Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[Yann Chachkoff]

> Unless you start to allow fractional coordinates, such as (2.5, 8.3).
> I am unsure if a move away from 100% tile-based would be a good thing
> at this time though.
>
Moving to fractional coordinates would be somewhat more complex to implement; 
enlarging objects so they occupy more tiles requires no changes in the code 
(except, maybe, to manage multitiled players).


___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[Anton Oussik]

On 17/04/07, Aaron Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Yann Chachkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Now, I would not suggest using 64x64 as a new size for
> > tiles. Instead, keep the base tile as 32x32, and enlarge various
> > objects, so that they take more than a single tile.
>
> > Why ? Because having a base tile (32x32) that is smaller than the
> > default tile (64x64) allows you to make more complex shapes - for
> > example, L-shaped tiles.
>
> I tend to agree.  If you stay with 32x32 tiles while making most
> objects bigger than that, you could have a 64x64 table, but be able to
> put four different food items on it for example.  If all the tiles are
> 64x64, you may be able to make the actual booze bottle very small, but
> you can still only put one of them within a 64x64 area.

Unless you start to allow fractional coordinates, such as (2.5, 8.3).
I am unsure if a move away from 100% tile-based would be a good thing
at this time though.

___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[Aaron Baugher]

"Yann Chachkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Now, I would not suggest using 64x64 as a new size for
> tiles. Instead, keep the base tile as 32x32, and enlarge various
> objects, so that they take more than a single tile.

> Why ? Because having a base tile (32x32) that is smaller than the
> default tile (64x64) allows you to make more complex shapes - for
> example, L-shaped tiles.

I tend to agree.  If you stay with 32x32 tiles while making most
objects bigger than that, you could have a 64x64 table, but be able to
put four different food items on it for example.  If all the tiles are
64x64, you may be able to make the actual booze bottle very small, but
you can still only put one of them within a 64x64 area.



-- 
Aaron -- aaron.baugher.biz

___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[Robin Redeker]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:54:46PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
> With regard to the perspective: cfxmlrender adjusts the model in the
> file on the fly before setting up an orthogonal camera.
> Basically it goes like this:
> 
>for 4 units height go one unit to the right and two units up.
>It basically applies this transformation matrix to the yafray scene:
> 
>   1  0  0  0.25 0
>   0  1  0  0.5  0
>   0  0  1  00
>   0  0  0  01

That is of course a wrong matrix, I meant this:

1  0  0.25 0
0  1  0.5  0
0  0  10
0  0  01


Robin

___
crossfire mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[Yann Chachkoff]

About the tiles size: 

I do believe that having the feeling of game objects being bigger on the screen 
makes the whole gaming experience more immersive. I've made tests with 32x32 
tiles enlarged to 64x64 on the fly, and the feeling was really different, not 
looking anymore like a "stamp-sized" game.

Now, I would not suggest using 64x64 as a new size for tiles. Instead, keep the 
base tile as 32x32, and enlarge various objects, so that they take more than a 
single tile.

Why ? Because having a base tile (32x32) that is smaller than the default tile 
(64x64) allows you to make more complex shapes - for example, L-shaped tiles.

I guess that at some point, the way graphics are transmitted and displayed 
should also be revised, to allow proper pictures overlapping.

Just my 2 (Euro)cents :)


___
crossfire mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[Robin Redeker]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:34:38PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  IIRC, there are currently a few 3d models in place, but these are used to
> generate static images.  That works, but can be trickier to deal with.

Just FYI: I've lately checked in all the 3D models we use to render
our (now 64x64) tileset: http://cvs.schmorp.de/cf.schmorp.de/arch3d/
All of them come with a yafray xml file (and a .cfg file for the cfxmlrender
script that comes with the Crossfire perl module. the cfg file says what
the output filename should be, where in the arch tree it belongs
and the size and direction from which to render the face).
And most of them come with a blender scene file or at least a wings
model file (I'm working on exporting all of them to blender files,
as I prefer blender these days for it's animation capabilites).

With regard to the perspective: cfxmlrender adjusts the model in the
file on the fly before setting up an orthogonal camera.
Basically it goes like this:

   for 4 units height go one unit to the right and two units up.
   It basically applies this transformation matrix to the yafray scene:

  1  0  0  0.25 0
  0  1  0  0.5  0
  0  0  1  00
  0  0  0  01

> > * Animation of graphics and howto animate them and name the necessary
> > files for proper animation

We currently animate the models in the modeller and write out a yafray
file for each frame. Integrating a bone-animation framework alogn with
real 3d rendering in the client would be very nice, but thats really
really a lot of work and unneccessary at the moment.

> > * The 32x32 base size vs why not something larger?
> 
>  I know some developers have stated that current image sizes are too
> small.  We could certainly do something larger - doing 64x64 for base
> size is simple enough, and a quick resize of all images into a 'large'
> imageset could easily enough be done.  The problem here is really that
> there is now 2 image sets to maintain.  OTOH, I'd think that in most
> case, if things were drawn for the larger size and scaled down, it might
> work OK.

We've recently changed to 64x64 tiles (see also the latest screenshots
on http://cf.schmorp.de/screenshots.shtml ).
We have a script that processes our arch/ tree before generating the
face and archetype files from it. It looks whether there is a 64x64
version of the tile and if there is no 32x32 version it scales it down.
Scaling down rendered tiles looks nicely. And if there is only a 32x32
tile version, it is scaled up to 64x64 with a derivation of the hq2x
algorithm (see also http://www.hiend3d.com/hq2x.html and for the
hq2x implementation here: http://cvs.schmorp.de/cf.schmorp.de/server/utils/ )

The technical problems that come with 64x64 were for us for example the
10kb facesize limit. First we tried to send gcfclient bigfaces for
everything, but that didn't work well due some weird restrictions in the
client. We were also bitten by other limitations, eg. the fixed upper
limit of the number of faces in gcfclient.

In the end we now provide 32x32 tiles for gcfclient and the 64x64 tiles
to cfplus. Schmorp also extended the protocol to be able to send images
larger than 10kb (afaik it does transfers them in multiple pieces). (I
currently don't know more details on the implementation, as it was done
by schmorp).

>  64x64 may be too large a size however, and 48x48 may be a better middle
> ground, but more discussion would be needed on that.

Well, 64x64 offers a lot more pixels for details, which really boost the
immersiveness of the game IMO. Having so large tiles also makes it
possible to make some things smaller than others (eg. making the booze
not as big as a player character).

Greetings,
   Robin

___
crossfire mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[mwedel]

>
> Common questions that seem to come up in regards to new graphics:
>
> * Color count or color palette information

 Now days, it is really unlimited.  We are not doing any tricky palette
information.  At one point in the distant past, we had a limited set of
colors, simply because back in the day, most people only had 8 bit
displays.  Now days, 8 bit displays would be rare, but even then, the
client will do its own color matching - not great, but should work.

>
> * What exactly is the "Crossfire Perspective" on graphics and how that
> can be replicated or duplicated; the psuedo isometric and not quite
> top-down  perspective on graphics

 Yes - that needs to be sorted out.

 In the wishful thinking department, you'd almost want 3 image sets:

1) True flat - don't try to force a perspective on the monsters.  This
doesn't look as pretty, but is perhaps simpler to do and is more
consistent related to other objects.  Question in this case is where you
try to force perspective on other things, like buildings.  To some extent,
the classic image set falls into this category.

2) Proper isometric - sort of where some of the things are now. However,
in this mode, things should actually be drawn in an isomorphic
perspective, and not on the flat view we currently have.  IIRC, for
opengl, this is easy - just a simple call someplace to change the view
perspective - however, images and everything else is needed for it - some
could perhaps be taken from daimonin.  This isn't a view I really like,
but seems popular.

3) 3d models.  I'd think these could be rendered in either 2d or
isomorphic, depending on perspective used for rendering.  May even be able
to do true 3d, but IMO that changes things a lot (the game is designed a
lot right now in that you will see everything around you - a 3d games
really is designed to give a front view).

 But questions for this is what modeling language is used to store that 3d
data.  I'd also think that for it to really be useful, the client would
need to do the drawing of the models itself.

 IIRC, there are currently a few 3d models in place, but these are used to
generate static images.  That works, but can be trickier to deal with.

 OTOH, some of this depends on other changes.  If for example, the idea is
to used 3d models for animation (these points move in this method),
animation logic on the client probably needs a bit of changes, etc.


>
> * Animation of graphics and howto animate them and name the necessary
> files for proper animation

 I thought that is documented someplace.

>
> * How to easily test new graphics via local server or client

 The ideal case would be for the editor to do it somehow, but that is
trickier.

 This could be documented fairly easily, but does require person to have
local server.  this isn't that tricky on unix side, but I don't know if
it is easy for users to collect images/archetypes on windows or other
platforms.

>
> * The 32x32 base size vs why not something larger?

 I know some developers have stated that current image sizes are too
small.  We could certainly do something larger - doing 64x64 for base
size is simple enough, and a quick resize of all images into a 'large'
imageset could easily enough be done.  The problem here is really that
there is now 2 image sets to maintain.  OTOH, I'd think that in most
case, if things were drawn for the larger size and scaled down, it might
work OK.

 64x64 may be too large a size however, and 48x48 may be a better middle
ground, but more discussion would be needed on that.




___
crossfire mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[Anton Oussik]

At the end of the day this would be mostly up the the artist(s)
contributing art.

There seems to be an agreement of 2D vs 3D, so now someone able and
willing to contribute needs to be found.

___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[Alex Schultz]

ERACC Subscriptions wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 April 2007 05:00 am
> Anton Oussik wrote:
>
>   
>> If we could attract an artist (or 5 or 6) who would be willing to
>> create 3D models of things, animate them, and then produce a complete
>> tileset of the universe from those, it would be ideal.
>> 
>
> Call me crazy if you wish. :-p I prefer the 2D version we have now. Granted 
> we 
> could always use more and better 2D graphics. But 3D and animation then locks 
> out a lot of marginal graphics makers (like me for example) that could "make 
> do" with the 2D tiles. Once we go 3D we would *have to* have some 3D artists 
> on board the project to go forward.
>
> The problem with that is good 3D graphics folks are not easy to find and 
> keep. 
> The really good ones are probably working only on closed source projects for 
> a salary. I say this based on the lack of excellent 3D graphics in the open 
> source projects I have seen. I am willing to be proven wrong though. ;-) But 
> I still would prefer we keep Crossfire a 2D game.
Agreed that we should keep it to 2D based graphics, UNLESS we can find
rendering settings/methods (or write code :)) that can allow a 3D
renderer to generate graphics that match "CF style" such that 3D and 2D
graphics could be seamlessly used at once.

If one is discussing redoing graphics however, I believe we may want to
change the perspective the graphics are using anyways. I believe that
the current "psudo-isometric"ish look is a style that is not easy to do
in 2d and is similarly not the easiest to replicate in 3D generally. I
believe that whether 2D or 3D, if we are to redo a large amount of
graphics anyways, it would be beneficial to switch to a perspective that
is easier to use. I propose that it would be good to switch to a
perspective where "tall" things are not skewed to the side and just
appear directly vertical, but not directly top view, just tilted
slightly so you can see the fronts of things.
Basically I propose that if we are redoing a significant amount of
graphics, we should get rid of the "horizontal skew" because that
changes it to a perspective both more familiar to 2D artists and easier
to replicate in 3D.

Alex Schultz

___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[Andrew Fuchs]

On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 20:15 +0100, Anton Oussik wrote:
> On 11/04/07, ERACC Subscriptions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 April 2007 05:00 am
> > Anton Oussik wrote:
> >
> > > If we could attract an artist (or 5 or 6) who would be willing to
> > > create 3D models of things, animate them, and then produce a complete
> > > tileset of the universe from those, it would be ideal.
> >
> > Call me crazy if you wish. :-p I prefer the 2D version we have now. Granted 
> > we
> > could always use more and better 2D graphics. But 3D and animation then 
> > locks
> > out a lot of marginal graphics makers (like me for example) that could "make
> > do" with the 2D tiles. Once we go 3D we would *have to* have some 3D artists
> > on board the project to go forward.
> 
> 2D reduces portability and ability to animate graphics. For example,
> if someone creates an animation of a running orc, and someone else
> creates an animation of an orc swinging an axe, given the models, some
> 3rd person can easily add an animation of an orc firing an arrow.
> Generating everything from a different perspective or of a different
> resolution can then also be automated, and colours can be easily be
> adjusted over all frames featuring the same model. A talented 3D
> artist should be able to get more work done, and be able to keep the
> work easy to change better than several 2D artists might. As a bonus,
> same models can be used to make CF truly 3D some day, instead of
> 3D-rendered snapshots as currently proposed. Since I think some day
> within the next 10-15 years CF needs to make a transition to 3D to
> stay current, this would be a natural evolving route to take.

Agreed.  These two, are the only advantages that I see for going with 3D
models.  Also, as noted in one of Rick Tanner's emails, we would need to
create standards to ensure that all the graphics fit together.  This is
especially true since we are using pre-rendered tiles.

> > The problem with that is good 3D graphics folks are not easy to find and 
> > keep.
> 
> That is true, and there are good chances that none will be attracted.

I might be able to do some work, though I probably won't have much time
to do so.

> > The really good ones are probably working only on closed source projects for
> > a salary. I say this based on the lack of excellent 3D graphics in the open
> > source projects I have seen. I am willing to be proven wrong though. ;-) But
> > I still would prefer we keep Crossfire a 2D game.
...

As for finding artists, there are a lot of people who do 3d work as a
hobby.  Although I don't have a clue about what they do for their normal
work.


___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[Anton Oussik]

On 11/04/07, ERACC Subscriptions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 April 2007 05:00 am
> Anton Oussik wrote:
>
> > If we could attract an artist (or 5 or 6) who would be willing to
> > create 3D models of things, animate them, and then produce a complete
> > tileset of the universe from those, it would be ideal.
>
> Call me crazy if you wish. :-p I prefer the 2D version we have now. Granted we
> could always use more and better 2D graphics. But 3D and animation then locks
> out a lot of marginal graphics makers (like me for example) that could "make
> do" with the 2D tiles. Once we go 3D we would *have to* have some 3D artists
> on board the project to go forward.

2D reduces portability and ability to animate graphics. For example,
if someone creates an animation of a running orc, and someone else
creates an animation of an orc swinging an axe, given the models, some
3rd person can easily add an animation of an orc firing an arrow.
Generating everything from a different perspective or of a different
resolution can then also be automated, and colours can be easily be
adjusted over all frames featuring the same model. A talented 3D
artist should be able to get more work done, and be able to keep the
work easy to change better than several 2D artists might. As a bonus,
same models can be used to make CF truly 3D some day, instead of
3D-rendered snapshots as currently proposed. Since I think some day
within the next 10-15 years CF needs to make a transition to 3D to
stay current, this would be a natural evolving route to take.

> The problem with that is good 3D graphics folks are not easy to find and keep.

That is true, and there are good chances that none will be attracted.

> The really good ones are probably working only on closed source projects for
> a salary. I say this based on the lack of excellent 3D graphics in the open
> source projects I have seen. I am willing to be proven wrong though. ;-) But
> I still would prefer we keep Crossfire a 2D game.

3D-rendered tileset can be provided as alternative to the 2D one, and
even after transition to full 3D if the game is still tile-based there
is no reason current tileset can not be used in 2D mode.

___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[Rick Tanner]

Common questions that seem to come up in regards to new graphics:

* Color count or color palette information

* What exactly is the "Crossfire Perspective" on graphics and how that
can be replicated or duplicated; the psuedo isometric and not quite
top-down  perspective on graphics

* Animation of graphics and howto animate them and name the necessary
files for proper animation

* How to easily test new graphics via local server or client

* The 32x32 base size vs why not something larger?

That's all I can think of right now.






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[ERACC Subscriptions]

On Wednesday 11 April 2007 05:00 am
Anton Oussik wrote:

> If we could attract an artist (or 5 or 6) who would be willing to
> create 3D models of things, animate them, and then produce a complete
> tileset of the universe from those, it would be ideal.

Call me crazy if you wish. :-p I prefer the 2D version we have now. Granted we 
could always use more and better 2D graphics. But 3D and animation then locks 
out a lot of marginal graphics makers (like me for example) that could "make 
do" with the 2D tiles. Once we go 3D we would *have to* have some 3D artists 
on board the project to go forward.

The problem with that is good 3D graphics folks are not easy to find and keep. 
The really good ones are probably working only on closed source projects for 
a salary. I say this based on the lack of excellent 3D graphics in the open 
source projects I have seen. I am willing to be proven wrong though. ;-) But 
I still would prefer we keep Crossfire a 2D game.

Gene Alexander
-- 
ERA Computers & Consulting 
We can provide you with VoIP phone service for your home and/or business. Our 
VoIP phone service has FREE long distance in the USA and Canada! Contact us!
Voice messages: 1(731)256-0973 - FAX & Voice messages: 1(731)664-8524
  [E-mail preferred. Please reply BELOW this line.]

___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[Anton Oussik]

On 11/04/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Note that given GPL rules, we could probably go hunting for graphics that
> are already under GPL and incorporate them into crossfire.

I have thought about this before, and it will not really work, as you
want a complete matching tileset if possible, otherwise you end up
with a strange mixture of styles, which looks messy.

If we could attract an artist (or 5 or 6) who would be willing to
create 3D models of things, animate them, and then produce a complete
tileset of the universe from those, it would be ideal.

___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Getting more artists

[mwedel]

> To be honest, I'd like to give the more accurate description of the
> project,
> including its shortcomings or what can be seen as a weeknesses:
> * we aren't many developers or mapmakers (number varies, of course)
> * sometimes no one replies to questions asked, or it can take some (3+)
> days/weeks

 I'd probably say that needs to be clarified.  The difference between 3
days and 3 weeks is pretty big.

 I'd probably say that in general, most questions will be answered within
a few days.

 Certainly, some times people are on vacation, etc, but to me, it seems
that it is a rare occurence that something that hasn't been discussed for
several weeks is responded to.  And most often, this is the case when
someone that has been on vacation, etc, comes back and wants to respond,
which is different than basic developer questions, which tend to be
answered within a week.

 Might also want to mention the irc channel, as another place for
support/asking questions.

> * player base is pretty low, ~10 players on Metalforge for instance
> * (insert other things you can think of here)

 I might try to avoid specific numbers.  Number we know about on specific
public servers is relatively low, and we don't really know how many
people play on private servers.  So you might want to leave out a
specific number, but instead say something like 'relative small userbase'

>
> and of course the basic information:
> * what is Crossfire
> * GPL code and graphics and what not
> * more than 10 years of development, so long-time project (it shouldn't
> die
> soon)
> * 32x32 base sprites, can be multitiled
> * and other things we can think of

 Might want to also mention that graphics or other changes are likely to
be incorporated relatively quickly, which may be a plus.

 Should probably make it clear that any contributed graphics must be under
GPL.

 Note that given GPL rules, we could probably go hunting for graphics that
are already under GPL and incorporate them into crossfire.




___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

[crossfire] Getting more artists

[Nicolas Weeger]

Hello.

I'd like to put some messages on graphism-related forums, to call for some 
help for graphisms - which do need some work imo :)
Of course I won't post anywhere, just on relevant forums or subsections of 
forums.

To be honest, I'd like to give the more accurate description of the project, 
including its shortcomings or what can be seen as a weeknesses:
* we aren't many developers or mapmakers (number varies, of course)
* sometimes no one replies to questions asked, or it can take some (3+) 
days/weeks
* player base is pretty low, ~10 players on Metalforge for instance
* (insert other things you can think of here)

and of course the basic information:
* what is Crossfire
* GPL code and graphics and what not
* more than 10 years of development, so long-time project (it shouldn't die 
soon)
* 32x32 base sprites, can be multitiled
* and other things we can think of


What do you think?

Nicolas
-- 
http://nicolas.weeger.free.fr [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref 
de l'aléatoire !]

___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire