Difference between revisions of "User talk:Explorer09"
From Worms Knowledge Base
Explorer09 (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
[[User:Deadcode|Deadcode]] 00:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | [[User:Deadcode|Deadcode]] 00:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :1. Because I'm using 1024x768 resolution, and I usually think that the 48x48 icons in Windows Explorer looks good for me. However, if you prefer, you can change them to 64x64 (and I don't mind that). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Also, if you can make the image whose size are multiples of 64 (like 128x128), do it. Because it'll be less blurry when down-sampling. | ||
| + | [[User:Explorer09|Explorer09]] 01:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:03, 12 July 2009
First of all, thank you for your active and industrious work on WKB.
I would like to ask why you changed the weapon boxes to resample all icons larger than 48x48 down to 48x48. (Admittedly Weapon_longname was a quick hack, but I thought the fix would've been to give Template:Weapon a width parameter.) Doing a marginal resample like this creates a significant amount of blurring, and if 48x48 is indeed going to be the size limit on weapon info box icons, then I will want to recreate all the extra-large icons at 48x48 so that they don't have to be doubly resampled. But please, explain to me why 64x64 is too large.
Deadcode 00:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1. Because I'm using 1024x768 resolution, and I usually think that the 48x48 icons in Windows Explorer looks good for me. However, if you prefer, you can change them to 64x64 (and I don't mind that).
Also, if you can make the image whose size are multiples of 64 (like 128x128), do it. Because it'll be less blurry when down-sampling. Explorer09 01:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
