Posted by G.Ballblue on Thu Dec 22nd 2005 at 4:50pm
Anyways,:P
I just noticed something about screen1: If thats an over head view we're looking at, shouldn't the top of the buidlings be nulled off? Or will the players be able to get up on top of the buildings and shoot down from them (implying that you'll need to actually see the top of the buildings).
It also looks like you're making an overlay -- if you need the roofs for that, then that's understandable, but I still think those roof tops need to be nulled.
Posted by Myrk- on Thu Dec 22nd 2005 at 1:22pm
MSpaint is the worst Jpeg optimiser of them all G.ballblue, but lets not this map thread turn into a rant about image sizing- I think everyone gets the message, and if they haven't they never will
Posted by Underdog on Thu Dec 22nd 2005 at 2:10am
Blueman, you make my head hurt.
But thats OK, because I know how to make a great quality image at less than 100k. " SRC="images/smiles/icon_wink.gif">
Posted by G.Ballblue on Thu Dec 22nd 2005 at 1:42am
I have a great one -- it's called mspaint
But this time around I chose to use gimp.edit: Now that I feel so much better after my witty retort, I'll talk serious:
I don't really have a ture "optimizer" on my computer. But now that you mention it, I may try out one the well known optimizers around this site (xat anyone?)
edit: edit: I took a look at it, but I still feel that mspaint (I'm being serious) does a better job -- if not that, it's easier to work with, for me atleast. I just save a .jpg and it does extreme compression to my images, but they usually result in being pretty good.
Anyways.
Posted by Underdog on Thu Dec 22nd 2005 at 1:37am
It would HELP, if they chose the correct image dimensions to begin with. In this way it wouldn't looks as stupid without the red text saying "You big dummy, you need it to be 800x600" or whatever translation you chose for "AUTO DOWNSIZED"
Secondly, and conversely, with the 800x600 jpg. you can spice the size up a notch without as much degradation. In other words images at 800x600 and 100k look much better than bigger images at 100k.
Of course we all know that great quality images at 800x600 CAN BE AT 60K or less, but here again, 100k is coolness for all.
Gblueball is obviously in need of a good quality image optimizer.
Posted by Myrk- on Wed Dec 21st 2005 at 9:41pm
Ballblues pic looks absolute crap quality though- although this is probably a crappy jpeg processor or unnessesarily low settings.
As for the map- looks good, but look around, how often do you see entire areas of the same architecture? Places are generally built over time in chunks.
Posted by fishy on Wed Dec 21st 2005 at 7:56pm
G.B., could you explain to sonicdm how you managed to make a pic of only 40% of the filesize size of the original, because he seems to be ignoring me.
Posted by G.Ballblue on Wed Dec 21st 2005 at 7:45pm
Some images in this post have been automatically down-sized, click on them to view the full sized versions:
Even with all the compression that the gimp could muster, I still couldn't get it to far below 100kb, I think.
Anyways -- comments are on the image
Some images in this post have been automatically down-sized, click on them to view the full sized versions:
Some images in this post have been automatically down-sized, click on them to view the full sized versions:
Some images in this post have been automatically down-sized, click on them to view the full sized versions:
Here are some updates:new overview:
Some T Spawn Changes:
And a big skybox bridge :o :
