RockmanPM Forums

Base => General => Topic started by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 06:32:35 AM

Title: Incongruency
Post by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 06:32:35 AM
Why is it I check the rules for signature dimensions, it reads 200 tall by 600 wide, and then the forum resizes it to 166 tall and 500 wide? Sounds like an edit is in order.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Archer on August 19, 2012, 06:33:50 AM
Who [tornado fang]ing cares
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 06:35:51 AM
Why not just remove the signature dimension limit section entirely?

Also, a man that cannot appreciate quality is a creature to be pitied.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Archer on August 19, 2012, 06:43:16 AM
Also, a man that cannot appreciate quality is a creature to be pitied.

So I should pity you for using what is possibly the most hideous signature image I have ever had the misfortune to see?
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 06:46:10 AM
Pro-tip: animations are supposed to loop
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Police Girl on August 19, 2012, 06:48:15 AM
Why not just remove the signature dimension limit section entirely?

Because then we would have large-ass signatures that take up a good size of the screen, nobody likes that.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 06:53:02 AM
No you wouldn't. It automatically resizes them. I was just talking about that.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Sakura Leic on August 19, 2012, 06:54:41 AM
Does it really matter I think it's fine the way it is, plus I've seen the results of what happens if there isn't any automatic resizing.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 06:55:45 AM
Oh my, the comprehension...

I was just saying the rules thread should reflect the actual dimension limitations.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Archer on August 19, 2012, 06:57:38 AM
I'm sure they'd bother if anyone actually read the rules.

Pro-tip: animations are supposed to loop

[spoiler]It loops.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 07:01:14 AM
I'm sure they'd bother if anyone actually read the rules.
Well, it'd be pretty rude not to upon first visit now, wouldn't it?

[spoiler]It loops.[/spoiler]
I suppose you might have me on a technicality there. But perhaps it'd look much better if you put it in reverse as well, so it's smooth.

I'm just saying, don't lecture me on image quality with a jerky loop like that.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Mirby on August 19, 2012, 07:03:25 AM
1. The forum automatically resizes images. However, you could easily stack a bunch of images on top of each other and exceed that limit.

2. Yeah, it loops.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 07:13:27 AM
I suppose one could.

The moral of the story is it loops poorly.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Mirby on August 19, 2012, 07:16:56 AM
Not really. He just wanted that one particular scene.

And it's not a moral, that's your opinion. Claiming it to be fact is revealing yourself to be an arrogant jerk.

Then again, that's just my opinion. But at least I can admit it as such.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 07:18:19 AM
That doesn't exclude my suggestion. If I already had GIMP I'd show you an example, but I haven't downloaded it on this computer yet.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Mirby on August 19, 2012, 07:21:10 AM
Yeah, except putting it into reverse would probably make it look just as bad.

Also, why are you so obsessed with his signature? He likes it as it is, that should be enough.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 07:22:19 AM
You misunderstand. I was saying put the same thing in reverse after it plays forwards, creating a smooth loop.

Why do I care? He began discussing signature image quality, and I'm merely sticking to the subject matter.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Mirby on August 19, 2012, 07:24:18 AM
You misunderstand. I was saying put the same thing in reverse after it plays forwards, creating a smooth loop.

Why do I care? He began discussing signature image quality, and I'm merely sticking to the subject matter.
So what you're saying is to take every single frame, duplicate them all and reverse the order therein, and have it restart at the beginning again, playing forward.

Yeah that's exactly what I meant. It's not my fault you failed to comprehend that.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Archer on August 19, 2012, 07:25:27 AM
And this is the same guy who was complaining about other people lacking comprehension.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 07:27:49 AM
My bad. I thought you thought that I had said just put it in reverse instead. I think it'd look pretty good if she went up and then down.

And this is the same guy who was complaining about other people lacking comprehension.
Hey don't get upset buddy. It's gonna be OK.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Mirby on August 19, 2012, 07:29:38 AM
My bad. I thought you thought that I had said just put it in reverse instead. I think it'd look pretty good if she went up and then down.
He doesn't want it that way, so the way it is is the way it stays.

If it honestly bugs you that much I suppose you could leave. But then again, you're probably loving the community already since you're a Mega Man fan.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 07:30:33 AM
It doesn't really bother me. I'm just discussing what comes my way.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Mirby on August 19, 2012, 07:33:47 AM
It doesn't really bother me. I'm just discussing what comes my way.
You certainly seemed to indicate otherwise.
Title: Re: Incongruency
Post by: Ladd Spencer on August 19, 2012, 07:35:49 AM
Just rolling with the punches. This thread's purpose was just to be a heads up. I can only assume Vixy cares about the much formatted rules thread. If not, I don't. I was just pointing it out.