Rick Tanner wrote: > The blur effect, while a clever approach, I don't think my eyes could > withstand that effect for too long! ;-) I agree, and the minor blurs are not that different. Now the quick hack I did to make it grey was mostly because before then, they were shown as if it was 50% dark. So for maps with darkness, it was very hard to tell if in fact the space was just dark, or out of view. I do like the faded look. The problem which is very apparant is that it doesn't work very well for objects that are only grey (looking at sample 2, there is only a very minor difference noticable between the visible cobblestones under the grate, and the blocked ones behind it/in the corners). Minor enough that without having that visible one as a reference, for me at least, I wouldn't be able to tell you those others were blocked. Which probably brings up the issue that no method will work perfectly for everything. The current method works OK for some images, and not good for others. I wonder if some logic to try and figure out how 'colorful' the image is could be done, and for images that are mostly grey/black, do an intensity reduction. In terms of votes, I personally like #1 or #2 - hard to tell exactly how they are different, since #1 was done on a different map. In terms of removing objects, this is harder. It wouldn't be hard to just draw the bottom most image, but that probably isn't write - things like statues, grates, walls on top of other terrain, etc, would all disappear. And you can't really get much more intelligent logic, because the client doesn't necessarily know that image X is a wall and Y is a dagger, and it should draw X and not Y. _______________________________________________ crossfire-devel mailing list crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel