> Personally I am not yet convinced that including these tiles is a > good idea. On the other hand they do look nice. > AndreasV I agree, they look nice but we just don't have the talent around to do such graphics, let alone an entire set. I was more thinking in terms of catelogueing. I suggest these graphics get put somewhere on the cvs out of the way, that way we wont accidently lose graphics we may in future want to use. I personally feel the alternate set is turning out very very well indeed. What is important in a game is not how realistic an image is, but how well it relates to the character. In our minds we set patterns that quickly identify something. When playing a game you don't actually see the image after awhile, mearly what it represents. An experienced player will react before any other player even realises what they are looking at, if you can create a set that looks appealing and is easily recognised it is both fun and nice. If there are parts that are hard to recognise it looses some appeal. For example, the skulls looked okay, but were so small players were finding them hard to recognise thus they were not good (in some cases this may actually be intended.. for example unusual kobold can be hard to spot, that is half the challenge). While photorealism may excite some people, I think on average good players don't really care what the graphics are like. Peterm's frontal based set is Very fun to play alot better than the old xpm and much more intuitive than the 'iso' set. What we should be attempting to do is create a set which is both pretty and fun, and im sure those two values differ between people. I think perhaps two sets will be more than enough to fill the appetites of players, we should now set about defining the sets and filling them up. Peterm and I are currently the only people maintaining the alternate set, but we are rapidly over writting old xpms. Sharing between the sets has made things very easy. Just my thoughts =) dnh