Alpha channel sprites
Rik Griffin
essentially an 8 bit mask if I understand it correctly.
I'm wondering if there's any software to create / edit these sprite files
that will run on RISC OS 5? I assume the Select version of Paint is only
available with Select? Is there anything else I can use?
Thanks
--
Rik Griffin
Tim Powys-Lybbe
I thought there was an exciting, thrilling sequence of events for this:
1. RISC OS Ltd issue the 32-bit neutral version of the OS for RPCs.
This they have now done and the installation issues are receiving
active attention (my installation works well now).
2. RISC OS Ltd then finalise and issue the new 32-bit OS for the A9home.
This is confidently expected sometime in the near future.
3. When 1 and 2 are OK, RISC OS Ltd issue their 32-bit version of Select
for the Iyonix. This might even happen this year.
What more can we ask for?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Rik Griffin
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
>
> 3. When 1 and 2 are OK, RISC OS Ltd issue their 32-bit version of Select
> for the Iyonix. This might even happen this year.
>
> What more can we ask for?
Actually I was hoping not to have to buy a whole new OS just to edit a
couple of sprites :)
--
Rik Griffin
Dave Higton
Steve Fryatt
<a9bcade...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>:
> 3. When 1 and 2 are OK, RISC OS Ltd issue their 32-bit version of
> Select for the Iyonix. This might even happen this year.
And there goes a flying pig. I asked Paul Middleton about this at the
start of May. His eventual answer was that I might as well hang on to my
money than re-join the Select scheme in anticipation.
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England
John Cartmell
Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 6 Jun, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message
> <a9bcade...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>:
> > 3. When 1 and 2 are OK, RISC OS Ltd issue their 32-bit version of
> > Select for the Iyonix. This might even happen this year.
> And there goes a flying pig. I asked Paul Middleton about this at the
> start of May. His eventual answer was that I might as well hang on to my
> money than re-join the Select scheme in anticipation.
Either:
[Iyonix (Castle) give ROL sufficient details of their OS/hardware for RO6 to
be ported
And:
ROL put resources into RO6 for the Iyonix]
Or:
[Iyonix cooperate with ROL to port RO6 to the Iyonix]
Or:
[ROL put all their resources (& a bit more) into porting RO6 without the
support of Iyonix]
The last (public) statement from ROL was that Castle(Iyonix) had not offered
any details to ROL to help in porting Select(RO6) to the Iyonix - nor had they
indicated that they would be willing to do any work themselves (in case they
wanted to keep details of their Hardware/OS from 3rd parties).
The work that Advantage 6 & ROL have done together allows any third party to
license RO6 for their own hardware and do the work to get RO6 to run on that
hardware - but it's a tougher job to get RO6 to run on hardware that isn't
your own - and do it without the cooperation of the hardware designers.
I'd assume that Paul's hesitation over a timetable might be in weighing up
whether Castle/Iyonix might cooperate or not.
--
John
Ste (news)
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Either:
> [Iyonix (Castle) give ROL sufficient details of their OS/hardware for RO6 to
> be ported
> And:
> ROL put resources into RO6 for the Iyonix]
> Or:
> [Iyonix cooperate with ROL to port RO6 to the Iyonix]
> Or:
> [ROL put all their resources (& a bit more) into porting RO6 without the
> support of Iyonix]
or:
ROL release the alpha channel stuff (SpriteExetend, Paint, etc?) as a
separate component which could either be a source release or a paid-for
add-on for RISC OS 5.
or:
Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet and
merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
Steve
--
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
David Holden
On 7-Jun-2007, "Ste (news)" <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> ROL release the alpha channel stuff (SpriteExetend, Paint, etc?) as a
> separate component which could either be a source release or a paid-for
> add-on for RISC OS 5.
And how many times has it been said that this CAN'T BE DONE.
The new Paint and Draw depend for their additional features upon many other
components which are elsewhere in the OS. They can't just be 'grafted on' to
another OS without also adding all these parts.
--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
Rik Griffin
indulge in the usual RISC OS Ltd vs Castle sniping and bickering we've all
grown to know and love on these groups.
Is there any subject that can't be turned into an "OS fork war"? I would
suggest the RISC OS scene would be in a better state if people just learned
to drop it, once in a while, but I think everyone else has left the
building long ago.
--
Rik Griffin
VinceH (real address)
Rik Griffin <rik.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Is there any subject that can't be turned into an "OS fork war"?
Yes, and the subject is "OS fork war" - because if it goes off topic
as quickly as any other subject, then that's precisely what won't be
discussed. :-)
--
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://www.riscository.com
http://www.webchange.co.uk
http://www.vinceh.com
Paul Stewart
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On the other hand, ROL could always look at what they have done in the
Select scheme that does not require major rewrites to make them
available for use on RO5. They could then offer this as a Select+
pack for RO5
Regards
--
Paul Stewart - Far Bletchley, Milton Keynes, England.
(msn:sa...@hotmail.com)
Be Bold. Dare To Be Different. Use RISC OS (http://www.riscos.com).
It's blue and from outta town - The A9home
(http://www.advantage6.co.uk/A9hsplash.html).
A9home Compatibility page -
(http://www.phawfaux.co.uk/a9home/compatibility.asp).
John Cartmell
Ste (news) <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
[Snip - OR ...]
> Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet and
> merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than to see
you lot working together with the ROL group.
--
John Cartmell jo...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
John Cartmell
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> I have RISC OS Six on my Risc PC and RISC OS 5.13 on the Iyonix, but I
> can't say there's anything I miss when switching from the RPC to the
> Iyonix.
Perhaps you're only using a sub-section of RO6?
charles
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef4da03ds...@revi11.plus.com>,
> Ste (news) <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> [Snip - OR ...]
> > Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet and
> > merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
> I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
> to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
Coming from the editor of a magazine that is supposed to appeal to all RISC
OS users, that's a pretty biassed remark.
How about re-phrasing it in a more inclusive way?
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
druck
Rubbish. Any RISC OS programmer knows that all major OS APIs are
designed to be extended or replaced. What do you think SpriteExtend
is? Its a module that hooks in to SpriteV to extend the base fetures
of the OS.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
Ste (news)
David Holden <black...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 7-Jun-2007, "Ste (news)" <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > ROL release the alpha channel stuff (SpriteExetend, Paint, etc?) as a
> > separate component which could either be a source release or a paid-for
> > add-on for RISC OS 5.
>
> And how many times has it been said that this CAN'T BE DONE.
Rubbish. It's never been a question of "CAN'T BE DONE", certainly not on a
technical level; it's about whether anyone feels that there is sufficient
commercial justification to do the work.
> The new Paint and Draw depend for their additional features upon many
> other components which are elsewhere in the OS. They can't just be
> 'grafted on' to another OS without also adding all these parts.
So there are some dependencies - I don't doubt it. For that you have a
choice: ditch the feature in the IYONIX version or port the dependencies.
I'm sure there is lots of good stuff there which doesn't need 5000
additional modules and Kernel changes to make it work, like having a toolbar
in Paint, for example.
If the RO4/6 desktop applications are really just a big spagetti mess where
you can't even extract a desktop application with relative ease, I'd be
astounded - that certainly wouldn't say much for the modularisation.
Dave Symes
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
[Snip]
> I hear of people holding off buying an Iyonix until Select is available
> for it. WHY?????
Because for a variety of reasons it is my choice to do so.
As it was your choice to purchase an Iyonix.
Dave S
--
C J Craig
Dave Symes <d...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> [Snip]
> Dave S
Mad. it's brilliant it works 24hrs, 7 days a week etc,
available now, immediate delivery superb after sales
support.
Can not wait for jb's next triple core processor desk top!
Chris
--
C J Craig
Ch...@skipton.demon.co.uk
Iyonix ARM XScale computer Risc OS 5.11
Dave Symes
C J Craig <Ch...@skipton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4eef61...@ukgateway.net>
> Dave Symes <d...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> > In article <4eef596a48inval...@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
> > Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> > [Snip]
> >> I hear of people holding off buying an Iyonix until Select is
> >> available for it. WHY?????
> > Because for a variety of reasons it is my choice to do so.
> > As it was your choice to purchase an Iyonix.
> > Dave S
> Mad. it's brilliant it works 24hrs, 7 days a week etc,
> available now, immediate delivery superb after sales
> support.
> Can not wait for jb's next triple core processor desk top!
> Chris
One would not deny it is a nice machine...
But I would not be so pejorative as to say *your* choice was "Mad" it was
your choice, as it was my choice not to purchase at the present time.
Not Mad, not recalcitrant, just plain and simply my choice.
Dave S
--
John Cartmell
> indulge in the usual RISC OS Ltd vs Castle sniping and bickering we've all
> grown to know and love on these groups.
AFAIK no-one sniped or bickered.
The truth of the matter was put plainly without any acrimony. Wars are stupid
- so is being afraid to say anything. People do seem to have grown up
sufficiently to slough off some of the stupidity.
John Cartmell
Paul Stewart <pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:
> On the other hand, ROL could always look at what they have done in the
> Select scheme that does not require major rewrites to make them
> available for use on RO5. They could then offer this as a Select+
I seems to be the case that what is really worth while is too deeply part of
the core of RO6 - and the rest might be seen as too little. Being an integral
part of the OS is the strength of many of the improvements - but it does have
knock-on effects.
John Cartmell
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef51a...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4eef4da03ds...@revi11.plus.com>,
> > Ste (news) <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> > [Snip - OR ...]
> > > Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet and
> > > merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
> > I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
> > to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
> Coming from the editor of a magazine that is supposed to appeal to all RISC
> OS users, that's a pretty biassed remark.
> How about re-phrasing it in a more inclusive way?
You have to work really hard to find a bias in that. Perhaps you now need to
lie down? ;-)
charles
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef5896...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
> <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4eef51a...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> > <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <4eef4da03ds...@revi11.plus.com>, Ste (news)
> > > <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> > > [Snip - OR ...]
> > > > Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the
> > > > bullet and merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
> > > I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better
> > > than to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
> > Coming from the editor of a magazine that is supposed to appeal to all
> > RISC OS users, that's a pretty biassed remark.
> > How about re-phrasing it in a more inclusive way?
> You have to work really hard to find a bias in that. Perhaps you now need
> to lie down? ;-)
No John, I didn't have to 'work hard' at it. The bias hit me in the face:
"You lot" work with "the ROL group".
How about "all RISC OS users work together"?
Doug Webb
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <c04f56e...@phawfaux.co.uk>,
> Paul Stewart <pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:
>> On the other hand, ROL could always look at what they have done in the
>> Select scheme that does not require major rewrites to make them
>> available for use on RO5. They could then offer this as a Select+
>> pack for RO5.
> I seems to be the case that what is really worth while is too deeply part of
> the core of RO6 - and the rest might be seen as too little. Being an integral
> part of the OS is the strength of many of the improvements - but it does have
> knock-on effects.
I agree with Paul, ROL could do a RO5 plus pack with some of the
changes that don't need interaction perhaps like some of the image
renders and the add nice bits to !Boot like the disable function in
"run and look at", as well as the enhanced network configure stuff.
Also surely the added Fonts don't need anything in RO6.
If things are really that integrated then that is a back ward step but
if it is a case of missing or altered API's then a RO5 Select module
might be one answer.
It does take two to sort things out and what to someone is ROL need
Castle to do this,is to others Castle need ROL to do this.
The easiest thing is for ROL/Castle/ROOL to release common Toolbox and
SharedCLibrary components as a start.
I don't think people are asking for the earth here and perhaps the
addons wouldn't be enough to justify the full £99 but if ROL can do a
single user CD for £49 at a show why can't they do a RO5 Plus pack on
Cd for say £25 as a starter. I also think that no one would be grudge
A9 users getting Flash3 and Select4 first but once this is out of the
way then the Plus pack would be a start to bridge the gap.
You have to start somewhere on the road but if you don't even step off
the pavement or get out the front door then you'll not get anywhere.
Just my 2p worth as I do like Selects features and want them on my
Iyonix.
Doug
--
Using a Iyonix PC and RISC OS 5.13, the thinking persons alternative
operating system to Microsoft Windows.
druck
> I don't think people are asking for the earth here and perhaps the
> addons wouldn't be enough to justify the full £99 but if ROL can do a
> single user CD for £49 at a show why can't they do a RO5 Plus pack on
> Cd for say £25 as a starter. I also think that no one would be grudge
> A9 users getting Flash3 and Select4 first but once this is out of the
> way then the Plus pack would be a start to bridge the gap.
Certainly, I'd be first in the queue.
> You have to start somewhere on the road but if you don't even step off
> the pavement or get out the front door then you'll not get anywhere.
Agreed.
> Just my 2p worth as I do like Selects features and want them on my
> Iyonix.
As would just about Iyonix owners.
Kevin Wells
Rik Griffin <rik.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Would another bitmap editing package do this? e.g Photodesk?
--
Kev Wells http://kevsoft.topcities.com
http://kevsoft.co.uk/
ICQ 238580561
Useless Fact 03 You burn 3.5 calories each time you laugh.
druck
> Would another bitmap editing package do this? e.g Photodesk?
Photodesk could do without too much difficulty, but as I only use it
on the Iyonix, I've been lacking the motivation to support them. Now
if ROL where to go for the Select Plus scheme idea, and provide a
version of !Paint and SpriteExtend for the Iyonix, then things will
happen.
John Cartmell
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef666...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4eef5896...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
> > <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <4eef51a...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> > > <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > In article <4eef4da03ds...@revi11.plus.com>, Ste (news)
> > > > <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> > > > [Snip - OR ...]
> > > > > Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the
> > > > > bullet and merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
> > > > I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better
> > > > than to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
> > > Coming from the editor of a magazine that is supposed to appeal to all
> > > RISC OS users, that's a pretty biassed remark.
> > > How about re-phrasing it in a more inclusive way?
> > You have to work really hard to find a bias in that. Perhaps you now need
> > to lie down? ;-)
> No John, I didn't have to 'work hard' at it. The bias hit me in the face:
> "You lot" work with "the ROL group".
It sounds like someone spending their evening putting their pint next to
someone's elbow on the off-chance they can pretend they have an excuse for a
punch-up. Excuse me whilst I move my elbow well away from your pint.
Steven Pampling
<ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2007 David Holden <black...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 7-Jun-2007, "Ste (news)" <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> >> ROL release the alpha channel stuff (SpriteExetend, Paint, etc?) as a
> >> separate component which could either be a source release or a
> >> paid-for add-on for RISC OS 5.
> > And how many times has it been said that this CAN'T BE DONE.
> > The new Paint and Draw depend for their additional features upon many
> > other components which are elsewhere in the OS. They can't just be
> > 'grafted on' to another OS without also adding all these parts.
> Rubbish. Any RISC OS programmer knows that all major OS APIs are
> designed to be extended or replaced.
With the assumption that the underlying kernel is offering the same hooks
of course.
> What do you think SpriteExtend is?
> Its a module that hooks in to SpriteV to extend the base fetures of the
> OS.
and when the OS author decides to change the hooks that SpriteV uses?
If you have a copy of ROL's latest output check the available hooks. I
suspect they have changed, which is what Dave H was alluding to.
--
Steve Pampling
David Holden
On 8-Jun-2007, Steven Pampling <steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> If you have a copy of ROL's latest output check the available hooks. I
> suspect they have changed, which is what Dave H was alluding to.
Exactly, and people who claim to have an understanding of programming and
RISC OS should appreciate this perfectly well. The new Draw and Paint
integrate with the new image rendering system and this has now become an
integral part of the OS. It can't just be overlayed onto a completely
different OS.
Anyway, since the sources to Draw and Paint are now available from ROOL if
it's as easy as some people claim I assume we can expect them to provide new
versions with all the features of the RO6 versions sometime soon.
David Holden
On 7-Jun-2007, pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk (Paul Stewart) wrote:
> On the other hand, ROL could always look at what they have done in the
> Select scheme that does not require major rewrites to make them
> available for use on RO5. They could then offer this as a Select+
> pack for RO5
And what makes you think we haven't looked at this option? This was one of
the reasons for producing the 'test' version that many people will have seen
running on an Iyonix. The problem is that some things *could* be made to
work reliably, but the only ones that can without intimate knowledge of the
Iyonix OS and/or source code access are fairly trivial, so it really
wouldn't be a worthwhile exercise.
Chris Hughes
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef5896...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <4eef51a...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
>> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <4eef4da03ds...@revi11.plus.com>,
>>> Ste (news) <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
>>> [Snip - OR ...]
>>>> Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet and
>>>> merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
>>> I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
>>> to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
>> Coming from the editor of a magazine that is supposed to appeal to all RISC
>> OS users, that's a pretty biassed remark.
>> How about re-phrasing it in a more inclusive way?
> You have to work really hard to find a bias in that. Perhaps you now need to
> lie down? ;-)
Nope, you might not have intended it as a dig/bias, but it appears to
be (as you put in one of your own postings unless I see anything to
the contray, I will consider it as an attack or insult).
You said: "I'd" (as in you John) like nothing better than to see "you
lot" (Castle/Iyonix Lovers and/or certain individuals) working
together with the "ROL group".
It comes across as a bias.
Could have been worded better. 5 out of 10 for effect. :-)
--
Chris Hughes
charles
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef68ab...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > No John, I didn't have to 'work hard' at it. The bias hit me in the
> > face: "You lot" work with "the ROL group".
> It sounds like someone spending their evening putting their pint next to
> someone's elbow on the off-chance they can pretend they have an excuse
> for a punch-up. Excuse me whilst I move my elbow well away from your pint.
Not having had any alcohol for over a week, I object to that remark.
How to win friends and influence people ;-(
My subscription to Qercus is due for renewal. Guess what? I won't be
renewing.
Rob Kendrick
> It can't just be overlayed onto a completely different OS.
Actually, they can, as druck and Steve said. RISC OS is very modular,
and almost any of its APIs can be overridden and replaced at runtime.
Sure, it's not just a "recompile !Paint for the Iyonix" job, it does
require more effort - but that effort should be possible and not that
complex. This is unless one or more of the following is true:
1) whoever did the work on ROL's RISC OS can't design for
toffee,
2) it has been deliberately nobbled to not be possible.
One could, for example, extract ROL's sprite code wholesale and wrap it
up in a SpriteExtend-like module, as per druck's suggestion.
B.