New logo

m3henry · Post by **m3henry** » 04 Apr 2007 12:51

heres a smaller version with the alignment fixed.
needs smudging for blur between the two

Ameecher · Post by **Ameecher** » 04 Apr 2007 14:14

Mr. X wrote:Wow! I appreciate comments, but they are getting from negative to hostile.

My apologies, it's just this thread is getting rather repetitive.

Post by **WWTBAM** » 05 Apr 2007 04:58

if I was to do all the other versions of mine, would the vehicles need to be in the exact same place for each theme?

Roujin · Post by **Roujin** » 08 Apr 2007 05:31

Ok, first hello everybody

I enjoyed playing Transport Tycoon a long time ago, and recently discovered OpenTTD and i love it

so i just read that post of the other guy before who said: "why not animate the trains?" and i thought i'd do it. I tried to make it as close as possible to the original, even planted that tree like it is here.. and added a little bit, like the coal train returning loaded with coal.
Unfortunately i realized far too late i didn't take the right company color ^^

And another thing. This scene really isn't reasonable. I'd never let my poor truck drive there with these amok trains speeding around. It took me seven(!) takes until i got it right and the car was NOT smashed ^^

One of the "gone wrong" takes can be found here (i uploaded it on youtube):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owtaTSI2qDA

So anyways, here is my work, i'll maybe redo it with the right company color, or even try another scene, i got a nice idea to show buildonslopes, big bridge and a scene where the car wouldn't be smashed in 9 out of 10 cases ^^

what do you think?
edit: i'd appreciate if you'd tell me if the frames per sec are okay.. if the filesize is too big.. etc.

edit2: i've redone it with the "right" colors. timing's a bit different than in the first tho.
i'll attach it too..

final edit: i've done some other scene.. it's really hard to make it not look crowded with such a small format

this icon has electric rail, build on slopes and a bridge 2 level above ground. no newgrfs or such. featuring passenger monorail, multiple coal trains (you may guess how much there actually are

), 2 trucks and 1 bus. unfortunately it's a little big in filesize.. maybe it can be made smaller with some lower quality tho

m3henry · Post by **m3henry** » 08 Apr 2007 07:58

I aM imPressed!
the only 1 piece of constructive critisism i have is this:
The trains are way too fast!!! that speed is good for large images, but it needs to be slower for small images.
are you able to edit the frame rate? that would make this masterpeice really nice!

Purno · Post by **Purno** » 08 Apr 2007 08:12

Please, don't use animated pictures for a forum logo. I'm sure it'll annoy a lot of us, if not right from the start, it'll eventually.

AndersI · Post by **AndersI** » 08 Apr 2007 09:32

I agree with Purno, animations grab your eyes away from the important things on the screen.

But can't the time for each frame be set *much* higher - one new frame per minute or so? That way, you get the animation's possibillity to show off more, while at the same time it looks like a static picture.

Raichase · Post by **Raichase** » 08 Apr 2007 09:39

Don't get me wrong, they are fantastic. Really well done.

However, I maintain that we don't need a new logo - the current one looks fine.

Born Acorn · Post by **Born Acorn** » 08 Apr 2007 12:00

I'd have to agree with Raichase. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Martin · Post by **Martin** » 08 Apr 2007 12:24

I would imagine that wouldn't be too great for bandwidth either. But I agree they look nice.

Purno · Post by **Purno** » 08 Apr 2007 12:39

Born Acorn wrote:I'd have to agree with Raichase. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Not entirely true BA. That'd mean you'd never try something new, even when it might be better.

XeryusTC · Post by **XeryusTC** » 08 Apr 2007 14:19

Born Acorn wrote:I'd have to agree with Raichase. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Because it is the basic of evolution, you keep changing until you find the perfect permutation.

And I think the moving logo's are awesome, looking at those and then at the logo makes the current logo look dull. And it also like TT always in motion

.

Post by **orudge** » 08 Apr 2007 15:13

While they do look good, an animated image will be a bit too distracting, in my opinion, and will also increase bandwidth consumption a fair bit, as Martin says! Nice idea, but it's probably not going to be used, sorry.

aahz77 · Post by **aahz77** » 08 Apr 2007 20:20

Martin wrote:I would imagine that wouldn't be too great for bandwidth either. But I agree they look nice.

orudge wrote:... an animated image will [...] increase bandwidth consumption a fair bit, as Martin says!

Is this so? The image will be cached, so the bandwidth consumption would peak at first (because every frequent user's browser would have to download it once) and then problaby return to the previous level (increased only insignificantly due to one-time visitors of the site). Remember that even an animated GIF is relatively small (56KB vs. 8KB in this case). If you add together all the avatars of the users, you can easily get to several 100KB of data for a single 20-post page (and the avatars are also cached, btw).

DaleStan · Post by **DaleStan** » 08 Apr 2007 23:29

No, it would reduce to a level proportional to the image size. The required bandwidth per request would go up to (in this case) seven times (since the new image is seven times the size of the old one.) Therefore, unless you can explain why the request frequency would be reduced below its current levels, the required bandwidth for transmission of the image would also go up to seven times the original requirements.

I suppose you could argue that some people might choose to AdBlock it, which would reduce the bandwidth slightly, but I doubt you could convince me that six sevenths of the visitors would AdBlock it.

Roujin · Post by **Roujin** » 09 Apr 2007 02:29

hmm let's try to answer all.. oO

first off, yes, the frames per sec could be easily changed. a bit slower like m3henry said, or even ultra slow like AndersI suggested.

thanks for the criticism, and i'm happy that some of you like it

In terms of distraction and bandwith - i fully understand your point.
@orudge: It's okay for me, it was actually fun for me creating this. Even if it's not used, just consider it as a tribute to all the guys working on this great game

TTD rocks my socks

Well, it could still be used as an ad for tt-forums, say in a signature in some other forum, whoever wants to

you have my permission to use this as you like

aahz77 · Post by **aahz77** » 09 Apr 2007 08:32

DaleStan wrote:No, it would reduce to a level proportional to the image size. The required bandwidth per request would go up to (in this case) seven times (since the new image is seven times the size of the old one.) Therefore, unless you can explain why the request frequency would be reduced below its current levels, the required bandwidth for transmission of the image would also go up to seven times the original requirements.

Why do we all have a folder named "Temporary Internet Files" (or similar on non-Windows systems) where tons of GIFs and JPGs and other stuff like Flash animations or Java applet codes are located? Just try it, visit an image-heavy site which you have visited before, then delete the browser cache folder and visit it again. This new "first" visit should take significant longer loading time, because all the images etc. have to be loaded again.

HTTP works like this: If an image is requested, the client tells the server that it already has got the image and which size and date it is (and maybe some additional information). If it's unchanged, the server tells the client to reuse it without having to download it again (otherwise the server would send the updated image). So the size of the image doesn't matter after the first download.

@Roujin: I like your creation very much. With a lower "speed" the version it should be a perfect fit.

@all "distraction"-critics: I doubt any frequent user would be distracted by anything you can't see when you scroll down any page. You would see it for the first time, and then get used to it.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » 09 Apr 2007 10:47

aahz77, perhaps you have a point - perhaps you dont, either way i know jack about the innerworkings of the internet. As it stands what is the point of having a moving logo? .. it serves no more purpose that a standstill logo its purely for eye-candy and if people are going to spend time watching this moving logo over and over then something is seriously wrong. Chances are people will look at it once then just ignore it. Thus, it makes more sense to have a standstill logo.

m3henry · Post by **m3henry** » 09 Apr 2007 11:00

in answer to your call JP:

Griff · Post by **Griff** » 09 Apr 2007 11:07

m3henry wrote:in answer to your call JP:

See, i like that one. It shows activity without you actually having to see the activity in a moving logo.

Transport Tycoon Forums

New logo

New Logo?

Who is online