Great. But what we really need is a tunnel texture - every other material (besides vehicle, which does not need a texture) is optional :-)
I think earth.jpg in darker would be fitting. But I'll (and hopefully others) search for more too.
My suggestion to replace the generic tunnel texture with a darker version of the actual material didn't appeal?
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license
My suggestion to replace the generic tunnel texture with a darker version of the actual material didn't appeal?
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license
> My suggestion to replace the generic tunnel texture with a darker version of the actual material didn't appeal?
That would be a lot of work to implement. It would also mean we couldn't use dark colors in the original materials, thus making the whole landscape unnecessarily bright and have less contrast.
Also, I think it would just confuse the player.
Two snow textures. CC 2.0 instead of 3.0, unfortunately.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uqbar/91949767/ (CC-by-sa 2.0)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laserstars/2322517542/ (CC-by 2.0)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uqbar/91949767/ (CC-by-sa 2.0)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laserstars/2322517542/ (CC-by 2.0)
can I use these Textures for gwX Voxel-Landscapes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NYQ8snYQ1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NYQ8snYQ1Y
Why don't you read this instead of annoying by asking the same question many times?
But who made those snow textures? Günther?
OK
OK
First: Guglielmo
Second: John Talbot
Actually, the textures themselves seem to be made by Günther, but the original source photos are the beforementioned flickr users.
Second: John Talbot
Actually, the textures themselves seem to be made by Günther, but the original source photos are the beforementioned flickr users.
Exactly. And I'm not yet sure which license I should use for my part of the work - CC-BY 2.0 or 3.0? Is CC-BY 2.0 a free software license (as defined by the DFSG)?
Hm, I'll sidestep that issue for the moment by dual-licensing them under both. You'll probably have to respect both licenses if you choose to use my part of the work under CC-BY 3.0. Sigh.
Hm, I'll sidestep that issue for the moment by dual-licensing them under both. You'll probably have to respect both licenses if you choose to use my part of the work under CC-BY 3.0. Sigh.
Ay, double licensing. Does that mean that I have to include myself in the copyright of the above textures as well because I made changes to them?
If your work was creative enough to warrant copyright, we need a license from you as well to be able to use it. Whether you require that you are mentioned as copyright holder is up to you, you can as well decide that we only need to mention the original artist.
Does anybody feel like reading the CC license in order to find out whether it is enough to collect all copyright holders in a central file without mentioning which pictures they contributed to, or whether we need to break that down?
Does anybody feel like reading the CC license in order to find out whether it is enough to collect all copyright holders in a central file without mentioning which pictures they contributed to, or whether we need to break that down?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redneck/479128746/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dominicspics/3300369368/
(both http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.de, as well as my work on them)
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dominicspics/3300369368/
(both http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.de, as well as my work on them)
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license
The (JPEG and sharpness) quality of the two is so bad that it can easily be resized to 256x256
(c) 2009 Tobias Zwick
Most are from my trip into the mountains yesterday. The ore texture is much better than the one posted before - which actually was just recoloured earth taken from here. Pyrit could be used as a iron ore texture or as another material which can be molten into iron just like ore.
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license
Most are from my trip into the mountains yesterday. The ore texture is much better than the one posted before - which actually was just recoloured earth taken from here. Pyrit could be used as a iron ore texture or as another material which can be molten into iron just like ore.
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license
The fourth looks not like ordinary rock? Ô_o
.oO(Newton was in a gold mine!!1)
.oO(Newton was in a gold mine!!1)
Color corrected old ore texture to be a earth texture. (Best replace the old earth.jpg since it looks odd if earth and tunnel have the same distinct features)
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license 3.0
Looks nice and like the perfect candidate for normal mapping :)
I could imagine this as a texture for Crystal (the magic stuff).
to make glass or porcelain.
-> windows/buildings
-> containers for acid
-> windows/buildings
-> containers for acid
What about using other textures depending on the zoom levels? Like in minimaps?
The problem is that the landscape is stored in a non-zoomed surface (like landscape.png in savedgames) and the pixels of this surface were manipulated by an explosion. I spoke with PeterW how to change it (see developers corner->zooming landscape <-- my suggestion), but just having greater textures does not work.
Why not? At least it would look better to change the textures with zooming.
you don't understand the problem.
we have just one __SURFACE__ that stores a picture of the landscape.
Just download the picture below, try to zoom it and try to draw an other texture on it and zoom it again.
we have just one __SURFACE__ that stores a picture of the landscape.
Just download the picture below, try to zoom it and try to draw an other texture on it and zoom it again.
Should I tell you, how I do that with GIMP?...
I know, the comparison is poor.
I know, the comparison is poor.
it's not a comparison.
try it out. the problem is: you CAN NOT increase image quality in using other textures because the texture is drawn on the map first and then the map will be zoomed.
try it out. the problem is: you CAN NOT increase image quality in using other textures because the texture is drawn on the map first and then the map will be zoomed.
There is a slight difference between texture and image. I double the size, mark by a 'magic wand' and copy a not-zoomed texture there. I know, the edges are not better, but the texture ist.
the texture of the material is drawn on a landscape image.
And this image is zoomed. That means the texture _and_ the edges will loose quality with zooming.
believe me, I read the related source code and it is not possible to increase texture resolution without changing whole landscape rendering source.
When you want to change this: well do it!
And this image is zoomed. That means the texture _and_ the edges will loose quality with zooming.
believe me, I read the related source code and it is not possible to increase texture resolution without changing whole landscape rendering source.
When you want to change this: well do it!
Okay, I should have hinted you directly... your comparison asked to do this on that Image. I never said it was easy to implement it. :/
> believe me, I read the related source code and it is not possible to increase texture resolution without changing whole landscape rendering source.
Which is not that much work. Peter checked a version doing that into the redwolf design subversion repository some time ago, but it was backed out again because it was too slow. Somebody should probably put it on a mercurial branch now.
it was too slow?
oh i know - like all clonk draw-callbacks they were calculated by CPU and not by using the graphic accelerator.
oh i know - like all clonk draw-callbacks they were calculated by CPU and not by using the graphic accelerator.
yes - it's time to change that - but i saw that it would be quite hard.
i know how to implement it in OpenGL but then it would be incompatible to DX.
i know how to implement it in OpenGL but then it would be incompatible to DX.
Why is DX a requirement? What would it mean to drop DX compability? Doesn't everyone has open GL`?
Please, we already had this discussion. There is no need to implement a feature for both APIs. Of course, the polite thing to do is to not make the work of maintaining the other one more difficult than it needs to be, but that is only a question of "how?", not "what?". For example, if you need a new method, make it a virtual method of the abstraction class and provide one implementation so that to fill in the code for the other API one only has to change the 3d API specific code, not the common code.
btw. I think it doesnt really belongs into the garbage dumb... it was a more or less serious discussion.
A small summary:
Pro:
It can use the same code on all systems:
about half graphiccode needed to implement new features.
about half graphiccode to debug
Less non-OpenSource-Libs are used.
Contra:
In some case OpenGL don't work as good on windows as DirectX
Some devs want to have DirectX in the clonk code cause they are not able to code openGL / are DirectX Freaks.
A small amount of Code is needed to make it work on Windows properly
A small summary:
Pro:
It can use the same code on all systems:
about half graphiccode needed to implement new features.
about half graphiccode to debug
Less non-OpenSource-Libs are used.
Contra:
In some case OpenGL don't work as good on windows as DirectX
Some devs want to have DirectX in the clonk code cause they are not able to code openGL / are DirectX Freaks.
A small amount of Code is needed to make it work on Windows properly
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill