Re: [Super-tux-devel] 800x600 resolution

[Ingo R. <gr...@gm...>]

Tobias Gl=E4=DFer <tob...@gm...> writes:

> How often do you play SuperTux on your TV? :)

Often enough to care about it.

> Well, I did expect that there are games using vector graphics. In 20
> years of game development with thousands of games developed, it would
> be stupid to think noone of them used vector graphics.
>
> But on the free software side of things we would be pioneers?

Nope, AnotherWorld engine was recently ported/rewritten and released
as GPL, too late =3D:)

> Is there any mature free software game project out there discovering
> vector graphics power?

Pretty much everything that is 3D is using 'vectorgraphics', I just
don't see much reason to use it for 2D beside the disk-space saving
one.

> Well having realistic looking gfx isn't easy with SVG, but it might
> be the right think for a comic look? I could image that many
> comics are made using vector graphics today.

I doubt it. Even most stuff that uses comic-look for characters, still
has pretty much shaded/realistic backgrounds.

> I claim that animating with a tool like Macromedia flash etc. is
> much easier than pixel-by-pixel hand editing.

What makes you believe so? Either you get the walk cycle right or not,
a tool can't help there much, unless of course you go 3d and just
apply some skeletal animation, but that won't work for 2d.

> You can't copy&paste parts of the image that aren't in the foreground
> for example with pixel images.

Thats what multiple layers are for.

> Flash is successful.

Flash is successful because of 'zero install', just click'n run and
because of the stupid games, most are just single click games with a
bit of timing, nothing more. I havn't seen Flash being espcially
successfull for 'serious' games.

> I respect your realism. But if all people back in the day thought
> like you do in this case many "innovations" (the most innovations
> aren't totally new) wouldn't exist.

There are a lot of 'innovations' that I would really not miss.
Something isn't good, just because its hip and new.

> With OpenGL your hardware does its best to resize pixel-image, which
> leads to similar results as you would get with Gimp. I mean that's
> good but it's not optimal.

Give OpenGL the pixel image with two times the size and scale down,
results will be better then anything you get with vector stuff.

>> The version I tested here used still good old pixel graphics. Yes,
>> one could scale it, but the graphics would just pixelade as
>> expected.
>
> That's not the case for my version. Indeed in KDE3.2 the most icons
> and gfx are rendered directly from SVG data. (KSVG)

Screenshots please, my version here is KSokoban 0.4.2 (Using KDE
3.2.2) and thats still pixel gfx.

--=20
WWW:      http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/=20
JabberID: gr...@ja...=20
ICQ:      59461927