[crossfire] multipart images

[Todd Mitchell]

On Fri, 2005-27-05 at 23:01 -0700, Mitch Obrian wrote:
>
     
      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.
     
     >
     
     
     
I don't consider it 'busy work'.
This is a new case and not a historical conversion of the crossfire
images. Aside from the few images just committed all the arches do
follow this standard since I have been slowly merging the multipart
images.  The reason I am merging the images is to make them easier to
edit and improve - not just to bounce my name across the internet.  

The image naming convention is there for a reason - to make managing and
updating the arches easier.  The name convention is "name.xyz.type.png"
where x is the tile offset for a multipart image, y is the facing
(clockwise) and z is the animation frame.  Images larger than 1 tile are
new and aside from the recent buildings added all have x as the first
digit because this indicates a large image.  Since I have been merging
all the images they all were getting an x - It made it easy to fix the
arch for the new image and as a bonus - to find a large image
programatically.  I thought I should try to formalize this.  It may be
useful to know which images are multi-tile at some point and it does
make it easier to explain how to make an arch if this is always the
case.  

Without a naming convention it becomes very hard to learn how to make
arches and very hard to debug arches so I don't consider it busy work
(making yet another colour of marble flooring however seems a bit
superfluous to me).

It took me a while to learn the ropes and I believe others had the same
problem since I have also been doing a lot of fixes and clean up of the
arches over the last few years because the name convention wasn't
followed.

Along the same vein - if crossfire ever had the ability to store
animations as binary objects instead of a series of png (hypothetical -
not a request) I would expect these images to use a 'z' as the third
digit in the name convention to denote this.

Contriwise - images with a single facing would have a y as the second
position - I think this may take it too far however.  Perhaps if
crossfire ever used 3d models this would be the case.