Print

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

[Pizdzius]

When I saw your post, I figured I should post this quickly, to save you some trouble.
I hope they'll be of some use.

I suppose we should work together to avoid doing same thing twice

[Footkerchief]

So far, the examples we have of CREATURE_VARIATIONs are of changes applied to an existing creature. Can we have an example of a CREATURE_VARIATION used without a base creature?

I don't know if you're asking me or Toady (I don't think he's following this thread), but I'm working on CVs that will function as basic templates.  I'll post something soonish.

Fortunately, you can just use a line break, e.g.

Code: [Select]

{{ark row|Generic lemur|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuridae|not started|[CREATURE:LEMUR_GENERIC]
[DESCRIPTION:Just your average lemur.]
[PREFSTRING:agility]}}


Yeah, that was the first thing I tried, but on the page itself the line break turns into a space.  It's adequate, though.  I guess anyone who cares about the raws will be mainly looking at them in the edit view anyway.

Definitely doable. The only potential problem is ordering stuff with the invisible cursor, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

It sounds like the main thing about ordering is "name first, castes last," so if we force people to put those in separate parameters, maybe we can ensure that they can't make ordering mistakes.

However many parameters we end up using, we'll have to do a dry run to make sure it doesn't turn out too awkward and inflexible.  If worst comes to worst, we can just go back to having the entire creature raw as one big parameter.

doing a full family becomes problematic when two species really resemble eachother

Believe me, if we only had one sprite for each family that would still be kickin' rad.  If two species look too much alike, feel absolutely free to use the same sprite for both.  Also, here's something for artists to consider:

Depending on the stage of the interface overhaul, ultimately I'm going to be support 2D tilesets (probably in dimensions of multiples of 4 because I'm lazy with image file headers).  So if you want to draw up some 32x32s or something, you won't be wasting your time, I think.

I honestly don't know if drawing 32x32 is easier or harder than 16x16, but it gives you more to work with, and there's a good chance Toady will be working on "Full graphics support" within the next 6 months or so.

I suppose we should work together to avoid doing same thing twice

Will y'all need any assistance coordinating your efforts?  We could put an extra column in the wiki, so that artists could add their names to "claim" a creature. 

[Pizdzius]

I sign up for doing both 32 and 16 versions, it's pretty easy and won't take too much time. I think I will start off with some sea life this weekend, so expect stuff coming, and you will see if they suit your tastes.

I don't know how to edit wiki, really I'm such a noob in this matter. I prefer the oldstyle communication unless it's a problem.

[therahedwig]

doing a full family becomes problematic when two species really resemble eachother

Believe me, if we only had one sprite for each family that would still be kickin' rad.  If two species look too much alike, feel absolutely free to use the same sprite for both.  Also, here's something for artists to consider:

Depending on the stage of the interface overhaul, ultimately I'm going to be support 2D tilesets (probably in dimensions of multiples of 4 because I'm lazy with image file headers).  So if you want to draw up some 32x32s or something, you won't be wasting your time, I think.

I honestly don't know if drawing 32x32 is easier or harder than 16x16, but it gives you more to work with, and there's a good chance Toady will be working on "Full graphics support" within the next 6 months or so.

Well, both variations have their benefits:
16x16 is great because it's small/quick to make, but it allows for little detail or realism.
32x32 is great because it allows for more detail, but it also takes more time to make(In my case mostly because of the anti-aliasing I do).

Personally, I think we should focus on 16x16 because from what I've seen there's more 16x16 sets then 32x32, and when the arc project is published, there's a high chance that there will still be more people with 16x16 sets.

Also, I don't think people would like it very much if sloths and anteaters are represented with an armadillo spite .

I sign up for doing both 32 and 16 versions, it's pretty easy and won't take too much time. I think I will start off with some sea life this weekend, so expect stuff coming, and you will see if they suit your tastes.

I don't know how to edit wiki, really I'm such a noob in this matter. I prefer the oldstyle communication unless it's a problem.

Well, I heard you could just press the 'edit' button that's on every wiki page...

Sarcasm and such aside, what do you see as old-style communication?
I think that it might be best if we just say like 'Oh, hey, I'm  going to tackle this family' and make a sprite-set for it, which then could be uploaded to the wiki.

It makes for small chunks of work that can easily be ploughed through, while the family retains some consistency in style in itself. And I think this makes it much more manageable if we can just cross of whole families of the to do list rather then having to do a separate administration where we have to remember exactly which species haven't been done yet.

[Pizdzius]

Well, both variations have their benefits:
16x16 is great because it's small/quick to make, but it allows for little detail or realism.
32x32 is great because it allows for more detail, but it also takes more time to make(In my case mostly because of the anti-aliasing I do).

Personally, I think we should focus on 16x16 because from what I've seen there's more 16x16 sets then 32x32, and when the arc project is published, there's a high chance that there will still be more people with 16x16 sets.

Also, I don't think people would like it very much if sloths and anteaters are represented with an armadillo spite .

Well, I heard you could just press the 'edit' button that's on every wiki page...

Sarcasm and such aside, what do you see as old-style communication?
I think that it might be best if we just say like 'Oh, hey, I'm  going to tackle this family' and make a sprite-set for it, which then could be uploaded to the wiki.

It makes for small chunks of work that can easily be ploughed through, while the family retains some consistency in style in itself. And I think this makes it much more manageable if we can just cross of whole families of the to do list rather then having to do a separate administration where we have to remember exactly which species haven't been done yet.

Sorry I never paid attention to how wikipedia works ;]
Okay then, I'd like to hit Cartilaginous fish first. I sat now for two hours, and made four species, 32x32, I don't know if they fit into the game, I tried pasting them visually and they look ok. There would be no problem adding them into 16x16 template.

I'm trying to go one by one, so here's: (UPDATE)
Longnose Sawshark
Angelshark
Horn Shark
Japanese Bullhead Shark
Nurse Shark
Tawny Nurse Shark
Bamboo Shark
Epaulette shark
Spotted Wobbegong
Collared Carpetshark

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

tell me if they're bad, I don't want to push my help into the project if not needed
(oh and it's my first time, so I guess I'm warming up)

[Thursday Postal]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

tell me if they're bad, I don't want to push my help into the project if not needed
(oh and it's my first time, so I guess I'm warming up)

Those are really good looking! You even did the pups and zombie/skeletal.. Cool! They all look different.. The larger size really allows for much more detail

[Pizdzius]

Those are really good looking! You even did the pups and zombie/skeletal.. Cool! They all look different.. The larger size really allows for much more detail

Thanks so much! Maybe besides this project some can be used as original creature sprites by players.
I think it's obvious I should make all stages, cause this project is professional

I also was thinking of making a banner or a kind of poster for The Ark Project.

[Rainseeker]

I also was thinking of making a banner or a kind of poster for The Ark Project.

You said it first!  Go for it!

[Pizdzius]

You said it first!  Go for it!

YES SIR! Will be done this weekend!

[Lancensis]

You said it first!  Go for it!

YES SIR! Will be done this weekend!

A million points if it's the Sgt.Pepper album cover, but with animals.

[Thursday Postal]

Cataloging bivalves at the moment..

Clams are so boring. There's a handful of unique species like the Giant Clam and such, but the majority are fairly simple.. Should an entry just go in for "clam" "oyster" etc, or should they be called something like "common clam"?

Edit: Possibly say "freshwater mussel" or "marine clam" etc, to provide a bit more variety? I understand the differences between oysters and clams but.. a clam is a clam is a clam as far as dwarf fortress goes probably, unless it has unique colors or shapes for shells, or behaviors.

[Thursday Postal]

I just put in a dozen or so bivalves and gastropods.. but then I realized that many of them are very small..

I'm a bit confused about what separates vermin from creatures and how the Ark project will handle them, and if I should even put potentially vermin-sized creatures in.. Will the ark project include vermin?

[Thursday Postal]

Did some chitons, had to use a couple non-wikipedia links...

And another question/realization! I know these things have been touched on but I'm curious about how the Ark Project will handle them.

How will we handle larvae and other life stages? I know metamorphosis isn't in the game, but would it be appropriate to make separate creatures like, say, Bullfrog Tadpole and Bullfrog, or simply call the children Bullfrog Tadpoles but have them be the same creature? Many animals have larval forms that are way too different than the adult and live in different locations (on plants for caterpillars, in the air for butterflies) and it might make it awkward, I dunno..

Possibly just for flavor the sprite artists may want to draw larval forms for the sprite, it may be appropriate for like, larval jellyfish which swim like their parents, but it might be too weird for a bullfrog to have the tadpole sprite hopping around.

I don't know, it might be best to just to replace larvae with subadults until metamorphosis is in the game.

[Footkerchief]

Gorobay: I looked at your revised template test, and it was pretty illuminating -- I think we'll be painting ourselves into a lot of corners with that approach.  It doesn't really allow in-raws comments, and it forces people to learn a whole new style of raw editing.  I've done a lot of thinking about what would best suit our needs, and here's what I'm leaning toward now:

• A taxon optionally specifies a pre-variation (initial template) and a post-variation (caste setup).
• A creature has three parameters for its raws: a start block (for the name), a body block, and an end block (for caste-specific stuff).
• The blocks are assembled in this order: start, pre-variations (from all parent taxa, from general to specific), body, post-variations (general to specific again), end.
• For our typical use, the assembled result would be:
  
  • CREATURE tag and name
  • invocation of template variations
  • main raws
  • invocation of caste variations
  • caste customization
• For an iguana, it might look like this:
  
  • CREATURE:IGUANA and iguana name
  • invocation of vertebrate and lizard templates
  • main iguana raws
  • invocation of vertebrate caste variation, invocation of lizard caste variation
  • iguana caste customization

What are your thoughts?  I think it has enough structure that we can cleanly handle templates/castes, but not so much structure that raws creators will feel boxed in.  By the way, thank god you knew about "white-space: pre".  That seems to do a perfect job of making sure the raws look the same in both views.

Incidentally, is there any way to avoid having lots of one-row tables and the associated overhead of typing "{{ark begin}}" for each one?  Like a table that continues across section headers, or a "smart" row that automatically opens/closes the table?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

tell me if they're bad, I don't want to push my help into the project if not needed
(oh and it's my first time, so I guess I'm warming up)

The future of zombie/skeleton graphics is uncertain, due to this dev_next item: "Generalization of 'zombie' and 'skeleton' to broader curses/sphere-related alterations (Core96)."  Effort spent on those might end up being wasted.

I'm not an artist, so take this with a grain of salt, but most of the ones with varied coloration (stripes and spots) look kind of jagged or jumbled.  I think it's because a) it's hard in places to distinguish the coloration from the contour gradients, and b) some of the stripes/spots are too small to convey a shape, so they just look like individual pixels.  If you look back at therahedwig's sprites, s/he doesn't even try to express much variation in skin/fur color.  Of course this makes it harder to tell similar-looking creatures apart, but I think it ends up looking better.  If two creatures look so similar that the difference can't be drawn in a way that looks good, we'll happily use the same sprite for both.  Apologies if any of this sounds condescending, I'm not very experienced at critiquing.

I just put in a dozen or so bivalves and gastropods.. but then I realized that many of them are very small..

I'm a bit confused about what separates vermin from creatures and how the Ark project will handle them, and if I should even put potentially vermin-sized creatures in.. Will the ark project include vermin?

It'll include a crapton of vermin, yeah.  One of the major incentives for including vermin is that the next version's worldgen will occasionally create titan-size vermin, which should be very entertaining.  We'll probably have to establish a clear size cutoff for vermin, but for now, don't worry about the distinction.

I looked over the gastropods/bivalves you added, and they look great.  If you were worried you added too many, don't be.  We could probably use even more, in fact (if we get many more, we'll need to create subsections).  Thanks for tackling those.

I don't know, it might be best to just to replace larvae with subadults until metamorphosis is in the game.

That's my feeling on it too.  In fact, I think DF creatures can skip the "child" stage entirely -- that might be the best option for ones that have troublesome juvenile stages.

[Pizdzius]

The future of zombie/skeleton graphics is uncertain, due to this dev_next item: "Generalization of 'zombie' and 'skeleton' to broader curses/sphere-related alterations (Core96)."  Effort spent on those might end up being wasted.

I'm not an artist, so take this with a grain of salt, but most of the ones with varied coloration (stripes and spots) look kind of jagged or jumbled.  I think it's because a) it's hard in places to distinguish the coloration from the contour gradients, and b) some of the stripes/spots are too small to convey a shape, so they just look like individual pixels.  If you look back at therahedwig's sprites, s/he doesn't even try to express much variation in skin/fur color.  Of course this makes it harder to tell similar-looking creatures apart, but I think it ends up looking better.  If two creatures look so similar that the difference can't be drawn in a way that looks good, we'll happily use the same sprite for both.  Apologies if any of this sounds condescending, I'm not very experienced at critiquing.

Well then okay, I'll give up on skeletons and zombies for now.

You're not being mean or giving me a hard time critique. I came here to hear what's good and what's wrong haven't I let's be reasonable, good to hear it all!

I know what you mean, it's my first try after all. I've tried to express individual shape/size and typical colouration for each species, I've picked the ones that vary the most. I bet there are more creatures that look much alike and for them, the same sprite is totally ok. The thing is, I don't want all sharks to look like a generic shark, that'd be useless in the very meaning of Ark Project.

Maybe I'm aiming too high, I can stick to filling out the 32x32 area the best I can, not really caring for size differeneces. Also I didn't do any contour, if you prefer to have one, tell me. I just am used to creature sprites that don't have it and it looks good ingame. I'm flexible and willing to listen, really.