Re: [Adonthell-artwork] v0.4 gfx request

[Kai Sterker]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:48:34 +0000 cirrus wrote

> Hmmm... well, I do want to start gfx asap but I don't think that is now.
> Ben and I wanted to spend some time making some proper rules for the
> naming of gfx files and the directory structure of the mapobjects tree.

Ah, yes, forgot about that. Some rules for making graphics are certainly 
more pressing than actual graphics at present. Good point.


> I had considered that approach for 0.3 but dismissed it because the
> forest wasn't really used (it was just decoration) and I was worried
> about performance - wouldn't that approach mean a LOT of transparency
> calculations? I suppose on newer machines it's not such an issue but it
> might be worth thinking about.

I guess the question here is whether we are able to get some hw
acceleration or not. Alex, are you following the goings on with that
SDL <-> 2D OpenGL binding? Besides, I think transperency isn't so much the
problem. Graphics that are translucent (i.e. have an alpha != 255) eat
more CPU methinks.

> I think for th outside forest edges a mixture might be a good idea - the
> is a forest texture (remember you can have a selection of compatible
> tiles to vary it a bit) with some individual trees to make it more
> interesting (and perhaps hide the odd item) but if you walk into the
> forest you switch to a submap where the trees are individual and the
> treetops are left away.

Right. That would possibly work. However, that would give the impression
as if the forest was some sort of building, and not really part of the world
map.

I agree that in a really dense forest, the player would be always hidden
by trees, which is bad. So our forests could be made not too dense.
Perhaps more like small groups of trees close together, with a bit of empty
space in between. The treetops could also have enough space between the
twigs so you see a little of what is behind.

When I am back at uni, I can post some shots of Ultima 7's forests. They
are done like that, and look pretty good while still allowing to see the
characters good enough.

 
> I don't know about seperating trunks and treetops. Perhaps not on every
> tree but we can off some that have that capability. As for the leaves: I
> was hoping the mapengine will be able to change the hue of graphics on
> the fly (once we add weather/season fx) and so I though of making leaf
> gfx as if it was summer and come autumn they just get turned orangy (if
> this is done on the fly we can have a smoother transition too - it could
> fade from one to the other over say one game week) by the engine. As
> winter begins the leaf gfx could just fade out gradually and if there
> hapens to be snow we fade in a snow pic for that tree (made so it
> matches the branches of the tree). That way trees only need one leaf
> graphic and one snow one AND you get nicer transitions.

Yes, that would be really neat :). More worries for Alex, I fear.


>> Oh, and the leaves could be animated, as if they were moving in the
>> wind :).
> 
> By all means :) That could be controlled by python right? So if there's
> no wind it just stays on one frame but in bad weather it plays the anim.

Yes, that should be possible. Would indeed be cool if the wind would not
blow all the times. There could also be the odd gust, shaking the leaves
for a few seconds. I think that would even make a better effect than an
evergoing animation :).


> Hiding place? Is there already a 0.4 plot??

Just a suggestion. Don't tell you are not subscribed to the plot list?
(Anyway, you can still read the archieves then.)

Kai