PzC Gold Leader Mods

[Jeff Conner]

I agree. They all look good, but the background should be the background and not draw attention away from the subject.

Just my two cents worth.

[Strela]

The most important thing is what does it look like with the reverse data view. That is what most of the backgrounds screw up unfortunately. If too light then the white text is hard to read etc.

David

[The_General]

The second column look the best for me although I would prefer that red army guards units have a bit more reddish background.

[Juan Manuel]

I like the third column. Thnaks for your work!

[Plain Ian]

Initially it was middle column for me......but the last column does grow on you. That extra background detail now visible does draw your eye to it. So I'd be happy with 2 or 3.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

3 as long as the back side is good.

[Green]

Thanks, guys. That has given me a lot to think about.

I tried using the #3 approach with Normandy and it really did not work. The background was just too prominent and made the foreground hard to distinguish in some cases. So I tried something mid-way between #2 and #3 which works better. But given the diversity of opinions, Chad's suggestion of providing alternatives may be the best approach. It had never occurred to me but no doubt this is because it means more work. Thanks Chad.

In terms of the readability of data, here is a sample using #1, #2 and the new #3. As you can see, #1 is the best, as you would expect. All seem readable but since I will use many different background images in different games, not all will necessarily produce the same results.





Also the clarity of the text in the above example is because I am using the Windows option to override high DPI scaling behaviour. If I remove this setting the text is less clear as in the examples below. In the first column are samples of #3, including a Rumanian unit at the bottom. The second column shows the same units but with the stock backgrounds. This provides a comparison which suggests my #3 versions are not as readable as the stock versions. But I believe my version #1 would be at least as good as the stock versions and possibly better in some cases.



So it is back to the drawing board. I will see what I can come up with.

[Green]

Kursk '43 Revised Updated Update!

There are probably more changes to come but here is where I am at.



I have gone with three versions. This may be overkill but they all look quite different when installed and there are good reasons for people to have different preferences.

Not everyone will have Kursk, but if you have, installing and comparing these will give you a better feel for the strengths and weaknesses of each versions. My screenshots do not tell the full story. I recommend using JSGME if you intend to do comparisons.

The Russian Guards now have more red, as The_General suggested. But as I said before, to some extent the colour washes out as the sharpness increases.

I will carry on applying this approach to other titles but any comments are appreciated.

Kursk '43 Dim
Kursk '43 Medium
Kursk '43 Sharp

[The_General]

I checked all three versions and Medium looks the best for me.
Thanks.

[Compass Rose]

Thanks John for offering 3 versions so the guys can use their favorite.

After loading up all 3 versions in JSGME, and looking at them in-game, number 1 option is still my favorite.

For me, you could possible get away with using number 2 and number 3 on most infantry portraits and most vehicles however, the primary artillery images get easily lost when using those two backgrounds.

So that I why I still like option one the best.



I also didn't realize that you were using the Windows option to override high DPI scaling; boy does that make a huge difference in being able to read the text clearly.


Can't wait to see your new work in the non-eastern titles  


Thanks.