Print

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

That's right

That is right

[Puzzlemaker]

Out of curiousity, how badly would the new updates break third party software?

[Mike Mayday]

A little summary on custom-sized tiles (for Jonas):
I propose that instead of a predefined tile shape, the tiles should only be characterized by their horizontal dimentions and the vertical distance between floors.

The current tiles are 32x15px, like this:

The blue rectangle (and the automatically calculated way the tile "rectangles" overlap) is actually all that the visualizer should care about for a single layer view- and it should be customizable. This way Le Artiste will be able to choose a tile shape that he considers best (as you may know, I'm dying to try a view in which the "blue rectangle" of the tile is actually square).

Another thing is freeing up the sprite size. The bottom edge of the blue rectangle should be the bottom edge of the sprite image, but it would be great if the artist was free to do a sprite as high and wide as he wants if he needs it. Of course, for clarity he'll want to stay above these red lines but even that should be up to him.

The tile height, from the POV of Stonesense should also only mean the vertical displacement of the next layer of floors. If a sprite would benefit from that few additional pixels in height- let the artist use them! That is of course as long as they don't stick out of the floor when viewing the level above (as it is now).

If there's one thing I'd want added to Stonesense- that's it.

[Footkerchief]

Out of curiousity, how badly would the new updates break third party software?

Well, the tile format will have some significant changes and the material system has been totally reworked to the extent that the material categories Stonesense relies on no longer exist.  The building storage format may also have some changes to accomodate custom workshops.  The material system is probably the largest problem, as it will require some fundamentally different approaches, not just offset-hunting.

[forsaken1111]

Two questions.

First: Is it possible to have stonesense display single tiles of constructed or natural wall as pillars? The game describes them as pillars, and I often use them as such in my architecture.

Second: Is there any way to make the viewing window bigger?

[Rooster]

NVM, found it.

I'll make some isometric graphics soon. I hope it will be at least decent.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Two questions.

First: Is it possible to have stonesense display single tiles of constructed or natural wall as pillars? The game describes them as pillars, and I often use them as such in my architecture.

Second: Is there any way to make the viewing window bigger?

first, yes, i think it's possible, checking for the ocupancy state of the neighboring block, but you already have the "suport" building, with a fine sprite, no need to nag the developers

second, i think you can set that on an init.txt file, or something like that... i can't test it here, so not sure

[strich]

A little summary on custom-sized tiles (for Jonas):
I propose that instead of a predefined tile shape, the tiles should only be characterized by their horizontal dimentions and the vertical distance between floors.

The current tiles are 32x15px, like this:

The blue rectangle (and the automatically calculated way the tile "rectangles" overlap) is actually all that the visualizer should care about for a single layer view- and it should be customizable. This way Le Artiste will be able to choose a tile shape that he considers best (as you may know, I'm dying to try a view in which the "blue rectangle" of the tile is actually square).

Another thing is freeing up the sprite size. The bottom edge of the blue rectangle should be the bottom edge of the sprite image, but it would be great if the artist was free to do a sprite as high and wide as he wants if he needs it. Of course, for clarity he'll want to stay above these red lines but even that should be up to him.

The tile height, from the POV of Stonesense should also only mean the vertical displacement of the next layer of floors. If a sprite would benefit from that few additional pixels in height- let the artist use them! That is of course as long as they don't stick out of the floor when viewing the level above (as it is now).

If there's one thing I'd want added to Stonesense- that's it.

I like your thinking Mike. It should make for a much better way to draw such things as those water mills and other over sized buildings.

[forsaken1111]

First: Is it possible to have stonesense display single tiles of constructed or natural wall as pillars? The game describes them as pillars, and I often use them as such in my architecture.

The support building would work, I suppose, but cannot be made from stone blocks IIRC which was part of the project I am working on. It's not a big deal to me either way, just a visual tweak based on the way DF displays and describes a single-tile wall ingame.

[kaypy]

I propose that instead of a predefined tile shape, the tiles should only be characterized by their horizontal dimentions and the vertical distance between floors.
Le Artiste will be able to choose a tile shape that he considers best (as you may know, I'm dying to try a view in which the "blue rectangle" of the tile is actually square).

Are you able the compile up to date versions? If you can get things to compile, there's a handful of constants that control all of that. I believe a "#define TILEHEIGHT 32" would get you that. Hmm. Maybe these should be init-able, too...

Another thing is freeing up the sprite size. The bottom edge of the blue rectangle should be the bottom edge of the sprite image, but it would be great if the artist was free to do a sprite as high and wide as he wants if he needs it. Of course, for clarity he'll want to stay above these red lines but even that should be up to him.

The tile height, from the POV of Stonesense should also only mean the vertical displacement of the next layer of floors. If a sprite would benefit from that few additional pixels in height- let the artist use them! That is of course as long as they don't stick out of the floor when viewing the level above (as it is now).

Hmm. Currently the system draws all tiles sorted by z, then x, then y. So if you stick too far out the wrong side, you will get "floored".

It would theoretically be possible to tile in a diagonal order, but it would be a pain in the neck.

It is possible via a workaround to get additional height on building sprites (width, too, but again "floored"), and this will probably be applicable to creature sprites eventually.

However, there is another reason for a predefined tile shape: it makes em fit on the objects.png file. But that can be ignored if you make sure to leave the sprites either side blank.

Hmm. The biggest problem I can see really is that tile order thing, so if we can think of a reasonable algorithm to get the x,y,z in the right order quickly, then it may all be doable.

Incidently, floors will probably have some thickness shortly, so sticking out the top will be less likely.

[CobaltKobold]

The current tiles are 32x15px, like this:

The blue rectangle (and the automatically calculated way the tile "rectangles" overlap) is actually all that the visualizer should care about for a single layer view- and it should be customizable.

You messed up there- your mockup has the top edges of tiles obscured. You don't actually want the floor tiles to overlap, that's wasting art. So you line them up, e'en if they only take 32x15 (or in my case 16x7), like they have an extra missing line on bottom/top for the edge/tips of the adjacent tiles. Plus, power-of-two math makes locations much easier to mind-calculate.

The deal is, the tiles at a corner in this orientation can't actually all touch, since screens are rectangular in pixellation- so they need to touch either horizontally (bump up height 1px) or vertically (bump width 4px). Don't need to illustrate, do I?

Also, the "any width height" is nice...until you get them next to each other/other objects, and the draw order rears its ugly head.

If there's one thing I'd want added to Stonesense- that's it.

Ladies, gentlemen, and others: The Cavalier Crusader!

[kaypy]

Two questions.

First: Is it possible to have stonesense display single tiles of constructed or natural wall as pillars? The game describes them as pillars, and I often use them as such in my architecture.

It already uses a different sprite for the pillar tiles- you'll probably notice some striping on the end tiles of constructed walls.
If you found the right tile in objects.png you could just tweak it until you are satisfied with it's pillarness.

Second: Is there any way to make the viewing window bigger?

Init file: HEIGHT and WIDTH for screen size, SEGMENTX and SEGMENTY for tile area to draw, LIFTSEGMENT to bring the area up (so you can fill the window with a big enough area). Oh, and SEGMENTZ for number of z-levels to deal with (but you also hit 1 and 2 while the program is running)

[kaypy]

The blue rectangle (and the automatically calculated way the tile "rectangles" overlap)

Not that has been mentioned, yeah, the red box there should be one pixel lower.

Note the gaps between vertically aligned tiles in the pale pink layout template.

[Footkerchief]

If there's one thing I'd want added to Stonesense- that's it.

Ladies, gentlemen, and others: The Cavalier Crusader!

I can't say I didn't think the exact same thing, but still... be nice.  It's not like it would be bad for Stonesense to have that capability, all other things being equal.

[winner]

the two views of screws



I made them as compatible with the gear system as I had patience for.

[Dante]

Amazing stuff here, guys.
Is anyone working on more/better creature sprites? The current donkey et al seem a little too, well, little. I'd have a go myself, but I don't have an artistic bone in my body.