Talk:32bpp Extra Zoom Levels Files

From OpenTTD
Jump to: navigation, search



Compatibility issue

  • what does the Additional sets change? no lines and no grass replace their equivalent TAR's, so the instructions should be simple choose one or the other but what about the other do they replace the existing Tars or add additional content?
  • Better bridges
  • New 32 bpp bridges
  • Wotan's stations
  • Spain set trains (comes with GRF)
  • i think that beside the 'without lines' every set includes a NewGRF so it doesnt require any replacing and from that bunch spain set adds additional content while the replace existing one. --(by unregistered user)

  • Tiles without grid lines and Alltaken landscape are replacements GRF+TAR files. I think that is easier activate a GRF file in the GRF window than replacing various TAR files a folder. Also It is less confusing for new users, because They download everything and put these files in the data directory at the same time. IMHO We should provide a single link with all downloadable content under a free license, and other links for specific sets under not compatible licenses. --maquinista 12:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Providing alternate graphics via newgrf is a good idea I think, that will also prevent some users from having overlapping tars. The only problem is that providing one alternate in the main set, and the other with a newgrf, looks like one set is favoured over another, where they are true alternatives. People will never agree which one should be in the main set, there will always be a group of users that like the other set better. I think the decision about what set must be in the main set should be given to the artist, in case he made both alternates, like the with/without sets of Ben. In case of different artists, the choice could be made after a forum discussion, so enough people could have a part in the discussion/poll. The worst solution is that someone who just happened to edit the wiki makes the decision for all. GeekToo 18:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • we still have a lot of time before decision time. i disagree on the 'favoured' comment, i like the no grid lines set better but i still think that at the moment it should be set apart as it still is not a true alternative as it barely covers half of the tiles with grid lines. --mor 22:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • the reason i brought it up because OriginalGFX vs openGFX compatabilty is not issue compare to the estimated Pack sizes, unlike the 8bpp sets another NewGRF is not a small matter so allowing users to replace TAR files can significantly reduce total game size, its something that should be considered --mor 22:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Compared to the size of the pngs the newgrf is small, and a newgrf is only for 8bpp and does not contain 32bpp graphics. So if I want an alternate set, I only install the tar with the pngs of that set and the newgrf, and not the 32bpp pngs of the base set. The only extra size would be the size of the newgrf itself, and as said, that is insignificant compared to the size of the 32bpp graphics. GeekToo 13:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I meant Replacing conflicting TAR's with each other VS having them both and using a NewGRF to load one or the other.
    While i favor the later option (and from the looks of it also most ppl here) still it might be a problem to some. (i refereed to NewGRF+TAR as a NewGRF due to lack of a better term for it) --mor 06:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • why 'Coast tiles and water' are marked without 'OpenGFX Support'? --(by unregistered user)
  • Because it's got issues with spritenumbering: [1], solvable with the 32bpp-extra.grf I posted. GeekToo 10:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • According to 32bpp_Extra_Zoom_Levels I thought that your basic assumption is that all the basic tar files here suppose to have OpenGFX Support, otherwise why to post them if they are unusable? also i see the problem is only with small amount of sprites from here and not with most of the files.
  • There are 2 possible problems with tars: they are coded only for original graphics or for OpenGFX. Tough indeed most tars are coded for OpenGFX, there are also tars coded for original gfx. They are not unusable, but they serve different groups of users (or game settings), and cannot be mixed. My personal opinion is that coding for OpenGFX only is just as wrong as coding for original only. A good tar is coded for both, and I showed it can be done with symlinking. Fortunately, the number of tars that is coded for both is fast-growing, and we could even decide to only list the tars in the main download section that have coding for both.
    The other problem is with the ofgxe_extra sprites. Problem is that the numbers in the original and OpenGfx differ, and that can be solved by using a newgrf that sets the baseline for numbering of the 32bpp pngs, and I already started to code such a newgrf. This set of sprites is limited indeed, but they are spread over several tars, that will need renumbering once this newgrf is finished. GeekToo 18:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • 'GeekToo', now i see what you meant about OpenGFX support before (all you had to do is mention the ogfxe_extra problem), i agree that all TAR's should be support both OpenGFX and OriginalGFX fils but i dont see the point of adding a new column for one TAR file, when in the first place this table was OpenGFX compatible (originals was on another page), so a simple note in its description should suffice.
    btw the OriginalGFX column was added because it introduces a new 'feature' which previously wasnt included and when all files will be updated it should be removed as well, then we can list only TAR's that support only both. --mor 22:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that when all files support both, the colums(s) can be left out. In fact, the original support was were it all started, and OpenGfx support is the new feature. And I think there are still some files in the 'picture' section of this page, that are not present in the base overview, that are only coded for original graphics. These should be added to the base section, and marked as not compatible with opengfx, but I see that you've already removed that column again.... GeekToo 13:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • i dont know about the Original support but this table was for OpenGFX, when we moved to this page i added the new support column for both OpenGFX & OriginalGFX but in the month since there was no need for the OpenGFX partm, so i removed it
    now that you started adding new entries we may return it, i just hope you dont add those entries just so we have a none OpenGFX entries and that they are up to the same standard as the rest. --mor 07:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • mor, I really don't understand what gave you the impression that I would add those entries just to have none OpenGFX entries in the table. And I think it tells more about your mindset than about me. I'm not interested in creating an edit- or flamewar, it will only harm the project. But I am interested a lot in providing the correct information on this page, and when I see something that is not correct, I will say something about it. So let me repeat myself, because I think I did not make myself understood before: the first table does have an original graphics compatibility checkmark. But if we have that column, we also need an OpenGFX compatibility checkmark. And yes, that table was an opengfx table before, but because you merged the page with the original gfx compatible tars, that argument is no longer valid. Tars can be compatible with one of the two basesets, or with both, and you cannot show that with just a 2-state checkmark. And the tars that are compatible with original graphics only, were not included in the table, but in the picture section, because of historical reasons so I'm only trying to merge that. And you see that it pays off: when I added the steelmill to the table, showing it was not OpenGFX compatible, you did react in the only productive way: not by reverting the edit, but by adding OpenGFX compatibility to the tar, and adding it to the repo, my sincere compliments for that. And that is the way this page should work: show what it not correct yet, so others know what needs to be done. And when all tars that are not compatible are treated that way, we can remove the whole column(s) that has cost us both too much energy, that was not productive for the project. I still have some thoughts about how this page can be improved, but I'll start a new paragraph about that soon. GeekToo 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OriginalGFX support

  • I'm not clear on this sufficiently to correct it, but since the conversion's to OpenGFX in OTTD was only recent, and some of these files have been around far longer, then by default they would have, and did, work with the original sprites. I have only just started converting so that files work with OpenGFX, and/or both. Therefore I'm not clera on why it's a yes/no on OriginalGFX support, rather than one of Both/OpenGFX/Originals. If it's not 1 of 3, then isn't it a case of them being OringalGFX compatible by default, and OpenGFX compatible is what we are now making them. All appears suspiciously back to front, but I haven't tested all the files. Ben 19:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • unlike NewGRF's TAR's only replace graphics and thus dependent on the NewGRF they replace, so "support" basically means to name the folder the same as the NewGRF it replaces.
    in all our NewGRF's we used the OpenGFX naming convention ('ogfx1_base','ogfxc_arctic' etc) thus all those TAR's support OpenGFX but not the original graphic for dos that use 'trg1.grf','trgc.grf' etc GRF's thus we need to add support for it by creating symlink (can be regarded as virtual folder or shortcuts) that create folders like trg1 but points to the content of ogfx1_base.--mor 01:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of this. You do have this tendency of patronising and explaining very simple things which evidently people know just from the initial question. Half of those non-original gfx compatible files are surely compatible, becuase they haven't been updated and existed before making tar.s Opengfx compatible was standard practice. In time I'll check them out and correct it, but if we are uncertain, which I think we are, then I wouldn't state anything yet. Ben 03:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • sorry but you wasnt really clear about what you want and you did state you wasnt clear as to how to correct it.
    anyway its my understanding that your issue is with 'OriginalGFX support' status set to 'no' by default? it set so to encourage editing and in any case 'unknown' is as good as 'no' support for those seeking this support and avoid confusion whether its really a support problem or some install related problem --mor 13:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would say unknown is as good as 'no' support for opengfx, since .tars were originally made for compatibility with original graphics. I think this just calls for experimenting, but it would be strange if outdated files had been made incompatible at the time of creation for unknown future intention. Ben 14:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The Alltaken's graphics should be provided in a GRF+TAR file (like the tiles without lines). I don't know if there are rendered all the tiles needed. Ben Robbins uploaded the source files, I have rendered the 2/3 snow sprites, but It's a bit boring to render these sprites one by one (I can't use the animation function because only 19 sprites of 81 are useful). I will upload more updates in the future. Other important detail: I think that We should provide only a link for the pack with all finished graphics in the main page, and the small TAR files (roads, landscape, trucks...) should be available only in development pages. The TAR+GRF files should be avaiable with the main package if their license allows it. The TAR+GRF files that can't be distributed with the main package should be avaiable in the main page with a small screenshot. --maquinista 01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • maybe the 'no lines' graphics should be provided in a GRF+TAR file as well because many of the current 'no lines' sets lacking many sprites that in their equivalent 'with lines' sets so the only option is extracting them and overriding 'with lines' set with the 'no lines' set. --mor 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


New additional's template?

image Title OriginalGFX Support: Last update: 00/00/00
Artist: Description
image Title OriginalGFX Support: Last update: 00/00/00
Artist: Description
  • any thoughts? --mor 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So now your proposing a 4th set of links? We already have 1) the main set of big tars. 2) (in green) another set which I'm unsure exactly what the differnce is. 3) the picture links to all files however big or small, and now this 4. This is clear, but again is half way between list 1 and's an inbetweener offering neither of the 2 lists advantages. My opinion on the openGFX column remains as before. Ben 17:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • yep 1th 5th i made them all, the whole point in experimentation is finding the best solution and practice does make it perfect. at the moment this the best i could do as i am limited by technical means unless the admins will update our wiki to the current standards.
    as caption suggest we dont speak about the BaseSet List, but in regard to the pictured list i find it make a better use of space (while holding more info) and will be much easier to update --mor 17:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The picture list has been around for over 3 years. We can experiment, but we shouldn't just stick every combination of layout on the same page. We should rationally look at what is needed and try to meet that. Then we tweak. We need 3 things for 3 users.
1) A drive through list. Direct links, no extra information, and as few files as possible without compromising 2 and 3. It contains no conflicting files and lists the 'trunk set'.
2) A list of all files available for download. May contain conflicts, it has pictures and further information. It is for people wishing to stick together there own set of graphics.
3) A picture list of sprites or groups of sprites, for the artists to use to monitor progress and see what has to be done. Again only listing 'trunk set', no conflicts.
We currently have on 1 page 1ish, then 1againish, then 2, then on a different page 3. They should all have there own page and not be mushed together, or each take bits of each other to make up a grey midway mediocre mixture of the above. Basically...close to how we had it, but the top list isn't on the main 'install guide' page. Ben 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • thank you for describing all our layouts but we are not discussing the tracker nor we looking at the BaseSet LIST, again we are looking at Additional files (or NewGRF's)
    from your comment i cannot understand what mixture you refer to, can you simply put pro/cons suggestion whats wrong or what could be improved, i made the new template page with all the templates in use and some commentary, it might help with the above. --mor 19:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a comparison between what we have, and what we need. We don't need more lists. We should maybe alter the current, but not in the way that seems to be being done. Ben 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • obviously the purpose is to update the current tables this why the comparison to help you make a suggestions, the comments are just some of the consideration to improve functionality.
  • also on the point moving the pictured layout, you keep say it like i am holding you back or something, please move it to whatever you like. in my opinion doing so right now, will end up like this List of downloadable 32bpp tars page with barely one update in 2 years.
  • still no specific suggestions? so i guess i'll have do it as i see fit + no suggestions = no complaining afterward ;)
    btw you were right the additional table is ugly greenish on my laptop it looked nice bluish, simple edit or suggestion to change color from-to could have solved it.
  • To avoid the greenish problem due to bad monitor i had, i made color pallet --mor 22:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OriginalGFX Compatible

  • i'm not sure about the table heading "OriginalGFX Compatible"

what does it mean? is the file compatible with opengfx or the original set? most should be compatible with opengfx i would have thought--LordAro 13:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

all our files compatible with OpenGFX but not all compatible with the original TTD graphics unless symlinks added to the TAR's
i wanted to make it symlinks but my bet that most dont know what it is, so the result is the shortest string i could think off.--mor 01:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Mor / Neob, your statement that ALL our tars are for opengfx is complete bullshit. The whole section Another layout for specific TARS contains tars that are created for the original graphics. The fact that they are not at the Jupix repo, does not make them less downloadable or usable for people. Then, there is no standard that everything should be coded for OpenGFX. We have tars for OpenGFX, for original, and for both, and you cannot put three states in a column with a red or green mark, you need at least an extra column, or the word both, that I used recently in the last column, but has been reverted already. Then there indeed is no more alternative download present for lines/nolines.
    And finally, I moved some alternate download links to the subsections of the tracker, and announced that on the forums, but some anonymous user, that edited just before you logged in, reverted that edit, effectively removing some of the alternate downloads, like Alltakens, because he was under the impression that the tracker cannot be used for download links when the graphics are finished. It may be clear that I disagree with that. GeekToo 23:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Before you stars saying BS you should read the whole conversation, i am well aware on the meaning of that "support" and we are speaking about the BaseSet table with newly renamed column OriginalGFX support, i have not stated anything regarding the pictured table in that reagrd
    as for the tracker page edit, i dont edit anonymously especially on controversial subjects but its true that i feel strongly against that addition (you could have added a simple link like in other place but this the wrong talk page for it) if you really want to find who it was you can just compare edit style to other entry's --mor 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


  • Having links to the pages in the repo rather than the files has 2 issues. Firstly it's a repo, and we will demand more if people download all the preview images. Secondly it's a repo, it's not for providing information, that's for the wiki. If more information is required we have the picture list. Thirdly People who are using a list which is as elaborating as possible really aren't in it for information, they just want to get the entire set fast. Sticking in additional steps isn't helpful here. Basically the arguments for this 'super simple list' are against indirect links. Ben 18:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • personally i find the description of most entry's lacking and the links to the repo useful not only download but also for review of it, but i dont see any contradiction cant we have both?--mor 01:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There was original 2 lists of graphics. The pictured list which and the list we are talking about. This list is for drive through customers who just want to click away and play. Any further information is for the picture section, still not the repo. The repo is really just for development files and work, not finals at all, but if we use it for that as well, we can't and really shouldn't push it yet further and use it as further reading instead of wiki pages. Basically I stand by my original point. Ben 03:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • the pictured list is pointless for users, no basic orientation as to what need for a complete set nor its up to date so unless planing to update the wiki text/picture after each update you make in the repo you cannot refer ppl to it for further information, besides 'drive through customers' still have their DL link and user with different needs has the link to the repo just like in any other template we have DL+Forum/Homepage --mor 13:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It being outdated is irrelevant and we can take care of that. It's not intended to make it clear what's needed for a complete set, it's just a list of different graphics. It's for people wishing to customise there graphics set. There are 2 different lists here, with 2 different intentions, and sticking them on 1 page isn't a good idea, although moving the top list from the install guide page is. It seems that you are trying to make 1 list that offers neither the potential of either list, but sits somewhere in the middle. A full list, but with compulsory additional clicking and reading, and only room for 1 entry per sprite number. Ben 14:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • i dont understand what is the issue here, do we speak about the providing two link DL and repo vs only DL or do you want to reopen the sticking the 2 layout on 1 page discussion?
    i said whats my opinion on the first, on the second we already discussed this on the forum, my opinion is to let it resolve a step at a time instead of forcing it, i think it worked nicely on the tracker pages we did a good job of it --mor 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The links to 'without lines' sets seem to have been removed? even though about 2/3rds of forum downloads seem to have been 'without lines'. Any justification? Ben 18:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • They have been removed. Farm sprites for's now just a link to the main contents. People will take multiple clicks to download conflicting files. Yey! we have a new FAQ. Ben 03:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • the links hasn't been changed only copy pasted to a central location, so if there is a "missing" DL link its was missing before (check history) --mor 13:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • 'With Gridlines' and 'Without Gridlines 'were separate, now they are not. The original point I made stands. Ben 14:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


New entries

  • When adding new content to the table please provide some basic description especially in case of alternatives, so we can understand what is what. (for example the new foundation set how is it different from the previous set)
  • Grouping entries, please group same categories entries and alternatives Downloads together for easier orientation.
  • Download Forum links, please provide a link to the post as well, because its very hard to track down changes and make updates otherwise (i prefer the same rule be applied to Repo entries but its still a standing issue)
The forum link for the foundations is in the pictures sections, I did not want the fast download table cluttered with it. About the foundations, they are not different in graphics, but coded for different basesets. The foundation tars have more trouble, because of sprite renumbering, we may even consider unchecking the OpenGFX-checkmark, because it does not work correctly anymore. GeekToo
Personal tools