LSC: Define TEXMAP resolution and naming conventions

Re: LSC: Define TEXMAP resolution and naming conventions
Orion Pobursky Wrote:
  • Require an openly defined vector format (e.g. SVG) as the base image. Then the texture can be derived from that automagically by the PT (or some other method)
This disallows using cleaned up scans as textures. I think that at the very least, "needs work" parts should be allowed to use cleaned up scans as their textures.

Orion Pobursky Wrote:
  • Naming convention suggestion: <part number>tex.<whatever img format we decide on>
Since they will be in a textures directory, I don't think "tex" (or any variant) should be part of the filename. Some parts will require multiple textures though, so we definitely want the naming requirements to take that into account.

Orion Pobursky Wrote:
  • Maybe create a new directory in PARTS? TEX?
I definitely feel that all part textures should be required to be in the parts/textures sub-directory (with maybe parts/s/textures being allowed, but maybe not; I'm not sure about that).

Orion Pobursky Wrote:
  • Fallbacks should be just as good as the current non-tex patterns. Yes this adds overhead for authors but I think it's vital in the beginning.
As long as this is clearly indicated as a short-term stop-gap measure, I'm OK with this. Having this stick around long-term negates probably 75% of the point of textures.

Orion Pobursky Wrote:
  • At least initially, a tex should not be required for a patterned part to become official
I don't think textures should ever be required for patterns. Some simple patterns are just better as geometry, and I think they always will be.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Messages In This Thread
Re: LSC: Define TEXMAP resolution and naming conventions - by Travis Cobbs - 2012-11-05, 18:00

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)