Standardized Artwork Set (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Don Bowen -> Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 7:28:02 PM)


A few days ago, in a thread on mods, Mike Wood posted that the main problem with mods was the lack of a consistent artwork set. His post actually concerned CHS but is probably valid for just about any mod.

He's right! I feel this way myself and I've heard this opinion stated many times, but never so succinctly or by a person of such universal esteem. It is indeed unpleasant to see a combat resolution screen with widely different styles of ship artwork.

So, I’d like to propose a Standardized Artwork Project to all the artists on the forum. These guys have provided us with tons of excellent artwork but, alas, of different styles and scales. Now I’d like to ask them to come together and help build a single, complete set of ship artwork that is compatible with the original “stock” artwork.

1. Same general style as stock.
2. Same approximate scale (4 feet per pixel) – some increase for smaller ships but only a little. A smaller ship should look smaller.

Also a consistent set of backgrounds but also a “blank” for each ship side so players can use other backgrounds. The goal is to have a homogeneous artwork set that will contain images for the major mods and “look good together”.

If you’d like to participate, please post in this thread or PM me.

Oh, and the rules:
1. This is a project of the forum members, not of Matrix Games.
2. I am doing this in the role of a WITP player only.
3. All artwork become “community property” and may be freely shared by all players.
4. Pure democracy (of team members) will be used to determine which artwork is included.







KDonovan -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 7:36:53 PM)

cool!!! any plans to standardize the plane tops and sides also??



Akos Gergely -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 7:57:30 PM)

I'm second to this and it is a very good idea Don! But please please at least for the ship art provide us with some larger ship side art panels to work with!

It'd be so much easier if we have some larger area to work with, just as it was posted by Cobra aus in an older thread. It is easily possible.

Also a second suggestion is to include separate art for upgraded ships as well, because for example USS Tennessee looked very much differently in her 1941 state compared to the 1944 one...and I'm not even talking about her 1942 with reduced main mast.

Please consider these and yes, I'm willing to participate in this!

Cheers,

Akos



Dixie -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 7:59:46 PM)

I'm willing to participate.  Would the project have the sides and the shil files scaled, or just the shils for the combat screens?



JWE -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 8:23:31 PM)

I too would be very happy to contribute.

My efforts have been directed towards the "other" vessels; AK, AP, AR, AE, AV, AGP, AVD, AS, PC, PG, ML, etc... My scaling has been at a standard 4 feet per pixel for those vessels large enough to give detail at that scale, but at about 350' and below, I use a dynamic sliding scale factor that allows detail but maintains relative proportionality. I can put this into a scale factor graph and post it for others to use if they wish.

I suggest those of us who want to put this together PM each other liberally. IMHO, we should begin with a stock art set replacement. From that beginning, we can then provide as many enhancements or add-ons as desired. I get the sense that the vast majority of players don't go in too much for the many and various mods, but use stock; they would just appreciate some tastier eye candy. So if we can do a standard art set first, it would provide a substantial basis for the modders.

Thoughts?

JWE



Big B -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 8:34:23 PM)

Yo,

I'm in.



BigJ62 -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 9:04:08 PM)

Plane sides and plane tops that match.

Slightly larger ship backgrounds for small ships, leave shils alone. Sub, pt, pc, pg, msw or whatever anything really small.

Get rid of plain blue background and replace with something a little more interesting.



argaur -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 9:59:05 PM)

For plane sides/tops could also be done, with 2 scales, one for fighters and other for bombers, transports....?



Don Bowen -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 10:07:06 PM)

Happy to see such interest. Some quick answers

The original intent was ship sides but adding aircraft is an excellent idea.

I'm afraid the size of the ship backgroups and therefore overall size of the ships are fixed. I'm not familar with Peter's work on changing sizes but I think it would be a big problem for screen sizes and layouts.

We already have the ability to create different ship side images for different refits - as long as each refit is defined as a class in the class table. Some limitations, as there are 2000 classes and only 1000 ship sides. I don't think anyone has hit this limit yet, but it is out there.

It is most important to have the shils scaled as these are the ones that appear together on the combat reports. My personal preference would be to scale the sides also, but that would be up to the team.

JWE, Big B, glad to have you aboard.

csatahajos, Dixie, BigJ62, (and Beren, who posted while I was typing) I hope you decide to join.

P.S. I'm going to pin this thread to the top.




TheElf -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 11:14:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beren

For plane sides/tops could also be done, with 2 scales, one for fighters and other for bombers, transports....?


This is not possible in under the current code and from what I understand even re-coding it would not be worth the effort. Scale will have to be handled by the individual artist.



TheElf -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 11:16:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

Plane sides and plane tops that match.

Slightly larger ship backgrounds for small ships, leave shils alone. Sub, pt, pc, pg, msw or whatever anything really small.

Get rid of plain blue background and replace with something a little more interesting.


Matching planesides and tops, while nice to have, requires a lot of coordination and for one person is a big job.

The easiest thing to do would be to match the sides to the tops.



argaur -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 11:31:25 PM)

the sides i think could be done, like the ships, for example X meters lenght in reality = x pixels....



Don Bowen -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 11:46:11 PM)


So, Beren, are you going to step forward and take the King's Shilling from the drumhead??



argaur -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/22/2007 11:56:32 PM)

i´m studying now for exams at the university, i have no time, but in a motnh i can start doing things. Now i can only do some sides....

But i´m sure that more people can start sides with me....



Don Bowen -> And Aircraft Too! (1/23/2007 12:23:21 AM)


There's interest in extending the project to aircraft as well. A wonderful idea.

Ian has stepped forward and agreed to lead an air art team. We all know his excellent artwork and it's great to have him aboard.

Between stock and the various mods there are a large number of aircraft artwork sets out there. More, unfortunately, than can be put into a single panel of 248. Perhaps the best thing would be to create a basic library - all same scale and general style - that can be used as required. Then build panels for stock and the mods. Speaking purely as a player, the most important thing seems to be scaling. Remember stock and it's giant P-26s that were as big as a B-17?

So come on guys - I know there are a number of guys doing great aircraft art. Join up!




JWE -> RE: Standardized Artwork Set (1/23/2007 12:42:17 AM)

Beren, and anyone else who is interested,

We have two conflicting imperatives for the ship graphics; these follow from the box rule of a 200 ‘dot’ graphic picture width. One is to have the pictures ‘generally’ in proportion with one another, the other is to have sufficient detail for the dinkies (80 foot PTs etc). If we follow a strictly linear rule, this may, on the one hand, leave the PTs as a small gray blur on the background. On the other hand, if the scale were to give detail to the PTs, it would put a Porter in the same size (pixel) class as a New Orleans CA.

I have noticed that the great majority of interesting vessels fall in the 350’ to 780’ range. Thus, I propose a dynamic scale. 4 feet per pixel seems to work down to the destroyer classes, but begins to unravel for Clemsons, Wickes, Otoris, DEs, and especially PGs, PCs, MLs, and the like. I have also noticed that the odd ducks seem to cluster at about 80 to 90 pixels, relative. This is also (80 to 90) a reasonable scale for detail.

What I propose is a sliding scale; one scale for vessels between 80’ to 300’; a second scale for 300’ to 400’; a standard scale (4’ per pixel) for 400’ to about 760-780’, and a final by-guess-and-by-golly scale for the monsters. This method tends to compress the PC, PG, DE, and smaller DDs into the 86 to 90 pixel range.

The math goes like this, where “y” is the length of the ship in pixels (bit map blocks):

Y = (ship LOA)/8 + 44, for all ships up to about 350’
Y = (ship LOA)/6 + 32, for ships between 350’ and 400’
Y = (ship LOA)/4, for ships between 400’ and 760’ (std 4’ per pixel)
Y = (ship LOA)/6 + 64, for ships over 760’ (to a max of 820’)

This will give an 80’ PT at 54 pixels (not too bad) and a Yorktown with ‘some’ space fore and aft. I haven’t paid much attention to the top end, since my concern has been models of those ships in the 300’ to 500’ range, but I can refine the graph very easily. I can’t upload the graph (wrong format), but I can modify with the appropriate math input. I would appreciate comments. We should finalize this and cast it in stone for our project. Fewmets and rotten vegetables accepted.

JWE



TheElf -> RE: And Aircraft Too! (1/23/2007 1:31:19 AM)

Right,
I would not suggest a gnat's ass scale approach to the planesides. The tops are nearly impossible to get to a representative scale given the limited space we have, but I found an eyeball cal was possible.

It think it is more important to have an image that is a blending of some appropriate scale and the highest level of detail. More to the point is we are sticklers for scale then assuming our largest subject is the B-29 (which should fill the canvas), then our smallest subject, the P-26 will only be about 10 pixels long!

If scale for the sides is absolutely necessary: We just want to give the impression of scale. My suggestion for the sides would be to use the space available to you. That is don't worry so much about the pixel to foot ratio and focus on getting the Bombers in scale with bomber and fighters in scale with fighters. They will never appear on the screen together, so this compromise his few downsides.

Let's start with Identifying the largest A/C of each type, Heavy bomber, Medium Bomber, and Fighter. Then create the side for each. From that first bomber you can use that as a reference when scaling the rest of them



argaur -> RE: And Aircraft Too! (1/23/2007 2:20:59 AM)

Yes, as i said before in plane sides for me the best option is to divide in 2 scales :

1.-fighters/dive bombers/ torpedo bombers/ float planes... (one engine, or 2 enginees pro p38 and so...)
2.-bombers/transports/float planes.... (2 or more engines...)




JWE -> RE: And Aircraft Too! (1/23/2007 4:46:25 AM)

Sounds like Beren and brother Elf have the planes under control.

I'll volunteer to work on the ship art. I'm back-channeling with BigB; we may be relatively close with what we have currently. Just need to check on what's missing from our current combination.

JWE



Akos Gergely -> RE: And Aircraft Too! (1/23/2007 9:35:10 AM)

Air guys, please do not forget that there is already a fairly uniform set from Cathartes and they are absolutely nice, not to mention that he did already two versions, an early war and a mid war one, and hopefully he will give us a late war one.

So as for the sides I think it would me wasted work to duplicate that.

You can check it here: http://mathubert.free.fr/witp_files/Allied_PlaneSides_Dec41_Oct42_1.0.zip 



TheElf -> RE: And Aircraft Too! (1/23/2007 9:45:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

Air guys, please do not forget that there is already a fairly uniform set from Cathartes and they are absolutely nice, not to mention that he did already two versions, an early war and a mid war one, and hopefully he will give us a late war one.

So as for the sides I think it would me wasted work to duplicate that.

You can check it here: http://mathubert.free.fr/witp_files/Allied_PlaneSides_Dec41_Oct42_1.0.zip


As much as I'd like to use Cathartes work, he has not lent his permission yet. When he does you can bet it'll be in there...



Akos Gergely -> RE: And Aircraft Too! (1/23/2007 9:45:25 AM)

Your set with BigB is quite nice, but let me add that Dixie's and Fremen's camouflaged and graphic like ship sides are also very very nice, so if we do this I'd opt for an all camouflaged ship set on the allied side and if possible using all gray for the japanese ones (or camo if applied). I think we can tone it for scale as well and I really don't think that we should count the pixels so closely (nobody can tell 2-3 pixel differences). On the other hand I fairly agree that we should divide the ships into 3 groups depending on their length, so we can have at least some ddetal for PTs.

Just my 2 cents worth..



Akos Gergely -> RE: And Aircraft Too! (1/23/2007 9:59:56 AM)

Yep, it'd be nice, we should try to contact him. He aslo started out on a planetop project as well btw...



Dixie -> RE: And Aircraft Too! (1/23/2007 11:57:17 AM)

Before now I've not really properly scaled stuff. Most of my later stuff is scaled by class, ie carriers 180-200 pixels, cruisers 140-160 and so on.

The left hand side are the 'properly' scaled ones, the right hand side are older unscaled versions.

[image]local://upfiles/20142/B5DE33D025CD427CB57E21FB4D04FCB5.jpg[/image]



Akos Gergely -> RE: And Aircraft Too! (1/23/2007 12:30:18 PM)

Looks so much better in scaled format for me ;-) !



kokubokan25 -> RE: And Aircraft Too! (1/23/2007 2:33:51 PM)

I'm now very busy in other "mods", however, i'm glad to colaborate in this "project" but have a important question to Don:

This complete stock art ship you need/the game need is WITHOUT "camo ships", does mean only "grey ship sides"??



Akos Gergely -> RE: And Aircraft Too! (1/23/2007 2:59:22 PM)

I seriously hope they are not meaning grey ships :D. just check what Dixie put up in this thread, it is wonderful! Correct size, historical camos, extremely superb ;-) !



Don Bowen -> Gray vs Camo (1/23/2007 3:45:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fremen

I'm now very busy in other "mods", however, i'm glad to colaborate in this "project" but have a important question to Don:

This complete stock art ship you need/the game need is WITHOUT "camo ships", does mean only "grey ship sides"??



My personal preference is for gray. The intent of camo is to confuse the shape of the ship and it does a very good job for my poor old eyes. And, as you note, Matrix went with gray in the original set.

I know several people that feel strongly on both sides of this issue. I have also heard several interesting ideas, including gray sides and camo shills or even two complete sets.

This is something for the team to decide.

Don



JWE -> RE: Gray vs Camo (1/23/2007 4:48:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

My personal preference is for gray. The intent of camo is to confuse the shape of the ship and it does a very good job for my poor old eyes. And, as you note, Matrix went with gray in the original set.

I know several people that feel strongly on both sides of this issue. I have also heard several interesting ideas, including gray sides and camo shills or even two complete sets.

This is something for the team to decide.

Don



I do rather tend to agree with Don. If we can create a self consistent stock art set replacement, it will give the modders a consistent point of departure. Much like Cathartes (sp?) is doing for planes, the mod community can package an evolving cammo scheme; measure 41 --> measure 42 --> dazzle.

IMHO it may be best to begin by laying out a basis in vanilla (spicy vanilla, with a touch of nutmeg) first. To my mind this is a more preferrable way to accommodate the auxiliaries and dinks in a manner consistent with the warship graphics. Annoying perhaps, but only a little annoying, and equally annoying to everyone.

I like the multiple set idea, and the more I think on it, the more intriguing the Cathartes approach appears. That way, the cammo people and the upgrade people can be satisfied, without the undesirable effects of slot clog.

JWE



Akos Gergely -> RE: Gray vs Camo (1/23/2007 5:56:18 PM)

Yeah that is a good idea and there is that switch software for the sets. On the other hand I think if we want a vanilla then for allied ships it is mostly (well there are exceptions like HMS PoW) their prewar one tone grey/blue camo, and for the japanese side it is all grey. So basically it does not hide anything from your eyes and it is pretty easy to pick out which class is that. While vanilla might be easy to recognize it detracts from the art's value so much. But thi is just an opinion from somebody on the sideline ;-).

WHatever way you decide I'd be glad to have it.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.984375