ZylonBane on 26/2/2009 at 23:56
Quote Posted by Al_B
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.
There's most likely nothing that fits. The original artists knew that these textures were going to get scaled down to where the text would be illegible, so they just typed random garbage instead of wasting their time.
rachel on 27/2/2009 at 07:58
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
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.
I've been thinking about that... How about three lines?
header+ 2 line result, then another, x 4, then reset and repeat. That would be around 8-10 frames. Then back to frame 1.
What do you think?
ZylonBane on 27/2/2009 at 20:47
Quote Posted by raph
I've been thinking about that... How about three lines?
header+ 2 line result, then another, x 4, then reset and repeat. That would be around 8-10 frames. Then back to frame 1.
What do you think?
If I'm understanding you correctly, that would be completely different from the original animation.
rachel on 28/2/2009 at 10:41
Perhaps. I admit I wasn't thinking of the original really any more... Since you would actually be able to read the text in the new image, I guess it would be more logical. I don't feel it makes sense to have this kind of readings just scroll, I'd see it more like a status report.
Not that my logic is the same as everyone else's anyway, it's just a thought. ;)
Nameless Voice on 28/2/2009 at 14:23
Maybe you should have added the original animation to the first post?
ZylonBane on 28/2/2009 at 14:45
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
Maybe you should have added the original animation to the first post?
Perhaps. The conversation has wandered a bit from the original question though.
Based on the poll results, there a few animations I'll be adjusting.
Muzman on 28/2/2009 at 14:51
I'd go for the first one myself, though it's a bit late.
The second has a certain rhythm to it that makes it more asthetically pleasing, let's say. But I like the buzzy terminator readout info-dump of the first.
demagogue on 1/3/2009 at 01:13
Yeah, looks like I'm late for my vote to matter too.
But for the record, I picked #1 because of how it would work in-game, even though I would have thought differently if it had another use (like an art piece).
It is more frenetic. But I tried to imagine myself in-game walking by such a terminal. #1 gives the message that this is really an ambient background animation, like "ok, nothing to see here ... Yes, the idea is that work is getting done here, but move along." It almost pushes you on and away. It really sets up a contrast to what you'd expect a functional terminal to look like. And sometimes I can appreciate when a game caricatures function a little like that; not in a ham-handed clownish way. It should be more subtle, but still, enough where you can almost feel what the texture wants to 'tell' you.
That's maybe too much thought for just a simple choice, but you did ask what we honestly thought.
ZylonBane on 1/3/2009 at 01:42
I take your point, but there are tons of tech screens in SS2 where the text isn't moving at all. So... consistency rules the day.
polytourist97 on 1/3/2009 at 04:09
I think #2 is much better, but I agree with the sentiment that it could stand to be a little slower. Even just the slightest bit might do the trick.
Regardless of scroll speed, the animations look great.
