D'Arcy on 26/2/2009 at 14:38
I prefer #2.
And you're right, the original doesn't seem to be scrolling the text.
rachel on 26/2/2009 at 15:07
#2 or slower I'd say. #1 feels a bit too quick and "busy", as others have said.
Re: the scrolling
"Typing" one letter at a time might be too much, but doing it one line at a time could do it. Then new screen with unrelated text, and repeat. (Think like the SS2 intro.)
Needless to say, both look great in the first place :thumb:
ZylonBane on 26/2/2009 at 16:30
Quote Posted by raph
Re: the scrolling
"Typing" one letter at a time might be too much, but doing it one line at a time could do it. Then new screen with unrelated text, and repeat. (Think like the SS2 intro.)
Unfortunately, I have a 10-frame limit to work within. It seems that animated textures in the Dark engine cannot exceed 2^16 * 10 pixels total (655,360).
So for example, 256 x 256 x 10 = 655,360, right at the limit. Dropping down to 256 x 128 allows 19 frames of animation (622,592), and anything less than that allows the full 20 frames.
I've never tried using differently-sized frames in a single animation... that could probably be pretty cool under the right circumstances.
RocketMan on 26/2/2009 at 17:12
Seeing as the scan is of a particular grid segment of the planet, perhaps using the same information with changing values would be more appropriate....all that stuff about sky cover, radiation, etc would be the same but the data would change as the planet rotates and new areas come under the scan.
ZylonBane on 26/2/2009 at 18:28
TEN-FRAME LIMIT, people. :erg:
kodan50 on 26/2/2009 at 18:43
I think they want you to pull some magic. ^_^
Digital Nightfall on 26/2/2009 at 20:31
Looks great! I voted for the second one, since it's how the original was done.
Since it's not visible (and doesn't really resemble the original) How did you decide on the text?
ZylonBane on 26/2/2009 at 20:41
Quote Posted by Digital Nightfall
Since it's not visible (and doesn't really resemble the original) How did you decide on the text?
Well, I wouldn't say it doesn't resemble the original. It's still the same color, approximate width, and number of lines.
Making up legible text has been the biggest pain in the ass on updating these tech textures. I generally look at the non-textual elements of the image to get a vague idea what its purpose is, then write a bunch of generic technobabble based on that. Wikipedia has been a lifesaver in this regard.
I also try, with varying degrees of success, to avoid overusing the word "scan".
Al_B on 26/2/2009 at 23:10
The second one is definitely better - although you could probably get away with slowing it down even further without losing the effect.
If I were going to nitpick the "octant ok" doesn't seem quite right. The second to last character of the first word in the original seems to be "j" and it looks like a 5 letter word. I can't immediately think of anything else that fits, however, and it's hardly a problem.
