(1.11) LizardMan's Visual Collection

[LizardMan]

...A VISUAL COLLECTION

Hello! This is the LizardMan's Visual Collection, which not only provides amazing look, but is also highly editable. there are plenty of TUFX settings to choose from and you can customize the easily accessible settings to your liking. With this modpack you can make stunning cinematic videos and pictures.

Why is this for?

• Looks: This modpack is designed to make celestial bodies and spaceships more stunning, detailed and realistic.
• Simplicity: This means you don’t have to bother with settings. I tried to set everything up to be in the best, most beautiful form. I also considered showing only images that look exactly like the freshly installed modpack.
• Always up to date: I make sure this modpack is always up to date, works on the latest versions.
• Just visual: It doesn't change anything in the mechanics of the game.

Features:

• 43k clouds to Kerbin
• 8k clouds to Laythe, Jool, Eve
• High resolution terrain textures
• Stock parts don’t change in their operation, they only get reflective textures.
• Planet shine
• Atmospheres
• High resolution sunflare
• Better oceans
• Auroras
• Fog

Important note! This modpack is currently under development. bugs can easily occur in it.

[Download link removed by moderator, pending license details]

Licensing: CC-BY-NC-SA

Credits:

@blackrack for scatterer

@Shadowmage for textures unlimited and TUFX

@Astronomer for Astronomer Visual Pack

@TheDarkBadger for Distant object enhancement

@shaw for texture replacer

Inspiration:

Avera9eJoe's Spectra

Edited June 11, 2021 by LizardMan
Removed Jade of Maar's sunflare

[Snark]

Hi @LizardMan,

We're sorry, but we've had to remove your download link, due to licensing issues.  Please see the add-on posting rules here, with particular reference to section 2, "including other licensed work with your add-on":

Executive summary is that if you're including any other people's mods, you'll need to ensure that you're complying with the license terms of each one, which includes things such as surfacing those licenses in your post, giving appropriate credit as licenses require, etc.

We're sorry for the inconvenience-- we realize this stuff is complicated, but it's unavoidable, alas, due to legal requirements.  If you have any questions about all this, please feel free to reach out to me or any member of the moderator team, if the rules are confusing or unclear.

Thank you for your understanding.

[theleg]

Congrats on the release! What are the minimum specs required to run this mod? I am on a low-end pc, and am hesitant to download almost 3 GB to check out myself...

[Guest]

@Snark which mod’s licences are missing as no details anywhere (of mods)? 
 

@LizardMan if there are issues with the distribution of a mod due to licensing, an easy solution is to add the problem mods as a dependency rather than bundled with your mod, depending on what your mod does etc.

[HebaruSan]

11 minutes ago, FruitGoose said:

@Snark which mod’s licences are missing as no details anywhere (of mods)? 

For example, it includes Parallax, the license of which does not allow derivative works.

[Snark]

2 hours ago, FruitGoose said:

which mod’s licences are missing as no details anywhere (of mods)?

All of them.  They're all missing, that's the issue.  Also, it doesn't specify which mods are included, which is also an issue (since that makes it impractical to determine which licenses are missing).

Basically, what it boils down to is that, 1. it needs to be easy for anyone to glance at the OP and tell what works are included and what their licenses are, and 2. the inclusion of those works needs to be in compliance with their licenses.  And if the modpack contains any original work of its own (i.e. isn't simply a bundle of other mods), then 3. the modpack would need to specify its own license, which would need to be compatible with the licenses of the included works.

(Yes, jumping through all those hoops is a hassle for any modpack author, which is a major reason why modpacks tend to be fairly uncommon.  It's just an unavoidable fact of life:  people's works have licenses on them, many licenses are incompatible with each other, and trying to put multiple works in one package therefore makes a legal snarl whose complexity goes up with the square of the number of mods included.  Also, artists, in particular, tend to be understandably protective of their creative works, so art-heavy visual mods are often the ones with the most restrictive licenses on them.  And those are often the types of mods that modpack authors would like to include, but can't due to the licensing issues.)

[LizardMan]

11 hours ago, theleg said:

Congrats on the release! What are the minimum specs required to run this mod? I am on a low-end pc, and am hesitant to download almost 3 GB to check out myself...

Thanks! These mods use the video card the most, not using the cpu very much. I have a GeForce GTX 1650 and i have around 10 FPS, so it needs a better computer than mine to run the game smoothly.

[Snark]

On 5/31/2021 at 1:16 PM, LizardMan said:

Licensing: CC-BY-NC-SA

Credits:

@blackrack for scatterer

@JadeOfMaar for the sunflare

@Shadowmage for textures unlimited and TUFX

@Astronomer for Astronomer Visual Pack

@TheDarkBadger for Distant object enhancement

@shaw for texture replacer

If you're including these mods with your release (i.e. not just taking them as a dependency), can you please update them to actual links to the source content?  For example, "for the sunflare" doesn't tell us where you got it from-- please make that a link to the original source.  That needs to be present so that it's easily possible to reference the source and verify its license.

[dok_377]

Another unnecessary repackage of an already existing and fully functioning visual pack. What's the point of this? 

[Guest]

@Snark ah ok, thought it was a new mod and was missing maybe 1, didn’t realise it was a pack of other mods.

15 minutes ago, dok_377 said:

Another unnecessary repackage of an already existing and fully functioning visual pack. What's the point of this? 

Keeps everything together I suppose. The problem from the OP’s POV is they’ll have to chase around each mod for updates etc. 

[Deddly]

Mod packs are notoriously difficult to both compile legally and maintain, so I applaud your courage on that front, @LizardMan! It takes a lot of research and often communication with the creators of the mods you intend to bundle, and keeping it up to date is a major headache, especially if any of the bundled mods swap licences. 

The most relevant part of the add-on posting rules that @Snark mentioned earlier is 2.1. I thought I'd quote it here for ease of reference. You might notice that this paragraph mentions a much easier way for you to make a "modpack" that doesn't cause any legal issues and is automatically kept up to date for you. 

Spoiler

Your license must be compatible with that of any other material you include with your own add-on, and each license in your package must be mutually compatible. This includes textures, models, sounds, entire mods etc. You must also comply with the license terms of each and every external work in your download and include those licenses in your package. This is very complicated but is a legal requirement. For this reason, it is recommended that you use CKAN scripts instead of bundling others' content when possible and avoid packaging other people's work with your own unless you really know what you are doing. If you are not completely certain that a license is compatible, do not include that content

 

[JadeOfMaar]

On 5/31/2021 at 1:16 PM, LizardMan said:

...A VISUAL COLLECTION

Sorry, dude. As per my chosen license, CC-BY-NC-ND, my visual mod is not open to be used by others to create their own. CKAN lists are the way things are done around here.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Sorry, dude. As per my chosen license, CC-BY-NC-ND, my visual mod is not open to be used by others to create their own. CKAN lists are the way things are done around here.

I think that’s only true if he’s modified it in anyway? The licence states he is free to copy and share your work (assuming the other conditions are met) so if it’s just bundled as is I think he’s ok? I suppose it’s whether mixing it in a folder with other mods is classed as “building on” the original. I don’t think so but maybe I’m wrong.

 

[theleg]

11 hours ago, LizardMan said:

Thanks! These mods use the video card the most, not using the cpu very much. I have a GeForce GTX 1650 and i have around 10 FPS, so it needs a better computer than mine to run the game smoothly.

Ok thanks!

[LizardMan]

On 6/1/2021 at 8:41 PM, dok_377 said:

Another unnecessary repackage of an already existing and fully functioning visual pack. What's the point of this? 

Mostly practice with mods for me, but I'm curious what people think about my configurations.

Edited June 11, 2021 by LizardMan

[Snark]

It's been a few weeks, and the license issues haven't been addressed. Locking the thread pending resolution of the issue.

@LizardMan , please reach out to us privately when you believe the license issues are resolved, and we're happy to work with you to get your thread unlocked. Thank you for your understanding.