4 ms·

That isn't how 3D modelling works at all. Not to mention that one of the major examples where they compared meshes admitted they scaled the models [1], so it's

That isn't how 3D modelling works at all. Not to mention that one of the major examples where they compared meshes admitted they scaled the models [1], so it's not even a direct 1:1 comparison. [1]: https://twitter.com/byofrog/status/1750193272419693010 https://twitter.com/byofrog/status/1750193272419693010

emptysongglass 3y ago
> That isn't how 3D modelling works at all. That's a blanket statement that's meaningless. Uniformly scaling a model, which is what the post you linked to admitted, is a perfectly fine method of comparison. If I uniformly shrink an object, that does not change the nature of the object other than to make it smaller or larger. If I take an apple, produce a copy, shrink it, then compare it, the apple is still the same apple. Now Palworld has changed some very minor details with some of these models but you'd really need to be committed to mental gymnastics to justify the changes between these models as anything but the weakest of attempts to dodge a lawsuit.
- Freedom2 3y ago
  If it's theft, why aren't there any comparisons of vertex weights, UV maps, even texture sizes? There's only a few ways to retopologize a mesh, especially around joints, so anything there is hardly worth looking at. I'm more than happy to concede that models could have been largely 'traced', with the original models being used as reference images. That is hardly the lift-and-shift theft that is being claimed by many online, though.
  - numpad0 3y ago
    > models could have been largely 'traced' So, when a human does that, that's an infringement.
    - Freedom2 3y ago
      Sure, then I'll expect to see Nintendo litigate as such. It is still not the explicit form of theft claimed by many online, where the models were just 'copied' over by the polygon.
mauvia 3y ago
The tweet you linked says the scaling they applied was uniform, which means this IS a direct 1:1 comparison. There's no absolute reference for size in 3D, so this is necessary no matter what.

emptysongglass 3y ago

> That isn't how 3D modelling works at all. That's a blanket statement that's meaningless. Uniformly scaling a model, which is what the post you linked to admitted, is a perfectly fine method of comparison. If I uniformly shrink an object, that does not change the nature of the object other than to make it smaller or larger. If I take an apple, produce a copy, shrink it, then compare it, the apple is still the same apple. Now Palworld has changed some very minor details with some of these models but you'd really need to be committed to mental gymnastics to justify the changes between these models as anything but the weakest of attempts to dodge a lawsuit.

Freedom2 3y ago
If it's theft, why aren't there any comparisons of vertex weights, UV maps, even texture sizes? There's only a few ways to retopologize a mesh, especially around joints, so anything there is hardly worth looking at. I'm more than happy to concede that models could have been largely 'traced', with the original models being used as reference images. That is hardly the lift-and-shift theft that is being claimed by many online, though.
- numpad0 3y ago
  > models could have been largely 'traced' So, when a human does that, that's an infringement.
  - Freedom2 3y ago
    Sure, then I'll expect to see Nintendo litigate as such. It is still not the explicit form of theft claimed by many online, where the models were just 'copied' over by the polygon.

mauvia 3y ago

The tweet you linked says the scaling they applied was uniform, which means this IS a direct 1:1 comparison. There's no absolute reference for size in 3D, so this is necessary no matter what.