I wonder--since it's possible to assign layer values to overlays, wouldn't it make sense to simply eliminate the underlays var?
Of course this could break backwards compatibility, but until the Big Release comes, to backwards compatibility I say: pshaw!
ID:137956
 May 29 2001, 11:06 am
|
|
There has to be SOMETHING good about underlays, or else popular Warner Bros. cartoon mouse Speedy Gonzales wouldn't go around saying "underlay" all the time.
On 5/29/01 3:06 pm Gughunter wrote: I wonder--since it's possible to assign layer values to overlays, wouldn't it make sense to simply eliminate the underlays var? | |
On 5/29/01 3:32 pm LexyBitch wrote:
There has to be SOMETHING good about underlays, or else popular Warner Bros. cartoon mouse Speedy Gonzales wouldn't go around saying "underlay" all the time. Underlay, underlay! Um, wait, what were we discussing here? Oh, right, underlays. I dunno, I have mixed feelings on the subject. I'm all for trimming off the fat, but at the same time, I'm also supportive of having a much more apt description. For example, an overlay that is below the mob is not an overlay, it is an underlay. To put it in an overlays list seems strange. | |
On 5/29/01 3:23 pm Deadron wrote:
I forget what, but I did actually use an underlay once. Darke Dungeon uses underlays when a mob ignites himself, but if overlay can do the same thing, I wouldn't mind changing the two lines of code that actually use it. | |
For example, an overlay that is below the mob is not an overlay, it is an underlay. To put it in an overlays list seems strange. That's a valid point. I was just thinking about Dan's note on turf vars, and this seemed like a natural candidate for corrective surgery. Coming soon: a modest proposal to merge opacity, density, and visibility into bit flags in a single variable! Heh, heh, heh. | |
I imagine there is an advantage to just knowing that this thing will show up underneath the desired object.
I forget what, but I did actually use an underlay once.