Print

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

[shadowform]

I'm guessing that Toady wants to make sure everything he plans on including in the game is in before he worries about making the visual presentation more appealing.  Part of this is probably because that if he did revamp the graphics, it would significantly delay each further update every time he ran into a situation where he had to create a new graphic or alter an old one (eg; making statues look like what they look like, the new random beasties living underground, so forth).

[Footkerchief]

Here's Toady on isometric graphics in DF:

Once the changes that allow resizing the view go in, supporting something like isometric would come down to deciding how to display something like a many-leveled layered labyrinth and still have the game be comparatively easy to use.  I gather that the point of going isometric is to show more than one level at a time, though I could be wrong about that, and it seems like it would take some work on my end with transparency and so on to make it work out.

I've seen it, but that image doesn't (and wasn't intended to) address any of the issues I mentioned (it also has fractional Z levels which don't currently exist and aren't likely to exist in the future, so it's not the best test image, though I understand that wasn't its original purpose so much).  It does do one of the things that bugs me in general about isometric, which is obscuring the view with things like trees, which can be handled with transparency I suppose, but the main issue is how to handle the stacked Z levels of a typical fortress.

Depending on the stage of the interface overhaul, ultimately I'm going to be support 2D tilesets (probably in dimensions of multiples of 4 because I'm lazy with image file headers).  So if you want to draw up some 32x32s or something, you won't be wasting your time, I think.  It should be fairly straightforward to support single z-slice isometric stuff as well, once I get that going, since I'd just have to change the print locations and print order, though transparency decisions are probably annoying, and it's slightly more annoying to get multilayer isometric stuff going, since people are going to want various options about display there, so I don't really have a clear opinion on the future of isometric.  The support for a resizeable viewport/window is definite, but nothing has been decided on layering there (for instance, critters walking over grass tiles, that kind of thing -- people will want more and more out of this system, such as inventory and wound displays, and I'm not sure where lines will be drawn, or where it will bog down, anyway).

So yeah, it looks like he has some concerns that a fan-made isometric visualizer might alleviate (or intensify, depending).  Although I guess the main solution, level slicing, has already been pretty thoroughly demonstrated in Khazad.  The need for transparency is somewhat questionable once a smart level slicing option is in place (most players would get by with the current change-Z-level controls and a toggle to enable/disable slicing above the current Z-level).

[CobaltKobold]

Since it is just the draw order...

Spoiler: "Tileset shenanigans" (click to show/hide)

Take a screenshot...
select all black and make transparent (manually tweak to not grab the partially-dug tile and the dig-selected tile), run the GIMP script I wrote, fill transparency of new image with magenta yields:

Post-processing west ballista:
 thread with tileset WIP

The issues that come up are really just what Toady said: you sort of need to draw 2-3 things (Unit, item, floor) to properly represent a tile in this way, or you're using a placeholder.

[qwertyuiopas]

That "multiple of 4" quote is pre-SDL, right? Now I think he has SDL load images for him, so theoretically, it might allow any sized tiles...

[Mike Mayday]

god no, i'd prefer as little rotating as possible.
as for blocked by the walls, wouldnt "your" view actually block more, than what i suggested, since every wall section is taller?
like so:
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8796/47642246.jpg

The problem here is: a wall of THE SAME height will obscure MORE in isometric than in cavalier. And higher walls mean we can put larger creature sprites in the game without making them look out of place.


If a typical wall sprite only reaches as high as the center of the tile above it (red cross), we can be sure that EVERY object will always be visible, including small objects on the floor:

In isometric, the entire tile is obscured.

in any case, could it not be solved best with level slicing and transparancy?

Level slicing is irrelevant here. It is necessarily obvious for viewing a level underground but what we're talking about here is to make sure that walls don't obstruct things on the same level.
And transparency should IMHO be avoided just as much as view-rotation since it makes things unreadable (just look at qwert's screen http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6309/96630423.png )

[qwertyuiopas]

What about current-level cut walls? Only show the bottom few pixels of the wall, so that it doesn't obstruct anything, and use the full size for the floor below.

[Bricks]

Cobalt, that looks awesome, but could you *possibly* use a larger tileset?   Like you said, the diagonals look funky, though any time I've screwed with isometric I've had that problem.

I'm now envisioning creatures as cubes.  Which flatten completely when they lay on the ground.

[CobaltKobold]

could you *possibly* use a larger tileset?  

Yes (script has the option for other sizes) but I'm not a pixel art wizard- so, the smaller things are, the easier I find it, as there are fewer details to get wrong, can be abstract. Also, means I can make the tiles faster.

edit: Only 20 instead of 16- my computer 'only' has 1680 width to work with. So maybe only with export functions. (DF requires 80 columns.)

I'm now envisioning creatures as cubes.  Which flatten completely when they lay on the ground.

Well, I got around it by making the dwarf spherical as usual. (tangentially, Faceball 2000 was a fun game.)

[dyze]

The problem here is: a wall of THE SAME height will obscure MORE in isometric than in cavalier. And higher walls mean we can put larger creature sprites in the game without making them look out of place.

If a typical wall sprite only reaches as high as the center of the tile above it (red cross), we can be sure that EVERY object will always be visible, including small objects on the floor:

In isometric, the entire tile is obscured.

i dont know if im really stupid but i fail to see how it would be as you say



now obviously, one wall slice would not have the same amount of pixels in height in isometric as in cavalier mode, but who says the tiles has to reach all the way to the top in iso mode?
sure, in isometric mode larger creatures would look taller, but isnt that the whole point?
in any case, huge/giant/larger creatures isnt *that* common, that they would make or break any isometric view mode...

and in reference to qwert's screen, i dont think it looks that bad, it just need to be more transparent where it comes to creatures, and
skip the transparancy for the water/lava (or have it as a toggle).

[KillHour]

What about current-level cut walls? Only show the bottom few pixels of the wall, so that it doesn't obstruct anything, and use the full size for the floor below.

I'm not quite sure why this hasn't been brought up yet.  Think 'Sims'.

[Mike Mayday]

dyze: see, that's exactly what I was talking about: in that second screen the wall is visibly much lower than the dwarf, which looks much more goofy than cavalier projection (which, admittedly, IS pretty goofy).

In any case, I admit the function of lowering walls of the currently would be very useful as a toggle. As for transparency? I'd like to see it done well with actual sprites- I've tried and failed.

[CobaltKobold]

If you guys can think about any other necessary animation,

Crawl. legless diplomats to think about.
Also, blocking and dodging are probably needed- raise the shield arm, or jump out of the way, since at least with dodging you do actually move, and none of the animations you suggested would really fit.

Yeah, wallslicing would probably be necessary for an isometric- my demonstration cobbler uses full, and you can see how the single-tile corridors vanish utterly in Escherian style:

(demonstration corridor. 1x1 on each side, then 2x1, 3x1, 1x2, 2x2, 3x2, 1x3, 2x3, 3x3, 5x5)

[dyze]

dyze: see, that's exactly what I was talking about: in that second screen the wall is visibly much lower than the dwarf, which looks much more goofy than cavalier projection (which, admittedly, IS pretty goofy).

yeah i guess its down to personal taste, cavalier looks a bit goofier imo

[CobaltKobold]

Thinking on it, Mayday, you'd probably also need another animation/pose for archery. Crossbow could use 'manual', though.

could you *possibly* use a larger tileset?

Making something in the vein of the battle animation thing, I'm starting to agree with you. It can be a pain spriting in these confines.

Spoiler: Legend (click to show/hide)

Dwarf shield buckler battleaxe shortsword warhammer pick mace
whip (blank) choppy halberd longsword maul shovel morningstar
flail bow dagger greataxe two-handedsword scimitar spear pike 

Missing: crossbow, scourge. . . and it looks like I left the long and 2h swords a pixel short each in this version.

Isometric makes left/right hand itemcarry display quite easy, adding a few more things to draw order. Multigrasp might still be a bit of a problem.
left-handed Axdwarf w/ shield, battleaxe:
And a right-handed attack, (facing down-right) blown up for showing my bad pixelart. (With a buckler in off hand, but it's mostly obscured)
 

[DennyTom]

this is extremely funny and confusing animation
Great waepons (maybe 1px or 2px longer handles would be nice) but dwarf looks kinda like mushroom