Re: Graphics
On May 26, 2005, at 1:26 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Shari wrote: Geez! And I thought my game was bloated! Whenever I start to feel bad about bloat-creep I just do a Get Info on any Apple app. The theory with shared frameworks is that by putting the 80% of an application that's generic into a common shared library, an app can be made more efficient. So what does this mean in real-world terms? In OS 9 the Calculator app was 8k. In OS X it's 3MB. In OS 9 the DVD Player was 468k. In OS X it's 13.8MB In OS 9 iTunes was 3.9MB In OS X it's 29.8MB I know it's in fun, but do take a look at removing the extra languages if you haven't already. I'm guessing that will trim the file size down some. The language files exist for almost every language Apple supports - it makes it easier for them to distribute one app that supports every language than having a bunch of distributions and keeping track of them all. The price we pay for easier management by Apple is more space taken up on our disks.. though there are programs that eliminate extra languages automatically. Shari, I wouldn't worry too much about your file size - I personally think it's just fine, and probably smaller than many (like the game we mentioned). Cheers, Karl ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Graphics
The price we pay for easier management by Apple is more space taken up on our disks.. though there are programs that eliminate extra languages automatically. Shari, I wouldn't worry too much about your file size - I personally think it's just fine, and probably smaller than many (like the game we mentioned). Cheers, Karl So the bigger our hard drives get, the bigger the programs get to fill them... I had noticed that programs seemed to come with a lot of extraneous languages, but I hadn't dug much into the why's and wherefore's. On systems before OSX, I'd be deleting unnecessaries in a heartbeat, but I'm not as comfortable with the guts of OSX and tend to be cautious about deleting anything. First thing I used to do with a new OS is go into the Control Panels and Extensions and delete anything I wouldn't use. OSX has all these different places where things are, and I don't know what they all mean. So I leave them be. Shari -- Mac and Windows shareware games http://www.gypsyware.com ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Graphics
Hi Scott, Recently, Shari wrote: Has anyone here every played iPoker? I love the way they handle the player's chips and have been pondering how to do it in Metacard. If each chip were an object, you'd have a helluva lot of objects. I'm not familiar enough with other ways of handling graphics to do it without objects. What is so unique about the chips? If they're separate then yes, you would use a separate object for each chip. If your question is how to manage them efficiently, you could create your chips as buttons and set their icon properties to the appropriate source chip image stored in your stack. This way you can have a thousand chips (buttons) with virtually no additional overhead since all the chips are only pointers original chip art. Try to tell THAT the casino boss :-D Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director Tactile Media, Multimedia Design - E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: http://www.tactilemedia.com Best Klaus Major [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.major-k.de ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Graphics
What is so unique about the chips? If they're separate then yes, you would use a separate object for each chip. If your question is how to manage them efficiently, you could create your chips as buttons and set their icon properties to the appropriate source chip image stored in your stack. This way you can have a thousand chips (buttons) with virtually no additional overhead since all the chips are only pointers original chip art. Regards, Scott Rossi Scott, That's actually what I normally do for graphics, I'm good at that. But to have thousands of additional btn objects would surely create significant overhead? Anything more than a few K is bad. It's crucial to keep it from getting any bigger, because people will download the smaller competitors first. And only if they are unhappy will they finally download mine. Most C-based games of this type are less than 1 MB stuffed. I did a bit of research not long ago at various download sites. Comparing my download rates with some of the competition. Even though my game had better screenshots, a better description, equal or better options, and an equal rating, it got less downloads. The only explanation was size. I tried my darndest to get the whole kaboodle to be less than 1 MB stuffed, but even with compressing all the graphics and whittling away at various things, it's 3.5 MB stuffed. I had hoped for a solution that didn't involve thousands of additional objects :-( Shari -- Mac and Windows shareware games http://www.gypsyware.com ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
