Closed smsunarto closed 2 years ago
Yeah, I was expecting this to eventually become an issue.
Another thing I'd like to see addressed is the relative size of objects. Should we make the item textures fill up as much as the texture square (plus padding) as possible regardless of the size, and then scale the items afterwards? Right now, the food items (or most items for that matter) are not set to scale with each other.
I don't like the idea of padding on icon assets. In the very basic case, we are talking about 16x16 pixels, you don't want to "waste" a border. However, we might advice to use some padding with regard to the icon size.
Therefore, I'd like to have icons fill the whole space of their canvas, and have the UI add margins where necessary (or scale the icons).
Icon scale is a whole different topic. I don't think we can come with proper scaling for everything, thus, I'd go for item filling the available space as much as possible. If we want to convey a feeling for item size, we should rather work out how we can support multi-slot items in the inventory (or start with using their actual weights and carry maximum).
Maybe a related comment: a mushroom icon/plant right now is tiny based entirely on its image, and kinda should be. That's probably one case where the image showing a tiny object is fair?
Yeah I would worry a bit about any explicit padding, but coming up with some good practices and ways to shrink stuff when necessary (think display cases) would be nice. That's probably an item beyond the Cooking module though :-)
Padding should not be done in the icon assets themselves. If we want to introduce some kind of margin/padding, that should be done either in engine / NUI or in a more basic module, e.g. inventory etc.
Currently, some icons fills a huge percentage of the square with a really minimal margin, and some is simply too small and does not fill enough space with too much padding. we need to set a standard on how much padding we want to use.
CC: @Cervator @rzats for discussion