| |
Monte Carlos
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 351 |
Event id #2686 : Copyfault 30 bytes font creation competition
Same rulez apply as for the recent 128b font competition, only max file size is limited to 32 bytes.
There's no deadline, only byte limit.
The place also for out of compo entries after the deadline ;) |
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11107 |
srsly? |
| |
Monte Carlos
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 351 |
We have already one entry.where there is one there may be two or three ;)
People are so keen about making the code shrtr and shrtr,i believe there will be coming at least 5 entries.
The 128b limit was just too forgiveable as seen by the huge amount of charsets in the prev compo.
Besides that it was also a friendly meant poke on copyfaults latest ooc entries. |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3132 |
at least try to decide if it's 30 or 32 bytes. |
| |
Monte Carlos
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 351 |
Sorry 'bout that: As we all think in binary numbers: %00010000 is the limit. |
| |
Copyfault
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 466 |
WHAT??? The name of this Compo is... confusing at least. But thanks for this kind of dedication ;)
I'm just not too sure a lot of people will take part in it, now that the 128b compo has just ended.
What's more, Mahoney's comment on my last ooc entry to the 128b font compo already reveals a really effective approach that will more or less already set the lower limit - plus it will move the compo heavily into another direction I'd rather call "directory character based code for font creation" compo.
So IF you really want to do it, I'd suggest to define the rules a little more precise (e.g. usage of filenames yes/no, usage of directory yes/no, limit the no.of bytes of the directiory used for code, deadline of some kind, e.g. one week after the first 16byte-entry arrives, and -really important-: get that load-adress-rule precise;)=)).
*me wanders of with a happy smile :)* |
| |
Count Zero
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 1821 |
*ME* starts to puke over the many many bad results the last compo has already created. IMHO there is no need to to take more approaches on shorter and worse solutions which will just require a higher puke accuracy later on.
Do not replace puking by voting here :) |
| |
Copyfault
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 466 |
@C0: guess the focus is slightly different here, though the 128b font Compo already *was* a sizecoding compo more or less. I think such a compo naturally (read: always) leads to this "race for the most extreme release" - which means "the lowest number of bytes needed no matter what"!
I *do* know that most fonts created that way look "special" (to get it positive somehow), but then again all of those are still readable. After all, it's matter of taste if a font is found to be good-looking or not.
Thanks in any case for your frank&honest opinion - I can deal with it;) |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
just: no. |
| |
Monte Carlos
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 351 |
I thought about it. I see also the many entries with good results from the 128b compo, not just the bad ones. however, i admit that a 32b compo would probably stretch the limit too hard in that one can expect the resulting fonts would look very technical and not very artistic.
People have invested much energy in the last compo and i can understand if the energy is just missing to start over only 4 days after, again.
I just delete that event again and rise it later on.
Sorry for it. |
