As a moderator i think the posts should stay, are very clarifying in many ways
Opposite direction?? So now they are mirror imaged too? not just in wrong order? Cos if they were just in the wrong order they would still move in the same direction? You are really losing me now.
In one of the tests i was doing with
@Danxx444 i took the tex_busy from 2.17 and "ported" it to 4.84 (cropping the original frames that are 29x25, increasing his size to 32x32, joining them together to match with the sizes used in tex_busy_251), and build a rco with it
As far i remember
@Danxx444 made videos of that test and some others, and uploaded them to youtube, i remember to be watching the 2 waterdrop animation styles and the waves was moving in opposite direction
I tryed to explain it a couple of times along this talk about that concept that "the animation moves in opposite direction when played", but nobody said me "hey, stop there and explain that again, i dont get what you mean"
Anyway., there is no need to see the animation in movement... just compare tex_busy217 with tex_busy250 and you can figure a bit how it moves
No idea what you are talking about, your last post was #330, I guess you mean #300 or something, and yes you are wrong in that post too, To counter that I posted pictures of the actual images and said LOOK AT THEM!
I meant post
#300, im reading again what i wrote in it and i dont retire any word of what i said, post #300 is right , but at this point is obvious you and aldo dont understand what i was trying to explain in it (im not saying who is the culprit of that misunderstands, maybe it was me for not finding a better way to explain it, or maybe was you for not keeping more attention and interest to what i was saying)
The proof are this images:
tex_busy217.gim (left)
tex_busy251.gim (right)
If you add a black background behind tex_busy251 and compare them they looks like this
Now please write a description of the changes that happened to the frame order, im seriouslly, you are a native english speaker, it seems the word "inverted" caused you some confusion, but i repeated the same thing tenths of times along the talk, actually the sentences you quoted me when i was insisting so much in it are a proof that i was trying to make you focus your attention at this inversion of the frames order
Im going to rewrite it for a last time anyway, i dont have any interest in continuing with this discussion
In the first version of the waterdrop animation (2.17) the frames was following an order. And in firmware 2.50 sony INVERTED that order
I cant find a better way to rewrite that, serioslly, are inverted
in relationship with the other version
You could say the same in opposite direction, if we consider the good one is the modern then we can say the old one have the frames order inverted
In my last post i was even trying to use the word "flipped" as an alternative word instead of "inverted" just incase it could help you to understand what i was trying to say, thats a bit my desperation trying to rewrite the same explanation with different words many times
Anyway, im reading all my posts again and i dont see any sentence where i said that the order they was using in the first version was "the good one"
I was trying to meassuring my words in all the posts i wrote when i was talking about that inversion, because i was not trying to influence you into thinking that the modern one was the good one... mostly because i was not sure which one is the good one
My only intention was to show you what i meant with the word inverted and from that point you could make your own deductions or speculations why sony did that inversion
That is just not true unless your eye sight does not work. Like I have said tonnes of times, this is not a subtle difference. All you need to do is look at the frames side by side once for 10 seconds it's super obvious the frames are in the correct order.
The differences are subtle
IF you do the test i was doing in post
#321, where i was overlapping tex_busy on top of tex_busy_shadow
That tests from my post #321 took me some time, i was hoping that comparison overlapping them was going to be a lot more clarifying, but it was not :/
When i completed them (few minutes before posting them) i was spending some minutes looking at them and honestly i was not able to identify which one was the "the good one"
So i returned back reviewing the previous posts trying to see which kind of comparison you was doing that made you so confident of being right... to be honest some of the images you posted (and the detailed info about what you was doing in every specific test) was a bit confusing
I had to do that same comparison you was doing by myself, where you was placing tex_busy and tex_busy_shadow next to each other (not overlapped), but i did it wth all frames because some of the frames are specially sensitive to that inversion (frames around position 8 and 22... later i realized that the image you was trying to show me was frame 7 or so)
Is this image from my post
#324, is the proof that the frame order of tex_busy and tex_busy_shadow matches in firmware 2.50 and 2.51 are fine
Since that post #324 we agree, you was right into saying that the frames order in the modern version of the animation are fine
But i was not trying to play that game making my bet about which one was right... honestly i was not sure and i was trying to cover my back by not giving my oppinion
If someone is still interested in understanding what i meant with the term "inverted" download this files and compare tex_busy217.png with tex_busy251-280.png
I dont want to continue the talk but just for curiosity sake
DOWNLOAD --->
https://workupload.com/file/eJS6JCSZHJS
A little complicated, but it's part of the game. But the right thing to do is to avoid any misunderstanding, because it wouldn't be nice to see two of the great modders and members in this forum get upset with each other. But I know that's not going to happen.
