Jump to content

Welcome to FTB Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Vote! Isometric view in navigation templates?


11 replies to this topic

Poll: Vote! Isometric view in navigation templates? (12 member(s) have cast votes)

Should we keep isometric images in navigation templates?

  1. Yes (8 votes [66.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

  2. No (3 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  3. Yes, but only blocks with different sides (1 votes [8.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1
RZR0

RZR0

    Administrator

  • Operator
  • 1969 posts
  • IGN:RZR0
  • Modpack:Private Pack

I'm currently working on reorganizing the nav templates, it's still a work in progress and it'll probably take quite a bit before it's finished. The main reason for this is that we're switching to css sprites for the nav template images.

For example, the GregTech nav now already uses quite a bit of css sprites, which makes pages with the nav load faster, because all of those sprites are included in a single image, which only has to be loaded once, instead of the 200 or so images which it replaces, that had to be loaded separately.

 

The dilemma we're facing atm is the question, should we get rid of isometic images in the navigation templates (nowhere else). On MinecraftWiki, blocks are displayed two-dimensionally, which is what the alternative for us would be as well, instead of the isometric images.

 

There's pros and cons for both methods, some people prefer one or another. Isometric images are a clear indicator that you're dealing with a block instead of an item, it also gives you an idea of the shape and size of the block at first glance. A downside is that the you're cramming 3 16px images into a 16px space, which means that most of the detail is lost, which isn't true for flat 2d images.

 

The poll is open, so please cast your vote.



#2
ViperSRT3g

ViperSRT3g

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 212 posts
  • Location:Roanoke, VA
  • IGN:NakAttack
  • Modpack:FTB Unhinged
As per our discussion on the IRC channel, I prefer the current isometric view. No sense in reinventing the wheel.
  • MadCrayolaz likes this
Vanilla Server: vanilla.vipersrt3g.net
banner-13472.png
Snapshot Server: snap.vipersrt3g.net
banner-25377.png

#3
MadCrayolaz

MadCrayolaz

    Newbie

  • Contributor
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Location:Oswego, NY
  • Modpack:Direwolf20 Pack

As per our discussion on the IRC channel, I prefer the current isometric view. No sense in reinventing the wheel.

I'm with Viper on this.  There is no reason to change it when, for mods which tend to make blocks look generally the same, it would make it harder to figure out what the block is.



#4
Embri

Embri

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Modpack:MindCrack Pack

Given there are so many blocks in FTB, I think keeping them as identifiable as possible would be best. 



#5
ZL123

ZL123

    Me.

  • Administrators
  • 2079 posts
  • Location:Not somewhere where people say a fake location to try to be funny
  • IGN:ZL123
  • Modpack:Private Pack

I do like the isometric view as well. It feels quite pleasing. For some reason it seems more 'professional', and gives more sense of Minecraft. But if we went with the 2D pictures, we'd have to upload a whole other set of pictures, because we'd keep the isometric images on the item/block templates, won't we?

 

Also, if we went with the third option, keeping the isometric images only for blocks with different sides, we'd end up with half 2D and half isometric, as probably more than 99% of FTB machines use a different texture for a few sides. And if we had half-and-half, I'd think it would look quite idiotic, and could be just confusing. I would definitely cross that option off the list.

 

I agree with everyone above me so far, as well. I think we should make sure that people don't get confused, and after all this is a Wiki we're talking about; something that intends on sharing knowledge with other people, and that wouldn't really work well if they don't understand you too well! It doesn't really matter, I think, that information will be lost on the image, because once users click the link they'll be, if it's written correctly, taken to a page with a huge 64x64 image slapped on it!


-ZL123
Hope I helped!

YT: http://youtube.com/ZL234
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ZL234


#6
RZR0

RZR0

    Administrator

  • Operator
  • 1969 posts
  • IGN:RZR0
  • Modpack:Private Pack

Given there are so many blocks in FTB, I think keeping them as identifiable as possible would be best.

That's exactly the reason why we shouldn't use isometric views. Generally, MC sprites are 16px in size. So you need at least a 16px area to retain all of the detail. Let me show you an example:
 
I think it's very hard to tell the differnce between these in isometric view: Nav_Advanced_Buffer.png and Nav_Advanced_Regulator.png , where as it's much easier in a 2D representation Nav_Advanced_Buffer2.png and Nav_Advanced_Regulator2.png .

I do like the isometric view as well. It feels quite pleasing. For some reason it seems more 'professional', and gives more sense of Minecraft. But if we went with the 2D pictures, we'd have to upload a whole other set of pictures, because we'd keep the isometric images on the item/block templates, won't we?

I already have to upload new images for the css sprites, so that's not really the issue.

#7
ZL123

ZL123

    Me.

  • Administrators
  • 2079 posts
  • Location:Not somewhere where people say a fake location to try to be funny
  • IGN:ZL123
  • Modpack:Private Pack

That's exactly the reason why we shouldn't use isometric views. Generally, MC sprites ate 16px in size. So you need at least a 16px area to retain all of the detail. Let me show you an example:

 

I think it's very hard to tell the differnce between these in isometric view: attachicon.gifNav_Advanced_Buffer.png and attachicon.gifNav_Advanced_Regulator.png, where as it's much easier in a 2D representation attachicon.gifNav_Advanced_Buffer2.png and attachicon.gifNav_Advanced_Regulator2.png.

Again, as I said, if their respective articles are written properly, there would be a 64x64 image on them, just one click away. I don't think we should worry about that too much. Maybe if you really wanted, you could make it so that when they click the image on the navigation template a box pops up with the 64x64 version, without having to go to the actual article.


-ZL123
Hope I helped!

YT: http://youtube.com/ZL234
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ZL234


#8
RZR0

RZR0

    Administrator

  • Operator
  • 1969 posts
  • IGN:RZR0
  • Modpack:Private Pack

Again, as I said, if their respective articles are written properly, there would be a 64x64 image on them, just one click away. I don't think we should worry about that too much. Maybe if you really wanted, you could make it so that when they click the image on the navigation template a box pops up with the 64x64 version, without having to go to the actual article.

Can't the same be said for 2D images? If a 128px image is just a click away... I have to change all of the images now, so this is the time to make the change, I don't want to have to come back and do it all over later.

#9
ostPavel

ostPavel

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1010 posts
  • IGN:ostPavel
  • Modpack:Private Pack

Sadly, I voted before reading the whole thread (using my knowledge of how the navbar of minecraft wiki looks like). I am hesitating now.

 

Not sure if I support the idea of 2D sprites fully, but another advantage of doing it is that we will be even more distinguishable from the ftb wikia.


My contributions || Herp derp || Out of order

DigitalOcean $10 offer - if you follow this link and make an account, you will be credited $10.


#10
RZR0

RZR0

    Administrator

  • Operator
  • 1969 posts
  • IGN:RZR0
  • Modpack:Private Pack

Sadly, I voted before reading the whole thread (using my knowledge of how the navbar of minecraft wiki looks like). I am hesitating now.
 
Not sure if I support the idea of 2D sprites fully, but another advantage of doing it is that we will be even more distinguishable from the ftb wikia.

You should be able to unvote/revote if you want :P

#11
Maruno

Maruno

    Newbie

  • Contributor
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Modpack:FTB Beta Pack A

I vote to go 2D.  As you say, it's easier to see the difference between two blocks that way.  Any possible confusion about what is a block and what is an item can be ironed out by the layout of the navbox, if it's even necessary.

 

I see the argument for isometric icons is that that's how they appear in the player's inventory, but as mentioned, even the official Minecraft wiki doesn't do it that way.  Clearly there's no harm in going 2D, and if it's good enough for them, etc.  Really, the point of the navbox icons is to be icons rather than real representations of how the blocks appear in-game (we've got the blocks' pages for that), so "stylising" them a bit by making them 2D is just fine.

 

Going 2D would open up the possibility of using more 2D icons to represent mobs and other such things, because then they'd fit in with the stylistic, um, style of the navboxes, and things would be prettier.



#12
ZER0-0

ZER0-0

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Planet Earth
  • Modpack:FTB Ultimate

I vote for 3D because it looks so much cooler.


When in Trouble or in Doubt, Run in circles, Scream and Shout!




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users