Not a bug.

Too bad. Is there a way to get back the old paint icon system?

Nope, the icon system was removed. They're not update-resistant and I'm not willing (or currently able) to maintain them.

what does 'not update-resistant' mean? The circles look like crap, and new paints don't come out that often.

Originally posted by byteframe:

what does 'not update-resistant' mean? The circles look like crap, and new paints don't come out that often.

It means that I don't have to maintain a old, badly implemented system that requires a fair bit of manual intervention to keep updated.

The dots have better visibility for darker paints (After Eight was practically invisible), use less resources and don't require an additional HTTP request per paint type.

That's less server overhead, less client overhead, code that works cross-game, and is always updated for anyone using derivative code when I release 2.7. (No need to host a bunch of images either)

Mhhhhh.... Maybe you can use a "base" (white?) color splash and add the color with a php script?
(BTW: The Item preview still uses the old paint icon Example[tf2b.com])

Originally posted by Biological hazard GMD:

Mhhhhh.... Maybe you can use a "base" (white?) color splash and add the color with a php script?
(BTW: The Item preview still uses the old paint icon Example[tf2b.com])

That would be even more inefficient, and would introduce a dependancy on GD/ImageMagick. It's just not worth it for what is essentially just a cosmetic preference.

No metal counters, no paint splotches, and now the background color/brightness is the same for uncraftable/untradeable items. Is TF2B is devolving into some black/white former shell of itself for the sake of efficency?

I'm all for reducing server load, but who cares about client JS load? Not only are the CPU eating animations (now forced) negating any cycles we might have saved, but we all live in a world with browsers that already eat hundreds of megabytes of memory and hit the cpu fairly hard.

I use TF2B because it is the best at displaying my gorgeous backpack. It doesn't seem like that'll be the case for long, and the trading sites we all use can display backpacks as well.

That being said, there are worse problems in the world. Thank you for all your work.

Originally posted by byteframe:

No metal counters, no paint splotches, and now the background color/brightness is the same for uncraftable/untradeable items. Is TF2B is devolving into some black/white former shell of itself for the sake of efficency?

I'm all for reducing server load, but who cares about client JS load? Not only are the CPU eating animations (now forced) negating any cycles we might have saved, but we all live in a world with browsers that already eat hundreds of megabytes of memory and hit the cpu fairly hard.

I use TF2B because it is the best at displaying my gorgeous backpack. It doesn't seem like that'll be the case for long, and the trading sites we all use can display backpacks as well.

I've raised the uncraftable tint to differentiate them, the value for non tradables was raised as the old one was a kick in the teeth.

As far as your second paragraph goes, the paint dot change has nothing to do with JS load; rather it impacts memory usage and HTTP request overhead. The latter of the two being the most significant as it impacts both client and server.

On the animations, any modern browser will have a working GPU acceleration implementation than renders such gloss trivially, especially as the animations are provided via CSS rather than crufty JS frameworks.

If you have constructive criticism of the paint dots I'd love to hear it. (Really) I've pushed numerous tweaks to their design since they were originally implemented; if there is a specific component of the design that is a problem I can look into finding a solution, but if all you're going to do is tell me they "suck" with no reasoning other than "I liked the splats better", then there is absolutely zero reason for me to pay attention or care about your opinion.