On Sunday, 7 May 2006 08:03, Richard Kettering wrote: > We are _NOT_ reverting anything - that's a waste of everyone's time. > A _very large_ waste of time. > If it bothers you that much, you can comment out all the animations > for units that have a new base frame, but no new animations. > But do not revert any images, period. I agree.
> These "art bugs" don't break any of the functionality of the game, > and wesnoth 1.2 is not wesnoth 2.0. It is a work in progress, and > it's ok for it to look like one. Well, 1.2 doesn't sound as "serious" as 2.0, but it is intended to replace 1.0 so it shouldn't look too bad. > The reason I'm making only base frames is that by doing so, other > people can work on the animations. Unfortunately, myself, fmunoz, > and neoriceisgood are about the only people capable of making the new > base frames with any semblance of quality. That's why I'm focusing > on doing that, alone. Doing that, all by myself, would take more than a > year, and I'd rather not, anyways. I fully understand. > I'll try and lean on some folks (rangerM, zhukov, et al, come to > mind) to get some help with those animations, but please do not > reverse the work we've already done. That would be _capitally_ > frustrating. We won't revert it, but it would be really nice if you can get them in :) Good luck and kudos to your work! -- Isaac Clerencia at Warp Networks, http://www.warp.es Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Debian: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpNc3Zb6Dysz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
