[Re: [CF-Devel] Future of Crossfire]
dnh
dnh at hawthorn.csse.monash.edu.au
Mon May 21 18:25:38 CDT 2001
On Mon, 21 May 2001, DAVID DELBECQ wrote:
>
dnh <
dnh at hawthorn.csse.monash.edu.au
> wrote:
>
Umm I tend to disagree with this.
>
>
Firstly, I honestly DON'T believe an 'iso' view version of crossfire, or
>
at least a version like the 'standard set'. I personally believe that with
>
a short month, Peterm and I have created a better, more congruent, set
>
that really does look great. The alternate set (which can be found on
>
crossfire.csua.ber....) may look easy to convert to iso but there is a
>
large problem and that is with the multitiled monsters. If we take on an
>
iso view major changes are going to have to be made, and IMHO it simply
>
isn't worth our time.. certainly if some wiz artists comes along AND MAKES
>
the new images I would be happy to see such ventures, but until we have
>
some real live artist walking about, that I can talk to and ask questions
>
about, I don't support this view.
>
>
------------------------------------>
>
You say you don't want iso because you don't have time to create iso monsters,
>
or at least convert. It's your right but don't forget we can parse a lot of
>
flat object (ground and so on) to iso esaily (just some deformation). What
>
concern monster, 1 square monsters can, at least for the moment, be parsed
>
like that (they look good for iso). What concern multiple square monsters, i
>
believe it's a problem but once again, we could for the begin of the
>
developpement, parse them as flat objects which stand up in the front square.
>
The critical point of this are walls, doors, exits, houses, sign and other
>
vertical objects.
>
<------------------------------------
I fear that would look really crap dude. Firstly any general scale looks
crap (see old standard set pngs.. ), secondly half of the images wont fit
the 32 x 32 rectangle.
>
What i think is you fear your set will go to trap because of iso before
being
>
known. Well don't know for the moment how it could be possible when i
see the
>
speed at which developpers are speaking before doing something
interesting.
Umm I assume you mean crap. Much of my work has disappeared through time,
but it is doing the work that counts in the long run. I hear lots of talk
about do this do that, but as of yey onlt gros has made any sounds of even
attempting what he is saying. I don't really care if the entire standard
set disappears I work on an alternate set, which you may or may not have
played. I don't really care if only one other person likes the set that i
am help produce, I have done the work and I am glad I did.
ps. look on crossfire.csua.berkeley.edu if you want to see what I have
been making.
>
Secondly, you say our servers can't support uploading the images to the
>
clients? what do you think they already do? and what do you think is
>
already supported? if you add -usefile or something like that, it will
>
grab its images from a set of pngs, you don't need to get them from the
>
server. This is merely an implementation problem and I am sure Mark would
>
be willing to hear suggestions on a better way to do it ;).
>
>
------------------------------------>
>
I don't think you've understood what i meant. I said server use its processing
>
time to transfer files to other players. Even if the socket do most of the
>
job, i though transferring pictures to the client shouldn't be the work of the
>
server (and why should the server have pictures anyway???). The purpose of
>
this transfer is to keep a coherent set. Ok, but most servers use the same set
>
and i proposed to have a message during the server connection which gives
>
information on where to find an download these picture (could be local or on a
>
public ftp!)
>
<------------------------------------
Errr, as I said, currently the server ISN'T having trouble uploading
graphics. Look at MiDS statistics, the server only needs to output around
1k per player. Why do we need to change it? I see your point, I made
exactly the same point awhile ago, but the change is alittle more
complicated than the intended benefit for most developers to consider
doing it. If you want to do it, I don't think anyone will complain.
>
2) We have been looking for someone to work on the linux client for a long
>
long time, Mark has done some excellent work, but the fact remains it is
>
not an interface heavy client. It is simple, it works and I personally
>
find it very useable. Some speed improvements and a few new options in the
>
preferences and I think we have an excellent client already. Most stuff
>
you find in clients today tends to be artists who have plenty of time, if
>
we have one.. then perhaps we could consider this.
>
>
Not only this, but we are constantly updating the server, I personally
>
have been involved in adding 10 or so spells, and I don't think I want to
>
consider having to fix the client everytime I add a new spell =\.
>
>
These are just a few thoughts, but they were eating at me, sometimes you
>
must remember that crossfire is not a commercial game, and we don't have
>
spare resources lieing about. While setting a high goal is fine, I think
>
we should set ones that we can achieve ourselves, realistically.
>
>
dnh
>
>
-------------
>
>
I didn't say the client was heavy (except perhaps for the directx one, but it
>
a directx problem). Let's say am a newbie player, i downloaded and lauched the
>
client. I connect to a server, create a player. Then, the server says to type
>
a lot of crappy things in the console. I want to cast spells, i have to type
>
thinks, bind blablabla.. then i can cast. Well am newbie, where on hell can i
>
find a list of commands. Help?? Yes this command work. What?! is this a telnet
>
game with a graphical board? Well i prefer to go away.
>
This could be good, for example to have a small, findable, button where you
>
can click to choose you spell. I would be very happy to have an interface
>
where keyboard is not used to type crazy things among the console (or at least
>
in some rare cases).
This is a problem with most linux games i find, but then again, most linux
users aren't little newbies who don't know where the power switch is. The
windows client is appropriate for the intended audience, I propose the
linux client is also approriate for its audience. Often you will find
anyway, that adding pretty spell buttons and what not actually makes the
game more difficult to grasp quickly.
Time to fly,
dnh
>
>
>
>
>
David Delbecq
>
David.delbecq at usa.net
>
>
____________________________________________________________________
>
Get free email and a permanent address at
http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
>
More information about the crossfire
mailing list