From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20077 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2004 16:30:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20065 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2004 16:30:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO s-hertogenbosch.execulink.net) (199.166.6.44) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 26 Sep 2004 16:30:34 -0000 Received: from diamond.ansuz.sooke.bc.ca (ppp103.ac2.56k.execulink.com [209.213.229.103]) by s-hertogenbosch.execulink.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8QGUW106085; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:30:32 -0400 Received: from localhost (mskala@localhost) by diamond.ansuz.sooke.bc.ca (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id i8QGQf723527; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:26:42 -0400 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:43:00 -0000 From: mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca To: Eric McDonald cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Terrain images proposal In-Reply-To: <4156E7EB.9080705@phy.cmich.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg01250.txt.bz2 On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Eric McDonald wrote: > > * associate with each cell of the map an optional "override" image name > > and x,y coordinate. > > This sounds nearly identical to the proposal for two new optional layers > that I made yesterday. The only possible difference that I see is that Yes - I hadn't read your message yet when I wrote that; the two ideas are basically the same. > you seem to be suggesting that a source map image name be associated > with each hex (cell). Is there a need to have multiple source map > images? Or, can we get by with a GDL global that indicates a single > source image, and thus not have to associate it on a per hex (cell) basis? My thinking was that someone might want to have a map which is mostly generated from tiles in the normal way, but with a few small (in relation to the map size) images pasted in in places where the tiling doesn't look good enough. In such a case they might want to use two different source images, although anything that could be done that way could also be done by putting the data into one image and looking at different parts of it. Part of my thinking was that it would be nice to not have to edit or specially generate an image - if we could just use GDL to direct XConq on how to cut chunks out of one or more existing images, then we have one less tool to write or manual processing/editing step to do in defining a game. One concern I have about using a layer to specify x,y coordinates is that then the data to go into the layer probably can't be manually generated, so it means adding another tool to choose the x,y coordinates and put them in that layer for XConq to read. If we could instead specify "start at these coordinates, fill these many cells up and these many cells over, use this step size" then it becomes something that we can manually specify, at the cost of only slight complexity in the XConq code that reads that specification. Maybe we could use a layer and also add a "by-grid" or similar layer sub-form to automatically generate the coordinates. That might address my concern while still using an existing data structure. > I am not sure how well a rectangular region of arbitrary size (if I > understand you correctly) would mix into a sea of hexes. I think that, > if anything, you would end up with a region looking like a postage stamp > or a picture that was cut with the scissors that have "teeth". Well, either you cover the entire map with your image, or else you already face, anyway, the issue that your image has to match up along its edges with the tiled terrain that it's going next to. If we allow some cells to have image-overrides and other cells to not have them, then I think we're going to get that issue in any case. -- Matthew Skala mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca Embrace and defend. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/