Print

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

[smjjames]

I wasn't even involved in the argument about the word 'should' (at least that's what it looked like), which is really pointless IMO.....

[Ironhand]

Yay. Divine intervention.

A colliding camera would be cool.
But I feel like it would be a bunch of extra scripting that's not really merited.

I'd rather see enhancements to visuals than enhancements to immersion.

[Tack]

Haha... ever noticed that toady nly posts in order to buzz-kill? He should post one day to say, hey, this thread got reported, but it looks like a bloody fun argument, so have at!

Also. The person who reported this - I look upon you in shame. Especially seeing as the argument was already over.


ANYWAY. Do you have different matgloss for stone constructions as opposed to stone block constructions? Also. (I've got v8 so i'm not sure about this) But could you make glass be less transparent, and transparent all the time?

Also. I wouldn't like colliding camera. I use it to get into places like vast underground tombs and such. Also, it would make going down stairs a bitch.

[smjjames]

The isometric movement checkbox definetly helps when you want to stay on the same horizontal plane (ie. no up or down movement).

I agree on the visuals and plus VF doesn't seem to be designed with collision detection in mind.

@Tack: (lol at the attack pun I just made): I think the block constructions look smoother compared to the raw stone constructions, not sure. It does seem a bit strange for a rough stone wall to have a brick texture when it would really look more like a cobblestone wall.

[Tack]

S what I think. But if it is block, it should look the same, and if it is normal stone, it should look like a smooth wall. I mean, the blocks of stone are big enough to make tables out of.

[Baboonanza]

I agree  that it would be nice to differentiate between walls built with stone and walls built with blocks. Implementing it depends on:
- how hard it is to detect the difference
- how easily I can add it to the config files (it's a bit of a corner case)
If people would find me an example texture that they would prefer that would help.

After having thought about it a bit I really like the camera clipping idea, it avoid many of the issues and should be fairly straightforward to add.

You can control the colour of glass yourself fairly easily. In the matgloss.csv file there is a row for green glass and a number like 0x801010F0 (I don't have access to the config files at the moment, I'm in a hotel lobby, so this number is wrong). The first 2 digits are a hexidecimal transparency value between 0 and 255, so 80 means 'half' transparency and FF would be totally transparent.
It's not currently possible to have transparent walls because of technical constraints, namely the need to depth sort the individual triangles and the addition of extra internal geometry at material boundaries.

Love the screenshots guys! There are some truly epic fortresses out there.

[Tack]

gee... example texture... I'm screwed there.

But I would like to have different textures for smoothed/rough/detailed floors and walls, and for blocks vs normal stone construction. But I can't render the textures for those. So i'll shut up.

[MMad]

Also. I wouldn't like colliding camera. I use it to get into places like vast underground tombs and such. Also, it would make going down stairs a bitch.

Heh. If ever implemented, I assume it would be a toggle.

If people would find me an example texture that they would prefer that would help.

Not the *very* best, but a quick google found me this:
http://www.katsbits.com/htm/textures/kt_stonewall.htm

[corvvs]

You really know how to use ramps to get them to look exactly like you want them to.

I've made a few experiments that could be interpreted as I wanted, but happen to not be (such as two ramps next to each other, with no walls both showing up as spikes, not as a combined ridge).

I *think* this is related to wall placement. For a ramp to actually be useful (i.e. able to be walked on to change z levels) it has to be attached to at least one wall. Visual Fortress reflects that by making them all spikes (although a little logic about ramps next to each other might be able to fix that?) So you can't do a ridge with a peak exactly, but you can make a flat-topped ridge.

[Draco18s]

You really know how to use ramps to get them to look exactly like you want them to.

I've made a few experiments that could be interpreted as I wanted, but happen to not be (such as two ramps next to each other, with no walls both showing up as spikes, not as a combined ridge).

I *think* this is related to wall placement. For a ramp to actually be useful (i.e. able to be walked on to change z levels) it has to be attached to at least one wall. Visual Fortress reflects that by making them all spikes (although a little logic about ramps next to each other might be able to fix that?) So you can't do a ridge with a peak exactly, but you can make a flat-topped ridge.

Well, basically I was making an arch that was 2 tiles wide.  On a 1 tile wide arch it would have been fine.  I hadn't expected it to come out the way I had wanted, but had crossed my fingers.

[Sizik]

Ramps seem to prefer connecting to a floor above them, rather than an adjacent wall:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Bloogonis]

that actualy makes a lot of sense. I mean thats the whole point of the ramp in the first place.

[Draco18s]

that actualy makes a lot of sense. I mean thats the whole point of the ramp in the first place.

Except that ramps that ramp up to a floor with no wall under it are not usable.

[peterix]

that actualy makes a lot of sense. I mean thats the whole point of the ramp in the first place.

Except that ramps that ramp up to a floor with no wall under it are not usable.

Neither are ramps that go into two stacked walls. It  looks nice tho. Like a pile of rubble under a cliff

[Draco18s]

that actualy makes a lot of sense. I mean thats the whole point of the ramp in the first place.

Except that ramps that ramp up to a floor with no wall under it are not usable.

Neither are ramps that go into two stacked walls. It  looks nice tho. Like a pile of rubble under a cliff

True, but in the pictured case there is a valid ramp position available, the visualizer is just not showing it.