RE: [Adonthell-artwork] first new res anim

[walther-franks]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of
> Alexandre Courbot
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:33 AM
> To: Adonthell Artwork List
> Subject: RE: [Adonthell-artwork] first new res anim
>
>
> that's about it, I'd say. Maybe it's a bit big however - 100 pixels
> height is a bit much for a human, IMO. I'd say you can scale it so the
> height is rather something like 60-80 pixels. This way, the arms won't
> fit perfectly in the 40 pixels box, but that's no problem - this will
> give you room for clothes movments, and ripping the chr*no tr**ger
> character (from Nezu's site, thanks again Nez!) I realised it was
> already the case. Also, with large armors and such, it will easily fill
> the gap.

Actually it isn't 100 pixels - that's just the frame. The human is only 90
pixels long, and he would be only little more than 80 pixels tall, because
the feet aren't counted

> Apart from above remarks, I think the animation itself is fine.

Good! I think the six frames are fine aswell. Note that symmetric characters
would only need two frames to be created, they can be duplicated once each
and mirrored vertically once each, giving the exact 6 frames.


> See the attached pic, the same one scaled to 65 pixels height this time.
> I think this leaves enough room for details; but it actually depends
> what we want: we could keep the characters the same dimensions that
> Ben's submitted. Graphically, map rendering will be extremly detailed
> and beautifull. But there will be less stuff visible on the map view, of
> course. (a bit) Smaller gfxs will result in less detailed rendering, but
> also a more global vision of what's around. Imaginating the 100 pixels
> character on a 640x480 mapview, I fear you won't see enough stuff on the
> screen. Houses would really be enourmous, for example.

I think this is a little too small and too thin. See my attached pic, an old
fakeshot scaled up to 640 x 480, with the new frames inserted. I can
perfectly live with the 90 pixels (figure on the right), but if you insist I
wouldn't mind scaling it down a little. We'd have to find something in
between, though, cause 65 is definately too small (figure on the left).

the more I look at it the less I wish to reduce the size. Just think of the
level of detail we could have! And I think an average human being roughly
between a sixth and a fifth of the screen hight still ensures enough stuff
on the screen.

But let's see what the others say first.


> PS: ah, anyway I'll start turning this one into a map character once the
> dimension problem is solved. That way we'll have our random j. character
> available to fill game's gaps!:)

If you wait a little, I was going to do that: turn my scanned stuff into
clean images with pink background and all. But let's get the size issue
sorted out first :)

BEN