Messages

Aah yes, making doom levels.
I remember when it was hard core - all there was to work with was DEU and you had to write your own tools to patch together textures.

When I was supposed to be writing up my thesis I made some levels and wrote a chapter for one of the "Gurus" books. A few of my textures made it into Final Doom! Now that's crazy.

Some of the Doom source projects are pretty sophisticated these days. I used to use Boom but I that was superceded a long time ago.

HillBilly, I'm not sure what you mean by a graphic editor, but you can make patches (texture elements) with any art package and piece them together with something like DeuTex.

But you have to stop working on the background at some point, or it would be impractical.

- It's useful to have finished pieces in your portfolio.
- This is the critics lounge.

But, given bb's comments, I think this bg could do with some work to make the layout more interesting before polishing it.
If you want to get professional, it's worth putting the time in.

Excellent. I'd probably have stopped at stage 3 and been happy (ok, delirious). The final lighting pass really makes it!

For some criticism:
- the plants don't really look finished
    - the pots have no "shape" and don't sit on the shelf well
- the floor is very smooth - could do with some unevenness at cracks
- the scrolls look a bit like bones with ribbons
- the line thickness is very uneven - I'd say too thick around the rocking chair, for example
- a lot of things could do with some ambient shadow (like the chair has)
   - the stool, the bed, the edges of the floors, the roof beams, the bottle shelf
   - see how dark the side of the cupboard and the side of the bed are, compared to the wall and floor
   - where's loominous?
- it doesn't look very "witchy" to me
    - it's very square - particularly the roofbeams
    - the cauldron is subtle
    - the other elements (crystal ball, skull, hat) are all tucked away in the corners and overlookable

Cheers,
Steve

I was curious about that too - since I'm thinking about buying a laptop...
Resolutions I'm interested in:
SXGA+ (1400x1050 - not widescreen but it is a little unusual)
WXGA (1366x768)
WSXGA (1600x1024)

I mainly use my PC at home for web browsing and working with AGS - I don't want to lose half the functionality.

Check the manual for SetCharacterViewOffset().

Just look at Spider-Man 2, and all the Evil Dead-isms in it!

Yes, that was hilarious - I particularly liked the scene when Doc Ock woke up in the operating theatre.

Well, those are some boring results!

Not exactly SOLVED, but thanks!

Opo, I was wondering where you disappeared off to.

Hopefully into crunch mode on "The Bar"!
Awesome picture, as usual...

I don't see how it relates to this weeks rules?

It's a tomato with a face. Fits the rules perfectly, I'd say.

Hey Webspider, you should keep your multiple personalities in check! Some of them are even insulting your game!

For an object that can be picked up you just have to render the image with and without the object...

Am I alone on this, or does anyone else find that cigarette guy pervy too?

You mean the way he's thrusting his enormous leather clad groin in your direction?
I don't know what you're talking about.

I had a background width 640 with an object at x=560.
Then I changed the background to width 480.
Now I can't see, move or delete the object.

Does anyone know a quick way to move or delete the object in the editor?
I don't want to:
- move it in scripting
- make the background wider again (losing all hotspots etc)

Thanks,
Steve

Nooooo! Don't make it 3.0!
I won't be able to resist moving to the new version, and then I'll have to rescript my WIP games...

an style that produces quickly nice backgrounds.

I don't know - looks like a lot of work went into these backgrounds...

For the new first room, I agree that it looks a lot better - you've crammed a lot of new detail in there. In some ways I preferred the stark lighting of the original, but in some ways this lighting - it's more appropriate for an apartment I guess.

For the second, not much to criticize! I guess my big problem is the big blank matte tables at the front. They're crying out to reflect something (light spots perhaps).

In general, these backgrounds will need a lot of character scaling to work - that may or may not be a problem for you. At the back near the door, the character will probably look good at about 80%-90% size. But at the front, I'd say about 140%-150%.

Looks great!

I think the original colours are fine - better than that greenish muck anyway
Eyes are supposed to draw your attention so it doesn't matter if they are obvious.

Looking good!

JPG personally The current system already compresses the kinds of image that PNG is good at fairly well.

Agreed. I don't foresee a need for JPG in AGS myself, but then I'm not in the market for better compression anyway.

Not that PNG isn't a lot better at some things... but JPG would add more versatility and PNG decompression is quite a bit slower, noticeable lag loading a large png even on my 2.6ghz system, I'd guess the jpg version is 1/4 of the time to load.

I'm pretty sure jpg is slower *decompression* - it's probably faster because the bottleneck is getting the compressed data off the hard drive, and the png is much larger than the jpg.

Actually there's a browser hijacker type thingy that resets the home page to about:blank every so often and puts up a crappy search page.

I don't have the problem so I can't recommend a solution...
It's probably safe to follow instructions on one of the big antivirus or antispyware forums.

Spoiler

The coffee jump starts your snail (as you noticed).
Notice that you can interact with both lanes.
You want to slow down the competitor and speed up your snail.
I think you're missing a vital object - have you met Dr DVS' house guest?
If so, go to 1. If not, go to 2.

[close]

1.

Spoiler

Search the remains.

[close]

2.

Spoiler

You need to get inside somehow.

[close]

Hope that helps!
Steve

You can download the demo.
I just ran through the tutorial - seems pretty easy to use.
It was just a demo to produce a rectangular box model (the Photomodeler packaging ) but the accuracy seemed good!

Neat package - thanks for bringing it to my attention!

Steve