Feudal Epic, L&S, Pg. 49 [D, Gp, Gr]

by **WidowMakers** on Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:29 am

Well here is a quick Large small comparison.
Which seems clearer to everyone?
To me everything looks a bit crisper and cleaner on the bottom one.

by **gimil** on Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:35 am

I see it, I will try and clear that up.

by **gimil** on Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:04 am

I took a look at the file and it seems the quality is perfect in the file, and it only goes blurred after I ave it as a PNG. There is nothing (as far as I know) that I can do about this.

If you want to take a look for yourself WM you are more than welcome. But I don't want to put work into this when I can't predict the results.

by **WidowMakers** on Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:22 am

gimil wrote:I took a look at the file and it seems the quality is perfect in the file, and it only goes blurred after I ave it as a PNG. There is nothing (as far as I know) that I can do about this.

If you want to take a look for yourself WM you are more than welcome. But I don't want to put work into this when I can't predict the results.

NP. I understand. Send me the zipped files and I will take a look at it.

by **the.killing.44** on Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:36 pm

Forza AZ wrote:Just checked the last Feudal epic XML update and all is OK now.

http://h1.ripway.com/killing44/Feudal.xml
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c64/G ... picS-4.png
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c64/G ... picL-3.png

Can we get a co-ord check?

by **MrBenn** on Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:54 pm

Is there any reason for the large map being so small? It's fine - but just feels very small

by **gimil** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:55 am

762x800 seems pretty reasonable to me.

by **WidowMakers** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:06 am

gimil wrote:762x800 seems pretty reasonable to me.

But it is not that size.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c64/G ... picS-4.png
SMALL = 572x600
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c64/G ... picL-3.png
LARGE = 632x663

by **gimil** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:51 am

great, it should be

by **the.killing.44** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:54 am

by **gimil** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:15 am

Does photobucket have a size limit of images you upload? and does it resize them if they are too big? This may also explain the fuzziness WM noticed.

by **the.killing.44** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:22 am

gimil wrote:Does photobucket have a size limit of images you upload? and does it resize them if they are too big? This may also explain the fuzziness WM noticed.

Like I guessed

Go to your page, and click (more options) underneath the huge Upload button. There it lets you choose what Photobucket will resize the image too if it's too large. Just do 17" screen and it's fine.

I do have to redo all the co-ords…again :roll:

by **gimil** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:24 am

the.killing.44 wrote:
gimil wrote:Does photobucket have a size limit of images you upload? and does it resize them if they are too big? This may also explain the fuzziness WM noticed.

Like I guessed

Go to your page, and click (more options) underneath the huge Upload button. There it lets you choose what Photobucket will resize the image too if it's too large. Just do 17" screen and it's fine.

I do have to redo all the co-ords…again

but, only for one image

by **the.killing.44** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:25 am

gimil wrote:
the.killing.44 wrote:
gimil wrote:Does photobucket have a size limit of images you upload? and does it resize them if they are too big? This may also explain the fuzziness WM noticed.

Like I guessed

Go to your page, and click (more options) underneath the huge Upload button. There it lets you choose what Photobucket will resize the image too if it's too large. Just do 17" screen and it's fine.

I do have to redo all the co-ords…again

but, only for one image

It's the same number of clicks though =\

Anyway, was that the issue?

by **gimil** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:30 am

clt+F5 and everything should be fixed.

by **WidowMakers** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:41 pm

MUCH Better. That was weird. Imageshack never has never resized stuff before. Oh well we now all know a new little factoid abotu photobucket.

Large map looks great.
WM

by **natty dread** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:44 pm

Another reason why photobucket sucks. It also recompresses your JPG:s to a lower quality making them fuzzy.

I always use imageshack.

by **the.killing.44** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:55 pm

WidowMakers wrote:MUCH Better. That was weird. Imageshack never has never resized stuff before. Oh well we now all know a new little factoid abotu photobucket.

Large map looks great.
WM

Photobucket only resizes things over 1024x768 if you set it to the max, so it doesn't have impact on CC mapping. But the point stands…

I'll get the final XML up in a bit.

It also recompresses your JPG:s to a lower quality making them fuzzy.

Well a) no; b) lack does in the end.

by **jammyjames** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:59 pm

all of this talk.. this means its done?

well done gimil. WM, Killing etc etc...

cant wait till this thing hits beta

by **the.killing.44** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:59 pm

jammyjames wrote:all of this talk.. this means its done?

well done gimil. WM, Killing etc etc...

cant wait till this thing hits beta

Almost, I need 15 mins

by **jammyjames** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:05 pm

the.killing.44 wrote:
jammyjames wrote:all of this talk.. this means its done?

well done gimil. WM, Killing etc etc...

cant wait till this thing hits beta

Almost, I need 15 mins

you deserve one almighty pint of beer

by **the.killing.44** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:37 pm

Half hour, 15 mins, same thing.

the.killing.44 wrote:
Forza AZ wrote:Just checked the last Feudal epic XML update and all is OK now.

http://h1.ripway.com/killing44/Feudal.xml
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c64/G ... picS-4.png
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c64/G ... picL-3.png

Can we get a co-ord check?