Fix(Glows): Classic WoW Glow renders as bare ants with no outer halo - #1976
Open
dfrisone wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Fix(Glows): Classic WoW Glow renders as bare ants with no outer halo#1976dfrisone wants to merge 1 commit into
dfrisone wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Classic WoW Glow's style entry is texture-based (IconAlertAnts), unlike the GCD and Modern WoW Glow atlas entries, which already get a second ants layer from StartFlipBookGlow's atlas-only block. With no equivalent second layer, a direct Classic pick drew ants alone and lost the outline that makes it read as Blizzard's proc glow. The soft halo StartEngineGlow's Action Button Glow stand-in already requests for this same texture is now requested by the two direct call sites as well -- Action Bars, and the Cooldown Manager path that both Buff Glow and proc glow route through -- tinted to the user's chosen colour. It stays keyed on the call rather than the shared style entry, so RestrictionSafeStyle's Pixel remap is untouched: that is a plain fallback for a driver-based style under 12.1 restrictions, not something presented to the user as Classic WoW Glow.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Bug: reported via Svart; fix authored by Svart (svart2521) and re-submitted here on his behalf while his GitHub account is suspended.
Issue: picking Classic WoW Glow did not look like Blizzard's proc glow. It drew the marching ants but none of the surrounding glow, so it read as a thin outline crawling around the icon rather than the effect it is named after.
Root cause: Classic WoW Glow's style entry is texture-based (IconAlertAnts), where the GCD and Modern WoW Glow entries are atlas-based. StartFlipBookGlow has an atlas-only block that draws a second ants layer, so the atlas styles get their outline for free and the texture style gets nothing. The soft halo that fills that gap already existed but was requested only by StartEngineGlow's Action Button Glow substitution, which uses the same texture; the two direct Classic picks never asked for it.
Fix: the direct call sites now request the same halo, tinted to the user's chosen colour -- Action Bars, and the Cooldown Manager path that Buff Glow and proc glow both route through. It stays keyed on the call rather than the shared style entry, so RestrictionSafeStyle's Pixel remap is deliberately left bare: that path is a plain fallback for a driver-based style under 12.1 restrictions, not something presented to the user as Classic WoW Glow.
One change from the original submission was left out. It also retimed ANTS_FRAME_TIME from 0.017 to 0.04, described as matching Blizzard's real cadence. Blizzard animates this 22-frame sheet through TextureUtil.AnimateTexCoords with a 0.01 throttle, which advances floor(accumulated / 0.01) frames per tick and works out to roughly 60 cells per second at 60fps, rising with framerate. The existing 0.017 is that same rate normalised, which is what the comment above it already says; 0.04 would be about 2.4x slower than the effect it is meant to match. Happy to revisit if it looks wrong in game, but it did not seem right to slow it on that basis.