Re: CF: Map Zoom

[Scott MacFiggen <>]

>Certainly, using larger images must be an option, and not a standard for
>everyone.

Yes.. And is should be completely client side...

> I am not sure why the fact the images are 24x24 makes things any worse
>compared to if they were 32x32.  As long as the images are increased by a
>numeric amount, all should be OK.

Actually for crossfire there is no real good reason.. 
For real games, most 3d hardware requires texture maps to be
power of 2 in size and mipmaps require it also. 
I was thinking in general, not crossfire specificaly.
But I think the filtering algorithms like bilinear
interpolation work better/faster if power of 2 image
size is a requirement?? 

>Server support should be trivial - all it really needs to do is take the
>request in and shove it out.  The server code itself should not be doing 
>actual conversion from xpm to png - rather, png versions of all the images 
>(or during the collect phase) should be done.

It is trival. I just started a couple of days ago. Basically I have a
program that collects all the xpm images, converts them to PNG
and writes them out to a file in the order specifed by
bmaps.paths.. The file is then memory mapped by the server
and pointers to each image are stored in an array.. That seems
to work well.

This is all just a big experiment to see how feasible using PNG
instead of XPM would be...

> I sort of doubt this also - I think more new images would be better done than
>spending time touching up all the existing images.  From the addition of xpm
>images, it took a very long time for all of those to get converted over.

I agree. I just said it would be nice if someone would scale up all the
images and then touch them up. Not that it should be done...

	-Scott
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to ]