Using an opaque graphic, with the blendlevel set to 100 works fine, or so it seems.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Richmond <richmondmathew...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/02/15 10:37, BNig wrote: > >> Hi Marty, >> >> would it help if the transparent parts where just a little >> non-transparent? >> hardly noticeble >> >> You would set all 0 to 1 in alphaData, the rest is unchanged. >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> on mouseUp >> put the alphaData of image 1 into tAlpha >> put numToByte(0) into tNull >> put numToByte(1) into tOne >> repeat for each byte anAlpha in tAlpha >> if anAlpha = tNull then >> put tOne after tCollect >> else >> put anAlpha after tCollect >> end if >> end repeat >> set the alphaData of image 1 to tCollect >> end mouseUp >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> this is fairly fast, works also in 7.x.x >> >> Once you change 0 to 1 in alphaData the translucent parts of the png >> receive >> mouseClicks etc. You must be aware of that. >> >> Kind regards >> Bernd >> >> >> > This idea seems very good indeed: the fact that the areas set at 1 in > alphaData will recieve > mouseClicks is no worse than my suggestion about layering with an opaque > graphic, but those > transparent areas will still appear transparent to the end-user, while > with my suggestion > they would have ended up as white. > > Richmond. > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
