Topic: Wares Icon size

Astuur wrote: Thanks Chuck! I am having a little trouble with these files. They are all JPG, so they don't support alpha channel transparency. I will have to create an alpha for them.

Doh! Sorry about that!

Alpha or no alpha, I tried them in game. I think 13x13 should be better for idle. What strikes me, is the "spiky" look of the menu pics. This really gives the illusion of a rough cast!

Well, these are primitive societies.

First I thought it a bit strange, but I think I like that! Looks like they dont need any conf hot spot adjustment, but that must be seen with the alpha working. I will come back - tomorrow most likely... again thanks

And thank YOU!

I see little people.

Top

Quote

Astuur wrote: Well, I have added the alpha channel to Chuck's jpgs and converted them to PNGs.

Thanks for that. The originals are, in fact, png's. The Flickr site converted them to jpg.

It turns out they loose some of their spikyness in the process, but the granularity remains and that is a good thing.

I think the "spikyness" was an aberration from the format changes.

I have also made the Idle.pngs 13x11 pixels (same size as mine). I have then installed them in my installation
and created this picture derived from screenshots.

That is a GREAT montage graphic to illustrate your points!

Afterwards I did likewise with my own icons. They're here
I have then shown the 4 ingots agaist all possible backgrounds in the game (including some impossible ones ) You can find these pictures here and here and here and here.

Again, GREAT illustrations! They really help our scrutiny.

Obvious is that the 2 versions show the ingots in different angles. While this may sound like a matter of taste, it may play a role in "fitting" the ingots into the hands of the carriers (not to mention the donkeys!) I have therefore included some close-ups for the different walking directions. I tried with both, but am dissatisfied with the results. No hot spot seems to fit for all directions, donkeys and carriers alike, for either if the ingots. Chuck, can you help? I am not experienced in this matter.

I'll give it a try, but we may have to settle for a "happy medium".

Next is the size difference . Unless you like the comic look it gives, I think my "Idles" are a bit oversized. Just imagine what such an ingot would weigh in real life! Strong little fellows, huh?

You bet they are strong! Look at those smiths carrying their anvils around! Seriously, though, we do want the player to be able to easily identify the ware in transit.

The color and surface is another strong point in Chuck's versions. Here I clearly prefer them to my own. I think they look too yellowish and too smooth.

It is a matter of personal taste I think.

For the "menu" models I am not so sure. In this case I quite like my own attempts. But since you'd probably want idles and menus uniform ....

Yes, it reduces confusion and helps the player to recognize the smaller "idle" graphic on the game board.

All in all, I think Chuck's ingots are more suitable (if they can be fitted for the hot spot) This is a nasty business, since we only have one view of the ware, but different walking directions for the carriers.

It is tricky, but we currently have no code to portray wares from different directions.

I dont care much, which versions will be taken, as long as the idea of ingots survives. I never considered myself much of an artist anyhow!

And now let our Graphics Elder have his say ...... others too, of course

I, too, will bow to the majority in this case. Both sets have their pros and cons.

Let's hear your vote!

I see little people.

Top

Quote

I prefer chucks versions. I feel that the iron can easily be interpreted as stone, but I cannot provide an idea to fix this. I also like the version currently in the game and see not too much benefit changing those though.

Note that if the new graphics require name changes (like gold -> gold ingots) they can't be in build 16 (this would require changes of translatable strings which is not allowed after first-snow feature freeze). I would also prefer not to rename wares.

Top

Quote

Astuur wrote: The point is really to have "iron" more discernable from "iron ore" and more clearly give a visible explanation of what is happining at the smelting works. Also, given the importance of "Iron" and "Gold", it seems helpful to have it stick out more among the wares being transported. So, in this sense, I am sure any of the new ingot graphics is superior to the amorphic mass that we have now. Of course there is always the point that you have gotten so much used to something, that you dislike any change.

I fully understood the motivation of the change, I just wanted to express that I didn't ever have problems differentiating between iron ore, iron, gold ore or gold. I am not against changing anything, I just don't see a big problem. I took some offense from your last sentence that I took as an implication of my reasoning, but I am sure that you didn't intend this.

As for the name of the wares, I still think that the term "ingots" would be helpful, but that is an independent question and can be changed later in build 17, if accepted. Would renaming wares kill savegame compatibility?

No, only the description to the user would be changed. This will only affect translations, not save game compatibility. I feel that it is confusing changing the graphics and later change the name of the wares, so I suggest either changing graphics and name at the same time (only possible after build 16) or not change the name of the wares at all. This should be decided beforehand.

That said, I find it very important not to introduce other ambiguity when doing a change. For example I feel the iron ingots (both versions) look a lot like stones and I suggest experimenting with a redish color (even though it is not logical of course) or another form factor.

Regards, !SirVer

Edited for spelling.

Top

Quote

Alright, that clears this up :).

Top

Quote