Well I think that when Glidos calls a folder "8CA6BB5A1BE82664431D9F1933075712" he is perfectly describing all of the imagery contained within that folder. If we could understand the language that Glidos speaks then we wouldn't dream of calling that folder anything else. The real problem though, is that "8CA6BB5A1BE82664431D9F1933075712" is so damn difficult to pronounce....

Glidos wrote:

Sorry, I obviously wasn't quite clear: you are right about it being derived from the 256x256 pixel data.

So it would be conceivable that a tool could be written to interrogate the original level file, find the pixel data, and work out what the folder names should be?

What I'm getting at is that we really need a foolproof way of determining which folders relate to which level. Glidos continues capturing even during level transitions, so when capturing a new level that segues into a cutscene it's very difficlut to know which folders apply to the level and the cutscene.

OK, I probably still sound ignorant of how Glidos works. But please enlighten me as to why the above couldn't be done?

Yeah, JC, I think your argument has convinced me. 😉

Gambit, there are two issues. There is getting all the folders for a level (including the 256x256 collection of textures), and there is finding all the little bits of the collection. To get all the folders you just have to enter the level and leave immediately.

Ah, right! I wish I knew that several months ago. That's all I need to help me clean up the Unfinished Business captures.

OK, so we're all agreed that my mapping technique is the way to go.

Now, do we standardise on our own folder names, or leave that down to the individual to do what they want? It would be quite a lot of work to make my packs match JC's and vice versa (so far, no other artists have touched mapping files).

I still like the idea of using the two approaches together and conversion isn't an issue because I can do that with shell scripts. But the bottom line is you are free to do as you wish, and neither of the methods, or the mixture are at all bad.

Well I do want to continue with the method I am using because I feel comfortable with it now. If anybody else wants to adopt it or adapt it they are welcome to do so.
Is there any major drawback in having seperate artist's folders and switching mapping files in order to change texture packs? (apart from us not winning any gold stars for teamwork)

No problem I can think of. It would just lesson the effort if you had a common method. I would offer to convert back and forth between the two so you can share each others work, but I think that's not so easy because there's no real correlation of structure and grouping.

The one thing I would suggest is to split the mapping up into several files, one per level. Then users can mix and match easily.

I think that maintaining our own methods is probbaly the best way to continue now, given that we've both done significant work on on our stuff that doesn't quite match what the other has done.

The folder structure of a given artists work doesn't actually matter at all -- if each one uses a master mapping file, that's all the end user need worry about.

I quite agree. Both methods have their advantages. As I've mentioned before, I'll be happy to help either of you by translating between the two where it proves both useful and possible.

I would still recommend splitting the mapping up into a file per level, and giving those files systematic names. That would be of great advantage to the end users

Gambit, is there any progress about the website?

Um. No. I've been busy on my own texturing!