[crossfire] multipart images
Mitch Obrian
mikeeusaaa at yahoo.com
Sat May 28 01:02:09 CDT 2005
I think this should be a non issue. Nothing is
broken... changing the image names and the arches is
usless busy work.... just a waste.
--- Mark Wedel <
mwedel at sonic.net
> wrote:
>
Todd Mitchell wrote:
>
> Not sure I am following - I am proposing using "x"
>
for single images
>
> greater than a single tile in size. Images that
>
are a single tile would
>
> still use the "1" as would the first tile in a
>
large image which has not
>
> been merged. Since the first digit was only to
>
denote the tile order
>
> using x will distinguish multi-tile images from
>
single tile images.
>
>
My point was that at some level, changing the
>
naming to distinguish large
>
(merged) images for other single images is
>
inconsistent.
>
>
that is to say, right now, I think there are some
>
large (merged) images that
>
are currently in the .111, .112, etc format. Those
>
can all get renamed I
>
suppose, but just a note.
>
>
But because of that, having the first digit be a
>
'1' for large images isn't
>
necessary incorrect - it is the first part of the
>
image - it just happens to be
>
a large image.
>
>
I also have the concern about sort of large
>
images. For example, with the
>
large image support, you could make something like
>
an ogre that is 40 pixels
>
high, and it will be drawn properly (ignoring
>
existing drawing errors). Should
>
that have an 'x' or '1' for the first tile? That's
>
just a matter of
>
clarification of when should an x be used instead of
>
1.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
crossfire mailing list
>
crossfire at metalforge.org
>
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the crossfire
mailing list