-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 John McNabb a écrit : > This is a great idea. Having everything converted to animations would be > great. Will you be changing the movement image to be an animation as well? > It will make Jetryl very happy. >
yes, in the long run... first I want to generalize the use of the attack filter wherever it makes sense - defensive anim - attack anim (they do, but don't segregate onhit/miss) - die animation (I think they do it) having a movement animation instead of a single frame makes sense, so I'll probably that after... > John > > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Jérémy Rosen wrote: > > > Hello all > > I'm in the process of making all unit animations callable from WML to > allow custom animations on units and animated scenes in scenarios > > but I've hit a problem. > > I can easily have all animations called, but for most important things > units don't have animations but single images that are used instead > > for instance, the defensive posture can be done either as an animation > or a single image, and only the thief actually has an animation. > > this means that all these situations have to be handled twice. one for > image and one for animation > > moreover, it is possible to have much better filter on animations than > on images (right now you can only have four types of defensive > animation, short, long, hit, miss but we could very easily apply an > attack filter to have different defensive animation when a unit is hit > by a fire attack....) > > In my working copy, I have removed all image_defensive and > image_defensive tags from the units cfg file and replaced them with a > single frame animation (which is visually the same thing). this allows > me to easily have defensive animations for all units without > complicating the code uselessly > > I plan to leave the defensive_image handling code where it is, but > addinga a warning on STDOUT when it is use about the usage being deprecated. > > Since this is 1.1.x, it might be a good time to try to simplfy WML a little > > So, if anybody sees a good reason not to go forward with this plan, or > any opinion to discuss,please go on. > > If no opinion is voiced, I'll commit the change in a couple of days > > Bye > Boucman _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDfs89SBeC9Fa95UURAjBgAJ0TGOFX4F/P6uQ0ntuMNNUk5SwxeQCfUfA+ rkvxrojO/N1CPmTU7D4jSas= =1Vj1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
