WHEN ?
 

Is there any forseeable date for us getting the freshwater version

I heared fall '02 :D

Maybe we get it as x-mas present - like the Lionfish last year.... so it would be Feb. 2003 :-)

ahhh, if I don't get the freshwatertank in fall, I'll die :D

It would be so nice to see some screenshots...

Yeah, shots of the real freshwatertank jim set up would be nice too :D just something to look at :)

Standard response
 

When? ....when it's done.

In the past Jim has made it clear that he doesn't want to post any images of the aquarium which have to do with unfinished work (e.g. 3D background, new fish, etc.). So it's likely this will also hold true for the freshwater version (unfortunately). Oh how I wish Jim would prove me wrong on this one and finally post some images, but I doubt it's ever going to change. :(

It seems to be an integrity thing for Jim. Presenting his work and then hear critics at an early stage might make him loose interest. - Why continue to work on something people don't like, and such. I don't know how open he is about input on the actual design of the aquarium either. With an artists approach to something (as I believe is how Jim works with these aquariums) I think it's almost "forbidden" to change your work to please others. (Not meaning fixing bugs, though.) :D This is just my 2 cents...
(Sorry Jim for putting words in your mouth. I hope I'm not out into deep waters here.) :)

When I used to restore cars for a living, I'd spend about six months hammering and filling the body until it was perfectly smooth. But everyone I proudly showed it to thought it was hideous until it was painted (a very minor final step). I learned my lesson.

Well, some people can handle criticism, and some cannot. Either way, Jim has his reasons and we've grown to accept them because the fruits of his labor more than make it worth the wait.

Still, a LOT of software developers show screenshots of their work prior to the software going gold and even prior to beta versions, so it's not like it's taboo or something. The difference here is that Jim is in fact an artist and as such probably views things a bit differently than your average programmer.

DL, could you define artist for me? To the best of my knowledge, one can be an artist in many different ways. Around here several people (not Jim himself TTBOMK) wields that "Artist" expression around as an explanation to a lot of things. What does it take to call oneself an artist – some sort of exam?

A lot of this sounds like the newspapers shouting out that "Scientists" have discovered that this-and-that is dangerous (or isn't) and instantly people believes it because "scientists" know everything.

Sorry if this comes out a bit harsh, but as long as Jim comes up with good explanations himself (like in this thread for instance) there's IMO no need to follow it up with that "he's an artist – not an programmer" expression.

/Tiny Ranting

Scientist

Well, I suppose I consider Jim an artist based on his original digital art which he was so well known for back in the Amiga days. I understand that some people (programmers for example) might like to consider themselves digital artists just because they know how to weild code around, but to me an artist (digital or real for that matter) is someone that visualizes the images they want to create and then paints them onto a real or digital canvas. Sure, there are other types of artists out there in the real and digital worlds (sculptors for example), but in so far as the digital world goes, to me Jim is an artist.
Yes it did come out a bit harsh Tiny, but no big deal. The fact is I posted my response before I saw Jim's, a common occurance around here and on other forums. So please understand that I wasn't trying to be annoying on purpose, it just happened. Sorry if I rubbed you or anyone else the wrong way with this unintended "mistake". :(

I am always awed when I look at all of the artwork Jim did in Amiga and Commodore days. Also all of the work he did on CompuTrainer. It is truly art and should be in a museum somewhere (for now we'll have to settle for a website).

I really do not forsee people helping Jim with the shrimp, octopus, jellyfish, etc. especially the animation of them. Unless these are people with a film or special effects background I don't trust em to get it anywhere near right.

Which brings us back to the fish. What strikes me about the Aquarium is the motion of the fish, the realism of the water's surface light and shadows on the coral, the lighting off of some of the fish (Royal Gramma, Copperband, Wimplefish).

I've stated several times (much to Jim's chagrin), that I think there are other people who could assist with making just fish. The structure is already there to have crisp, detailed fish with properly shaped bodies.

I look at Jim's art over the years and don't know what to say. The amount of detail is mind-boggling. I could never even think of doing anything like that. Then I look at the Aquarium and the fish and think, you know, I could probably make some fish myself that would blend in.

I wonder if Jim is doing multiple layers of transparency for the freshwater fish. That would be nightmarish to have to model, texture, and create an alpha channel for 2 objects per fish instead of 1.

Artist: One who creates a product to make a profit (i.e. to "raise funds for a future movie") yet makes the product as HE wants it as opposed to what the consumer wants.

I have felt for some time that both Jim and others use the "Artist" label to gloss over Jim's somewhat contradictory attitudes toward the Aquarium. Namely, that he has stressed a number of times that the purpose of the program is to make money, yet even when MANY of his customers express intrest in certain features, he avoids them as not corresponding with his vision of what the Aquarium should be.

It seems that if the main goal is profit, you should make what the largest possible number of people will be most happy with, and then they buy it. Jim seems to consider it very much "his" Aquarium, which is fine. But if he's making it to satisfy something artistic in himself, at the expense of customers' desires, he cannot say that the purpose of the product is to make money.

I think this artistic possessive attitude especially hurts when Jim keeps anyone else from the design of the program. Insisting on doing all coding himself slows down the process greatly, again hindering profits.

And more disturbing to me is the effort he has made to keep anyone from adding to what he has done, like SS fans making their own fish. For one thing, no program is so perfect that it can't be improved on, and to think that only Jim has the talent to do the Aquarium justice is unrealistic. Second, I don't see that Jim even has the right to keep people from altering their programs. People have referred to this as "keeping others away from his canvas" and "protecting the Mona Lisa from the spraypaint." Thing is, it stopped being HIS canvas as soon as he accepted my $19.99 for it. If I bought the Mona Lisa, or a copy of it, I could draw a mustache on it if that's what I wanted to do. It's mine; Da Vinci has nothing to say about it. Which is why I think we will see non-Jim-approved fish and features being circulated underground regardless. If the people want it badly enough, and Jim doesn't give it to them, someone else will. Happens to video games all the time.

*DISCLAIMER*
All that being said, I mean no offence to anyone and am grateful to Jim for giving us the best screensaver I've ever seen. These are just feelings I've kept to myself for a long time and I'm freedom-of-speeching them now. They certainly won't stop me from getting the Aquarium plug-ins and possibly later screensavers as I support Jim's work.

So he cried as the good townsfolk, torches and pitchforks in hand, closed around him in an angry mob to exterminate the monster in their midst.

Easy there, Tonto. – You (and possibly me) are in for some flak...

/Tiny Bombshelter

I'm glad you are not involved in the decision-making process for the Lord of the Rings films. Otherwise they would have erased all the orcs from the story and put in the latest boy band song and a love story and turned Gollum into Frodo's pet.

Legally, you are licensing the Aquarium from Jim. You do not own it. But, under fair use laws you could modify it for yourself. There are a lot of laws here, too much to explain in a single paragraph.

Morally, you're on your own.

So far, the only modifications to the Aquarium I have seen in public have been the Russian jacked versions which have translated dialog boxes and hideous fish, many of which are native Russian freshwater fish or monstrosities in the mind of the hacker. Who knows how much non-public underground stuff is going around.

More and more games are providing an opening where people can create their own characters, worlds, etc. Jim's reason for not opening up the Aquarium has been the integrity of the artwork, namely that in any open-ended situation, there is always 80-90% noise and 10% signal.

For every 1 character or world that is interesting and attractive, there are 10 created by someone who is just goofing around. And of those 10%, only 1-2% are in the same class as those created by the original developer. id Software is proof of that. They have been so impressed with some of the third-party worlds and characters that they have licensed them from fans and sold them in retail packages. The question is, is it worth opening the door for that 2%? I think so.

Also, there are websites that weed through the countless modifications and single out the best. I know if there WERE "legal" modifications, I would only list the very best of them (in my opinion) on my website.

As much as I talk about hoping the Aquarium will open up to outside development, I am not against the idea of only certain people having access to these tools. I don't think I say that out of selfishness. I think I say it because I fear what some people would add.

Huh??

You've radically underestimated my appreciation for orcs, and overestimated my appreciation of boy bands. There is a love story: Arwen & Aragorn.

I wasn't suggesting that I personally be in close consultation in the development of the Aquarium. Only that some of the more widely desired features be made optional, rather than completely refused.

Also note that the Lord of the Rings films is under an obligation to its fans to stay true to Tolkien's books, and Jim, creating an original work, is not limited by continuing the work of a previous artist.

I agree with the majority of your post (the sensible parts). But as far as fearing what others would add, no one's going to force anyone to use their modifications. It'd be up to whether to download or not.

FLAK FLAK FLAK FLAK!!!!!!!!! Had enough? :D

:D

Curiosity:

Tiny, did you know what Tonto meant when you posted that?

:)

Well, to me it as just a name in an expression I heard somewhere. Kinda like "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto" (Hey, look! Almost the same name :)). – Have I offended someone with it?

/Tiny Tornado

Toto and Tonto are a bit different.

Um, yes. I said almost didn't I? I meant an expression with a name. – Not that specific expression...

/Tiny Similarity

A while ago someone mentioned that that found my attitude about the Aquarium contradictory. Not so at all. You will never find a person who is easier to understand than me. I simply want to have the most possible enjoyment while having the greatest positive effect on the world.

I realized at an early age that making movies was the best way I could accomplish this. When I turned 50 a few years ago, I realized I was running out of time, and the CompuTrainer project was not likely to bring in the kind of money necessary to do a film. So I decided to create a series of hyper-realistic desktop virtual-life programs, which anyone with the price of the average dinner-out could afford.

Yes, the Aquarium must raise money to allow me to make a film. An artist's artwork must finance the next project or he's dead.

I cannot follow the leap of logic necessary to believe that this would in any way imply that I would do anything for money. There are a great many things I would NOT do for money, and sacrificing my integrity or reputation is among them. I thought long and hard to come up with a way of earning a living which would bring joy to many and harm to none.

I found that the best way to keep the quality up in the Aquarium (or anything else I've ever worked on) is to keep tight control of the project. This usually means doing everything myself, but not necessarily. At this moment, Prolific's programmers are creating code for the program which will improve the user interface and various other enhancements.

Yes, I might sell a few more copies if I allowed the user to create their own objects. But this would not improve the Aquarium, it would ultimately hurt it and damage my credibility. Anyone with the skill to make a creature matching the qualitly of the rest of the tank would certainly have the ability to create their own program. It is obvious that within hours of the time I made the fish format public, people would create ridiculous/obscene creatures, distribute them on the Internet, and my Aquarium would become associated with such things. I will do everything I can to prevent that.

Sorry, I do not want to re-invent the wheel. Any attempt I made at trying to create an entirely new Aquarium would be a disaster. I would give up after a few weeks of trying to recreate the programming you have done. The motion would be a joke.

My interest lies in contributing to the only game in town.

OK I understand...

I appreciate your taking the time to respond, which was something I did not expect. And I admire the things you're doing, and your reasons for doing them.

I still have trouble with your statement that giving the user more creative freedom "would not improve the Aquarium." It seems to ignore the "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder" element to this kind of program, and presuppose one person's opinion (admittedly the creator's, which does give it a certain weight) as the absolute objective standard for what is the most attractive or pleasing. It is likely that for some people, an Aquarium customized beyond what you've provided for could give them "the most possible enjoyment."

In addition, I think the idea that "the Aquarium" would not be improved is misleading because it would no longer be a "the Aquarium". It would in effect make a limitless number of Aquariums, as many as anyone wanted to create. Many of these would certainly be in yours and many others' views pretty trashy. But I think there would also be a great many high-quality innovations, from intelligent people with respect for the Aquarium and making it better. Some of these you yourself might even feel are improvements on what you've done.

But I understand if you feel that the good that would come of that is outweighed by the huge potential bad that would come with it, as Morgan mentioned. I realize that it's easy for me to sit here and make such comments, when I didn't put in the massive amount of time and effort to get the Aquarium where it is. If I had, maybe I would feel the same way you do about "protecting" what I had worked so hard on.

So I guess I'll just shut up and be patient and accepting like everyone else (not that I have much choice) :)

Thanks again Jim, for your work and for your willingness to explain yourself on this forum.

p.s. The name of the Lone Ranger's sidekick, Tonto, means "stupid" in Spanish.

Sorry, Ceph. That Spanish reference was *way* above my head and thus purely coincidental... :)

Tiny Insulter

Glad to see this thread has lightened up a bit.

There may be artists who feel that their artwork might be improved by letting others mess with it, but I've never met one. As for me, in the 4th grade, I was asked to participate in making a class mural. I said that I'd be happy to do the whole mural, but otherwise I'm not interested. My attitude has not changed. (Yes, I was scolded then, too.)

I also did not know that Tonto means stupid in Spanish. I wonder if the creators of the Lone Ranger did, and considered it an inside joke.

Of course, Tonto wasn't Spanish, though. In Potawatami, it supposedly means "wild guy." Which also doesn't make much sense considering Tonto's usual demeanor. Oh well.

It's kind of like the story of the Chevy Nova. Didn't sell too well in Spanish-speaking countries, because "No va" means "doesn't go."

Something interesting about "kemo sabe."
http://www.old-time.com/misc/kemo.html

I think I like the "trusty scout" meaning better than "soggy shrub."

Blue, I guess you like Mitsubishi's 4WD model "Pajero", then...

/TT

OK, OK, Morgan....sheesh. I was just trying to make a point -- and unfortunately forgot that that particular Nova example was an urban legend.

So. For the anal-retentive: Here are some that actually ARE true:
http://www.i18nguy.com/translations.html

Blue, most of those facts (at least the ones about things in spanish) are wrong. Most of the english translations are really weird and never happened.

Don't believe everything you see on a website :)

(although the Pajero thing is real) ;)

The ones I posted are mostly correct.

Regardless, it is exceedingly trivial information anyway, and I was just using it as a light-hearted example of the perils of translation, whether it be Tonto or Nova or whatever. But some people just can't let anything slide.

Let's relax and hang out at www.engrish.com

There, that's better.

Yup, Nothing's better than engrish.com

/Tiny Translation Skills

I don't think I have seen Jim post what kind of movie he is wanting to make. If he did, I missed it. Do you know?

Nancy

www.vrzone1.com