Tronsector Dark Blue Floor

Got something that makes Armagetron look shiny? Post it here.
User avatar
philippeqc
Long Poster - Project Developer - Sage
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:55 am
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Post by philippeqc »

Phytotron and other texture makers:

One detail that has been left out is that a texture need not to be squared. So a texture of 256x512, 1024x4, or any other combinaison, would be effectively used by OpenGl.

As long as you give textures that have a width and a height that are each a power of 2, OpenGl doesnt need to first strecht or shrink them before storing them in its buffers, so you get the least distortion / best quality out of it.

-ph
Canis meus id comedit.

User avatar
Jonathan
A Brave Victim
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:50 am
Location: Not really lurking anymore

Post by Jonathan »

Crude start on the wiki.

User avatar
joda.bot
Match Winner
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 11:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by joda.bot »

Phytotron wrote: As for permission, it's exactly the image you got, only unaltered (with exception to sizing, of course). I would find it odd if he found it permissable for you to take it and alter it, but object to an unaltered version. And besides, the original art belongs to Disney anyway, so....
I guess his background qualifies as fan art, and I asked for the permission to use it. Auric wanted me to include his name, he did not say anything about prefered a license. So I my remade texture under Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivatives. (Attribution means his name has to be mentioned and NoDerivatives means that it's not allowed to make modifications by just having the image, if you go and ask the author for permission you can still make a modification).

I picked the latter because you can't revoke a permission already garanted. If I'd allowed ShareAlike and Derivatives but Auric does not want me to, I can't prevent anyone from using and sharing the "free" copies downloaded before.

So it's basically a safe guard for me, as long as I did not check back with Auric what his exact conditions are for it. I just read up about this after talking to him ...

For details see:
http://creativecommons.org/faq#What_if_I_change_my_mind?
Pick your license:
http://creativecommons.org/license/
Explaining Comics:
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/how1
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1

User avatar
Phytotron
Formerly Oscilloscope
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
Contact:

Post by Phytotron »

You read my mind, phil. I was just about to ask about dir_wall. :)

Would it generally be true, however, that all else being equal, 512 would look better than 256, particularly if you had a more detailed image? And what about dpi? Anything preferred? Is there a preferred type of PNG?

Just some more things that might want to be added to the wiki. :)

Oh, and you might want to have some of this also on this page.

Now, off with you to do the dirty work! (Yes, it is appreciated.)

User avatar
joda.bot
Match Winner
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 11:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by joda.bot »

Phytotron wrote:You read my mind, phil. I was just about to ask about dir_wall. :)

Would it generally be true, however, that all else being equal, 512 would look better than 256, particularly if you had a more detailed image? And what about dpi? Anything preferred? Is there a preferred type of PNG?
The DPI information in images is only required when printing a image. It tells the application how many pixels are one inches/cm.

About the texture sizes:

In my expierence higher detailed textures (512+) also result in more blurring because the stretch factor for a 512 texture would have to be halfed to get a more detailed wall. (The blurring occurs due to performance and quality optimization called MipMaps (Wikipedia).
The smaller the values of RIM_WALL_STRETCH_FACTOR_* are the earlier a lower MipMap level is choosen which results in blurred textures. I've a fix for this on my TODO list. (Configurable LOD_BIAS - Level Of Detail "Bias")

User avatar
Jonathan
A Brave Victim
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:50 am
Location: Not really lurking anymore

Post by Jonathan »

Phytotron wrote:Would it generally be true, however, that all else being equal, 512 would look better than 256, particularly if you had a more detailed image?
Depends. If you use mipmapping and the lowest (highest resolution) levels are never selected, you won't see much of a difference. If you don't use mipmapping and a higher mipmap would otherwise be selected, it causes excessive aliasing (some people like the 'sharpness', ugh) and possibly performance problems.
Phytotron wrote:And what about dpi?
Has no effect.
Phytotron wrote:Anything preferred? Is there a preferred type of PNG?
Use the type that suits your image best. I've had some weird mipmap anomalies with some images though.

joda: 512 will look the same as 256 if no <1 mipmap level is selected for 512. Otherwise 512 will be more detailed. It will never be less detailed. It's only when the aspect ratio differs (e.g. 512x256 vs. 256x512) that one of them will be more even/detailed depending on the viewing direction.

Post Reply