Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CLA]

I finally added the missing men-variants. I'll make a release once the new DF version is out, but if you want to use them already, they're on github.

Updated to 43.01
Releases are on github and dffd (links in first post).

the only change are the missing men-variants, all files I would have to change are identical to 42.06.

As for the poll, I'll drop mediafire and keep it mirrored on DFFD.

[CLA]

Just wanted to let everyone following this thread know that the above link still works with version 0.43.03 of Dwarf Fortress. In fact, all graphics packs that are compatible with version 0.43.02 should be compatible with 0.43.03 since the only change was to "reaction_adv_carpenter.txt", which doesn't look like it's of use to any graphics pack.

Accordingly, latest github source should still work for 43.03 if you want to play NOW. I don't know when I have time to update github and do a release. Feel free to confirm the above statement and send a pull request if something needs to be changed though.

[Taffer]

Thank you again for updating your work. I really like the animal men I've been looking through.  They're surprisingly differentiated, given the tiny canvas available to work on.

When life quiets down a little, I'm planning on revisiting my long-neglected CLA addon.

[jecowa]

Just wanted to let everyone following this thread know that the above link still works with version 0.43.03 of Dwarf Fortress. In fact, all graphics packs that are compatible with version 0.43.02 should be compatible with 0.43.03 since the only change was to "reaction_adv_carpenter.txt", which doesn't look like it's of use to any graphics pack.

Accordingly, latest github source should still work for 43.03 if you want to play NOW. I don't know when I have time to update github and do a release. Feel free to confirm the above statement and send a pull request if something needs to be changed though.

I'm not sure if you already knew this, but it looks the only change between v0.43.01 and v0.43.02 was to "body_default.txt", which fixed an issue with a couple humanoid types who seem to have had right feet where their left feet should have been.

[CLA]

I'm not sure if you already knew this, but it looks the only change between v0.43.01 and v0.43.02 was to "body_default.txt", which fixed an issue with a couple humanoid types who seem to have had right feet where their left feet should have been.

I did know already, but thank you nonetheless!  Maybe we could have a wiki page with all the changes, or even better a wiki bot/script that diff's all the DF files when a new release comes out and puts the results on a wiki page.


So, anyway, a map posted in Taffer's thread has got me thinking that I don't really like the way mountains look on maps: The progression peak>high mountains>(medium) mountains>low mountains doesn't visually work entirely because low mountains look lighter colored than medium mountains.

I tried to change the low mountain tile as it's not really interfering with super important tiles (animal traps, tree trunk peaks and mechanic's workshops will manage with the change.) and I'm quite happy with the result for now. Especially from far away (second gif) you can recognize the gradient more easily. It's not a particularly important change, but good looking maps are always nice to have.

Spoiler:  large images (click to show/hide)

I think it would be nice if the difference in color between medium mountains and low mountains would be greater, but I'm getting to a point where the low mountains get too dark (and the medium mountain tile is already at 100% alpha 100% white on the tileset). So we'll see what I'll do with that.

[Taffer]

So, anyway, a map posted in Taffer's thread has got me thinking that I don't really like the way mountains look on maps: The progression peak>high mountains>(medium) mountains>low mountains doesn't visually work entirely because low mountains look lighter colored than medium mountains.

I tried to change the low mountain tile as it's not really interfering with super important tiles (animal traps, tree trunk peaks and mechanic's workshops will manage with the change.) and I'm quite happy with the result for now. Especially from far away (second gif) you can recognize the gradient more easily. It's not a particularly important change, but good looking maps are always nice to have.
...
I think it would be nice if the difference in color between medium mountains and low mountains would be greater, but I'm getting to a point where the low mountains
get too dark (and the medium mountain tile is already at 100% alpha 100% white on the tileset). So we'll see what I'll do with that.

I'm happy my rambling post--a map resulting from my rambling post, at least--provided a little inspiration. I really like this change: the whole map looks much more harmonious now. I don't really have any complaints about your new mountain tile, it looks good. The biggest thing that I notice now is the grasslands and savannah: both are looking unusually "patchy", but I don't have DF installed at the moment and I don't recall offhand if that can be fixed without making adventure/fortress mode patchy. Hills and badlands noticeably don't have the background filled in, but they're consistent within their biomes, so it doesn't stand out as much.

[CLA]

a map resulting from my rambling post, at least--provided a little inspiration

It's actually your whole tileset that makes me strife for a good looking map. I'm pretty sure a world map picture with some years old version of Taffer was the first time I've thought that DF maps could be beautiful.

As for other changes, there are a lot of things I want to improve with the tileset, but I never know when I find some time and motivation to sit down and actually do it. It's not always a simple 10 minute matter as with this change.
Thanks for your opinion anyway, it's much appreciated.

[jecowa]

Is it okay to include your tileset with lazy newb packs?

[CLA]

Is it okay to include your tileset with lazy newb packs?

Yes, just keep it the same name when a user chooses, and - if it's practical - include a link to this thread somewhere.

[jecowa]

This is what it looks like right now.

I made up a "url" line for the manifests.txt files, partly for me so I would know where to go for updates. I don't think many people are likely to read those files, though, but there's also a link to here from Lazy Mac Pack forum page.

Spoiler: manifest.txt (click to show/hide)

Code: [Select]

{
    "author": "CLA",
    "url": "http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/?topic=105376.0",
    "content_version": "v23 (2016-05-10)",
    "df_min_version": "0.42.05",
    "df_max_version": "0.43.03",
    "title": "CLA_18x",
    "tooltip": "A high-resolution square ACSII set with character-based sprites.\nCLA combines the elegance ASCII with the beauty and variety of graphic sets."
}

I removed the "p" and replaced the space with an underscore for better consistency with the other packs. The LNP has a feature that prevents it from recognizing anything after a space in the title of a graphics pack, so this is a workaround until I can figure out a better way to offer multiple resolutions of a pack.

Spoiler: Graphics pack selection screen (click to show/hide)

[PeridexisErrant]

Better not to set the df_max_version unless you *know* that it's incompatible past a certain point.  The idea is to allow old packs to be used by PyLNP for old installs, not require manual intervention with every update

[jecowa]

Better not to set the df_max_version unless you *know* that it's incompatible past a certain point. 

I thought df_max_version was a safety feature to prevent users from messing up their save files. If someone tries to drag a graphics pack from an older version of the pack into a pack for a newer version of Dwarf Fortress, it will prevent it from working unless they edit the manifest file (at which point they should realize they are taking a risk).

Newer versions of the pack will include updated graphics packs that have been checked for compatibility with the latest Dwarf Fortress and will have their manifests updated to reflect that.

The idea is to allow old packs to be used by PyLNP for old installs, not require manual intervention with every update

Are you talking about dragging the "Dwarf Fortress" folder out of an old version of a Lazy Newb Pack and into a current version? I guess you would need to drag the contents of the old baselines folder into the baselines folder of the new Lazy Newb Pack too. It seems like setting a max version would be helpful for people doing something like this, so they don't mistakenly try to use an older graphics pack with the newest Dwarf Fortress.

The max version also works well to mark if a pack has been checked yet for compatibility with the latest version. And if a pack hasn't been updated in a while, it allows you to see the latest version of Dwarf Fortress it was known to be working with.

I'm not seeing the disadvantage to setting this field to the latest known version of Dwarf Fortress that a graphics pack works with. It seems to be helpful to keep it put the latest known working version number there.

[PeridexisErrant]

If the manifest is checked reasonably quickly after updates, it should be fine

PyLNP can actually handle multiple DF installs next to each other!  So you could have eg. "CLA034", "CLA040", and "CLA043" graphics, as seperate packs.  Then give them non-overlapping version ranges and identical title+tooltip, and you've just faked having the same pack working for incompatible versions.

[jecowa]

If the manifest is checked reasonably quickly after updates, it should be fine

PyLNP can actually handle multiple DF installs next to each other!  So you could have eg. "CLA034", "CLA040", and "CLA043" graphics, as seperate packs.  Then give them non-overlapping version ranges and identical title+tooltip, and you've just faked having the same pack working for incompatible versions.

Two graphics packs can share a title? Does the title have to match the folder name of the graphics pack? I've been keeping the title and folder name the same just in case. I was having trouble with it at first.

[PeridexisErrant]

Yes they can share a title (though it could confuse users!), and the title need not have anything to do with the folder name.  Any correlations are conventions for ease of use.