Hey, I love this new pixel_x and pixel_y thing, I'll find all sorts of uses for it, one use is going to be making big mobs. I've got a plan for how to do it, but it would involve making a whole bunch of icons for each individual mob, which would mean a WHOLE lot of cutting and pasting of stuff. I'm afraid to ask this because I'm figuring the DMI format is going to present a problem with icons over 32x32 in size. I'm wondering if it would be possible to allow DMI's to have a size setting to make them larger than 32x32. All the frames should be the same size, so you only have one size variable. The pixel_x pixel_y thing could be used to properly align the icon on the grid how you want it. (i.e. I would position the mob or obj so that its "active location" or whatever is at the bottom center of it). I'm sorry I ask this so much, but I keep running into the problem of having to slice things up a whole lot, which takes a lot of time and is a mess to code. I had originally planned to have a large mob create a whole bunch of "overlays" and then move them to the correct positions when it is created. This whole thing, of course, should just be applied to atom/movables, as turfs would have problems overlapping. I posted this because I'm trying to use really big tree icons, but the way I use them, I want them to all be one object, and when I put a png on a dmp, it splits it all up into small objs. sigh.... oh well....
DerDragon
ID:136934
 Mar 30 2002, 2:36 pm
|
|
Yeah. I think the form which larger objects are going to take is starting to become clear. It certainly is a nuisance to have to break up all of your icons into little chunks. GAH! Stupid dictionary.com deleted the post I was about to make. Okay, okay, calm down... just take it from the top... I also am in need of big icons for Battle for Solaris. I can't get away with faking them with 32x32 composites of icons, either, since I need to be able to rotate them -- rotating multiple pieces of an icon as if they were individual parts is bound to produce horrible results. Right now, I can get away with using the 32x32, but when a 1x2 strike fighter starts very very slowly making your 12x15 ship's shields get damaged, and you can't even see where that fighter actually is (assuming, of course, that I was stupid enough to forget to put in the tactical IFF overlays), you'd get frustrated. If that fighter appeared as a 3x6 icon, however, the situation would be different (aside from the fact that you'd be in a 36x45 icon, which would be really intimidating as it was). Next on the list of necessities for BfS to be truly what I envision it is to have Lummox JR's DrawRect() suggestion for icons. BfS' current drawing routine relies on s_pixels, which is slow. At least it works, though. =P | |
Big icons would be nice. I need them for my robot game. I'm not doing it by cutting and pasting because that would take too long to do 30 some robots.
| |
Yeah. I think the form which larger objects are going to take is starting to become clear. It certainly is a nuisance to have to break up all of your icons into little chunks.
--Dan