Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Putnam]

Yeah, it'd still be tiles. It's about better zooming, mostly.

[k33n]

I barely understand what vector-based graphics are, but I'd bet Urists to unicorns that it's easier to modify images like the current graphics use than vector-based graphics, which would solve a rare and specific problem and cause other issues...not to mention that any kind of graphics would be pretty darn hard to mod with vectors...

Vectors are actually very simple and probably have less information then rasters. It would be exactly the same as editing pixel based imagery if not easier and provide better more readable results.

I can open Paint and fiddle with a few pixels to make, say, dwarves into frown faces or make diagonal walls. I'm betting that vector graphics would require a bit more understanding than pixel graphics...

Nope. Way less mouse clicking involved in making the vector graphics. I think there are c headers for using vectors also, so I should not be difficult to do.

@starver your argument makes no sense based on vector graphics. Vector graphics would still be constrained to a grid. You are not arguing for vector graphics, rather a complete rewrite of the game.

[Bloax]

It'd be fun if there was a "Compare size" menu when (l)ooking at something, though.
Defaulting to comparing the creature to a dwarf. (On the left)
With -/+ zooming in/out of the scene. Though a dragon would still be absolutely enormous.

But it'd be fun, but there should probably be text on the top specifying the actual sizes of the two creatures.
So imagine a "Dwarf: 60000" around the top-left corner, and a "Dragon: 25000000" around the top-right corner.
And a normal-sized dwarf head on the left beside an absolutely enormous D on the right, which can be observed in its full, enormous-ness glory if you hold the "-" key for a couple of seconds.

That would be fun, yes it would.

As for vector graphics, if we're to speak of it in their simplest form, then they're practically just lines instead of individual pixels/squares. Like we see here on a Vectrex from 1982
And because they're lines, we can look closer at them - and they'll scale accordingly. Because lines go from somewhere to somewhere, and thus we know how it'd look if we were closer.
With individual squares, you have to scale every square up. Because you only have information about every individual square, and squares are still squares if you take a closer look at them.

But yes, Dorf Fortress seems like a good candidate for vector graphics. Hell, maybe even tilesets, if someone has the patience/manpower.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Interesting, yes.
And it would also mean that we wouldn't need multi-tile creatures anymore, since we can just scale dragons to their true size.

I don't follow.

From my reading (and without re-reviewing the pre-necro parts of the thread in working out the latest thought developments), if a dragon was a D next to a c kitten, no longer constrained to a Curses-esque character grid.

...How would that work AT ALL with no multitile creatures?

It's no longer tiles.
I'm probably misremembering the earlier bits of the thread (should go back and read it), but that's the conclusion I come to from (re-interpreting?) the subject "Vector based font".

No.
It's the font that's vector based, by this suggestion.
Look at a very-zoomed-in 6-pt-font D some time. Compare it to that D you had earlier. Notice how that bigger D is a lot smoother? That's what vector-based graphics offers.
As to the idea of tiles going bye-bye...whoa. Not happening. DF is impossible enough as it is.

Wagons as creatures is dead-end; while future multi-tile creatures will be different, they'll still be, you know, multiple tiles.

That's much as I was saying (the dead-end part).  The latter is indeed a valid tautology, but dependent on them happening.

You seemed to be suggesting that "wagons=multitile creatures is ending" means that multitile creatures would be ending. Please excuse my misunderstanding.
That goes for the rest of the misunderstandings, too.

I barely understand what vector-based graphics are, but I'd bet Urists to unicorns that it's easier to modify images like the current graphics use than vector-based graphics, which would solve a rare and specific problem and cause other issues...not to mention that any kind of graphics would be pretty darn hard to mod with vectors...

Vectors are actually very simple and probably have less information then rasters. It would be exactly the same as editing pixel based imagery if not easier and provide better more readable results.

Speaking as someone who barely knows what vector graphics are, I doubt it.
If I want to fiddle with a tileset a bit, I can open it up in Paint and fiddle with a few individual pixels. It doesn't require much prior experience with modifying tilesets, just with modifying images.
With vector graphics, that changes. Most people who make tilesets to make tilesets will learn the new methods, but some won't, and most people who make tilesets for fun will move on to other modding things that don't require you to learn entirely new skills.

I can open Paint and fiddle with a few pixels to make, say, dwarves into frown faces or make diagonal walls. I'm betting that vector graphics would require a bit more understanding than pixel graphics...

Nope. Way less mouse clicking involved in making the vector graphics. I think there are c headers for using vectors also, so I should not be difficult to do.

Less mouse-clicking? I believe you. DF has less mouse-clicking than TF2; which is a simpler game?

[Putnam]

GreatWyrmGold, look upon what you just wrote. You're saying that you're not believing somebody with experience because it disagrees with your assumptions.

[GreatWyrmGold]

No one with experience has bothered to explain how modifying vector graphics would be easier for someone who doesn't have any clue what they're doing, or how it works, period. If you want to change that, explain away. Otherwise, step back until someone's tried.

[Putnam]

How about you try it yourself?

[Vherid]

A vector is not going to be easier to work with over simple small pixel art.

[GreatWyrmGold]

How about you try it yourself?

I'm...well, I've figured out how to make a picture. Now how do I make a halfway decent tileset?

A vector is not going to be easier to work with over simple small pixel art.

Glad someone agrees...

[Starver]

@starver your argument makes no sense based on vector graphics. Vector graphics would still be constrained to a grid. You are not arguing for vector graphics, rather a complete rewrite of the game.

[Somebody else who didn't read what I wrote properly]/[Another example of my explanatory skills obviously being insufficient]*, because it wasn't my idea, not my argument and I was actually quoting (with agreement) someone who said that it'd be a complete rewrite of the game.

Although I want to make a (qualified) refutation to what you just said.  If it's arbitrarily-sized vector graphics or rasterised  character graphics, you could utterly ignore the concept of a grid.  Including (especially in the former case, but even in the latter with decent anti-aliasing) the 1x1-pixel grid resolution.

Not (I say again) that I am saying we re-write the display engine to allow this.  Or the nature of the game so that the underlying game data must necessarily be de-gridded.  (The most I'd argue for is apply a pseudo 1-point-perspective adjustment to Z-layers lower than the visible slice, perhaps along with fading, to give a 3D-from-top-down view, even while retaining the current regular grid/framework... so like GTA's 1 & 2, but sticking to the current default (or 3rd party) tilesets still.


^{*Delete as inapplicable}

[Helari]

No one with experience has bothered to explain how modifying vector graphics would be easier for someone who doesn't have any clue what they're doing, or how it works, period. If you want to change that, explain away. Otherwise, step back until someone's tried.

ok spergings over

you dont seem to know about the subject and you are arguing with nothing to back your talk up, just assuming that you SURELY know the best

[Silverionmox]

How about you try it yourself?

I'm...well, I've figured out how to make a picture. Now how do I make a halfway decent tileset?

Like anyone who makes tilesets starts: by tinkering with the default one.

[GreatWyrmGold]

How about you try it yourself?

I'm...well, I've figured out how to make a picture. Now how do I make a halfway decent tileset?

Like anyone who makes tilesets starts: by tinkering with the default one.

Well, judging by intuition and someone's testimony:

A vector is not going to be easier to work with over simple small pixel art.

I think it's fair to say that a vector tileset is going to be a LOT harder to make than a pixel one.

[Silverionmox]

You're just not familiar with vector graphics, while you are with pixel graphics. That's ok, but it's not a reason to doubt their inherent qualities.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Here's an inherent quality: A few clicks by just about anyone can make a pixel tileset. You need to understand vector graphics to make vetor tilesets.