Crossfire Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: CF: Re: Free Time

On Aug 19, 11:41am, Rasmus Kaj wrote:
> Subject: Re: CF: Re: Free Time
> >>>>> "RGG" == Rupert G Goldie <> writes:
>  [ About which image format to use in crossfire ]
>  RGG> Definitely don't want lossy compression. We also want to control the
>  RGG> size of the colour pallette, so all the images need to share the same
>  RGG> colours and indexing.
> I think PNG would be very usefull. There are several reasons:

 I currently haven't seen a compelling reason to change image format from XPM.

 Any conversion requires a bit of work just on the conversion process and
making sure it all goes OK (transparent areas get copied, and so on.)

 Also, I see the XPM image format as just what the server supplies as a default
if the client is lacking an image.  I plan on adding support in the
protocol/client that would support it having its own set of images locally, and
never needing to get an image from the server.  This has a major advantage in
that images native to the system can be used (speed/ease of use) as well as
even alternate images (larger, more colors, whatever else.)

 XPM can support any number of colors you may want (you can put RGB values in
for colors if desired.)  However, at current time, we limit the colors to
around 30, so you don't need to worry about color allocation problems on
various systems.  Also, for sake of convenience, we will probably always limit
the XPM to only need 1 char/color (XPM in theory supports multiple
character/color to get more than the 100 or so colors.)  But being that each
image is 24x24, I can never see much need on why you would need more than 100
or so colors in an image that small.


-- Mark Wedel

[to unsubscribe etc., send mail to ]