It's also setup so people in software mode get a black screen and not a full view.
| |
I do need a better icon for the light though, I kind of half-assed the falloff on that thing.
| |
Nadrew wrote:
I do need a better icon for the light though, I kind of half-assed the falloff on that thing. That's the first thing I played around with. Something like this?   | |
Yeah, but it's probably better pure white and 32x32
| |
When Bae doesn't give up, even when you're dead:
 | |
Quick little spin off from another framework I've been working on. It's a slide show app written in BYOND.
Make sure to set the web client to full screen and then the browser with F11 to get the full experience. Live Example: BYOND Slide Show HUB PAGE: BYOND Slide Show | |
Falloff images you say (Lambertian shading unless I screwed up)?
Whiteness for falloff:  Alphas for falloff (not embedded because it's invisible anyways): https://www.dropbox.com/s/w1vhlwp0c7evz97/ lighting_falloff_10_full.png?dl=1 | |
Still far too large, starting at 32x32 is ideal, scaling upwards is far smoother than scaling downwards.
| |
Nadrew wrote:
Still far too large, starting at 32x32 is ideal, scaling upwards is far smoother than scaling downwards. Really? Could've sworn it was the other way around. Scaling upwards gets all pixelated. | |
Well, with basic shapes it's not too bad either way. When it comes to detailed graphics though, you definitely want to be scaling up and not down to prevent massive quality loss.
I'll give the large image a shot later on for sure. | |
Nadrew wrote:
Well, with basic shapes it's not too bad either way. When it comes to detailed graphics though, you definitely want to be scaling up and not down to prevent massive quality loss. You might be getting muddled up, it's definitely the other way around. If you start smaller and blow it up, it'll add pixels in a somewhat random and unpredictable manner, often resulting in an incredibly pixelated and awkward looking result. If you start big and shrink, it removes pixels still mostly randomly, but it holds the general shape a lot better and the shrunk image will always look mostly representative of what it originally was. | |
Sure, if we were using nearest neighbor interpolation for scaling, but we're not, so down scaling tends to get a lot worse off.
| |
Nadrew wrote:
Sure, if we were using nearest neighbor interpolation for scaling, but we're not, so down scaling tends to get a lot worse off. The fact that we're not just causes ugly AA to scale up. | |
Yeah, but outside of the blurring, the upscaling tends to retain more detail than downscaling. I was always on the other side of the fence to until I started messing with scaling on BYOND =P
| |
Nadrew wrote:
I was always on the other side of the fence to until I started messing with scaling on BYOND =P *Admits defeat* I just played around a bunch and I have to agree, despite what I previously said. | |
I played around with different sizes. You could get away with a smaller size for sure but larger sizes allow for much neater looking effects.
Pure white also leaves out some gradient effects that I think are neat. Try this 32x32 image but also try it inside a 4 state loop where you rotate each by +1. This results in a neat shadow effect where the light interacts in fantastic ways. Sort of like flickering candle light. It's choppy in this quick example but you can at least see the potential.  | |
Try animate()ing the light's color to a yellow or orange from the white, it'll flicker ;)
| |
Awesome. Thanks for sharing this Nadrew. It actually unlocks a number of things I've been wanting to do but haven't been able to.