Since today's update, we now get a 3D Model View of the equipment, the question is: will this be the way from now on or will we still use the old format of having the equipment actually equipped?
Is this the new way we'll get equipment images?
Wed, 01/30/2013 - 13:02
Wed, 01/30/2013 - 21:19
#2
An interesting question...
The new model viewer does a good job of showcasing the items, but it would be a pain to replace all of the equipment images (especially the costume items) on the wiki.
/e waits for a GM to comment
Thu, 01/31/2013 - 02:47
#3
Yeshh
I say yes. In some of the current images of the wiki you can't really appreciate how the item looks like because of the angles and size.
Thu, 01/31/2013 - 13:07
#4
It'd be very useful actually
It'd be very useful actually if a Gamemaster could comment or give us their greatest of great insight on this topic.
Honestly? I'm in favor of it, the model viewer not only gives us a great view on the Equipment but it removes any accessories currently on it. It's also fantastic because sometimes the equipment clips with other things.
Thu, 01/31/2013 - 15:03
#5
Equinox has not been on SK since 12/15/12 11PM
Thu, 01/31/2013 - 23:18
#6
Uh
One time Equinox posted said "the wiki is run by the players, I just help and moderate when needed" or something like that.
So basically it's up to us to get some consensus and decide, as we will be the ones doing any changes.
Fri, 02/01/2013 - 00:22
#7
I'm fine with it for everything except the helm. How will people be able to see if their eye changes show up?
Sat, 02/02/2013 - 15:48
#8
Hmmmm.....
I say we do replace all the images. This is a good chance to get everything updated and cleaned up. We could just say in the item's page that the helmet covers the eyes. This could help clear any misunderstandings up.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, some of these images can't be obtained any more. Although...does that matter?
I've updated the Spookat Mask image to show what I'm talking about. For me, it looks like it is just stretching previous image. Is it like that for everyone? I hope I didn't break something...Go ahead and revert if this isn't something local to just me.
Sat, 02/02/2013 - 16:40
#9
Nah it's just the wiki taking forever to update with the changes.
Sun, 02/03/2013 - 07:39
#10
That's good to know. I think I might contact support if it takes more then 24 hours to update. This is sorta strange.....what causes this problem, anyhow? Some of the most popular wikis, such as Wikipedia and Bulbapedia, both use the same core/engine, and they don't have an image problem. I wonder if the SK wiki is using an outdated version.
Eury, can you please ask Equinox if he can make sure everything is up to date?
Mon, 02/04/2013 - 07:20
#11
a. Eury never looks at this forum.
b. I can see the image now it's just a simple front back and side. Not to sound rude but that's nothing new.
Mon, 02/04/2013 - 19:54
#12
I think this is an excellent
I think this is an excellent way to re-do all the pictures of the gear and standardize their appearances in one fell swoop.
Though I think for use in the wiki a single angle will suffice. Though I'm open to a front-and-back example for helms and armor. In the below I've compiled an image that contains an example for each equipment type. With the exception of the shield and bomb they were all captured at the starting position of the rotation. I think the bombs and shield are best facing the screen. For easy consistency I captured the screen (PrtScn then copied to an image editor) the moment I moused over the target item in my inventory. Every image capture should be 201x222 pixels, since that's the size of the preview window. If you crop using rounded corners and paste onto a transparency you can maintain the rounded effect. The radius setting in GIMP is 8.
http://media.spiralknights.com/wiki-images/6/6b/New_Equip_Pics.png
Tue, 02/05/2013 - 05:07
#13
+1 Dogrock
I'll help work on this as well. As a wiki ninja, I'm often not seen as working on stuff, but I'm still collecting and cataloging damage numeros for swords.
I agree with Dogrock, we need to work on this from a single angle. If we only do this, then the task will be much easier and less large scale as compared to front, back, AND sides.
Tue, 02/05/2013 - 20:30
#14
Should we keep both images, placing the rotating one somewhere where it doesnt cover all the introductory text?
Wed, 02/06/2013 - 02:50
#15
Mmm
As spice said firstly...
It does take a little getting used to looking at helms without eyes...
And I think T'would be cool If they added the accessories that you've got on that item.
But otherwise, im quite a fan of de new ways :D
Thu, 02/07/2013 - 21:23
#17
The gif problem
While it would be wonderful for all of the equipment items to have rotating gifs like in Dogrock's sandbox, it is not only time consuming to create them but also increases the loading time of the page significantly.
Thu, 02/07/2013 - 20:53
#18
Maybe....
Have a gif that alternates between front/back/side views slowly? Only three images, but smaller file size.
Fri, 02/08/2013 - 03:22
#19
Fri, 02/08/2013 - 09:53
#20
--
Honestly, I believe GIFs are out of the question. Much like what Hortumalx said, the GIFs would cause a bigger strain on loading the times.
[Personal Opinion]That and I don't like the fact that if the GIFs ran at anything aside from 20fps-30fps shown on the first GIF otherwise it looks choppy. [/Personal Opinion]
That and didn't Equinox say something about not putting GIFs up on the Wiki anyway?
Honestly if we are doing this, I'd suggest doing what Dogrock said.
Fri, 02/08/2013 - 14:49
#21
Honestly, I believe GIFs are
Honestly, I believe GIFs are out of the question. Much like what Hortumalx said, the GIFs would cause a bigger strain on loading the times.
[Personal Opinion]That and I don't like the fact that if the GIFs ran at anything aside from 20fps-30fps shown on the first GIF otherwise it looks choppy. [/Personal Opinion]
That and didn't Equinox say something about not putting GIFs up on the Wiki anyway?
Honestly if we are doing this, I'd suggest doing what Dogrock said.
Obviously I'm pro-gif, so forgive my persistence....
If strain is truly top priority, then we shouldn't update with the new previews, because the average filesize will go up(current Ascended Calibur: 36kb, new preview: 54kb). On that note, shouldn't we also be using jpegs instead(AC.png: 54kb, AC.jpg:25kb)? Anticipating a quality concern, can you tell the difference between this png and this jpg?
We can try to smooth it out by playing it faster:
5fps at 2x speed
5fps at 4x speed
either of those workin' for ya?(There's a few frames missing 'cause I just took a flat 5sec animation, if this goes forward I'd make sure to have enough for smoother playback)
If you have a link to that post of Equinoxs', that'd help. All I found was potentially for the idea and against having 100s on a page at once(which I would agree with, but this would be for just the item page, so 1 per).
Sat, 02/09/2013 - 13:21
#22
I AM NOT DEAD
I AM NOT DEAD YET.
Tantarian's right, I'm all about having community involvement in decisions because you guys do the bulk of the wonderfully obsessive editing. Plus I see you helping out new editors all the time. I generally only step in with veto option if there's something that has to adhere to certain policies or it just won't work out well without my interference.
Autofire, contacting support about images updating to the new versions on the wiki won't really get you anywhere. We just have to be patient and wait for the software whatever to do whatever that software does. There's no magical button because if there was, I'd be pushing it alllllll the time.
GIF files can be uploaded to the wiki. However, there are numerous issues with them that do not make them an option for standardization of equipment images. First off, GIF is a lossy format with visual artifacts munging up the picture as well as having fewer colors available to show the wonderful SK artwork. Secondly, it will be very difficult for others to make the images in a standard way because most people are not familiar with creating animated GIFs as well as being able to duplicate the technical details. Thirdly, MediaWiki does not resize animated GIFs in an animated fashion. Due to these reasons, I am afraid I need to veto that option.
I like Dogrock's suggested standard view that includes the whole pretty rounded frame. Those with less image skill can skip making the bits outside the corners transparent without any major impact. I don't think we really need a triple view for each piece of equipment, however two views is often revealing and nice to have. In light of the sheer number of images that will need to be updated though, I will suggest this:
- Item Name-Equipped.png should be a single image whose standard is set by this image.
- Item Name-Equipped 2.png is an OPTIONAL second view that can be whatever angle that best shows additional details of the item.
- Coding will be added to the infobox templates to accommodate another variable that will add the second view image right next to the standard one. Perhaps something easy like View2 = yes (with it defaulting to no so we only add it when the second has been uploaded).
Is this something that folks think would work for us?
This would not affect accessory pages or set images, of course. Personally, I foresee myself mumbling a lot as I try to hit screen capture on the correct rotation :) All in the name of obsessive wiki editing though!
AE
Sat, 02/09/2013 - 21:04
#23
QQ no gifs. Alright then was
QQ no gifs. Alright then was worth a shot. I'm in favour of the new style, and two images for armour and helmets does show them off nicely. Would the changes to the templates be worth waiting for or should we just upload them as we get them, and remember to come back when it's ready?
Sun, 02/10/2013 - 12:51
#24
If I recall correctly, wiki.teamfotress had some neato method of showing their weapons. No idea how it works though. And it's probably out of the question...
Example.
Seems to be a huge spritesheet and the infobox selects different areas of that spritesheet to show. Or something.
Sun, 02/10/2013 - 13:29
#25
Indeed it is, pretty much
Indeed it is, pretty much every part of it is a no-no. From the external model viewer(though we can do in-game:P), to using jpg, to massive images(cut down by using jpg, but still large than what is on our wiki), to being not for the faint of heart. It is just javascript moving through a sprite sheet, as seen Here, and detailed Here.
Sun, 02/10/2013 - 21:30
#26
About the file names...
Should they still be called Item Name-Equipped.png? Seeing as how they aren't equipped it doesn't make much sense. I say that too gets updated to Item Name-Preview.png.
Mon, 02/11/2013 - 14:32
#27
Some stuff
Large swords, such as Rocket Hamma, and DA don't show up fully in the box. Maybe the coding for the Hammer pic needs to be resized?
Mon, 02/11/2013 - 15:33
#28
Most items show up just fine
Most items show up just fine in the box. The only part of the Divine Avenger that clips is a small portion of the tassel, which is hardly the centerpiece. Though the Warmaster Rocket Hammer does clip the edge in most angles, it's still better than the current view on the wiki.
Mon, 02/11/2013 - 17:24
#29
Changing the name would break the template.
Mon, 02/11/2013 - 19:20
#30
Changing the name would break
Changing the name would break the template.
Hmm, meaning there wouldn't be an image shown?(due to using the old naming scheme/new auto filename templatery (totally a word now)). If that's the case, would it matter? Seeing as how nearly all items need to be updated anyway. I've got a lot of images that just need cropping which I'll get to in a day maybe two, then I'd be ready to upload for the new name(assuming it did change). There would be only a handful of images that would need to be moved manually(cause I don't have that rare item/access to 5* HoH(though AH had most of these)/not on AH).
If what you mean is not what I just said, then ignore what I just said and we can leave the names alone :P
Tue, 02/12/2013 - 18:01
#31
@Equinox
Oh, ok. I was just getting a tad tired of having any image I try to update not update for a long time. :P I'm not sure if this is a problem for this wiki or if a lot of them do.
And on that note...YER BAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack! Wait... I AM NOT DEAD YET. Does this mean you'll be leaving us soon? :'(
Oh, and the 3D rotating thing is cool! But...would it work?
Wed, 02/13/2013 - 16:31
#32
Alright. Next order of
Alright. Next order of business.
Accessories, What do we do about this?
I suggest:
Front shots for Eye, Facial or Hair accessories
Front shots for Auras (Hard to see the aura though. I think the image needs to be a solid color instead of a grid)
Front shots for Crests/ any frontal accessories on body
Side shots for Ear, Hair accessories
Side shots for tails or wings
Back shot for Vitas
Wed, 02/13/2013 - 16:49
#33
As mentioned before,
As mentioned before, accessory images will remain how they've always been. The new view window doesn't work for accessories.
Yes, keep using the -Equipped name. It's just easier that way and people browsing the articles don't see the names anyhow. Feel free to also do screenshots of Name-Equipped 2.png for secondary views in prep for the template changes, just remember to use an image tag when initially uploading or edit the image page after upload so we can easily figure out which infoboxes need the 2nd view variable set to yes. I can work on those this weekend unless someone else beats me to it.
AE
Edit: If you're uploading a new version of an already existing image, those are all already image tagged so you don't have to worry about that.
Showing a portion of an image containing all the equipment wouldn't be a good idea for us as only one person at a time could work on/upload the thing without screwing up someone else's work, along with the fact that it would be an enormous image.
Wed, 02/13/2013 - 17:56
#34
As mentioned before,
As mentioned before, accessory images will remain how they've always been. The new view window doesn't work for accessories.
Yes, keep using the -Equipped name. It's just easier that way and people browsing the articles don't see the names anyhow. Feel free to also do screenshots of Name-Equipped 2.png for secondary views in prep for the template changes, just remember to use an image tag when initially uploading or edit the image page after upload so we can easily figure out which infoboxes need the 2nd view variable set to yes. I can work on those this weekend unless someone else beats me to it.
What do you mean doesn't work?
Just assume they all need view2=yes :P -gently pats the 677 images in Equipped Item Preview folder-
Edit: Furnishing is good for an update though right?
Sun, 02/17/2013 - 13:40
#35
Sorry, they hadn't added
Sorry, they hadn't added accessory preview then. For accessories, I'd say that each individual style of a certain accessory should stay with the character view so there are examples of it actually attached to equipment. For the base accessory view, I could go with 2 views from the new preview or I'd be fine with leaving it the way it is now.
I'm doing the infoboxes now, yes, just add view2 = yes into the infobox part.
For furnishing, yes I think the preview view should be used in that infobox. Do folks think we should also have the view of it placed in a guild hall in the body of the article or something?
AE
Sun, 02/17/2013 - 13:47
#36
So for the second view, this
So for the second view, this would make the infobox rather wide. Should a second view force both images to be shrunk down? They could be stacked at full sized one above the other, but then the infobox would be rather tall....
Thoughts?
AE
Here's an example of the double view with shrunk images.
Sun, 02/17/2013 - 13:49
#37
I am quite sure accessories
I am quite sure accessories can be previewed. As much as I enjoy seeing stylish combinations of accessories with certain outfits, the neutral approach would be the most appropriate for the wiki.
Sun, 02/17/2013 - 14:35
#38
Accessory views
I think it
Accessory views
I think it should be the other way around. Have each style use the preview with an in-game equip in the top-right box. That way you can see what each individual piece looks like without any possible interference from other armor/helmet/accessory. Example: Shadow Valkyrie Wings goes well with the theme of the snarbolax coat but it's hard to distinguish what's what. Having a constant neutral view would alleviate that, while still giving in-game context for it at the top, and it would be easier to get 1 image that doesn't conflict than all 11. Possibly try to get a neutral host for the in-game view, like a pith helm.
Furniture
Do they differ that much from the preview? The preview gives a clear look at it, while in-game screen shots tend to be smaller and perspective skewed because you can't be right on it without obstructing it. Also, the person "wireframe" gives a handy meter stick for how large something is, while always being in behind whenever they overlap.
Dual view
The vertical view was nice, as they were larger, but horizontal looks nicer overall. Though I'd say increase their size to 138px so they gain some size but stay in line with the rest of the boxes. Also, default armor to view2=yes plox. MUCH less work editing it out of a handful of armor than adding it to the hundreds that have the second image ready to go.
Sun, 02/17/2013 - 16:09
#39
Your accessory views
Your accessory views suggestion sounds fine. The base accessory images in the infoboxes already use a consistent simple armor because I did almost all of them.
To increase their size, we would have to increase the width of the infoboxes and I would prefer not to do that because the wiki needs to still be viewable at 800x600 resolution (at that res, the infoboxes take up about 50% of the article window). People can always click on the image to view the bigger version.
Shields also use the same ArmorInfo template. I'm not switching the default of view2 to yes unless the pages without second views have already been edited to say no, it would make for too many awkward broken looking infoboxes.
Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:12
#40
I think it would still be
I think it would still be less work as the number of helmets+armor>shields. I'll get started on it in ~30 mins. Edit: Done.
Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:25
#41
To increase their size, we
To increase their size, we would have to increase the width of the infoboxes and I would prefer not to do that because the wiki needs to still be viewable at 800x600 resolution (at that res, the infoboxes take up about 50% of the article window).
Even at that res there's room. It's 300px, outline to outline; 276px for the ability/stats cells; 256px for the combined images. All I'm saying is widen by 10px each (20px total) to make the previews = the cells below them.
Sun, 02/17/2013 - 21:55
#42
The picture cell is the same
The picture cell is the same size as the other cells within the SKwindow table which uses nested cells to get the visual effect you see. It's 128px because I tested pixel by pixel until it was too large to stay on the same line. It's staying that way.
Let me know if you have finished the no's on all the armor items needing it and I can switch the default/change the yes to no with blank.
AE
Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:34
#43
Let me know if you have
Let me know if you have finished the no's on all the armor items needing it and I can switch the default/change the yes to no with blank.
I'll point you to my ninja edit :P
Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:46
#44
You are experiencing a PICNIC ERROR!
To increase their size, we would have to increase the width of the infoboxes and I would prefer not to do that because the wiki needs to still be viewable at 800x600 resolution (at that res, the infoboxes take up about 50% of the article window). People can always click on the image to view the bigger version.
Oooooohh.....why didn't anyone tell me that before? :P
Sorry, I haven't been able to help with the image updating. I've been so busy with school and such...
/sad
As soon as I sit down for a good 30-60 minute block, I'll try to see what I can do.
Mon, 02/18/2013 - 20:33
#45
We could add a little text
We could add a little text below the two view ones that says click for larger view if people think that would be helpful.
Mon, 02/18/2013 - 20:46
#46
I guess it'd be good to
I guess it'd be good to inform that there is a larger version. Overall I'm indifferent.
Wed, 05/01/2013 - 05:35
#47
I've working on filling out
I've working on filling out an old series of outdated, incomplete Visual Encyclopedias of equipment. This should help you find which equipment images still need to be updated to the new standard
http://wiki.spiralknights.com/Visual_Encyclopedia/Equipment/Gear
http://wiki.spiralknights.com/Visual_Encyclopedia/Equipment/Weapon
Wed, 05/01/2013 - 13:55
#48
Uploaded a few more items.
If
Uploaded a few more items.
If anyone has some free time, assisting me adding "| view2 = yes" to costume helmets/armors where appropriate would greatly speed things up.
Wed, 05/01/2013 - 16:59
#49
@Lithiumforest
Give me a page where this has been done and I'll put it on all pages that needs it.
Wed, 05/01/2013 - 18:33
#50
Check out any non-costume
Check out any non-costume armor/helm like Almirian Crusader Armor. If it doesn't have a second image I've edited them as "view2 = no" months ago. (Equinox was supposed to swap the default, but it seems never got around to it)
Just run down the lists as they should have a link to everything, add the view2 and click preview, if a second image shows up save it, else cancel and move on. I've already done the non-costume armors and helmets.
It'll be odd looking at helmets with no eyes.