User talk:Valaggar/PlanetBox

To continue some of the discussion here rather than clutter up Svdb's page - If I can interject some thoughts on this, it might look better with the "type" box beneath the planetary data - also i don't think it's necessary to say what the satellite types are just how many of them there are. This field could be merged into the planetary data section. Also as to the map size, I'd recommend 242x75, the size of the eartmask.png, or 232x67, the size of the orview.19.png. I couldn't find any other set example of a map in the UQM content files though. That said, do you mind if I or others tweak this page a bit to experiment with the appearance? --Fyzixfighter 10:44, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

You can tweak it how you want.

As to satellite types - well, it makes a BIG difference to look at the sky and see a Water World moon, for example. And it doesn't clutter the PlanetBox at all. Just a few extra characters.

Planet type box moved below detailed data.

Speaking of merging the satellite data with data on the planet - well, you can see it better in the planet type box, as it's related to the "planet at a glance" information rather than detailed data.

I don't know what's up with eartmask.png, but if you zoom in to the topomaps here you can see that there are no macropixels (former pixels divided into multiple pixels). I guess this is because of the scaler, but it looks better at the current resolution. Valaggar 11:10, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

Hey Val, what were the graphic settings you were using when you took the topomap images? I'm trying to compare how these look at different settings. Just FYI, using the lowest resolution (equivalent to the original SC2) the images are 242x75 like the erthmask.png. --Fyzixfighter 06:44, 2 May 2007 (CEST)