Raising funds for new graphics/models

Im trying to raise funds for a professional artist to create new assets for Xonotic, mainly models and textures. I have many artist contacts within the Opensim community and I am hoping some of them will be able to create content for Xonotic. Here is a link to my fund raising campaign: https://fps.gameplayer.club/index.php/do...ic-content. Do people think this is a worthwhile project?

Before you raise funds for new assets you should definitely make sure that you find an artist who can (and wants to) create assets and also knows how to get them ingame. Knowing roughly how much they want for it is also important.
From what I've heard the tools needed to create the proper formats are quite tricky and require some knowledge, so artists need to know what they're doing.

There's also no mention of licensing requirements: all content must be made available under copyleft licensing (specific details vary, but GPLv3 is always fine).

I would recommend getting in touch with Morphed, hes the one responsible for most of the recent weapon/item model upgrades. He's a talented artist, has experience working with the Xonotic team and has already established a style consistency that fits Xonotic aesthetically.

Im planning on going through my Opensim modeler friends, and some artists they recommend. Planning on setting up a fund to use for this project and apply it to the best artists I can find. All artwork will be provided by the GPL license to be included in the main xonotic builds, unless another license is preferred...

I suggest to dual license with CC BY-SA 4.0 too.

Ok, sounds good!

I would be willing to chip in some funds for new high quality player models, but not on some shady website from a user that barely just joined a month ago. Don't take it personally

There's also no mention of licensing requirements: all content must be made available under copyleft licensing (specific details vary, but GPLv3 is always fine).

Don't forget the “or later”, that's because people did not forget it at GPLv2 time  we can now ask for GPLv3 today.

I suggest to dual license with CC BY-SA 4.0 too.

Yes, and by the way CC BY-SA 4.0 is known to be one-way GPLv3 compatible (from CC to GPL):

• [creativecommons.org] CC BY-SA 4.0 now one-way compatible with GPLv3
  
• [fsf.org] Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 declared one-way compatible with GNU GPL version 3
  

By the way to avoid people having headaches by reading kilometers of boring legalcode each time they want to check for the legal status of a random given file, dual licensing make things explicit for anyone.

So the safest option would be to dual license assets with both “GPLv3 or later and CC BY-SA 4.0 or later”.

Note that CC BY and CC BY-SA ar “or later” by default for derivative work since CC 2.0:

• 1.0 “You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License”
  
• 2.0 “You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan)”
  
• 2.5 “You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)”
  
• 3.0 “You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons Compatible License”
  
• 4.0 “Section 3 – License Conditions. b. ShareAlike. In addition to the conditions in Section 3(a), if You Share Adapted Material You produce, the following conditions also apply. The Adapter’s License You apply must be a Creative Commons license with the same License Elements, this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License”
  

That's why I sometime distribute my work under “cc by 4 and before”

Notice the “derivative work”, the wording always talk about other possible licenses when derivated. For raw copies, if we use CC BY-SA 4.0 as an example we can read:

• 4.0 “If You Share the Licensed Material […], You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: […] a notice that refers to this Public License”
  

So you can distribute a game under CC By SA 4.0 even if some assets uses 3.0 (the whole being a derivation of the part) but it looks like it's hard to flip a lone file from 3.0 to 4.0. So, saying “or a later version” for CC is not a bad idea by itself, even with the explicit “or later” clause because this clause is written when talking about derivatives.

I would be willing to chip in some funds for new high quality player models, but not on some shady website from a user that barely just joined a month ago. Don't take it personally

How would you feel about indiegogo?

How does this look? https://www.gofundme.com/new-graphics-fo...campmgmt_w

Also, should I look for new models, maps, or both?

This is a bit too vague. How about getting a quote from somebody who can commit to do the work, with clearly defined deliverables and time lines? 
Instead of $1,000 for everything, perhaps break it down to smaller goals, say, one model at a time?

You're right, it needs to be more planned out. Before accepting one I would think it is important to review the portfolio and some example models and define what we will pay for what... Will be doing that for my efforts... Have a couple modelers in contact but not seen their examples yet...

I'd say more important thing is to bring Xonotic to a better engine - Daemon - but that would require at least a year of full time work so if paid it would be in the ballpark of $100,000.

you could  use some version of source.the easiest way i can think of to port the game other is to strip the current game of all graphical components and just have it handling movement and weather that shot hit or not etc. than use a different engine to handle graphics and sound. Source could be great because it might be compatible with xonotics graphical assets.
just make sure you use souce2 because its graphics are really good.
monkey firing squad

they have run out of monkeys

My plan is to fork DarkPlaces and start slowly rewriting everything in modern C++ and slowly trying to replicate (sadly undocumented) Daemon API. But right now I'm swarmed with other stuff. Martin-t has ambitious plan to transpile QuakeC code to Rust, but that's a radical step which I'm not sure is possible to pull off with current developer resources.

Do you mean to write the game code directly in C++ without the engine?