Hm, sorry to say but you both are wrong ;) The problem are not the monsters... I mean LOOK at the iso example of DG... the monsters are FLAT also some other objects. What is NOT flat is the background - and background in both png sets are really worse and a mix from many sets. I can,t understand that no one believe me that the look of a map NOT DEPENDS ON THE MONSTERS/CREATURE - it depends on the background. Look at the iso example... count the creatures/flat objects and the "other" objects... do this too for a normal CF map... I mean, what you normal see are about 80%-90% background tiles... THEY make the look. Iso BACKGROUND will make the perspective. Iso gfx like DG example makes it easy to include "high" of a object... means there you can stay "behind" a object. * And there is not problem for most of our multi tile monsters for alternate set * * You must make the last "high" png bigger than 32x32 - like 32x40 or 32x50 or whatever * * its a work of some minutes to change clients for this * * the server NEVER handles with the content of a media file, so he don't care about it* * MORE: there is a GOOD point: For a high monster, you only include the foot part of it as object in the map - the HEAD is "in the air" - so, you reduce there some overhead * And because the tiles are arranged in diamond shape style and drawed in iso, the position of objects are "sorted" in a eye friendly way your brain think thats all "natural". diamond shape iso is a grafical AND a physical (the form and position of the tiles) "trick" to fool your eyes... and a technical way to blt the object correct (think about "high" objects). Thats ALL. And for a really last time (i don't want repeat it again and again) - you CAN'T do this physical/ technical view in the way our png sets are working. I mean - SHOW me the game/gfx which use it! Do you think the prof. game artists are all idiots? They know what they do and they had some more thinked about it than you - they got money for it. So, don't try to develope the wheel again - use what people had done. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael > > 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. > > <------------------------------------