Hey folks!

I'm a big fan of the TLX system and own most of the sets. As I'm starting to run out of material I need for certain game settings (for example, glaciers, limestone caverns, and steampunk props), I'm working with an artist friend to make new sets for my own use. My friend is enjoying the format, and was wondering if anyone knows details on the copyright. Specifically, she wants to make sets using her own format but make them essentially compatible with TLX. Her fold patterns are quite different but set up such that they could be fitted into TLX pieces with only a few modifications. My understanding is that if she reverse engineers such a system, rather than making it using the existing copyrighted TLX templates, then it's permissible for her to share those files. She has no interest in stepping on anyone's toes, though, so I thought I'd check.

For clarification, my friend isn't trying to compete with WWG, but as nothing seems to be coming out of this studio we figured expanding the world of TLX-compatible terrain into directions WWG has not forayed would only help support WWG by encouraging people to check out TLX.

Thoughts?

As this is your first post, let me welcome you to the Forums!

Well, to help answer your question, let me say that this topic has been discussed at length by us little people (the consumers and users here on the WWG Forums). But we don't have the right of domain to make that call - - that belongs solely to Denny Unger who owns WWG.

First off, TLX - both the format and textures - are copywrited. They can't be used for any publication by anyone else unless some legal agreement is made with WWG. Anything too close to TLX design or textures might well run the risk of infringement. The term and concept of "compatible" probably falls into this dangerous gray area. Any "compatible" designs had better be discussed with Denny - who, at the moment, is busy with a whole different project aside from WWG (hence the slow-down stoppage of new art sets).

Second, there has been talk in the wind of a possible sale of WWG to someone else. Until that comes to fruition - or falls through, or is otherwise abandonded - I think there is little to no chance of such a third party production of TLX style components in the near future (or any of the other systems WWG has developed, for that matter). [I do not work here, this is only my personal opinion.]

There is a bright side in all this in that there is still a system in place to accept kitbashes of WWG products to be reviewed for possible acceptance - at which time they are then offered for sale here on the WWG site. The nature of these kitbashes also means they are made available free to those who have purchased the sets these kitbashes are derived from.

The rules for Kitbash Submissions are here:
http://www.worldworksgames.com/store/in ... es&pgid=37

On the other hand, users are totally free to mash up or change any of the pdf files for their own personal use - provided you do not share or otherwise distribute them.

That, in a nutshell, are the basic nuts and bolts of any redesign efforts of any WWG product - TLX or otherwise. If you and your (seemingly) more talented design friend have any serious desire of doing any professional use with any WWG products, you're going to have to contact Denny. Just because there exists a dearth of production at the moment for any new art sets does not mean that any of the WGG files have suddenly become part of the Public Domain.

Sorry if it seems as though I'm raining on your parade, but that's how things stand at the moment.

Thanks guys! Both your replies gybe pretty well with my understanding of the situation. The more my friend's own design works out, the less like TLX it is, but making the pieces fit together would be a matter of using your TLX template (rather than the template she's making for her own style) to cut the foamboard and then either kitbashing her textures into your own TLX stuff or just cutting slots where they should go... her textures are exactly the same size and resolution but her tabs are differently shaped. Likewise, the post system is different but would be a very simple kitbash or manual cut to make it fit. Walls so far would be immediately compatible out of the box but the folding style is different. The goal is that TLX users wouldn't have to do any complex work to make the two fit together. By my understanding, even if tlx were patented she could publish her work without infringement at this point.

Zenguy: Most of her folds look like they're going to lean on the 'slightly more complex' side rather than simple, I'm afraid. The main simplifier will be posts, which she's making only in one size with a system to clip more than one post together to create larger posts. I think that's going to be a time saver if it works well. She's also done away with anchors. That's the big bit that would require conversion for tlx compatibility, although I'm more inclined to mod my tlx stuff to use her system if it works.

The walls have a few different styles with things like square beams across them rather than WWG triangular tops, as well as optional 3-d enhancements. We're still ironing it out and I'm more the enthusiastic chorus rather than the artist. At this stage it's a matter of what she feels like making since we haven't got far enough for me to start commissioning specific pieces.

So, I've been spending time on the topic, and as I plug away at slight variations to TLX tiles, I can't help but feel that Denny and Co. have been through everything and more already, and they settled on TLX for a reason. I've kind of given up trying to simplify the TLX tiles. I just did a couple by hand, and there wasn't one step that really felt too onerous to me. The result is just (in my mind) superior to other solutions. The only other thing I considered but didn't yet try is magnets, but I don't want to have to have anything but paper/foamcore to get the job done. I'm pretty sure the TLX roof system can be improved on by moving the slots around so that the roof pieces cover the entire truss top, eliminating the need to always pair the truss walls with a specific roof.

But, the tiles and posts just work *really really well*.

If you don't like having to put all the anchors on, you can always leave them off until you need them. I imagine this probably works better on inkjet prints than laser prints.

If anyone is motivated enough to think up other solutions, please drop me a PM and I'll try it.

Coming from you, mproteau, that's a fairly definitive statement. Thanks for all the work you've done looking at alternatives/variations.

As WWG has the copyright to the templates, people will still need to come up with tile, post, wall, etc. templates if they want to share sets that are plug-compatible with TLX.
What success have you been having with this?

The walls she's making are the main piece that's compatible right out of the box: the post/wall slot/tabs are very similar in size and shape to tlx, so no modification would be necessary to those in order to use wwg-tlx stuff with them. This was one of the main goals since that's a key area where interchangeability makes it feasible to use her stuff with tlx.

mproteau: The system she is trying has thin slots in the base tiles, and rigid tabs in the posts that slide into those slots. Have you tried something like that?

I like the idea of fewer cuts, but I'm not sure the triangle would have enough side friction to hold the tabs in. I wonder if pentagons combining to make hexagon full tabs would, heh, "cut it"

Hello all, I'm the artist in question working on this project.

The template I'm working on, my goal is to have it be openly and freely available for people to use. Ideally, I'd also create a sales portal for other artists to sell their textures for download, while retaining the rights of their artwork. (With moderators checking to make sure there isn't art theft happening) This is my one objection to the kitbash system that WWG has at the moment, that an artist who spends time to create a new texture or folding pattern isn't compensated in any tangible way.

Because I'm specifically looking to create an opensource template, I'm trying to be careful to make it different enough from TLX. Someone would have to own a TLX set to get that cut template in order to make the pieces actually compatible.

I'd also ideally like to create adapters or other ways of making these templates work with multiple systems beyond TLX, such as Fat Dragon. I've been working on the TLX model right now since that's what Erk initially asked for. (that and I've yet to buy another system myself other than TLX) So I'm working with the proposed 28mm standard that Erk linked me - having the base and wall lengths been in multiples of 3", working in 1:60 scale, etc.



As for the base-to-base connectors, right now I'm using a dovetail(or hourglass) shape, so it's the same number of cuts into the foam core as the TLX, but creates more horizontal stability. This also allows for half-tabs for things like railing. Unfortunately, this means there's slightly less vertical stability, as only the friction created by the rough edges of the foamcore keep the connectors from falling out the bottom.

A triangle/diamond shaped connector would be fewer cuts, and would allow for the texture to pocket the connector for the vertical stability, but I'm not sure if it'll create enough horizontal stability. But I'll certainly try it out.



As for the corner post-to-base connection, I'm not a fan of the way the tabs look on the TLX bases when you don't have a corner post attached, which is why I tried the slit-tab. I find that this looks very clean, and less disruptive to the overall visual flow of the set.

But, I understand that that's extra cuts for folks to make and less appealing to some. I'm thinking I'll leave the slit markers as a separate layer so that they can be optionally included or removed, and the tabs on the bottom of the corner posts can be cut off in favor of a TLX style connector.

1/4" vs 3/16" foamcore - I'd originally built my template for the 1/4", but after bringing some foamcore home, I realized that the slight difference made a world of difference for gluing the texture onto the foamcore, so i adjusted everything to fit the 3/16" boards.

Anchors - What I've found so far, is if you cut the slits where I've put the marks, the tabs work reasonably well for keeping the posts upright and for attaching to the base. Currently I'm working with the tabs being double thick (folded over with the folded edge being on the bottom that goes into the base) and I've not really noticed any wear - but this is with slits cut with a brand new blade and to exactly the width that I've marked. So I'll probably actually make the slits quadruple thick (folded over twice) for extra durability. There may still be some wear over prolonged use, but the corner posts are one of the easier things to replace, imo.

Walls - I understand the appeal of having the 2D walls that TLX uses, but I also want to offer the option of having 3D solid walls. So far what I've got transitions between the two modes with just two extra folds for the 2D version, and the 3D walls can have a foamcore core, or be left hollow for preference. (although my prototype is a little bowed being left hollow). Because of wanting to allow for wrapping the walls around foamcore, they're also 3/16" thick.
I've gone with 2" walls currently, to match TLX, but may add the extra 1/16" to make up for the floor height being shorter. The way I've got the folds laid out, the bottoms are the cut edge and the top is the folded edge (backwards from TLX), so the end user can just trim off the extra 1/16" from the bottom edge if they want, without affecting the texture too much.

One thing I am noticing, I built my walls and corner posts with the measurements that Erk gave me, with the posts being 5/16" wide... but when I went to compare my wall width to the TLK wall width, I realized that the TLK post widths aren't actually that. They're closer to 21/64" (+1 pixel) - which is annoying imprecise for my tastes. So the over all width of the wall + 2 posts is still 3 or 6", the walls and posts aren't exact fits enough to be fully compatible.

As an end user, how much would you want to be able to mix and match wall textures between the two systems?

Do you have any in-progress pics that can show off what you're working towards?

Just took some. These are just my prototypes so far; I'm not even using a ruler to cut and score these, (and even using scissors in some places, blasphemer am I) so you'll notice some wobble.

First up, the post connectors:

So allowing there to be just one kind of post (two if you count the double tall ones). AND only one kind of connector - no having to sort through and find the right piece. This is one of the major asks that Erk requested. I wanted to make sure that even with the post connectors in place, you still have access to the slots for the wall tabs. They're double thick, with the fold being at the bottom, so they're pretty sturdy, but also very simple to replace. They're basically just Right Angle V-shapes.

As you can see, the posts are mostly the same as the TLX ones, but here's where they're different:

So for these slits, I found it worked best to cut the slits out of the card stock, glue the cardstock onto the foam core, and then cut the foamcore. Cutting the slits through the whole thing after gluing the cardstock to the foamcore wound up peeling the cardstock at the scored edge (Plus, I did this on the 1/4" version rather than the 3/16" version).
Obviously, this is a time sink, so like I said earlier, the tabs can be cut off the bottom of the post and a TLX style approach can be used instead.

The two different wall styles, thick and thin, with nearly identical cut/fold patterns is one of the things I'm particularly pleased with.

The red lines are for the thick walls, and the green lines for the thin. (sorry if you're color blind, a final pdf would have the cut lines as toggled layers) Black lines are common to both. The thick wall on the 6" size does bow a little bit without a foamcore interior structure, but it can stand on its own without corner posts.

(the tab on my thin wall has some wear since I cut this one before realizing that the tab really needs the double thickness for stability) I can see uses for both, the thick walls providing structure where you're not going to be using both the interior and the exterior of the building, and the thin walls having a low profile for times when you are. But ultimately, both styles can be used without having to make changes to corner posts.


And here's the dovetail connector for the bases I prototyped:

I haven't gotten around to prototyping the diamond shaped connector yet. As you can see, even with my wobbily cuts, it holds itself in their pretty well - but I'll know more after trying the diamond connectors.

EDIT:
So yeah, right triangle cut-outs with square connectors are better for vertical stability (picking the base up and moving it around), but they slide apart horizontally very easily. and as anyone who's played Settlers of Catan knows, this happens a lot during gameplay.

Excellent! Thanks for the pics. That clears up a lot.
I have been thinking about the notches for the posts, and what I was imagining would only have notches cut on the top of the cardstock, which would give a little more stability to the post... I like it. I'll try it myself.

I'm not sure I care for the old school connectors for the tiles tho... What if you turned them 90 degrees, and basically had an "M" shape. Imagine this - for your tile, you cut the two edges of the tile's slot, then cut diagonally from the inside corner to the opposite edge. That's probably faster/easier than cutting the squares out, even though it's more cuts. The tabs would be like TLX anchors, but with a triangle cut out of them. Not sure if it's ultimately more work, but it'd be compatible with existing TLX tiles, eliminates the horizontal cuts in the foamcore... I'll try it too.

I'm not sure how the walls could possibly work, without creating completely separate textures for the chunky wall vs. the flat walls with square tops. That's because usually the top of the walls have textures that the anti-warp wall has to account for specially. I look forward to seeing what you do with this.

Great stuff, though! It's good to see some other thoughts out there. I think the thingy that holds the posts together is quite clever.

Yeah, Erk and I were just discussing the M shaped recess. There's no structural benefit to having it be M shaped over just the rectangle that TLX uses, other than not using the exact same shape for copyright reasons, or for not having to make horizontal cuts into the foamcore. But it's certainly an option, even if the pieces still slide apart in the one direction.

My partner suggested having another layer of foamcore underneath the ground tiles for 2nd story structures, so you could move the whole thing together... and I wouldn't want to strip away the modular capability, so I was thinking of making the bottom layer of foamcore fit together the same way as the top layer, but be upside down (so the texture would be a ceiling) and with the joints be offset from the ones on top, like laying bricks. But this means twice the pieces for a 2nd story floor, and more thickness between floors...

Hmm...


Oh, and for the walls, there will need to be a slightly different layout of the textures between the two versions, but it can mostly be accomplished with layers in the pdf.

sorry for the double post...

Was chatting with Erk, trying out an idea of using cardstock springs on a rectangular foamcore tab that you could squeeze to fit into the dovetail cut out, that would expand out into the dovetail shape... This failed miserably, but I discovered something very interesting.

Two things led to this actually being a fairly tight fit, the extra layer of cardstock on the sides of the tab, widening the tab by a little bit compared to the cut, while providing a smooth service for the tab to slip in... But the pinching of the dovetail creating resistance against the piece moving without an external force.

I'm currently stress testing it to see how it holds up to multiple uses.


EDIT:
Alternatively, I've tried just making the connectors out of 1/4" craft foam instead of foamcore. due to it's squishier nature, it can be cut slightly larger and squish into the cut-out of the foamcore and then expand back out for the snuggest fit ever - eliminating the need for a pocket for vertical stability.
So I'm going to experiment with easy to cut shapes - this might be a good use of the M shaped cut-out.

Nope. the M shaped cut actually gives too easily. the hourglass works best with the craft foam... but using the M shaped cutting technique to make cutting the hourglass easier. more cuts, but that's a rock-solid joint.

I dunno. I'm feeling like there's some over-engineering happening here.

In the case of a bowtie connector, you lose the cardstock under the tile, and that reduces the stability of the connector quite a bit.

I've got a couple hundred TLX tiles built. Some of them are pretty poorly made, and some of them are just perfect. None of them have had an issue with the tabs not holding the tiles tightly together.

I just sliced up some 6" tiles with different shapes for the connectors, and here's some preliminary findings:

Making a triangular insert, as long as it's cut really really well, seems to grip ok. My gripe is that it isn't compatible with the hundreds of TLX tiles I've already made. I could easily make adapter tabs, but meh. I don't see an advantage to it.

Making an M-shaped insert seems to be no better or worse than a typical TLX tab. MAYBE it's less of a pain to cut out the slots on the tile, because the cuts are all directed towards the edge of the tile, but it's a really small savings over the cost of making everything else with the tile. They are, however, perfectly compatible with my existing TLX tiles in that I wouldn't need any adapter tabs - an M-shaped tab would fit into a TLX tile.

Triangle tabs actually reduced cutting a little bit, and I think would hold up fine. They again aren't TLX compatible, so I'd have to have adapter pieces to join the two.

Overall, I'm not really seeing the benefit of anything but the square slots.

I'm going to wrap a sample TLX texture around the tile and try the connectors out that way. I'm just not seeing a benefit for making something that isn't TLX compatible.

In the process, I'll try attaching the posts using slots on the tiles rather than using the TLX anchors. That idea shows a lot of promise!

Cutting little slits into the foamcore for posts is a no-go for me. I tried a couple. It's really time consuming. I think lopping off a 3/8" square from the corner of the foamcore is super quick, and works well enough. Cutting small slits into the top for the posts isn't that time consuming... No slits on the sides, and the cardstock wraps around the base. You wouldn't even know the corner is missing. I will try this out with an actual textured tile cover and see how noticeable it is with all the little holes in it... If it's REALLY noticeable, it shouldn't be hard to create inserts that cover the corner square by plugging into the unused holes...

Yeah, I realize a lot of things are trying to reinvent the wheel.

For the base-to-base connectors, with using just foamcore, I agree the way that TLX does it is the most efficient for horizontal and vertical stability, but the tile can still slide in the one direction it was inserted from.

When I tried making the connector out of craft-foam, I can do the dovetail joint without the need for the cardstock pocket that TLX uses, so there is no slide in any direction, other than through very deliberate force. I realize that this is introducing another material, but it's easier than foamcore to cut, and cuts don't have to be perfect as the goal is to have it be larger than the hole it fits into so that the squishiness of the craft-foam holds it in place.
If you've got some craft foam, give it a shot. It works decently well as a rectangular hole, and is rock solid with the dovetail hole. Since you wouldn't have a template, just make sure the craft-foam insert is cut slightly wider than the hole, but same length.


I like that idea about cutting the corner completely off the foamcore while leaving the cardstock with a full corner. I suspect an additional glue tab will be needed on corner of the cardstock (but not that hard to include) That also makes cutting slits/holes for the centers of the 6x6 tiles possible.

Okay. I'm pretty happy with how I've got things so far. That trick with the corners works really well, especially with the tabs on the bottom of the posts being quadruple reinforced.

If anyone else wants to try out this build, I've got the template set up in a pdf I can share.