One question from me: quite a few games don't actually have separate icon art,
instead they just reuse one of the game's assets (the hero avatar, for
example). Would simply upscaling the "iconized" asset be enough, or do we want
a high quality "real" icon instead?
___
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 08:12:22PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> At the moment the appstream-builder requires a 48x48px application
> icon[1] to be included in the AppStream metadata. I'm sure it's no
> surprise that 48x48 padded to 64x64 and then interpolated up to
> 128x128 (for HiD
On 4 September 2017 at 11:45, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
> I also don't think that nagging upstream about these missing icons is really
> welcome - most of the times even upstream doesn't have a graphic artist
> available.
I disagree here, sometimes nagging upstream is the best way to tell
them that
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> At the moment the appstream-builder requires a 48x48px application
> icon[1] to be included in the AppStream metadata. I'm sure it's no
> surprise that 48x48 padded to 64x64 and then interpolated up to
> 128x128 (for HiDPI s
On 1 September 2017 at 20:47, John Reiser wrote:
> Yes, losing 16 pixels width will be unfortunate, but it is a
> better default because it looks nicer.
I've tried this, and the "cropped" icons look much worse than the
padded ones. Plus, multiplying by 3 is a much more expensive thing to
do on lo
At the moment the appstream-builder requires a 48x48px application
icon[1] to be included in the AppStream metadata. I'm sure it's no
surprise that 48x48 padded to 64x64 and then interpolated up to
128x128 (for HiDPI screens) looks pretty bad.
Instead: magnify by 3x linear pixel replication (48