[CF-Devel] (no subject)

[dnh]

Err I have to disagree with this.

On Sat, 26 May 2001, Klaus Elsbernd wrote:

>
     
      Hallo
     
     >
     
      > Quoting dnh (
      
      dnh at hawthorn.csse.monash.edu.au
      
      ):
     
     >
     
      > > I agree with this idea, the sooner the better in my opinion.
     
     >
     
      > 
     
     >
     
      > Is there resistence to this move?
     
     >
     
      There is more resistence, (from me) but I see, that severall major developpers
     
     >
     
      have good reasons for doing so. :-( 
     
     >
     
      And those, who wan't to remove png should see (on the count of mailing)
     
     >
     
      that are a lot people which are against it. Even the I think there is a
     
     >
     
      majority of useres, which aren't on the list or are quiet.
     
     
?

>
     
     
      crossfire-devel-request at lists.real-time.com
      
       said:
     
     >
     
      > The 8bit colour will allow even most VGA people play if some one write
     
     >
     
      > the client write.
     
     >
     
      And some workstation-graphics adapters too.
     
     >
     
      The arguments went towards pc-Problems.
     
     >
     
      (For I am an old-fashionend unix-guy, you know.)
     
     >
     
      >The question is what to color modes, and will the artists do it?
     
     
?
 
>
     
      The future of crossfire should make use of new features, graphics and artists.
     
     >
     
      If this results in a move to new graphics, modes, file-formats,
     
     >
     
      crossfire should use those. But it should not (imho) get rid of the old
     
     >
     
      ones, if there is no real need for it.
     
     >
     
      The old formats can be supported by automatically converting those 
     
     >
     
      graphics/formats... If the result would be not accurate or not very nice,
     
     >
     
      it would be so. If someone makes it better, he should be able to do it.
     
     >
     
      But this needs, that the code isn't dropped.
     
     >
     
      On 23 May 2001 09:53:16 -0700, Peter Mardahl wrote:
     
     
This is where I disagree. While we should try to keep backwards
compatability as much as POSSIBLE. It is no longer possible to expect
artists to continue working on 4 sets at once. Not only that but the old
images aren't the standard size + they aren't the standard colour limits.
I have made a few images myself, and I can say that while I like the old
xpm set, it is time to move on. Infact you could say i was resposible in
part for its continuation this long. There is now a png set that similuts
the old xpm/xbm sets, so the only real arguement I can see is that some
platforms don't support PNG. Well, I must say we have to draw the line
somewhere.. we cold implement a telnet client, but how many people would
use it? and who would write it?

I say we don't remove the xbm sets completely, but we de link them and
stop directly supporting it. If anyone wants to continue a second branch I
suppose that is acceptable, but it if no one wants to support it (ie
everyone is just complaining.. ) then the line is drawn.

dnh
 
>
     
      > We can't make everyone happy.
     
     >
     
      But we should try it at last. 
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      > Having the xpms and xbms triples the burden on artists
     
     >
     
      > adding new things.  It's one of the reasons crossfire
     
     >
     
      > has been relatively static.
     
     >
     
      I have not this opinion. Let the code of xpms/xbms be included, as the
     
     >
     
      pictures too. New deveopements should go on png which can be converted
     
     >
     
      (more or less good)
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      Bis dann
     
     >
     
      Klaus
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      -- 
     
     >
     
      "Sure, vi is user friendly.
     
     >
     
       It's just particular about who it makes friends with." ;-) 
     
     >
     
                                            _________________________
     
     >
     
      Klaus Elsbernd; System Administrator, BOFH        | 
      
      elsbernd at dfki.uni-kl.de
      
      
     >
     
      Deutsches Forschungsz. für Künstliche Intelligenz | DFKI GmbH, Geb. 57/285
     
     >
     
      67657 Kaiserslautern; Germany                     | Tel: (+49) 0631/205-3486
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
     
     >