[CF List] png images

[Mark Wedel]

Jonathan Taporg wrote:
>
     
     
     >
     
      Hello, all,
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      I'm guessing that by adding PNG support, we've
     
     >
     
      implicitly removed any color palette restrictions
     
     >
     
      for created images?  While I can see the argument
     
     >
     
      that some people may still run bitmap versions, I'd
     
     >
     
      have more difficulty believing that people running
     
     >
     
      CF in color would be restriced to 256 colors.  The
     
     >
     
      reason the color is significant is that the new
     
     >
     
      32x32 image size combined with unlimited color use
     
     >
     
      would make creating images orders of magnitude easier
     
     >
     
      for artists (like me :).
     
     
 There is still some color restrictions.  Anyone with an 8 bit display is
restricted to 256 colors, and 8 bit displays are still somehwat common. 
Unfortunately, I don't seem to have a list anyplace of what colors he chose
were.  I guess it would not be too hard to write a simple script to extract the
color information from the png images.


>
     
      After having gone looked over the converted archs,
     
     >
     
      I also composed the list png_todo.txt of png files
     
     >
     
      which are as of yet in the ugly scaled up form.  In
     
     >
     
      cases where I wasn't sure, I left the image name
     
     >
     
      on the list.  I agree with another poster that
     
     >
     
      a number of the images would look good if simply
     
     >
     
      taken from their original xpm form, and converted
     
     >
     
      to png without scaling.
     
     
 And for some objects, that probably does not create any harm, as just in terms
of scaling, some could easily be smaller than others.

>
     
     
     >
     
      *whew*  Having done all of that, I figured it would
     
     >
     
      only be right to bring up all of the comments and
     
     >
     
      nitpicks I have.  Anyways...
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      ... The image for a non-destructable earthwall has
     
     >
     
      somehow changed to a pillar, making it trivial to
     
     >
     
      tell apart from the destructable ones.
     
     
 I notice that the entire look of the wall/bwall has changed.  The normally
walls are a grey and not the yellow like the old ones, so thingsl like the
stoneblock and earthwall really stand out.

>
     
     
     >
     
      ... With the isometric scheme that the newly drawn
     
     >
     
      tiles are using, it would make sense for a two-space
     
     >
     
      creature (for instance, a unicorn), to change shape
     
     >
     
      if it changes direction and starts walking downward.
     
     >
     
      Just wondering whether the server code would know
     
     >
     
      how to handle such events gracefully. :)
     
     
 Nope - the dimension/x,y of multipart objects are not mean to be dynamic.  I
suppose that support could be added.

>
     
     
     >
     
      ... Also regarding the isometric perspective - when
     
     >
     
      an isometrically drawn monster shown facing south
     
     >
     
      starts walking sideways, it looks slightly more
     
     >
     
      awkward that if a flat iconic version of the monster
     
     >
     
      starts walking sideways.  I think it's something to
     
     >
     
      consider ... redrawing monsters isometrically may
     
     >
     
      imply needing to draw the monster facing in other
     
     >
     
      directions as well.
     
     
 This is supported by the server - any creature can have up to about 8 facings -
presently, pretty much only players actually have 8 facings, with most other
monters have 1, 2, or 4.

>
     
     
     >
     
      ... Please please please be sure to save the original
     
     >
     
      xpms somewhere, even with better pngs available, and
     
     >
     
      even if all of the xpms end up removed from the arch
     
     >
     
      directories.  There are a number of nice icons in
     
     >
     
      that image set, and drawing well at 24x24 isn't easy.
     
     
 They will off course still be all those images in all the prior releases out on
the ftp servers.

>
     
     
     >
     
      ... Has anyone tried going into a room full of
     
     >
     
      kobolds, orcs, gnolls, ogres, madmen, and maybe
     
     >
     
      zombies as well under the png image set?  I haven't,
     
     >
     
      myself, but I bring it up because I wonder how easily
     
     >
     
      distinguishable the different monsters are.
     
     >
     
      Individually, they're well drawn, although their
     
     >
     
      color schemes are all so similar, that I think it's
     
     >
     
      worth checking to make sure that they do indeed
     
     >
     
      succeed in looking different.
     
     
 Hopefully, there are not any maps that mix the different monster types so
badly.