Moderator: Cartographers
DiM wrote:yes i made an animated map. see page 34 in the age of merchants thread. and yes it has been voted against but because it does not suit the style of the map. on other maps animations could be more appropriate.
but probably the main reason why people voted no is the slowing of the pc. nobody wants to wait for their map to load especially in a RT game.![]()
i still belive animated maps are great but only as an option. this way we'll be able to choose if we want animation.
plysprtz wrote:animated maps are pointless they will just make the site lag even more and totally screw people with slow comps.(ME) up
ericwdhs wrote:If they incorporated Flash, that'd be easy, but gif? No way could you do anything longer than a few frames with map-size images.
DiM wrote:plysprtz wrote:animated maps are pointless they will just make the site lag even more and totally screw people with slow comps.(ME) up
not if they are as an option.
you can chose:
[small map] [large map] [small animated map] [large animated map]
ericwdhs wrote:If they incorporated Flash, that'd be easy, but gif? No way could you do anything longer than a few frames with map-size images.
mibi wrote:ericwdhs wrote:If they incorporated Flash, that'd be easy, but gif? No way could you do anything longer than a few frames with map-size images.
I agree, gif are way too limiting. My maps are about 250k, 4 frames and your already over a 1mb. not much you can do with 4 frames. flash would be the way to go here, but that wont be happening any time soon.
DiM wrote:mibi wrote:ericwdhs wrote:If they incorporated Flash, that'd be easy, but gif? No way could you do anything longer than a few frames with map-size images.
I agree, gif are way too limiting. My maps are about 250k, 4 frames and your already over a 1mb. not much you can do with 4 frames. flash would be the way to go here, but that wont be happening any time soon.
i agree gifs are limiting but your math is not correct.
checkout my animated map it only has 600k.
and for that map i used 20 frames, each frame was a jpg saved at 80 quality and had 210k. i don't know exactly how the gif compression works but instead of having 4 megs i got a 600k gif.
and i think 20 frames are more than enough for simple animations like some troops moving, trees swaying in the wind or waves crashing on the shores.
as i explained in the aom thread the main problem is that after you make the animation you can't modify stuff. because even if you use layered pngs for each frame, they are flatten and transformed in jpgs after the conversion to gif. the animations can be made only after each and every little detailed is solved. so they should be the final step in the map making process.
mibi wrote:ericwdhs wrote:If they incorporated Flash, that'd be easy, but gif? No way could you do anything longer than a few frames with map-size images.
I agree, gif are way too limiting. My maps are about 250k, 4 frames and your already over a 1mb. not much you can do with 4 frames. flash would be the way to go here, but that wont be happening any time soon.
ericwdhs wrote:Wow... I didn't know .gif compressed that much.
Bodmanbod wrote:just want to point out that gif images are generally worse quality than jpgs though so any animated map would be a worse quality image than the map without animation saved as a jpg.
DiM wrote:Bodmanbod wrote:just want to point out that gif images are generally worse quality than jpgs though so any animated map would be a worse quality image than the map without animation saved as a jpg.
are you sure? go to page 34 in age of merchants map and see if there's any downsize in quality![]()
i haven't noticed.
Bodmanbod wrote:DiM wrote:Bodmanbod wrote:just want to point out that gif images are generally worse quality than jpgs though so any animated map would be a worse quality image than the map without animation saved as a jpg.
are you sure? go to page 34 in age of merchants map and see if there's any downsize in quality![]()
i haven't noticed.
well yeah i'm surethe reason gifs are lower quality is because they have far fewer colours your map has only a small range of colours and tones so the difference is not noticeable. but on an image with more colours (anything over 256 which is the highest a gif can have) then you will begin to notice a difference. If you consider that photoshop has literally several millions of different colours and shades then it will be highly possible to see the drop in quality from a gif to a jpg.
However gifs are better on things with very few colours such as pixel art.
DiM wrote:as i explained in the aom thread the main problem is that after you make the animation you can't modify stuff. because even if you use layered pngs for each frame, they are flatten and transformed in jpgs after the conversion to gif. the animations can be made only after each and every little detailed is solved. so they should be the final step in the map making process.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Users browsing this forum: No registered users