On 9 June 2011 03:19, James Paige wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 01:15:54PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
>> On 8 June 2011 13:06, James Paige wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:53:56PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
>> >> On 8 June 2011 12:48, Mike Caron wrote:
>> >> > On 6/7/2011 20:46,
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 01:15:54PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
> On 8 June 2011 13:06, James Paige wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:53:56PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
> >> On 8 June 2011 12:48, Mike Caron wrote:
> >> > On 6/7/2011 20:46, James Paige wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jun
On 8 June 2011 13:06, James Paige wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:53:56PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
>> On 8 June 2011 12:48, Mike Caron wrote:
>> > On 6/7/2011 20:46, James Paige wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:43:12PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 8 June
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:53:56PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
> On 8 June 2011 12:48, Mike Caron wrote:
> > On 6/7/2011 20:46, James Paige wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:43:12PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 8 June 2011 11:52, Mike Caron wrote:
>
> On 6/
On 8 June 2011 12:48, Mike Caron wrote:
> On 6/7/2011 20:46, James Paige wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:43:12PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8 June 2011 11:52, Mike Caron wrote:
On 6/7/2011 19:49, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
>
> On 8 June 2011 07:34, Mike Caron
On 6/7/2011 20:46, James Paige wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:43:12PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
On 8 June 2011 11:52, Mike Caron wrote:
On 6/7/2011 19:49, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
On 8 June 2011 07:34, Mike Caronwrote:
On 07/06/2011 10:44 AM, James Paige wrote:
Well, solved in
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:43:12PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
> On 8 June 2011 11:52, Mike Caron wrote:
> > On 6/7/2011 19:49, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8 June 2011 07:34, Mike Caron wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 07/06/2011 10:44 AM, James Paige wrote:
>
> Well, solved in the sen
On 8 June 2011 11:52, Mike Caron wrote:
> On 6/7/2011 19:49, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
>>
>> On 8 June 2011 07:34, Mike Caron wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/06/2011 10:44 AM, James Paige wrote:
Well, solved in the sense that I can add six more rows and 10 more
columns to my background layer an
On 6/7/2011 19:49, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
On 8 June 2011 07:34, Mike Caron wrote:
On 07/06/2011 10:44 AM, James Paige wrote:
Well, solved in the sense that I can add six more rows and 10 more
columns to my background layer and it will look okay, but I still really
want to understand the math
On 8 June 2011 07:34, Mike Caron wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 10:44 AM, James Paige wrote:
>>
>> Well, solved in the sense that I can add six more rows and 10 more
>> columns to my background layer and it will look okay, but I still really
>> want to understand the math needed to make the parallax work
On 07/06/2011 10:44 AM, James Paige wrote:
Well, solved in the sense that I can add six more rows and 10 more
columns to my background layer and it will look okay, but I still really
want to understand the math needed to make the parallax work with the
1/3 size layer, since that is the same math
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 01:19:27PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
> On 7 June 2011 12:04, James Paige wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:39:51AM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
> >> On 7 June 2011 07:45, James Paige wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:23:26PM -0400, Mike Willis wrote:
> >>
On 7 June 2011 12:04, James Paige wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:39:51AM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
>> On 7 June 2011 07:45, James Paige wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:23:26PM -0400, Mike Willis wrote:
>> >> So I don't know how to reply on those archives, but here is the crux
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:39:51AM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote:
> On 7 June 2011 07:45, James Paige wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:23:26PM -0400, Mike Willis wrote:
> >> So I don't know how to reply on those archives, but here is the crux of
> >> the parallax problem I think:
> >>
>
On 7 June 2011 07:45, James Paige wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:23:26PM -0400, Mike Willis wrote:
>> So I don't know how to reply on those archives, but here is the crux of
>> the parallax problem I think:
>>
>> You want the x coordinate of the top left of the screen to be the divid
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:23:26PM -0400, Mike Willis wrote:
>So I don't know how to reply on those archives, but here is the crux of
>the parallax problem I think:
>
>You want the x coordinate of the top left of the screen to be the dividing
>factor, NOT the tiles. In other w
16 matches
Mail list logo