubt that copyright would even be an issue.

[Novabrain]

As CT adds more developers to this area and contracts specific extensions, I would like to give this one priority.