Comment by thecr0w
2 days ago
Oh you're right. I read it a bit too quickly this morning and thought it had just done that initially to compare planet placement. Too bad.
2 days ago
Oh you're right. I read it a bit too quickly this morning and thought it had just done that initially to compare planet placement. Too bad.
The index_tiled.html version correctly positions the original assets, and to me looks as close as you can get to the screenshot while using the original assets (except for the red text).
The version with the screenshot as a background is where it was asked to create an exact match for screenshot that had been scaled/compressed, which isn't really possible any other way. The article acknowledges this one as cheating.
Better I think would've been to retake the screenshot without the scaling/compression, to see if it can create a site that is both an exact match and using the original assets.
If you look at the diff you'll see that all the planets are off too. So the OP mentioned the starfield but that doesn't explain the planets