Print

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

[King Mir]

The thing is, vector images don't work too well at low resolution anyway; it's easier to make multiple tilesets at different sizes then to intelligently encode how a tileset should scale. When the distance between points approaches single pixels, vector images don't scale well either, unless the vector image smartly specifies which forms take precedence, and which details can be omitted. Otherwise some parts look thicker than they should, and others look thiner, or taller and shorter.

What would make more sense to do is to specify multiple tilesets for different zoom levels.

[Silverionmox]

Vector lines do remain sharp at any size. Making vectors bigger is never a problem; making them smaller might be (obviously you design them at a small size, that will only enhance their iconic quality); but then again, at the sizes when that becomes a problem you'll need a separate tileset to make any sense at all from it, with vectors or pixels alike. So that's not an argument to claim vectors are worse.

[GreatWyrmGold]

If you have a 1-pixel vector at normal size, what happens when you zoom?

[therahedwig]

It'll become whatever shape it is.

You have no clue how vector-graphics actually work do you?

Vector graphics use instead of pixels, mathematical descriptions of lines and curves to create a shape. Then the program that interprets the vectors will translate the shape at whatever size it is to pixels. Therefore, a vector circle will always be visibly a circle whether it's 8x8 or 3600x3600 pixels. Needles to say, vector graphics are used a lot in logo and poster design.

Ofcourse, proper design rules would tell you to design an image that is recognisable at 8x8, but the same can be said for using a 128x128 tileset and then zooming out when required.
There are actual advantages of pixels above vector graphics, but considering how simple Dwarf Fortress' graphics are, those advantages are kinda void...(And could probably be compensated for if you actually had a decent artist making the graphics)

Incase you're interested in vector graphics, try out this program: http://inkscape.org/

[GreatWyrmGold]

Other people mentioned turning things like the current tilesets into vector-based graphics. How well would this work?

[therahedwig]

Fairly well.

They'd have to be traced by hand, but that little bit of extra effort will turn into an image that works at all resolutions. (And making new vector graphics from scratch will probably take the same amount of time as tracing)

[Silverionmox]

An advantage of vector-based graphics would be that it's easier to make large amounts of pictures derived from a base picture, eg. dwarves with different tools or different pieces of clothing. Conceivably the computer could replace clothing and tools in a base picture to generate dwarves with an appropriate appearance on demand. Changing the color of a particular element (eg. a piece of clothing) would be trivial, no matter how convoluted or split up the shape.

It's probably technically possible to have the computer compose pictures of forgotten beasts, based on the raw description, when we supply the body parts (probably not suited for map icons though, but rather for descriptions).

[Teehee]

Hi. Just want to pipe in and say that there are more than just one person wanting for this to happen.

I'm making a new tileset, at 22x22 pixels, and was just thinking about this the other day. I'm aiming for it to be simple and very symbolic instead of the more graphic popular sets. Vectors would work amazingly well with the stuff I'm making, and I was just thinking about this problem with zooming the tiles the other day.

And yes, I use zoom. Constantly. A lot. To get different sized perspectives of fortress designs, obviously. For me, having the option of using a vector tileset would be a godsend.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Fairly well.

They'd have to be traced by hand, but that little bit of extra effort will turn into an image that works at all resolutions. (And making new vector graphics from scratch will probably take the same amount of time as tracing)

So, instead of modifying a few pixels in a JPEG or some such, a tileset maker would need to trace their 12x16 or whatever designs, then vectorfy them?

An advantage of vector-based graphics would be that it's easier to make large amounts of pictures derived from a base picture, eg. dwarves with different tools or different pieces of clothing. Conceivably the computer could replace clothing and tools in a base picture to generate dwarves with an appropriate appearance on demand. Changing the color of a particular element (eg. a piece of clothing) would be trivial, no matter how convoluted or split up the shape.

It's probably technically possible to have the computer compose pictures of forgotten beasts, based on the raw description, when we supply the body parts (probably not suited for map icons though, but rather for descriptions).

The part about dwarven graphics requires graphics, which Toady has not enabled by default. I'm willing to bet that Toady's more interested in making vanilla, ASCII DF great than adding some probably-lengthy code to make a few pixels for graphics users.
And while procedurally generated FB graphics might be cool... well, it's probably harder than you think, and don't you remember how freaky they can be?

[King Mir]

Vector lines do remain sharp at any size. Making vectors bigger is never a problem; making them smaller might be (obviously you design them at a small size, that will only enhance their iconic quality); but then again, at the sizes when that becomes a problem you'll need a separate tileset to make any sense at all from it, with vectors or pixels alike. So that's not an argument to claim vectors are worse.

It's an argument for not adding vectors, because that size is easily hit by typical tilesizes. A 16 by 16 vector image of a table will scale about as poorly as a 16 by 16 bitmap of a table.

Also, better scaling, whether via multiple tilesets at different zoom levels, or by vector tilesets seems like a lower priority to better graphics support, that depends on the tileset less. Toady and Baughn should first make more things act like creatures, and not use the tileset.

[G-Flex]

"A 16 by 16 vector image of a table" is nonsense. Vector images are not defined in terms of pixels. That being said, vector images are displayed rather poorly at those resolutions, especially if you want any sort of detail.

[GreatWyrmGold]

"A 16 by 16 vector image of a table" is nonsense. Vector images are not defined in terms of pixels. That being said, vector images are displayed rather poorly at those resolutions, especially if you want any sort of detail.

I believe he meant something like "A vector image defined from a 16*16 image."

[therahedwig]

So, instead of modifying a few pixels in a JPEG or some such, a tileset maker would need to trace their 12x16 or whatever designs, then vectorfy them?

Actually, what I meant was that they are made in vector by hand, as opposed to the solution of using an automatic vectoriser.

Vector lines do remain sharp at any size. Making vectors bigger is never a problem; making them smaller might be (obviously you design them at a small size, that will only enhance their iconic quality); but then again, at the sizes when that becomes a problem you'll need a separate tileset to make any sense at all from it, with vectors or pixels alike. So that's not an argument to claim vectors are worse.

It's an argument for not adding vectors, because that size is easily hit by typical tilesizes. A 16 by 16 vector image of a table will scale about as poorly as a 16 by 16 bitmap of a table.

So again, it depends on the skill of the skill of the artist how a picture will look.
Here, let me show you some tiles I'm making for the HD version of stonesense.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Stonesense starts off at the magnification at the right.(The 32x32 tiles)
On the left it the maximum magnification that this will look right at. (They're 128x128)
As you can see, there's certain tiles which look just as right at the magnification on the right as on the left. (Some don't, but hey, that's why I'm testing them). What I'm trying to say here is that a good artist can spread out detail in such a way that the image will still be recognisable at small sizes.

Also, better scaling, whether via multiple tilesets at different zoom levels, or by vector tilesets seems like a lower priority to better graphics support, that depends on the tileset less. Toady and Baughn should first make more things act like creatures, and not use the tileset.

True, I'm personally more waiting for Baughn's pipedream where he would all you to go beyond the basic tileset for terrain. That would clean up all graphics tilesets so incredibly much.

I'm just refuting the arguments because I think it's unfair on poor vector to get all this bullshit thrown at it's head just because it's not commonly used in tiled-games and can't be made in MS paint. It's a decent image-technology, how good it'll look just mostly lies with the artist.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'll continue pointing out that it requires more skill and understanding to make. If the game doesn't vectorize the image tilesets, you need to understand vectors to understand how to make a tileset, which will drive away (some) tileset makers, which will drive away (some) tileset users. Is this worth reducing DF's fanbase?

On the other hand, if vector graphics were only an option, or if the game could vectorize the tilesets, that would be a good compromise.

[Teehee]

I'll continue pointing out that it requires more skill and understanding to make. If the game doesn't vectorize the image tilesets, you need to understand vectors to understand how to make a tileset.

Umm. You do realize, that you also need to know how pixel graphics work to make pixel graphics? And you need to know how a coffee machine works to make coffee, etc.

Vectors are in no essential way more or less complex than pixel art. You just are more used to dealing with pixels.