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.
@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.
This issue is driving me mad. Made a scene with some highly complex characters and thought about saving them like I would in LBP. Simple right?
Oh no no no no NO!
Because of MM taking copyrights so seriously that if you are willing to delete a simple creation that you made in your own scene. You NEED to delete the whole scene you made just to delete that simple creation.
I’ve learned the hard lesson that you need to make elements first before stamping them into scenes which sucks.
MM. dreams is just LBP but 3D and a little more complex but can you make the saving system like LBP again. It worked for saying who it was from too.
You don't have to keep those creations local. You can upload and delete the local copy.
Just stopped by to echo the above thoughts, the whole process when working with your own creations is unnecessarily convoluted and I hate that minor props are tied to old, useless levels and cannot be deleted, meaning that the 1GB of storage space MM give you will run out sooner or later!
Any of the above solutions would be much more amenable!
Here some wise solutions Media Molecule could use to fix this problem:
Remove the genealogy and remix system completely when a person is handling their own creations. It is too messy and it only causes more trouble for players trying to find out how much stuff in your scene is original and how much of it are elements made by other players. It also makes it super hard to keep a clean workflow. If I save an element, whether I make it from scratch or save it from another scene I made... It should not contain a remix label at all, AND if I were to put any of my OWN elements in my OWN scenes, they should not be included in the genealogy. Only elements that are NOT mine should appear in the genealogy.
If the player is saving a creation from a scene/element that is completely theirs (NOT a collaboration; NOT from someone else's scene; does NOT contain dremaverse creations), make that element an original element and put that newly made element into the genealogy of the creation you saved it from.
[Now everything should work as if the player made the element FIRST and THEN put it inside the scene]
If the player saves a creation that is NOT from their own scene/element, make THAT new creation a remix of the scene it came from. (Basically, make it how it is working right now, but only in this context).
Yeah, if you own the scene, and you created the element yourself in your own scene and you then export it as an element, MM should allow you to reverse the genealogy. For example, the element should be a new creation and then it should be reverse remixed into the scene, I mean that’s much more logical. Also otherwise, you constantly have to exit your creation, create a tree or whatever and then come back and stamp it. I made this mistake so many times, and this is never explained anywhere really in any tutorial videos. They should have a tutorial that explains remixing and creating your own assets so you don’t end up having to make your scene remixable just to make that one element you want others to remix, I have to recreate so many items now just because of this issue.
Maybe use the word SPLIT. So there could be Split as New Creation.