Print

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

[Death Dragon]

Not really related to the tileset, but now that you guys have a direct line to the Toad about graphical changes to the game, do you think it would be feasible at all to make movement animations more fluid? So that instead of teleporting from tile to tile, the sprites would actually slide along the path?
Here's an example gif of how it looks in KeeperRL:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/467795961406816276/531687892381335552/Peek_2019-01-07_15-15.gif
I guess maybe this belongs more in the FotF.

I noticed these stairs. It made me wonder, would it be possible to automatically mirror these graphics when there is a down stair on the left of an up stair?

[Meph]

Oh, I like that gif. That would be super cool. I can bring it up, but animations right now are mostly off the table. Too much spriting involved, except for simple things like alt-tiles for creatures (idle animations essentially). The idea to change the hue to red on a hit for a few ticks might be a cool addition though.

It's the perfect place to post stuff like this.

It's certainly possible to code, but I'm not sure if it has a high priority. What if it's a up-stairs, down-stairs, up-stairs next to each other, will the center stairs turn left or right?

[scourge728]

I don't think the ramps work as it is. It's difficult to understand what's going on without consistent shading throughout all tiles, and a different perspective for ramps, sprites, and inside structures doesn't make it easier.

I would suggest trying to let the ramps fade out towards the top, and have ramps on lower elevation fade out towards the bottom.
Fadeout color towards top should be the same color as unexplored rock. Fadeout towards the bottom can be a more foggy blue or whatever.

see the problem with that for me is it doesn't look like ramps, it looks like we've entered minecraft and someone is placing blocks in a staircase pattern

[Death Dragon]

Oh, I like that gif. That would be super cool. I can bring it up, but animations right now are mostly off the table. Too much spriting involved, except for simple things like alt-tiles for creatures (idle animations essentially). The idea to change the hue to red on a hit for a few ticks might be a cool addition though.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about actual animations of the sprites (that'd be cool, too, but also a ridiculous amount of work), just a dynamic transition of the sprites from tile to tile. Like, a static sprite that fluidly moves from one tile to the next, instead of the instant pop in movement we have now.
KeeperRL used to have the teleport-y movement that DF has now, but they swapped over to this fluid sliding of the sprites and it's really amazing how much better it made the game look.
I thought displaying graphics outside of the rigid tile framework would be too difficult, but looking at how it has apparently been announced that sprites can take up visually more than 1 tile with the steam version, I guess it might actually be possible.

By the way, are there any mockup screenshots of creatures that are visually bigger than a single tile already?

It's certainly possible to code, but I'm not sure if it has a high priority. What if it's a up-stairs, down-stairs, up-stairs next to each other, will the center stairs turn left or right?

Would it have to be coded by Toady specifically or would modders be able to do this kinda stuff on their own? I'm thinking, maybe whatever is making these new ramp graphics possible could be used for all sorts of things that are placed in close proximity to each other. Or are the ramps a special case that is essentially hardcoded?

[Meph]

No mock-ups of large creatures so far. Vordak made some a long time ago for my set though: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=138754.msg7836427#msg7836427

I'm in favour of large oversized creatures, sticking to the (almost) correct relative size according to the raw sizes, while Mike advises caution, keeping them a few pixels over the 32x limit, which means that they fit better into corridors, cages and the like.

For example the elephant: Left would be my suggestion, right would be Mikes suggestion. Both are larger than 32x32.

Would it have to be coded by Toady specifically or would modders be able to do this kinda stuff on their own? I'm thinking, maybe whatever is making these new ramp graphics possible could be used for all sorts of things that are placed in close proximity to each other. Or are the ramps a special case that is essentially hardcoded?

I'm fairly certain that orientation/direction of objects will remain hardcoded. I can't see a way to make something like that easily accessible.

[Rose]

Having sprites flip from right to left depending on direction they're facing is super easy to do.

More directions than that would be in the realm of leaving it to crazy modders, if there's support for it in the engine.

[Meph]

Turning left/right is certainly something I will suggest to Tarn (even if it mucks up the lighting of the sprites), turning up/down would require a new sprite for each.

[thefriendlyhacker]

Turning left/right is certainly something I will suggest to Tarn (even if it mucks up the lighting of the sprites), turning up/down would require a new sprite for each.

Fort mode doesn't have facing though IIRC? I would prefer it if the graphics help communicate the underlying mechanics of the game rather than muddying things up. If you have static facing sprites then it is obvious that facing is not mechanically a thing. Plus it will look as weird as hell if you have something like a squad of crossbowdwarves exit a surface access tunnel and start shooting at invaders that are behind them, or a dwarf fighting a creature standing behind them (given how prevalent dodging is, this will happen a lot), or a dwarf eating food sitting on the table behind them, or any number of other wacky things. Things like these can be coded away, of course, but it is decidedly nontrivial for Toady to go over every action in the game and add in code to update facing, and I would rather he focus on more impactful stuff.

[Hypnopompic]

Oh, I'm so loving the tileset.

I know the screenshots are WIPs, and I've noticed the undiscovered stone of the map was all solid dark, without the little rock sparkles. I know it's a minimal detail but I love it and just wondering if there are plans to add it.

What I'm trying to describe:

[Cruxador]

do you think it would be feasible at all to make movement animations more fluid? So that instead of teleporting from tile to tile, the sprites would actually slide along the path?
Here's an example gif of how it looks in KeeperRL:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/467795961406816276/531687892381335552/Peek_2019-01-07_15-15.gif

It's worth noting that this isn't an actual slide as you'd think from just calling it that, if they're moving left, they don't just move (tileset width) pixels left. They alternate moving diagonally up left and diagonally up right, so they "walk" without an animation frame. KeeperRL also has "do action" animations that are also just sliding the sprite, which look good. It's actually pretty impressive how fluid they can make things look with single frame static sprites.

Oh, I like that gif. That would be super cool. I can bring it up, but animations right now are mostly off the table. Too much spriting involved, except for simple things like alt-tiles for creatures (idle animations essentially). The idea to change the hue to red on a hit for a few ticks might be a cool addition though.

If we get only one additional frame, I would rather have it be an action frame, for attacking or working, in addition to the current neutral frame, rather than having neutral and idle alternating to indicate when nothing is being done. I think that would add a lot more to the game experience for an equal amount of effort. Although the art style is very different, you can see for example how it looks in battles in Dominions.

No mock-ups of large creatures so far. Vordak made some a long time ago for my set though: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=138754.msg7836427#msg7836427

I'm in favour of large oversized creatures, sticking to the (almost) correct relative size according to the raw sizes, while Mike advises caution, keeping them a few pixels over the 32x limit, which means that they fit better into corridors, cages and the like.

For example the elephant: Left would be my suggestion, right would be Mikes suggestion. Both are larger than 32x32.

Watching an elephant shove its way through tiny corridors that it can't fit through seems more immersion-breaking than having undersized elephants, to me. Plus, if your elephant is that big, how much bigger must your dragons and collosi be?

Also, I've been meaning to say it every time I saw that sprite, but the contrast between the elephant's white face and dark body is too much.

Fort mode doesn't have facing though IIRC? I would prefer it if the graphics help communicate the underlying mechanics of the game rather than muddying things up. If you have static facing sprites then it is obvious that facing is not mechanically a thing.

Mechanics are one thing, but the typical gamer isn't gonna want to see their sprites moonwalking around and shooting bolts out their ass, for preference. It doesn't actually mean anything, but neither does any of this aesthetic stuff.

Plus it will look as weird as hell if you have something like a squad of crossbowdwarves exit a surface access tunnel and start shooting at invaders that are behind them, or a dwarf fighting a creature standing behind them (given how prevalent dodging is, this will happen a lot), or a dwarf eating food sitting on the table behind them, or any number of other wacky things. Things like these can be coded away, of course, but it is decidedly nontrivial for Toady to go over every action in the game and add in code to update facing, and I would rather he focus on more impactful stuff.

I agree that there's a good chance it's not going to be worth it, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good thing to have if not for the amount of Toady's time it would take. And having the sprite change facing on step or on attack seems like it would cover the vast majority of cases that I can think of, since pretty much everything else is non-oriented or involves first running up to something. Dodging at weird angles is fine in my opinion, since after all combat is meant to be chaotic.

[funkydwarf]

Whoa! Awesome guys!

I love the geometric solidness and sharp lines of what's going on with ramps. I think they really make it easier to understand  the layers as someone has said. I bet it will greatly reduce a large barrier to new people, and I think that's great.

I think the be ramps are really gonna be dependent on how the multiple layers are handled and how they stack with sat y 5-10 levels visible at once.

I agree to the sprites not flipping, unless there is a direction already in play. I never really realized till now that there isn't really any consequential unit direction , funny.

Edit-shooting bolts from the ass is certainly something to think about actually. It is a good point. But I don't think this is the place to ask for that, or animations of any sort. I think this thread could explode Into a graphics feature request fest and swamp Meph and Mayday and get them into trouble with percieved over promising.

This is gonna be freaking awesome. This AND villians....fn rad.

[Death Dragon]

No mock-ups of large creatures so far. Vordak made some a long time ago for my set though: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=138754.msg7836427#msg7836427

I'm in favour of large oversized creatures, sticking to the (almost) correct relative size according to the raw sizes, while Mike advises caution, keeping them a few pixels over the 32x limit, which means that they fit better into corridors, cages and the like.

For example the elephant: Left would be my suggestion, right would be Mikes suggestion. Both are larger than 32x32.

Watching an elephant shove its way through tiny corridors that it can't fit through seems more immersion-breaking than having undersized elephants, to me. Plus, if your elephant is that big, how much bigger must your dragons and collosi be?

Both seem fine, but I think I'm a little closer to using the big sprites. I've always been annoyed with how size is something completely invisible in DF. You can't even see it in the text descriptions, just in the raw files. The immersion gets broken either way until we get actual multi tile creatures in about 10 years and as long as the creature's actual tile is located at the feet of the graphic sprite, it might end up fine.

Also, Dominions is a good call.

[Boltgun]

Hello, I am wondering if adding shaders allow for more advanced stuff. Like what rendermax did previously but without the intense cpu cost. If so allowing custom shaders as mods would be awesome.

Either way, the modified version from Mayday is better. However it work because there is twists and turns. A mockup with a straight wall should confirm if it is alright or not.

Oh and a nitpick: The rocks light come from the right while everything else come from the left.

Edit: Afaik DF handle direction in all situations even if we don't see it. Flipping the sprites if they go left or right will go a long way to understand what's going on.

[FantasticDorf]

There's something i forgot, will movement arrows be illustrated in game for adventure mode?

Its a important factor to determine whether you are hitting things from the front, sides or behind which can affect your combat and width of combat to know which direction a creature decides to charge as well as the present direction of the player in movement & other active characters. Its hard to tell with a sprite facing the player naturally compared to a flat symbol, there's the added challenge also that 32x32 might not leave a lot of room for this.

[Boltgun]

Speaking of adv mode, something that graphic packs kill are the field of view of enemies while sneaking. Something that can be brought back if you have more layers to play with.