SFR Yugoslavia [Quenched]

[natty dread]

Yeah, and I could make it an endless feedback loop while I'm at it... right?

Like those t-shirts that have a picture of you in a t-shirt that has a picture of you in a t-shirt that has...

No, I'm going to go with either the concrete slab or the plain minimap. I'm starting to side on the slab.

[DiM]

Like those t-shirts that have a picture of you in a t-shirt that has a picture of you in a t-shirt that has...

you stopped just in time. you almost went past level 3....

[natty dread]

So Dim what do you think of the stone slab? You were the one complaining that the plain minimap didn't work, so do you think this works better?

[DiM]

So Dim what do you think of the stone slab? You were the one complaining that the plain minimap didn't work, so do you think this works better?

honestly no.
first of all a stone slab does not simply stay like that on a wall unless it's glued which would be silly.
second, the 3d aspect of the slab contrasts with the rest of the map.

i still like this version the most, but with a few changes, the flag should be in the title as you have it in the current version, and your signature on the poster in a handwriting font. so the poster should have just the minimap and your sig. it's plain, simple and nice.
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5251/yugo15a.png
oh, and one more thing. could you please save the images as jpg at quality 10? the difference between that and png is minimal. basically you can't even spot it unless you're a specialist that starts zooming in a lot, but the size is greatly reduced. on some pages you have many versions of the map and that requires downloading a 1,5 image several times.

[natty dread]

first of all a stone slab does not simply stay like that on a wall unless it's glued which would be silly.

It doesn't have to be "attached" to the wall, it can be just sort of leaning against it, on the ground.

second, the 3d aspect of the slab contrasts with the rest of the map.

I don't see how. There's plenty of 3d elements in this map - the army circles, title, rivers & mountains, even the texture of the map itself could be considered to be more of a 3d element than a 2d one.

Besides, a paper poster contrasts with the rest of the map even more, which was one of the reasons why I chose to abandon it, so I don't see how this point is valid.

i still like this version the most, but with a few changes, the flag should be in the title as you have it in the current version, and your signature on the poster in a handwriting font. so the poster should have just the minimap and your sig. it's plain, simple and nice.

I'm sorry but I won't be going back to the poster... the choices are either the plain minimap or this.

oh, and one more thing. could you please save the images as jpg at quality 10? the difference between that and png is minimal.

Sorry but I disagree. JPEG is only good for photographs and such. The lossy encoding creates artifacts and blurs, which makes it hard to spot if there are small errors in the image that need to be corrected. I'm a perfectionist when it comes to graphics... in fact I've long been of the opinion that lack should allow maps to be hosted as PNG:s on the site, or at least higher quality JPG:s - once they're in your browser cache you don't have to load them again anyway...

[DiM]

Sorry but I disagree. JPEG is only good for photographs and such. The lossy encoding creates artifacts and blurs, which makes it hard to spot if there are small errors in the image that need to be corrected. I'm a perfectionist when it comes to graphics... in fact I've long been of the opinion that lack should allow maps to be hosted as PNG:s on the site, or at least higher quality JPG:s - once they're in your browser cache you don't have to load them again anyway...

in theory you are correct, but please tell me if you find any differences or artefacts or any lossy compression problems, blurs or anything else in the following images. one is a 1.6Mb png file and the other is a jpg 3 times smaller.

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/SteamWorksL-v22-1.jpg
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/SteamWorksL.png

i see absolutely no difference when it comes to judging quality with the naked eye.
and on top of this your png files won't be used at all. lack will convert them to lower quality jpg to speed up the browsing experience.

[natty dread]

Well, I can see the difference. I think you can too if you really look for it... fine details, such as really thin texts and non-straight lines, things with fine pixel details, get small blurs here and there...

And I know lack converts all images to jpegs, I have made 7 other maps here, so I know the drill... I've campaigned for higher quality map images, at least as an option - it sort of ticks me that we mapmakers spend months perfecting the graphics of our map and then they get mangled through a "shitty-artifact-and-blurs" filter when they go live...

Anyway, just for you Dim, here's the latest images in JPEG:

(the size difference is not that big btw... best quality jpeg is about 60% the size of an optimized png)

[bigimg]http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1492/yugo18.jpg[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/9112/yugo18s.jpg[/bigimg]

Here's the PNG:s for those who care to compare:

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/2576/yugo18.png
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5937/yugo18s.png

[natty dread]

So, the XML is done.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/2/7/2753211/yugo1.xml

[bigimg]http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/7022/yugotest.jpg[/bigimg]

[natty dread]

Ok, I wanted to put the 2 versions side by side... of these 2 options, which is better?

[bigimg]http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/9112/yugo18s.jpg[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/5685/yugo16s.png[/bigimg]

[koontz1973]

Concrete slab by a long way. Just fits nicer.

[Obrens]

The first one is better, though IMO you should lose the rivers and mountains on the minimap.

[theBastard]

vote for second one.

[rdsrds2120]

I like the stone slab of the first one for the minimap, but not the title of the first one. Maybe it's too dark.

-rd

[Victor Sullivan]

Honestly, I could go for either.

-Sully

[natty dread]

I need some legal advice.

I've spotted something that might be a problem in the licensing of the texture... I read it through previously and thought it was ok since it doesn't prohibit commercial use but...

a) Permitted Product Usage

You are permitted to use our textures to design as many projects as necessary, including those you are creating for your clients. You may not resell or redistribute the textures in any other way, modified, unmodified, standalone or combined with another product without prior written (email) consent from us.

b) Modifications

You are permitted to make whatever modifications necessary to our textures to make them fit your requirements. However, they will still be subject to this license regardless of the extent of the modification.

c) Unauthorized Distribution

You may not place any of our textures, modified or unmodified, on a diskette, CD, website or any other medium and offer them for redistribution or resale in a fashion that would violate this license.

d) Nontransferrable License

You may not sub-license, assign, or transfer this license to anyone else without prior written (email) consent from us.

e) Product Ownership

You may not claim intellectual or exclusive ownership of any of our texture photos, modified or unmodified. All texture photos remain our property.

None of the textures or a derivative of the textures may be copyrighted. If you have a question about the legal use of any of these textures please email us and ask us about it.

Does this mean I can't claim copyright of the image if I use their texture in it? In which case it's pretty much useless...

[Obrens]

Well email them. I mean, it's really not that complicated.

[DiM]

as obrens says, email them and explain what you use it for and get permission. i don't think it will be a problem to get it. at most the author might request a bit of credit on the map.

[natty dread]

Yes, that might be for the best. I've sent an email to them.

Worst case scenario, I'll have to look for a new texture.

(shit like this is exactly why I usually make my own textures, btw.)

[gimil]

As far as I can makeout you can use the texture for your map, but you cannot claim IP on that texture.

With your map you have IP on the finished image, which you have used the texture in. So you are not claiming IP on the texture, just the image you have used it in. Get what I am saying?

[natty dread]

Yes, that might be the case, but the wording is sort of ambiguous here:

None of the textures or a derivative of the textures may be copyrighted.

An image made using the texture could be considered a derivative of that texture, in which case it would be prohibited to copyright the image. Which would be a problem.

I'm going to wait until I get clarification from the site. Just to make sure.

[natty dread]

Anyway, while waiting for a response, here's the slab version with an improved title

[bigimg]http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/2576/yugo18.png[/bigimg]

[natty dread]

Ok, I heard back from the site and it's not going to be a problem. So we're good to go with this texture. Glad that got settled.

[natty dread]

I got an idea and made another alternate version of the minimap. Not sure if this is better than the previous slab?

[bigimg]http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/1016/yugo18a.png[/bigimg]

[isaiah40]

Meh!! I like the Fred Flintstone block better! On another note:

Ok, I heard back from the site and it's not going to be a problem. So we're good to go with this texture. Glad that got settled.

Two thumbs up on this!

[natty dread]

Yeah, I also think I'll just use the previous slab. This one seems a bit odd... the idea seemed good "on paper" (by which I mean, in my head) so I wanted to try it but I guess it just doesn't work as well as I thought...