Scraping the Overhead Pieces?

[Deltapooh]

I've been thinking alot about abandoning the overhead view pieces for side views for ATF. I've been poundering this for a good bit. I have the Pack 1 of the British Vehicle pieces ready. However, with RT's release less than 3 weeks away, my thought process is to abandon them, and march ahead with building side view pieces. Then the British (among others) could join the fight in the Korean Pennisula.

I could also release the pack, build a scenario, then march forward with adding the British to RT.

In the end, a final decision as to what is done with overhead pieces might need to be considered. It would be too time consuming to build both overhead and side view pieces. Plus, we should be able to use RT pieces in ATF (with permission from ProSim of course). This should ease the process as well. Of course, the negative to these options is time.

So what do you guys think?

[Scully]

To be honest with you DP, I prefer NATO and very rarely use the graphic images. As far as I'm concerned whatever you think is the best use of your time is fine with me. I'd rather see more scenarios than graphic pieces, but that's just me.

Take care,
Brian

[RedMike]

Personally of the two, I prefer the overhead.

[CPangracs]

I prefer the side view, mainly because I feel it's easier to quickly identify the unit type.

Again, it shouldn't matter what anyone wants but you, DP. What would YOU like to see when playing an ATF game?

[Pat Proctor]

DP,

The two CAN live in harmony in the same database and in the same scenario. You could have some side view and some top view icons in the same database.

Given the choice between doing with less scenarios, or getting side view pieces, I will always go with side view pieces.

[kbluck]

However, with RT's release less than 3 weeks away, my thought process is to abandon them, and march ahead with building side view pieces.


Keep in mind that other new releases are coming not too outrageously long after RT's release, and those designers may well have made other design decisions; perhaps they return to the overhead ATF convention, perhaps something else, but I get the impression that side views are mainly Curt's thing and other designers are doing their own things.

So, chasing the latest game release "look" may well turn out to be a real exercise in frustration, given the time devoted to creating the "realistic" images. Another reason I suggest going for abstract "suggestive" images rather than detailed "realistic" images.

So, to echo Curt's advice, you're probably better off in the long run doing whatever you personally prefer the most.
I myself have decided, for future DB modding work, to not sweat it; I'll create new op icons, but for the picture I'm simply going to recycle the best approximation of the new vehicle that is already in the DB. If there is no good approximation, oh well. I'll just use the op icon again.

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

I must add a caveat to what I posted earlier. Sometimes the look of a map or a specific game will drive what type of pieces are best for a game.

[Gary]

I agree that the overview or sideview icon is a personal thing. That said the icons for Falklands War will be sideview.


Gary