Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Baboonanza" data-source="post: 678290" data-attributes="member: 101901">Re: AW: Skinning contest: One month to goWell, clearly I'm wrong. It does work like that <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> They must be doing something clever behind the scenes.I can see the problem with implementing that sort of effect without code. You could do it, but it would be quite cumbersome and lose randomness. I still think the best solution would be adding a particle effect to the SkinEngine, otherwise everyone is going to have to roll their own solution and ship plugins with their skins. It would also be much more efficient from a rendering perspective.The root of the problem is that when you create a WPF application you have control over both the code and the XAML. When skinning MP2 you only control the XAML, so some things are going to be more difficult to accomplish.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Baboonanza, post: 678290, member: 101901"] [b]Re: AW: Skinning contest: One month to go[/b] Well, clearly I'm wrong. It [I]does[/I] work like that :) They must be doing something clever behind the scenes. I can see the problem with implementing that sort of effect without code. You could do it, but it would be quite cumbersome and lose randomness. I still think the best solution would be adding a particle effect to the SkinEngine, otherwise everyone is going to have to roll their own solution and ship plugins with their skins. It would also be much more efficient from a rendering perspective. The root of the problem is that when you create a WPF application you have control over both the code [I]and[/I] the XAML. When skinning MP2 you only control the XAML, so some things are going to be more difficult to accomplish. [/QUOTE]

Verification