Print

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

[therahedwig]

I personally think that Pizdzius's sprites look okay, though I agree it would be good to give them a contour. This is because a contour makes them look better over various backgrounds, while without contour they could blend in too much or look out of place.
If you would blow up mine, you'll notice they have a contour, but it's a bit coloured(relative to the shading). This refrains them from being too cartoony.

I had the benefit of having the creatures I was working on, as they didn't exactly have any spots, and in some cases trying to add variation would mess up the shape. Personally I think the spots look okay on your sharks, but a contour would really benefit it in bringing out the shapes.
I agree with trying to fit the creatures to how they really look though, because I think it'll add to the enjoyment of someone playing this mod, and then suddenly see creatures outside which look exactly like how s/he remembers them. Or imagine an animal lover who doesn't even have to hit K to see what kind of fauna is running about outside.

I guess I'll rework the sprites that I've done already to 32x32 size when I have the time(exam week coming up).

-Thera, who's a she.

[Gorobay]

I've done a lot of thinking about what would best suit our needs, and here's what I'm leaning toward now:

It's a lot better than having the wiki do it, that's for sure. I have one question of clarification though. You say that taxons will have optional pre- and post-variation sections; does that mean one per page? Or more?

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?

As far as I know, tables cannot cross over section headers. It can be simulated, but it is clumsy, and it won't show up in the table of contents. I could make a template for closing a table, starting a new section, and opening a table, if you think it's worth it. It would work like this:

Code: [Select]

{{ark begin}} <!-- first table on the page -->
{{ark row|...}}
...
{{ark next|<Name of next section>}} <!-- equivalent to |}<br>==Section==<br>{{ark begin}} -->
{{ark row|...}}
...

When you say overhead, do you mean for the server or for the human typist?

And another thing. I am not clear on how you want people to input the five parameters. Do you want people to type {{ark row|...|start=...|pre=...|body=...|post=...|end=...}}? Because if it really is to be that simple, I don't see the point of even breaking it up. I mean, if editors can fill in parameters in order, then they can write the raws in order, without any help, i.e. {{ark row|...|raws=...}}.

If that is not what you meant, then never mind.

[Pizdzius]

I personally think that Pizdzius's sprites look okay, though I agree it would be good to give them a contour. This is because a contour makes them look better over various backgrounds, while without contour they could blend in too much or look out of place.
If you would blow up mine, you'll notice they have a contour, but it's a bit coloured(relative to the shading). This refrains them from being too cartoony.

I had the benefit of having the creatures I was working on, as they didn't exactly have any spots, and in some cases trying to add variation would mess up the shape. Personally I think the spots look okay on your sharks, but a contour would really benefit it in bringing out the shapes.
I agree with trying to fit the creatures to how they really look though, because I think it'll add to the enjoyment of someone playing this mod, and then suddenly see creatures outside which look exactly like how s/he remembers them. Or imagine an animal lover who doesn't even have to hit K to see what kind of fauna is running about outside.

I guess I'll rework the sprites that I've done already to 32x32 size when I have the time(exam week coming up).

-Thera, who's a she.

Sure, dear She-Thera I noticed yours have contour, I also noticed some other artists do that too, I just started off this way. I will fix up what I did, remove zombie/skeletons and do another batch today. This is FUN even better than accidentaly digging up one square too close to magma pipe

You're right, I am such an animal lover that's why I got excited to see this mod. Besides it's always more fun to see a sprite instead of p or H.

[Footkerchief]

I have one question of clarification though. You say that taxons will have optional pre- and post-variation sections; does that mean one per page? Or more?

More than one per page, generally.  By "taxon" I meant "anything we've grouped together under a name," although most of the taxa, especially smaller ones like families, probably won't have their own variations.  So on the reptile page, we'd have top-level variations for reptiles in general, and then snake variations, and then maybe viper variations too.

This also means creatures will be referencing variations from other pages (e.g. reptiles would use a generic vertebrate template from the main page), so the section headers (and page titles?) will have to match up sufficiently for the script to piece together the hierarchy.

It can be simulated, but it is clumsy, and it won't show up in the table of contents. I could make a template for closing a table, starting a new section, and opening a table, if you think it's worth it. It would work like this:

Yeah, not much of a timesaver and it'll probably confuse people.  We'll stick with the previous way, then.  Thanks for the explanation -- have I mentioned that I'm really glad we have someone who knows this stuff?

When you say overhead, do you mean for the server or for the human typist?

The typist.  I'm lazy.

And another thing. I am not clear on how you want people to input the five parameters. Do you want people to type {{ark row|...|start=...|pre=...|body=...|post=...|end=...}}? Because if it really is to be that simple, I don't see the point of even breaking it up. I mean, if editors can fill in parameters in order, then they can write the raws in order, without any help, i.e. {{ark row|...|raws=...}}.

No, the pre and post sections aren't manually entered.  They're inserted by the script, based on the groups that the creature belongs to.  "Start," "body," and "end" are separate so that it knows where to insert them.  So here's very rough pseudocode for what the script outputs when it's creating a creature's raws:

• outputs the "start" parameter unaltered
• goes through each of the creature's taxonomical parents from top to bottom (i.e. general to specific, vertebrate to viper).  If a parent has a pre-variation, it outputs [APPLY_CREATURE_VARIATION:<name>]
• outputs the "body" parameter unaltered
• goes through taxonomical parents from top to bottom again, now looking for post-variations
• outputs the "end" parameter unaltered

If the 5-part organization seems arbitrary, I can try to explain the reasoning -- basically, the name ("start") has to come before the template, and the template ("pre") has to come before the main creature raws ("body").  And the caste declarations have to occur AFTER the main creature raws... or do they.  I guess you can declare the castes at the top and then do SELECT_CASTE:ALL.

Hmm.  I was going by what Toady said, about how castes should come at the end, but maybe that's not true... I'll PM him about it.  It's possible we can simplify it so that a) each taxon has one variation max, not two and b) the creature raws just have three parts, "start," "template" and "end," with "start" and "end" being the actual parameters.

[Gorobay]

This also means creatures will be referencing variations from other pages (e.g. reptiles would use a generic vertebrate template from the main page), so the section headers (and page titles?) will have to match up sufficiently for the script to piece together the hierarchy.

Or there could be something on each subpage that refers the script to the higher level.

No, the pre and post sections aren't manually entered.  They're inserted by the script, based on the groups that the creature belongs to.

Let me see if I understand. An editor would go on the wiki and, for each creature, input the "start", "body", and "end" sections. A script would then come along and add the "pre" and "post" sections... but where? Would the script edit the wiki itself, or put the final raws somewhere else?

EDIT: Also, how do you want the "start", "end", and maybe "body" sections displayed in the table on the wiki? Each in its own column?

EDIT 2: In fact, why have a table at all? We could keep the look and feel of the page the same as it is now and just have the raws in the source code.

[Thursday Postal]

I know we can't do many raws yet, but when we decide on a table method (or have we? The one in the lemurs?) people can at least go about setting things up and giving creatures biomes, colors, etc so that they can be put right into the raws when ready. Instead of constantly having to look stuff up, we can do the research now. A question, though.

Are we limiting prefstrings to just one? I know there should be a limit, but many creatures have more than one interesting thing about them and the fluffy wambler for example has three. Should three be the limit or is there precedent for more?

[Neonivek]

Too tired today to do any work... *sigh*

[Lancensis]

Too tired today to do any work... *sigh*

You should've just done Sphenodontia or some other group with only a miniscule amount of members, and then boasted that you'd done an entire order.

[Rainseeker]

ART SUBMISSION GUIDELINE SUGGESTION #1:

First of all, thanks to everyone for their hard work, and for interest in doing art for the Ark Project!  Now, for everyone who wants to do art for this project, and who haven't done sprites before for DF, I think it would behoove you to do a test in-game with Mike Mayday's tileset (http://mayday.w.staszic.waw.pl/df.php)to see how it looks in relation to everything else.  To make it simple, I would replace a Dwarf's sprite so that it's easy to find when running the game, and you can see it moving around.  If you're happy with your process and the way your test looks and blends with the rest of the artwork (I don't expect you to test everything you create, just once or twice) then continue making sprites to your heart's content.  Otherwise we may get some funky looking stuff that nobody notices until we run the game in 6 months when it's going to be hard to fix every one.  It's really hard to judge how it's going to look against a pink background.

[Neonivek]

Too tired today to do any work... *sigh*

You should've just done Sphenodontia or some other group with only a miniscule amount of members, and then boasted that you'd done an entire order.

I didn't say Id do an entire Order I said Id do 100 Beetles and 100 butterfly/moths and I wasn't planning on finishing in one day.

Just that today between being uttarly exhausted and intestinal distress I don't feel like doing any work.

[Thursday Postal]

Just did falcons and hawks and vultures and eagles and the like..

There are a lot of hawks, and I skipped a few 'redundant' ones or ones that had similar plumage but no common names.

Something the spriters might want to do, but it might be needless work, just a note. Baby animals have different colors than adults, and it may be possible to use similar sprites for a bunch of different hawk chicks, for example.

I also took the liberty of making common names for many of them with locationally based names. I just based them off of their appearances. If it's a problem, just say something.

Another another question (sorry if I ask too much!): Should I be worried about adding too many varieties? I know I could add more to gastropoda for example, but should I/we bring the amount of animals (if they exist of course) to the level of the hawks? There are a lot of beetles but there are also a lot of beetle families, but all hawks, OW vultures, and eagles go in one family.

[Lancensis]

Nice work, Thursday. We need some gastropods, so go crazy with them. Generally, I try to set a vague goal for a number of species (Like, say, a dozen seals) and just search for around that many interesting specimens.

[Thursday Postal]

Ah, I did that for gastropoda but as I was doing the hawks and falcons, I just clicked through each genus or whatever and basically opened every tab of wikipedia I could and went through, and if some seemed interesting but didn't have pictures I'd google for them. I think I'll keep doing that for whatever, if you don't have a problem with the volume of entries that can generate.

[Pizdzius]

Hey. I've fixed the contours and added some more sharks, and a 16x16 version.

New:
Frill shark
Sixgill shark
Gulper shark
Pygmy shark
Cookiecutter shark
Bramble shark

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

32x32: 16x16:

In the game (changed with carp etc):

If the 16x16 version is too illegible, I'll try to fix them (or thar could fix it if I really fail)

[Thursday Postal]

The lines really help do help, and I think the smaller ones will be inherently harder to read just because you have to use less detail, but they do look good in the game. I also like how you give them different poses.