Don’t mark an element as remixed when using Save as New Element
It’s really frustrating that “save as new creation” now makes a remix connection. I can’t sever remix connections between my own creations. I want to release a microchip that started its life in a character I’m not ready to release, yet I can’t release the microchip without releasing the character because it was marked as a remix! It wasn’t like this in previous versions, previously if I used Save as New Creation I could upload it without worries.
Even if I delete the tainted piece that started its life in the character, or if I delete every single thing in the element for that matter, I still can’t release it without making the character public.
VGA was talking about people seeing the "remix of" part and assuming it's a ripoff, not about how it's used. And I was responding to that.
Yes people notice when it says "remix of." because it actually AFFECTS how the asset works.
You cannot delete the origin file of the "new object" because it's marked as a "remix" so, you cannot make space by making a "test scene" and developing objects in it because it makes an unnecessary trail of remixes that can cause issues when publishing the object.
I don't think most people even notice when it says "remix of."
And for myself, I assume it's a remix of their own thing or an exported element, as that seems to be the case mostly.
Agree. I have one project where i made most of my instruments, cause making a new file every time I want to import a sample is insane.. That would take so much freaking extra time. soooo all the sounds are labeled remixes. There should be no need to add remix tag to any of my own creations. Whenever I see "Remix of" on anything in Dreams I immediately click to check that it’s not just stolen repackaged assets. It’s not cool knowing that a lot of people will assume all my instruments are just rereleased stuff others have made. It would be helpful to just show who made the remixable right there in the description so I don’t have to click to check.
Couldn't agree with you more, its so frustrating
@TAPgiles, I was talking about the remix feature from a functional standpoint. You could go re-read my previous comment. I have edited it to make sure i'm more clearer this time. I only started to mention its name once you did, before that I was only talking about its function.
Yes, I do that now that I know. But in the first few months, I created a lot of things that are now remixed or editable/public because of this "hidden" knowledge. They should really add a tutorial specifically on how remixing works and how to best structure all of this, before you even start creating assets.
I just make elements as separate things. If I think I might want it to be separate, I start a new creation, know what I mean?
I know you might want to export halfway through a project or something, but that's how I deal with it. I think before I start a new object and decide if I should make it its own thing.
Adobe Indesign and Illustrator does a good job of this. In a page layout or artboard, if you click an image that you have embedded in the document, you can click "Unembed" and this pops up a dialog and you can save the graphic as an external file (a unique blank save). Then after is completes this operation, it links the file in as the new "graphic", so there is no remix of the graphic or file, it's saved out as a new starting point and then the current open creation you have is modified to instead of containing a remix of the current item, but a stamp of the exported item.
Climbing Demo (scene) => select microchip => save as new creation => Climbing microchip (element)
Climbing Demo (scene) => containing a stamp of Climbing Microchip
Climbing Microchip (element) => remix of Climbing Demo (basically everything but the microchip is deleted)
Suggested operation [ONLY IF YOU OWN THE ELEMENT CONTENT]
After save (suggested):
Climbing Demo (scene) => containing a stamp of Climbing Microchip below
Climbing Microchip (element) => no remix (origin point of an element)
I've had an issue due to remixing, if you publish the element as public then the demo also HAS to be public AND editable, because it was the parent remix of the element, so you can't make the child editable without all the parents being editable too.
Now I have to be really careful. I have kind of figured out a work around. I remix the chip from the original private demo, and then I also make a remix of the original private as another scene. So now both the chip and the demo (copy) are remixes of the original, then I archive/delete the original, then there doesn't seem to be a direct connection between the export and the copy, due to the parent being deleted. I must admit I haven't really done exhaustive testing on this feature.
Yeah I think it could be improved to make it easier to use. Only, it takes rejigging of how credit works, which could be a bit of nightmare.
I still use it myself, just bearing in mind what implications there are. But I'm not bothered by having widow scenes floating around on the server that I can't see. But I know some are.
Regardless of what we call the feature, I think the behavior folks are expecting out of it is the classic "export selected" function we're used to seeing in other software. An "export" being a self contained, non-linked copy of the thing selected (as long as it's your own stuff).
Then on the import side, many programs will give you the linking option:
Embed the import, where it becomes an unlinked, permanent part of the file. Deletion or changes of the original have no effect on the import.
Or reference the import. Changes to the original are reflected in the file it was imported to. It's a "live" copy, if you will.
I never use this feature as it is currently, for the frustrating lack of control it gives me over the originating scene/element. 😔
Right. But you're not annoyed by it being called a remix, right? If they changed the name to "branch" that wouldn't help resolve the issue.
The issue is that it is a remix in function, regardless of what it's called. I think we're probably talking past each other.
I understand why you'd want it to not be a remix at all. But I wouldn't care myself however they word it.
Since when did trying to save something "as a New Creation" started being "technically a remix"? If its supposed to be a new creation, it should not be treated as a remix of the scene.
It's technically a remix. That's what it literally is, so it's marked as such. Whether it needs to be a remix or not.
One more thing to note is that even from a crediting standpoint, it doesn't make any sense at all to put the remix label on someone who is trying to save their own creation. Especially, from a scene that is completely theirs and doesn't even contain any dreamiverse creations. In this context, the saved element doesn't need to reference the scene to credit the creator. It's unnecessary to credit someone twice. They should remove the remix label when a person saves something from a scene that is originally made by themselves.
I don't think this has anything to do with "spamming." You can remix something as many times as you like. The credit system doesn't change that.
I may be wrong, but another reason they may have put this restriction in is because the Media Molecule Team probably believes we can to copy, paste and spam our own creations over and over again if the remixed label isn't there for our own creations. They were probably attempting to make a system that made it easy for people to identify spam and discourage it within the community.
They should create a system that prevents the bad people who like to spam and steal credit from others without hindering the ability of other players from having creative freedom.
Also if you imported someone else's asset and then saved out from there, your creation was only ever offline, but used someone else's stuff.
I can see why it was made like this in the first place, to ensure that no credit stuff can be manipulated. It could be relaxed in some specific cases, but that would take extra work and they'd have to be super sure it couldn't be manipulated. So I can also see why they didn't have those edge cases in from the start. I can also see how they may not have time to look at this because it's doing its job; even if it's frustrating some people, it's not literally broken. I'm sure there are plenty of bugs and new features they are working on which are taking precendence right now.
They see everything in this forum one way or another. But they can't respond to every post and comment; there's a lot more of us than there are of them ;P So I can understand why people may feel like it's being ignored, but I'm sure it's not.
The problem here is that this will still happen when your creations are only saved OFFLINE.
When this is the case, your creation can not possibly be a creation made originally by someone else. Meaning it is only crediting you when you copy out your own work... This is what people hate so much!
Only problem here is if you imported someone elses work in to your offline creation, and then copy it out from there, so there would need to be a solution for that.
Yes, if the creation was saved ONLINE, that means it can be originally made by someone else, and in this case the creation should be credited with geneaology to it's original creator, or if an OFFLINE creation contains an asset that is saved ONLINE, should credit be given too.
It's not about copyright but credit, really. Like, if you remixed someone else's scene and just saved out their character and there was no credit link back to that person that would be pretty crap.
If you used "save as new" to export something, it creates a remix of that scene with everything by the the exported thing deleted.
When you try to delete a character, if another creation references (it has it imported) then if you just deleted the character and that's all then that scene wouldn't make sense and you couldn't publish it anyway. Which is why it asks you to delete it instead; it makes it very clear that the scene in quesiton is useless if you delete the character.
So if you want to delete the character without deleting the scene, make it so that scene doesn't reference the character. Even in one of its past versions. And then it won't have a dependency on the character. So you can delete the character, and that scene won't have to be deleted because it *wouldn't* break if you deleted the character.
Or another way of handling it is to just not delete that character. Upload it, archive it, and you never have to look at it again, but you won't break the scene it was used in.