Post by: Meph on March 13, 2019, 01:14:19 pm
Mike Mayday and Ironhand
Post by: Cruxador on March 13, 2019, 01:29:55 pm
The ramps, especially the grassy ones, look bad. They seem to lead down instead of up, and aesthetically they're incredibly geometric, which other naturally occurring things in the tileset are not. This is a consensus as far as I'm aware; I've seen many people voice this opinion and nobody disagree, although I did see one person say he thought the stone ramps were fine. Personally, I think the lighting should be revisited on all of them, but the current stone ramps are good if their adjacent wall is smoothed.
Post by: Meph on March 13, 2019, 01:34:58 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/XmtXthe.png)
The mentioned stone ramps are not ramps at all, they are an up-stairs next to a down-stairs.
(https://i.imgur.com/BN4U57y.png)
Post by: Rose on March 13, 2019, 01:45:51 pm
Post by: rethnor on March 13, 2019, 02:12:13 pm
Post by: Dragonsploof on March 13, 2019, 02:18:25 pm
Post by: Meph on March 13, 2019, 02:22:49 pm
(http://goblinart.pl/files/DFD/BIG%20Mockup1d.png)
Post by: Kromtec on March 13, 2019, 02:28:37 pm
Post by: FantasticDorf on March 13, 2019, 02:29:16 pm
I SEE what you did, if i squint with my left eye and tilt my head 15% i can see that it is definitely intentional to what you were doing, but again perhaps some harder border lines would make it more apparent because its optical illusioning all over me line of the actual slope and direction in red and orange.
(https://puu.sh/CZtUH/cb37d9ff4b.png)
(https://puu.sh/CZu22/8ff6c18e1b.png)
People are getting caught on the yellow lines here which creates the inverse effect i think for a image of a box and totally detracts from the actual rock wall to the side of it other than a backdrop.
(https://puu.sh/CZu4a/051a13e6ca.png)
To confuse it almost more, here's the box edges illustrated with blue lines, eventually im going to run out of space and colours to label things but if you align the blue and the yellow its a repeatable pattern that geometrically fits with people who are getting confused about it.
(https://puu.sh/CZubq/b9adc6ccac.png)
Post by: Superdorf on March 13, 2019, 02:34:24 pm
As for the ramps... well, the shading helps me see what you're trying to do. I can see them as ramps, but I have to kind of squint to see it that way.
Honestly, I don't know how to fix this. Ramps are kind of... weird. They've always been a bit abstract, and I kinda think that's OK... maybe you could just superimpose the traditional triangle things over the more realistic grass tiles?
But that's probably my ASCII grognard talking... hm.
I'll think on it.
Post by: Death Dragon on March 13, 2019, 02:37:03 pm
Here an older mock-up with shading. Does that help with brain switching?The rooms look MUCH better with shading. I think the ramps also look better, but the sunny, southern facing ramps should not have that shadow effect because that makes it look like the whole thing is floating in the sky.
Post by: Meph on March 13, 2019, 02:38:34 pm
Wow, the shading of the older mock-up looks awesome for the rooms, but I think the ramps still look weird. The ponds need also a little bit of shadows inside the banks, so they look more like ponds and less like puddles.We didn't want to include the shading on Steam, because it's wip. Not coded yet, it's just photoshop magic.
I haven't tried my hand on ramps yet, but to me the design shown was pretty clear. Maybe my brain is just too slow to flip between up/down-ramp all the time.
Post by: waterphage13 on March 13, 2019, 02:46:17 pm
Thats why I'm mostly trying making lower parts of layer darker than upper.
Post by: waterphage13 on March 13, 2019, 02:48:17 pm
Post by: waterphage13 on March 13, 2019, 02:50:42 pm
Post by: Superdorf on March 13, 2019, 02:52:45 pm
Wait wait wait, lemme try and mock something up on piskelapp...
Post by: Kromtec on March 13, 2019, 02:56:20 pm
Too bad, I hope you manage to get it in the game. With the shading, the rooms really look like right out of an official D&D campaign map.Wow, the shading of the older mock-up looks awesome for the rooms, but I think the ramps still look weird. The ponds need also a little bit of shadows inside the banks, so they look more like ponds and less like puddles.We didn't want to include the shading on Steam, because it's wip. Not coded yet, it's just photoshop magic.
Will all features that are currently only possible with TWBT, also be possible in the Steam version?
Post by: Cruxador on March 13, 2019, 02:56:49 pm
Here an older mock-up with shading. Does that help with brain switching?It fixes that issue, but now it looks like the whole z-level is some kind of levitating ziggurat. I agree with Death Dragon, shading in outdoor tiles should respect the direction of the light (not sure if indoor tiles should) but I also think the ramps need some shading to depict their (currently absent) curvature. Particularly at the bottom, that'll help them blend in with the shading of the ground so they don't look discontinuous. But honestly I think these shading overlays need to be handpainted as an additional layer (or new tile) rather than just a flat grey overlay.
Post by: rethnor on March 13, 2019, 03:00:16 pm
Post by: Superdorf on March 13, 2019, 03:04:59 pm
(https://imgur.com/9RxMPIg.png)
It works!
Post by: waterphage13 on March 13, 2019, 03:21:40 pm
Post by: waterphage13 on March 13, 2019, 03:25:26 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 13, 2019, 04:01:46 pm
And yes, the shadows next to walls (which I've proposed even way before TWBT was created) are veeeery probable to end up in the game.
Also, hello! I will be posting here quite a bit now that the project is announced.
@waterphage: that video was extremely helpful. I was aiming at conistency in the light source, but in this case I understand how a different direction for the ramps will probably look better, even if inconsistent with the lighting of the other sprites. Thanks!
Post by: Cruxador on March 13, 2019, 04:23:24 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 13, 2019, 04:37:15 pm
Post by: Meph on March 13, 2019, 04:55:02 pm
Quote
Will all features that are currently only possible with TWBT, also be possible in the Steam version?From the discussions we had, I'd say that most if not all TWBT features will exist in some form or another in the official steam DF. Including several new features, for example caste-specific sprites or the new walls.
Quote
Maybe it would help if the ramps weren't at a 45° angle, but offset like the rest of the sprites. Sorry to just be a critic, I wish I could offer more than that.If they are offset it looks great, until you have multilevel view and everything breaks. ^^
PS: Love that I just opened the thread and already people are posting all kinds of feedback, mock-ups, suggestions. It's great. :)
Post by: Kromtec on March 13, 2019, 05:20:14 pm
I am super exited to see what your combined talents will create, with the newly coded features from Tarn! :D
Post by: Meph on March 13, 2019, 05:23:38 pm
-Mike: "We should be careful with the combinations of colors and shading, it must be highly visible and fit one tone."
-Meph: "Here are all the 37 raw color combinations mixed with all the actual RL values for simulated nonsense that no one cares about, but we gonna do that right?, right? With the other thing-a-mick it's only 33.400 possible combinations, that's fine."
-Mike: *facepalm
Post by: SalmonGod on March 13, 2019, 05:24:59 pm
Post by: scourge728 on March 13, 2019, 05:41:20 pm
(http://www.imgzilla.ru/image.uploads/2019-03-13/original-a0a9a0be5dda21dc2028328d04c10d9d.png) (http://www.imgzilla.ru/view-image/a0a9a0be5dda21dc2028328d04c10d9d.png)Although I prefer this idea for the ramps, keep them abstract seems like a better idea IMO
Post by: mifki on March 13, 2019, 05:51:00 pm
(Just to be clear, Meph's hi-res and hi-detail tiles are gorgeous per se, so I wasn't quite correct talking about the style, it's more about usability of such style in game for me.)
Post by: Meph on March 13, 2019, 05:51:53 pm
I have to admit, I can actually see superdorfs as ramps, where as the official one all I can see is just pillars and odd perspective.... other than that it looks as good as tileset canThis is what I do in the Meph Tileset, but based on necessity. Now with Tarn coding on the graphic back-end, we can do better.(http://www.imgzilla.ru/image.uploads/2019-03-13/original-a0a9a0be5dda21dc2028328d04c10d9d.png) (http://www.imgzilla.ru/view-image/a0a9a0be5dda21dc2028328d04c10d9d.png)Although I prefer this idea for the ramps, keep them abstract seems like a better idea IMO
Post by: scourge728 on March 13, 2019, 05:53:26 pm
Post by: MrMotorhead on March 13, 2019, 05:55:34 pm
The new screenshots look amazing I think my favorite thing are the workshops, outstanding.
Like many the first thing that stuck out to me were the ramps, where the surface transitions between Z levels. As others have said, it makes it seem to flip up/down and it's somewhat hard to tell how everything is oriented.
The shading that was showed off (photoshop magic) is cool but I was wondering if it's possible to make it where ramps going up are always lighter and ramps going down are always darker than the "base" tile.
At any rate, I'll be following along with your progress, it seems that you have a lot of work to do, getting things into shape for the Steam release.
Post by: Meph on March 13, 2019, 06:01:36 pm
Interestingly, although I don't personally like neither Meph's nor Mayday's styles - sorry guys, just too dim and detailed for my liking, so I play with Spacefox - these new screenshots look very light and clean. How did you do that?:)Because they are done in photoshop. That's why everything is so uniformly colored.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 13, 2019, 06:05:49 pm
Interestingly, although I don't personally like neither Meph's nor Mayday's styles - sorry guys, just too dim and detailed for my liking, so I play with Spacefox - these new screenshots look very light and clean. How did you do that?:)
Hey mifki! To be honest, much of what was in "my" first tileset wasn't my work. My personal style is indeed closer to Spacefox's and I'm trying to enforce it in this project quite a bit, much to Meph's chagrin >_< But yes, it will be harder to maintain in-game if we let the game modify the colours, which I'm trying to avoid.
Here's a first pass at modified ramps:
(https://i.imgur.com/VM0MRt0.png)
Post by: mifki on March 13, 2019, 06:16:06 pm
Interestingly, although I don't personally like neither Meph's nor Mayday's styles - sorry guys, just too dim and detailed for my liking, so I play with Spacefox - these new screenshots look very light and clean. How did you do that?:)
Hey mifki! To be honest, much of what was in "my" first tileset wasn't my work. My personal style is indeed closer to Spacefox's and I'm trying to enforce it in this project quite a bit, much to Meph's chagrin >_< But yes, it will be harder to maintain in-game if we let the game modify the colours, which I'm trying to avoid.
Oh it explains then :)
Post by: rethnor on March 13, 2019, 06:18:57 pm
I'm not sure if this would work, but maybe something similar to ruts along the slops might help show they are sloping up and not an isometric view of a wall from an angle.
I hate sounding so critical, it really looks great. I think it will look amazing with multi level view on and the ramps so we could the the full height of a pyramid or similar.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 13, 2019, 06:22:22 pm
Post by: Miuramir on March 13, 2019, 06:51:10 pm
Here's a first pass at modified ramps:
IMO this version is both easier to look at and considerably easier to understand than the previous versions shown.
In more general terms, can we get a (possibly optional variant) version where things don't tile quite so seamlessly? Or, better yet, a way to easily toggle on and off a thin (1 px?) grid overlay. I'm a "gameplay over graphics" person most of the time, and one of my main issues with stuff that looks this pretty is that it ends up taking much longer to figure out exactly how large and how far things are.
Post by: Meph on March 13, 2019, 06:54:50 pm
That's super easy to do. :)
Here's a first pass at modified ramps:
IMO this version is both easier to look at and considerably easier to understand than the previous versions shown.
In more general terms, can we get a (possibly optional variant) version where things don't tile quite so seamlessly? Or, better yet, a way to easily toggle on and off a thin (1 px?) grid overlay. I'm a "gameplay over graphics" person most of the time, and one of my main issues with stuff that looks this pretty is that it ends up taking much longer to figure out exactly how large and how far things are.
Post by: Superdorf on March 13, 2019, 06:56:58 pm
- Maybe lighten the shade on the southern ramps? It's so dark, it makes the ramp look steeper than it should, almost like a wall. The side ones, too, could use a brightening up-- they'd ideally be a little lighter than the surrounding grass, so as to pop out of the landscape properly.
- There's some kind of bright green border where the ramps meet the rock... not sure what to make of it. It doesn't look natural.
All the ramps are much more legible now, at any rate. And the rest is just beautiful.
Post by: Pillbo on March 13, 2019, 07:55:38 pm
Here's a first pass at modified ramps:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I think this is a huge improvement! I love the art and I'm personally excited about how this project seems to be going. It looks like a lot of what I want in graphics you are already doing, but I'll list them anyway for the hell of it.
1. I think dead creatures laying on the side is super helpful to clearly differentiate living, dead and undead.
2. Body parts, especially teeth, looking like teeth or whatever else would be great.
3. If there was some way to understand which direction a creature was looking or moving (facing up, left, right, down) that would go a long way towards making the game feel graphically intuitive.
This work is all beautiful and I'm very excited for the release. Thanks for all your hard work!
Post by: CLA on March 13, 2019, 08:03:45 pm
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/ANTmdc4.jpg)
Post by: Cruxador on March 13, 2019, 08:18:26 pm
Post by: Death Dragon on March 13, 2019, 08:25:29 pm
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/BN4U57y.png)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?
Post by: Meph on March 13, 2019, 09:01:18 pm
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?
Post by: scourge728 on March 13, 2019, 09:24:25 pm
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.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
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/ANTmdc4.jpg)
Post by: Death Dragon on March 13, 2019, 09:25:51 pm
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?
Post by: Meph on March 13, 2019, 09:41:50 pm
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/D4cENm1.png)
Quote
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.
Post by: Rose on March 13, 2019, 10:12:03 pm
More directions than that would be in the realm of leaving it to crazy modders, if there's support for it in the engine.
Post by: Meph on March 13, 2019, 10:39:16 pm
Post by: thefriendlyhacker on March 13, 2019, 11:41:54 pm
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.
Post by: Hypnopompic on March 13, 2019, 11:44:54 pm
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/1hpMKX5.png)
Post by: Cruxador on March 14, 2019, 12:22:23 am
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?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.
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
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#msg7836427Watching 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?
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/D4cENm1.png)
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: funkydwarf on March 14, 2019, 12:31:10 am
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.
Post by: Death Dragon on March 14, 2019, 02:12:55 am
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.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#msg7836427Watching 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?
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/D4cENm1.png)
Also, Dominions is a good call.
Post by: Boltgun on March 14, 2019, 03:32:53 am
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.
Post by: FantasticDorf on March 14, 2019, 03:41:16 am
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.
Post by: Boltgun on March 14, 2019, 03:43:54 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 14, 2019, 04:20:44 am
(https://i.imgur.com/3Y0dAxk.png)
2. SMooth transition between ramp and horizontal ground
(https://i.imgur.com/f80p2sL.png)
3.Add some subtle shadows when the surfaces meet.
(https://i.imgur.com/1HJHVD7.png)
CLA, sorry but that really doesn't look right to me. It's inconsistent with the way the other walls are presented. I'm sure once we decide on how to present the lower levels, I'll be able to provide something that gives more context.
Boltgun, you mean the light on the boulders?
Post by: Boltgun on March 14, 2019, 04:40:11 am
Post by: Kromtec on March 14, 2019, 04:42:23 am
Can you try to make a mock-up for the ponds with shadows, so that they get more depth?
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 14, 2019, 04:54:55 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 14, 2019, 05:30:09 am
https://i.imgur.com/9cCChnb.png
Post by: Ironhand on March 14, 2019, 06:08:48 am
Post by: CarpBiter2000 on March 14, 2019, 08:12:29 am
Also, I should note that my brain refuses to process the images you presented as ramps. I just can't, all I get is "does not compute". For me it looks like a weird 3d element out of nowhere.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 14, 2019, 08:24:09 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7C318DGB38
Post by: CarpBiter2000 on March 14, 2019, 08:41:04 am
when everything around is non-abstract, we can't really put abstract symbols to represent it.I suppose it makes sense. Is possible to use a different grass sprite for ramps, though, so that they would tell me on a glance that they are functionally different from just the grass around? Like a grass sprite with little bits of the soil appearing through or something. Or will it look like crap?
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 14, 2019, 08:53:05 am
I might end up doing it for the most ubiquitous floor types though!
Post by: Superdorf on March 14, 2019, 09:21:53 am
That settles it, I'm gonna have to try and buy this at some point. It's just beautiful, all of it, and only getting better.
Post by: Dragonslayerelf on March 14, 2019, 09:57:58 am
Post by: Cruxador on March 14, 2019, 10:39:05 am
Post by: Rose on March 14, 2019, 10:44:16 am
Post by: scourge728 on March 14, 2019, 11:19:35 am
Post by: Lurker28 on March 14, 2019, 12:00:22 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/9XSKngk.png)
Post by: exdeath on March 14, 2019, 01:23:45 pm
Post by: therahedwig on March 14, 2019, 02:10:54 pm
Something like this, but with better defined edges:
(https://i.imgur.com/txTXsYs.png)
Post by: Plump Helmet on March 14, 2019, 02:22:31 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/txTXsYs.png)
I'm not really liking this. It reminds me too much of pillow shading.
I think the last mockup screen Mike posted is as good as we're gonna get the slopes to look, personally.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 14, 2019, 02:29:03 pm
Still trying possible improvements though:
(https://i.imgur.com/0XWAm5r.png)
@Lurker, the sharp cast shadows do help with the ramps themselves, but they make the discrepancy between the lighting of the terrain and the objects/creatures even bigger. I'd rather avoid it unless it's decided that they help for majority of players.
Post by: Rekov on March 14, 2019, 03:21:04 pm
None of the screenshots show hills sloping down to the east/up to the west. Is the sun coming directly from the top, or is it coming from top-right or top-left?
It's a shame it's (probably) not possible to implement directional shadows. The brain just needs enough consistent signals to put together a working model of where the sun is, and then what is sloping which way based on that.
Dwarf Fortress players know how ramps work, so we can figure out where the sun is based on the ramps. Inexperienced players are going to need the opposite direction to work.
Post by: Pillbo on March 14, 2019, 04:13:05 pm
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.
They don't? I thought that's how Observation skills worked- the range of vision of creatures + Observation skill = they spot an ambush or gremlin?
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/D4cENm1.png)
I like the large on the left, maybe this could be a toggle-able option. Same with the reversed ramp shading for the few people that seem to prefer it the original way.
Post by: Cruxador on March 14, 2019, 04:18:11 pm
Maybe look at how the legend of zelda does it? If you look at the Minish Cap dungeons for example, what they do is that the lower part of the ramp is darker, and the upper part lighter. Similarly, the convex edges are 'lit' and the concave edges are 'darkened'.It's very readable, so that's good, but I think your overlay isn't using the right option.
Something like this, but with better defined edges:
Yeah, I'm really not liking that solution either.The rounded edges are an improvement but the shading got too way too light compared to the other grass, and it seems like the color balance has shifted too, away from red.
Still trying possible improvements though:
Post by: Meph on March 14, 2019, 04:36:18 pm
Yeah, I'm really not liking that solution either.That one looks great. :)
Still trying possible improvements though:
(https://i.imgur.com/0XWAm5r.png)
@Lurker, the sharp cast shadows do help with the ramps themselves, but they make the discrepancy between the lighting of the terrain and the objects/creatures even bigger. I'd rather avoid it unless it's decided that they help for majority of players.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 14, 2019, 04:38:31 pm
Post by: Meph on March 14, 2019, 04:49:10 pm
If it's about super top secret "maybe" implemented features, it's probably better to do that on the project forum, just so that neither Tarn nor Tanya get a heart attack and to avoid overselling possible additions, in case they do not work out.
I mean, we had these ramps since the beginning, and look what happened within just 1 day. Public post, get feedback, suggestions for improvement, awesome sprites now. :)
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 14, 2019, 04:52:22 pm
Alright then. Be sure to check the goblinart forums from time to time though, as I will soon have much to discuss internally :P It's been a funny change of pace with the announcement, but I guess I need to refocus.
Post by: Meph on March 14, 2019, 05:37:50 pm
So that everyone is in the clear: Mike and me will discuss ideas and work-in-progress privately, once we have something to show, we can post it here for you guys to critique. Sounds good?
Post by: Kromtec on March 14, 2019, 05:44:19 pm
So that everyone is in the clear: Mike and me will discuss ideas and work-in-progress privately, once we have something to show, we can post it here for you guys to critique. Sounds good?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3rgXBOmTlzyFCURutG/giphy.gif)
Post by: spazyak on March 14, 2019, 05:55:01 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 14, 2019, 06:36:40 pm
Post by: Bumber on March 14, 2019, 06:46:41 pm
No, it's actually a good idea. It would take much work though, the current slopes are created semi-automatically (I copy the floor texture and place an overlay on it, then tweak it a bit and that's that). If I go into manually editing all slope sprites it will consume lots of time (each floor type requires a separate set and with Mephs zeal there will probably be hundreds of those ;).The solution is, of course more overlays! Not sure how much you can do with an overlay that needs to work on all floor textures, however.
I might end up doing it for the most ubiquitous floor types though!
Post by: Superdorf on March 14, 2019, 06:49:53 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 14, 2019, 07:29:02 pm
Loving what I've seen of the set so far anyhow, keep up the amazing work!
Post by: Meph on March 14, 2019, 07:56:39 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 14, 2019, 08:18:26 pm
Post by: Death Dragon on March 14, 2019, 08:46:54 pm
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/382518915630366721/555928800504840213/ramp.PNG)
Should there be more of a light gradient going from the lowest point to the highest?
Post by: Cruxador on March 14, 2019, 08:52:53 pm
As for the loom specifically, you wouldn't weave spider silk like that anyway. Considering that the graphics are supposed to move away from representation via unrelated symbols (as in ASCII) to be more representational, I agree that switching to something more realistic would be a good idea. It's also weird that you've depicted mechanisms hung up to dry.
From an art standpoint, aside from content issues I think the main problem that really jumps out in the workshops is that all the forges and furnaces lack the appearance of depth. They look like they're maybe a foot deep at most, but they should be at least as deep as they are wide.
True I suppose, and guess wool might not be much easier. I'm about as far from an artist as one can get so not very good at visualizing that kind of stuff or if there's any feasible changes or additions to make, that one was the only one that in my mind stood out somewhat anyhow (I'm sure I can get used to it either way).Really, it should just be spooled thread, since thread is the actual input, and the webs that get collected would be spooled or otherwise treated as a thread and not carefully carried while fully intact. It's a shame spinning happens at the farmer's workshop, since that would open up some options.
Post by: Pillbo on March 15, 2019, 01:39:07 am
Post by: silvernocte on March 15, 2019, 02:04:23 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 15, 2019, 03:16:48 am
@Pillbo that's more a matter to discuss with Kitfox. I'm sure if people limit themselves to releasing such remakes of the stock tileset to the Steam Workshop, there's nothing morally questionable about it. Any legal problems are not my speciality though.
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 09:19:36 am
I'm having second thoughts about the above presentation of trees. It's looking really awkward. Experiments to come!I'd do the trunk, top-down, just like in my tileset. It's the only thing that works when you scroll up/down z-levels.
@Pillbo that's more a matter to discuss with Kitfox. I'm sure if people limit themselves to releasing such remakes of the stock tileset to the Steam Workshop, there's nothing morally questionable about it. Any legal problems are not my speciality though.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 15, 2019, 10:19:56 am
Post by: Superdorf on March 15, 2019, 01:31:50 pm
Sooo... top-down trees would fit better, I think, with the surrounding terrain, especially when you start fiddling with z-level integration and whatnot.
Perhaps there's another solution. But right now, I'm not seeing it.
Post by: Plump Helmet on March 15, 2019, 02:19:06 pm
Post by: Alehkhs on March 15, 2019, 02:43:31 pm
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 02:52:13 pm
Post by: Alehkhs on March 15, 2019, 03:09:21 pm
A quick, 1-minute mockup:
(https://i.imgur.com/3IrxY69.gif)
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 03:17:53 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/NaMQSEd.png)
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 03:25:02 pm
Ah, I wasn't meaning full isometric, but just that the "southern" face of the walls be perceptible, rather than entirely parallel with the player's view.I know what you mean, but it opens Pandoras box. Lets say engravings: Dwarves logically engrave the side of the wall, not the top. So we'd add engravings to East-West facings walls on that large, visible area you added. But what about engraved walls that go North-South? Those you only see from the top, without any nice surface area. We can't add engravings there.
A quick, 1-minute mockup:
(https://i.imgur.com/3IrxY69.gif)
I'm very familiar with those issues because oh-so-smart-me decided to use exactly that style of wall in my own tileset. :D
Post by: Alehkhs on March 15, 2019, 03:40:32 pm
Is there an example of an engraved wall in any of the currently shown mockups for the Steam tileset?
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 04:01:18 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/h4KyxV5.png)
Post by: Alehkhs on March 15, 2019, 04:22:52 pm
I guess I'll wait to see how it all comes together - I'm especially curious to see where things might go with relation to multiple z-levels.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 15, 2019, 04:29:29 pm
@Alehkhs - I initially proposed something like that... only even more advanced (slightly). The final decision was that we should start with a normal top-down view and then see if we can make a PROPER 3/4 view later on. I very much want to do it, at least.
Post by: Alehkhs on March 15, 2019, 04:40:20 pm
Really happy that there's already been some decent transparency regarding the whole Steam DF project. Excited to watch it as it comes together!
Post by: Death Dragon on March 15, 2019, 05:11:51 pm
Maybe adding the shadows will improve it, but this looks way too much like holes in the ground you could jump over:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/150659133123723264/556237080380833792/1552616412002.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/366288212597014558/555939112104886296/1552616534793.png)
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 05:32:05 pm
There are about 200 of them in the game and they are rarely seen, so some kind of automated process to create them would be nice. I made a little test with 1 basic body, copying over the skin/hair texture and the head from an animal. The results look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/xanEark.png)
Obviously they could look nicer, but this solution has one major advantage: Positions of bodyparts, hands/feet especially are always the same, which means they can show the equipped items (swords, shields, armor) just like regular civ members.
So, what do you think about the look?
Even while naked the sprite would show clothing, as a visual reminder that those are intelligent animal men, not animals.
Post by: Alehkhs on March 15, 2019, 05:38:13 pm
It's not terribly important, but a possible solution to the "never nude" situation would be to make their intelligent nature evident through posture. I like the hand-on-hip posture, but what if the other hand was up in a hailing position when unclothed? Similar to the Voyager plaque:
(https://i.imgur.com/9kMNdGGm.png)
But then what if they're holding a weapon.. hm. Well, I suppose that would still be an indication that they were more than your standard animal!
Post by: Asin on March 15, 2019, 06:05:25 pm
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 06:15:23 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 15, 2019, 06:25:32 pm
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 06:35:06 pm
Post by: Superdorf on March 15, 2019, 06:53:14 pm
As far as the top-down/three-quarter clash goes... eh. It's a little odd-looking without shadows. Much less so with. I'm fine with it, for now.
Do the sprites for "normal" races like dwarves and such come clothed whether the creature in question is clothed or not?
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 07:26:44 pm
Post by: Death Dragon on March 15, 2019, 07:31:45 pm
There are about 200 of them in the game and they are rarely seen, so some kind of automated process to create them would be nice. I made a little test with 1 basic body, copying over the skin/hair texture and the head from an animal. The results look like this:Will the sprites be automatically generated by the game using these modular pieces or are you just talking about pre-making the sprites using an automated process?
I'm wondering how this graphics set will handle the randomly generated races that are supposed to come with the magic release.
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 07:53:32 pm
Procedual stuff gets frankensteined together from pieces, a sprite per possible bodypart etc.
Post by: Cruxador on March 15, 2019, 07:55:55 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 15, 2019, 08:01:48 pm
Well, I'm of the opinion that since this is meant to be the actual official graphics for the game, it should represent what's going on in the game, rather than merely an abstraction. ASCII is already a perfectly good abstraction for people who care if things are represented accurately but just want icons.Hmm. Yeah. Is facial hair and missing limbs and so on all included in the sprites? I always find it much harder to imagine that the clothed, bearded dwarf in front of me is representative of a clean-shaven, naked dwarf with one leg, compared with 'd'.
Meh, but that's just me. The 'I must have Graphics!' crowd is vocal enough for me to understand it's my choice to switch on ascii.
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 08:27:36 pm
Well, I'm of the opinion that since this is meant to be the actual official graphics for the game, it should represent what's going on in the game, rather than merely an abstraction. ASCII is already a perfectly good abstraction for people who care if things are represented accurately but just want icons.Me too. :) But it's a joint venture of what Tarn can code, what Mike deems stylisch, and what Kitfox can pay for.
Making everything according to the raws might not always work, look good or be affordable. (because it might end up with thousand upon thousands of variations)
As an example, showing professions for animal men would mean making 40.000 sprites. ;)
We want to do hair styles/beards, and I will certainly suggest injuries at least for dwarves. It would be too much work for every creature, but maybe it's possible to come up with a system for civ-members. That being said, we haven't even spoken to Tarn about the injuries, it's just something in my notes.Well, I'm of the opinion that since this is meant to be the actual official graphics for the game, it should represent what's going on in the game, rather than merely an abstraction. ASCII is already a perfectly good abstraction for people who care if things are represented accurately but just want icons.Hmm. Yeah. Is facial hair and missing limbs and so on all included in the sprites? I always find it much harder to imagine that the clothed, bearded dwarf in front of me is representative of a clean-shaven, naked dwarf with one leg, compared with 'd'.
Meh, but that's just me. The 'I must have Graphics!' crowd is vocal enough for me to understand it's my choice to switch on ascii.
Edit: I'm just happy that we will be able to do stuff like this: :)
(https://i.imgur.com/TdgJDhI.png)
Post by: LordBalkan on March 15, 2019, 08:52:25 pm
Yeah, I'm really not liking that solution either.
Still trying possible improvements though:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Meph and Mayday, thats getting awesome!
Thank you both for this great art.
Now, I have a few questions:
- The mini-grid rooms with both wood and bags are the stockpile represantation, am I right?
There is a small (?) chance to add some kind of way to differ each one of them depending on wich material are stocked in it?
Say, yellow for food, green for rough material, gray for weapons and so on...
Or... a way to add inscriptions on it? Don't know, something like "Food Pile 2", "Gems pile 34", "Wood Pile".... you get it, right?
OR EVEN both the ideas? hahah just dreaming high...
- (And this is just a visual thing heheh) the beds.... They look soo small... the pillow is representing more the bed then the bed itself. I mean, the tables (which don't have much more details I know) looks wider then the beds, and they both ocupy the same amount of pixels, right?
Heheh just laying my thoughts here.
BTW, this last soft-slopes are the BEST, it is a shame that will be a trouble to multilevel view...
Also, about the inside walls, the shades kindda do the trick to understand that they are not a hole in the ground. Again, it is bad that its too difficult to maintain the complete wall visible as Meph already said.
And thats it!
Looking forward for more updates from you guys!!
Post by: Cruxador on March 15, 2019, 08:56:22 pm
And to reiterate in a general sense, the whole point of going with WYSIWYG graphics over ASCII-based icons is that what you see reflects what you get as accurately as possible.
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 09:11:26 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/lGjAeJB.png)
but colors is also a great idea. I'll add it to the list.
The beds are too small considering the size of dwarves, yes. Maybe we can do this:
(https://i.imgur.com/3zuiMWw.png) (7 pixels oversized to the north)
Post by: Pillbo on March 15, 2019, 09:15:57 pm
@Pillbo that's more a matter to discuss with Kitfox. I'm sure if people limit themselves to releasing such remakes of the stock tileset to the Steam Workshop, there's nothing morally questionable about it. Any legal problems are not my speciality though.
As far as the repaints idea, I wasn't imagining people putting out their mod packaged with your edited sprites included. I was thinking the game could do it, more like- someone makes a mod of new type of mushroom, and they point the raws at the built in sprites for stock mushrooms with a red filter over top, so you get visually distinct objects that fit right into the look of the stock art.
This is just run through the Color Replacement Tool in photoshop:
(https://imgur.com/MCRLdgU.png)
Otherwise I imagine some people will make mods like this:
(https://imgur.com/9Pq2PeN.png)(https://imgur.com/eFfc9uz.png)
Not that I have any idea how easy something like that could be. You guys talking about the automatically changing sprites got me thinking about it.
Post by: LordBalkan on March 15, 2019, 09:18:44 pm
Yeah, those are better beds indeed.
Ty for your kindness! Any others thoughts will be stocked here in future as well.
Post by: Superdorf on March 15, 2019, 09:24:19 pm
As far as the actual look of the animal-people sprites goes... well, it works, only the biggest animal people (like, say, that elephant man) have these really enormous heads compared to their bodies. It's kind of cute, actually... but maybe not what you were going for? I dunno.
Post by: Cruxador on March 15, 2019, 09:25:18 pm
Not that I have any idea how easy something like that could be. You guys talking about the automatically changing sprites got me thinking about it.The game already does this by default. All they've got to do is not intentionally break it.
but colors is also a great idea. I'll add it to the list.The danger with relying on color too much in too many different areas is that things can become a confusing mishmash quickly, especially if they always have those colors, as opposed to just when you've got an overlay (like how zones show up). I think the icon and border plan is better in this case.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 15, 2019, 09:30:47 pm
Obviously, there are practical limits on what can be done. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about, for example, clothing the sprites of animal people such as the olm men who will almost never appear clothed in game. I'm also talking about things like coloring dwarf clothes arbitrarily on profession rather than respecting their actual colors, since inheriting colors from the raws is already in the game in other forms, and being able to see the color is the whole reason that a player would choose to color their clothes in the first place. At least that one, unlike the never-nude nudists, has a gameplay justification, but it's still far less important than allowing players to successfully color their uniforms and then have colored uniforms.But totally WYSIWYG actually makes the game harder to see what's happening since you can no longer tell dwarves apart by profession which you can in Classic.
And to reiterate in a general sense, the whole point of going with WYSIWYG graphics over ASCII-based icons is that what you see reflects what you get as accurately as possible.
Not that profession really means anything. You're still going to have a guy dressed for cheesemaking working the forges in complete disregard for safety standards. So...maybe you're right. Focus should be on clothes and not professions at all.
Question for Meph, what sprite will an axedwarf (highest skill axe) weilding a sword get? Sword hopefully. Interface is confusing enough working out who's equipped with what without the damn sprites showing fake equipment. Oh, and there's a guy on Reddit showing off his artifact stone cabinet and how many kills it has, doable?
Is any of this useful or would you rather I stop now and get back to my ASCII hole?
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 15, 2019, 09:36:15 pm
Not sure which way I lean on the clothing part. While I'd personally love to have them colored the way they're actually dressed and just have to learn to recognise their particular clothing and attribute matchup, having them color coded by profession is a huge help obviously for a lot of people, new players especially. Naked vs clothed feels like a significant enough thing that it should be visible though, since imo it's much more useful to instantly be able to tell that someone is naked than to be able to tell what profession the seemingly upset dwarf has, or in the case of animal men instantly be able to tell that it's a savage one vs a civilized one, or other cases where naked people may occur.
How many of these details are actually in flux still btw? Would be silly to argue over things that are already set in stone for now.
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 10:23:03 pm
Quote
I was thinking the game could do it, more like- someone makes a mod of new type of mushroom, and they point the raws at the built in sprites for stock mushrooms with a red filter over top, so you get visually distinct objects that fit right into the look of the stock art.I'll ask Tanya. In theory it should be fine for the Steam version, as long as they don't use the sprites in the free version. Recolors would be the easiest way, yes. If nothing major changes, people can just do that in the raws btw, no need for changing the pictures. Just change the color values in the text files.
Quote
As far as the actual look of the animal-people sprites goes... well, it works, only the biggest animal people (like, say, that elephant man) have these really enormous heads compared to their bodies. It's kind of cute, actually... but maybe not what you were going for? I dunno.Agreed, the large oversized creatures don't work with the small bodies. My idea is to wait till we've done the Giant (megabeast) sprite, and use it's body as the basis for the large creatures. ;)
Quote
Not that profession really means anything. You're still going to have a guy dressed for cheesemaking working the forges in complete disregard for safety standards. So...maybe you're right. Focus should be on clothes and not professions at all.hehe, Mike will love you for this. :)
Quote
Question for Meph, what sprite will an axedwarf (highest skill axe) weilding a sword get?Sword.
Quote
Oh, and there's a guy on Reddit showing off his artifact stone cabinet and how many kills it has, doable?What's doable? A stone cabinet?
Quote
How many of these details are actually in flux still btw? Would be silly to argue over things that are already set in stone for now.All of them. We have time to discuss and throw ideas around till the villains release and the bugfixes. Only after that will Toady commit to coding the steam version.
Crafts preview, critique away!
(https://i.imgur.com/fBoSik8.png)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 15, 2019, 10:35:16 pm
Quote
What's doable? A stone cabinet
He's wielding an artifact cabinet in battle.
That and all the regular misc object users. Is it possible to show them all with the sprites?
Oh, and I'll be annoying once more since you're now doing this officially. How about figurines and statues which resemble their descriptions?
Post by: silvernocte on March 15, 2019, 10:42:04 pm
Crafts preview, critique away!Ooh, goods look nice.
(https://i.imgur.com/fBoSik8.png)
But do figurines normally have a base?
Sometimes, they seem to be diorama-like, but dwarves carry these things around like jewelry, and that seems hard to do with a square plate at the bottom of each figurine.
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 10:52:32 pm
Statues have far too many posible descriptions, and figurines are supposed to be rather small, so they have even less pixels to use. I think we will go with 1 statue and 1 figurine; although I wouldn't be opposed to doing something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/qJRe2BV.png)
Just using greyscale creature graphics on a podium as a way to create a statue. I already do that with dwarven statues in my own tileset, although it's random, not fitting their description. I think it looks cool though. But don't get your hopes up; I'm pretty sure it will be 1 statue sprite.
Quote
But do figurines normally have a base?Just look at any type of RL figurine. They do have bases, how else would you put them somewhere? :P Mind that the crafts are not using the correct relative size. The sprites show much larger items than they are ingame. Has to be that way... a dwarven hand is 2 pixels, so 1 finger is 0.5 pixels, so a ring would be... 0.15 pixels? :D
Sometimes, they seem to be diorama-like, but dwarves carry these things around like jewelry, and that seems hard to do with a square plate at the bottom of each figurine.
Post by: Cruxador on March 15, 2019, 11:01:50 pm
There shouldn't be any legal ambiguity, changing the raws would recolor the tree graphic in the steam version or else it would recolor the ASCII tile in the classic version. A graphic derived from the steam version shouldn't be packaged for a freely available mod I guess, legally, but it would be fine on the workshop and even if someone does something that technically they shouldn't, like use a couple premium sprites as a starting point for their own work, I reckon it would even be fine to look the other way except in an egregious case.QuoteI was thinking the game could do it, more like- someone makes a mod of new type of mushroom, and they point the raws at the built in sprites for stock mushrooms with a red filter over top, so you get visually distinct objects that fit right into the look of the stock art.I'll ask Tanya. In theory it should be fine for the Steam version, as long as they don't use the sprites in the free version. Recolors would be the easiest way, yes. If nothing major changes, people can just do that in the raws btw, no need for changing the pictures. Just change the color values in the text files.
Quote
Agreed, the large oversized creatures don't work with the small bodies. My idea is to wait till we've done the Giant (megabeast) sprite, and use it's body as the basis for the large creatures. ;)I'm actually kind of digging the Babar-like vibe of that elephant man.
Quote
Crafts preview, critique away!The earrings look like finger rings, and the crown looks ambiguous. I think both of those would be better without the gem. Although if the gem is meant to inherit color from a decoration (it would be cool if it sparkled in all the colors of decorations like stained class windows) then maybe just shrink them instead. The bracelet also looks like a short length of pipe, but I guess fundamentally that's what a bracelet is anyway.
(https://i.imgur.com/fBoSik8.png)
Neither of those are reasonable. The former would require a weapon-sized version of every item in the game to be sprited and turned into an overlay, the latter needs a sprite for every item, creature, and combination thereof.QuoteWhat's doable? A stone cabinet
He's wielding an artifact cabinet in battle.
That and all the regular misc object users. Is it possible to show them all with the sprites?
Oh, and I'll be annoying once more since you're now doing this officially. How about figurines and statues which resemble their descriptions?
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 15, 2019, 11:09:39 pm
Post by: LordBalkan on March 15, 2019, 11:21:26 pm
Quote
Well, technically it would be possible to just show a cabinet where the weapon would beHahahah just by reading that is funny to picture the dwarf carrying a cabinet instead of a sword :P
Quote
Crafts preview, critique away!I have to agree with Cruxador on crown. I couldn't really think of any other ideas though...
But! For the armlets I was thinking something like these (that fit well close to the armpit)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The idea of incomplete "circle" fits better. I mean, who wants those things to get stuck in your arms.... right??
Post by: Meph on March 15, 2019, 11:39:48 pm
Nice indeed, would prefer a slighly more generic figurine though (as in not specifically a warrior). Imo it's best to make something that could represent as many different things as possible. Like just a small figure in a simple pose like this (https://www.archaeology.org/images/SO2014/Artifact/Viking-Figurine-Freya.jpg). Not sure sure on this, but isn' t bases on figurine like that more of a modern thing? Like people used to carry those kind of figurines depicting their gods etc around with them for protection or what not?I think you might have a point. I was mostly going by action-figurine. ^^
Good point on the open bracelet too. Makes perfect sense.
Bone versions anyone? :)
(https://i.imgur.com/bXZglqf.png)
The gems are just highlights. It should keep it's color, but it's mostly so that the rings/earrings don't look like circles. A circle could be anything.
Edit: How about this for a crown?
(https://i.imgur.com/ceWz1Xt.png)
Post by: CarpBiter2000 on March 16, 2019, 12:16:23 am
Nice indeed, would prefer a slighly more generic figurine thoughYeah, I agree. Right now it looks a lot like the statue sprite. Personally, I would prefer something more distinct.
Just look at any type of RL figurine. They do have bases, how else would you put them somewhere? :PBut do we really need them to have bases, though? I too, actually, didn't think of figurines as things having a base untill you brought it up. It's not realism that's important, I think, it's our ability to recoginze stuff right away and distinguish one from another.
Post by: Cruxador on March 16, 2019, 12:26:01 am
The gems are just highlights. It should keep it's colorOh, yeah then scrap it. It's fine if things that are meant to be circles look like circles.
I like most of the bone stuff, but neither of the new crowns look like crowns. Since it's meant to be recognizable, take inspiration from historical crowns, which have as their foundation a band that encircles the head, and then go up from there. The high fantasy design of "anything regal that goes on a head" only works if there's a head in it to reveal the situation.
Also, remember that earrings don't have to only be rings. If you're doing different ones per material, you can consider that for example, bone earrings would likely be of one or several bones hanging from the "ring" that goes through the ear.
Edit: Oh, and I agree that putting bases on figurines is weird. They're presumably supposed to be the sort of figurines that were common in history, not something like the plastic collectables that have been popular in recent decades, but consider that even those shelf ornaments rarely have bases.
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 12:36:32 am
Anyway, medieval bee hives look weird:
(https://masonicalvarium.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/beehive.gif?w=529)
Modern ones are just a box. Soooo easy to draw. But nooooo, we make a weird heap of ropes on a table. Sure. Why not. :D
(https://i.imgur.com/4BQnBGO.png)
Cruxador: I'm mostly going through all the missing items rather quickly right now, just to give Mike a little shock when he comes online. None of the designs are final, and I'm sure that he will have plenty of good ideas to improve whatever I muck up.
Edit: Floodgates... Do you think they are a bit like a dam?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/bvwvh1B2L4J8c/giphy-facebook_s.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y5UR8SK.png)
Mh... technically they should look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/93nzpA5.png)
But that's not really 32x32, but 46x66. :/
Post by: Death Dragon on March 16, 2019, 02:10:48 am
- The mini-grid rooms with both wood and bags are the stockpile represantation, am I right?We can already name stockpiles, maybe displaying the stockpile's name on screen wouldn't be a bad idea. Kinda like Prison Architect, but that game goes with a whole "floor plan" kind of art style and this wouldn't work with very small stockpiles:
There is a small (?) chance to add some kind of way to differ each one of them depending on wich material are stocked in it?
Say, yellow for food, green for rough material, gray for weapons and so on...
Or... a way to add inscriptions on it? Don't know, something like "Food Pile 2", "Gems pile 34", "Wood Pile".... you get it, right?
OR EVEN both the ideas? hahah just dreaming high...
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/504754524079259678/556319474551095306/unknown.png)
Problem about icons is that they don't work well with custom stockpiles and it could be confusing to tell what is just an icon of an item and what is an actual item.
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 06:05:59 am
(https://i.imgur.com/xYXyBcL.png)
PS: Hypnopompic asked about the little dots/dashes in unmined, unrevealed rock. I put them in. :)
5-z-lvl example:
(https://i.imgur.com/gjOTG70.png)
Example with different z-levels of trees: (SUPER WIP)
(https://i.imgur.com/NOLZyXK.png)
Edit: IMPORTANT! It's not clear if there will be any multi-level view coming, so please ignore the different z-levels above. I'm just curious about the ramps, thank you. (They were created with multilevel-view in mind though, just in case, that's why I had to test it.)
Post by: gimli on March 16, 2019, 06:33:47 am
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 like this! This should be added for the Steam version. [+ I never heard about this KeeperRL game, gonna check it out.]
Post by: CarpBiter2000 on March 16, 2019, 07:44:05 am
I'm just curious about the ramps, thank youCan you please show one without so many Z-levels, to get an impression how the ramps look in the context of an actual fortress? Because right now it's like the entire place is underwater, only there is no water, and it's very distracting.
Post by: TwistedMinds on March 16, 2019, 07:50:37 am
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 08:00:51 am
They either work with multiple z-lvls, or get scrapped and replaced with something that does.I'm just curious about the ramps, thank youCan you please show one without so many Z-levels, to get an impression how the ramps look in the context of an actual fortress? Because right now it's like the entire place is underwater, only there is no water, and it's very distracting.
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean with underwater. (Edit: No, wait, I think I do. Because it gets darker the deeper the zlvls go.)
Post by: silvernocte on March 16, 2019, 08:08:42 am
well it's certainly come a long ways from the reveal ramps
Post by: LordBalkan on March 16, 2019, 08:18:55 am
We can already name stockpiles, maybe displaying the stockpile's name on screen wouldn't be a bad idea. Kinda like Prison Architect, but that game goes with a whole "floor plan" kind of art style and this wouldn't work with very small stockpiles:
Problem about icons is that they don't work well with custom stockpiles and it could be confusing to tell what is just an icon of an item and what is an actual item.
Exactly what I had in mind when the suggestion came! (Didn't play Prison Archtect long enough to get used to all stuff hehehe)
And yeah, now you said it would be a little confuse to distinguish if it is an item on the ground or just the icon of the stockpile itself. The color kindda do the trick here, since the item icon displayed have the same brownish color-grade pattern for all "stockpiles-icon".
Didn't fully undestand what Cruxador said about the difficulties to change the color at will, but hope Meph and Mayday have something in mind about it.
So... I had a try at ramps myself.
Oh!! They are smooth! And also kindda short! My thing with the ramps from the beggining was because they lookd like were leading way too far from the ground, almost like a "isometric" view, like the walls on Tibia Online:
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/tibia/images/9/9f/Cw7a.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/155?cb=20131030174412&path-prefix=en)
Nothing against the visual, just doesn't felt right since the idea is not a isometric view, just a top-down one.
But! Since you shown those shortned versions, its possible to maintain that way?
(https://i.imgur.com/6BuwGO4.png)Edit: I do prefer the round-corners that Mayday displayed with the bottom smooth slopes that Meph made. :P
well it's certainly come a long ways from the reveal ramps
About the trees.. well as the z-levels goes up the game tend to shown not only the trunk but also the branches and not tend to be just a round top. Yes, I've read that this is just a mockup, but I wanted to do this heads up since the view of highest levels would be not that simple. I guess... Overall, it looks like the Zelda: Link to the Past and its fine heheheh.
Oh! Almost forgot
The beehives... well the boxes would be also nice, but for the sake of representation the medieval its for the best.
And for the floodgates, actually o do like more the real floodgate, resembling an elevate door with chains.
I mean, it's not a construction made on the place, it's a structure that can be carried.
Post by: CarpBiter2000 on March 16, 2019, 08:22:01 am
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean with underwater.Have you ever seen a lake with very clear water, and how it gets gradually more dark the deeper it is?
(https://i.imgur.com/6BuwGO4.png)I think Mayday's ramps look the most readable.
well it's certainly come a long ways from the reveal ramps
Post by: Oab on March 16, 2019, 08:24:14 am
Here are some things I think are important, especially for new players.
Highest level profession determines the sprite which does not always match their current job, which has already been mentioned. I have a suggestion for this.
Add tools/outfit that dwarfs must equip to be able to convert to a new profession, which in turn would change their sprite. Blacksmith hammer/apron could be equipped when the dwarf uses that professions workshop for example. Similar to how dwarfs change into a military uniform.
The amount of sprites without variations is already insane; seriously the workload here is absolute madness. To reduce this workload down I would consider doing as much of the art as possible in a modular manner.
For instance someone mentioned how a dwarf missing a limb would be represented visually? Why not draw different arms and legs which could be drawn to visually represent different conditions.
This could also be used for forgotten beasts and were beasts to better match their descriptions and save time creating hundred of unique sprites.
To go one step further this could be used to create body parts for corpses when limbs are severed.
So in a nutshell you would have a torso, arms, legs, head, hair, than equipment over those. This is how I made all my sprites. Everything gets drawn separately then I Frankenstein them together. This reduced my workload tremendously.
Trees should get the same treatment as walls. There isn’t any other way to properly represent them with the canopy in mind. Meph I would add shadow showing where the canopy is for the ground layer of the tree.
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 08:39:20 am
Quote
About the trees.. well as the z-levels goes up the game tend to shown not only the trunk but also the branches and not tend to be just a round top. Yes, I've read that this is just a mockup, but I wanted to do this heads up since the view of highest levels would be not that simple. I guess... Overall, it looks like the Zelda: Link to the Past and its fine heheheh.That... is only semi-correct. The trees in the mock-up are shown exactly like they would be shown ingame. Top level of a tree are only leaves, btw, in my own tileset I do use the tree-trunk sprite from Zelda: Link to the Past. :D one of the easter eggs in the set.
Spoiler: no trunk, only some branches 1-zlvl below (click to show/hide)
Quote
Highest level profession determines the sprite which does not always match their current job, which has already been mentioned. I have a suggestion for this.No way. That's a game-play mechanic change adding new items and uniforms, just for graphics. That won't be done.
Add tools/outfit that dwarfs must equip to be able to convert to a new profession, which in turn would change their sprite. Blacksmith hammer/apron could be equipped when the dwarf uses that professions workshop for example. Similar to how dwarfs change into a military uniform.
Quote
For instance someone mentioned how a dwarf missing a limb would be represented visually? Why not draw different arms and legs which could be drawn to visually represent different conditions.That's what we are doing already with the equipment and procedually generated stuff. If injuries are shown, it will work the same way.
Quote
This could also be used for forgotten beasts and were beasts to better match their descriptions and save time creating hundred of unique sprites.yes we are planning to do just that.
Quote
To go one step further this could be used to create body parts for corpses when limbs are severed.corpses get a fitting sprite per creature.
Quote
Everything gets drawn separately then I Frankenstein them together. This reduced my workload tremendously.I know. ;) That's how I made 1000+ civ sprites 2 years ago: https://imgur.com/a/6jUOL
Quote
Trees should get the same treatment as walls. There isn’t any other way to properly represent them with the canopy in mind. Meph I would add shadow showing where the canopy is for the ground layer of the tree.I really hope that trees get the same directional context as walls, otherwise they would look... bad. They need to know where the border is between leaves and open-space. The shadow is a cool idea, someone else already mentioned that yesterday. Here a mock-up:
(https://i.imgur.com/S1kcrJd.png)
NO IDEA (!) how feasable that tree-shadow is though. It's something that hasn't at all come up in the talk with Tarn yet.
It does look good, but... why do trees give shadows, but a roof wouldn't? The game has inside/outside light/dark tiles, which are ignored. Trees would be the only exception, and the tiles below them are certainly outside/light... yet darkened by shadow. ^^
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 09:19:24 am
(https://i.imgur.com/P8lcJPd.png)
Post by: Dragonsploof on March 16, 2019, 09:59:43 am
(https://i.imgur.com/6BuwGO4.png)I really like the look of Meph's ramps.
well it's certainly come a long ways from the reveal ramps
Post by: CLA on March 16, 2019, 10:12:59 am
[no idea] how feasable that tree-shadow is though.I can't imagine it being much different from other "layer projections". In fact, it seems easier to give everything a shadow - i.e. use darker shaded tile everywhere where there's a solid object on z+1 - much like you would show lower elevation levels. The top-down view on the trees looks much better by the way.
Non directional shadow on the ramps looks also much better I think (the ones titled "Meph"). I think it would look better when the gradient between floor and ramps leading upwards is more soft, and there's a more visible barrier between the floor and the ramps leading to the level below. It makes it visually clearer that the "up ramps" belong to the current level and the "down ramps" are just "up-ramps" of the level below.
That way it's communicated to the player that a level consists of a floor and its wall/ramp etc on top. The shadow seen on the middle mockup ("Mayday") feels wrong to me for that reason.
Post by: Cruxador on March 16, 2019, 10:15:44 am
Edit: Floodgates... Do you think they are a bit like a dam?If you consider that floodgates are only one tile big, they're probably more comparable to the floodgates in irrigation channels. But on the other hand, they're powered by mechanism, not by hand. And... They're totally binary, so not really floodgates in any modern sense at all. I haven't found any information on how medieval floodgates could have been different. But if you consider that they block an entire tunnel without any part protruding to the above z-level and basically disappear when open, the "double door" style of floodgate might be most appropriate.
(https://i.imgur.com/Y5UR8SK.png)
Mh... technically they should look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/93nzpA5.png)
But that's not really 32x32, but 46x66. :/
Heya Meph, I like your figurines, but I have a nagging feeling they would look too similar to living beings in a room full of people. What about flipping them horizontally (weapons on the right) instead?Rotating them so they're lying on their backs as if discarded would probably be even more distinct.
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 10:36:07 am
But if everyone thinks that they look like creatures, so be it. I present to you, after years of hard labor, the mountain gnome and the dark gnome:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZQIlRzv.png)
:P
Mike is the one actually hard at work, refining the shaded ramps. I'm sure he will pop up momentarily. :)
Quote
Non directional shadow on the ramps looks also much better I think (the ones titled "Meph"). I think it would look better when the gradient between floor and ramps leading upwards is more soft, and there's a more visible barrier between the floor and the ramps leading to the level below. It makes it visually clearer that the "up ramps" belong to the current level and the "down ramps" are just "up-ramps" of the level below.It's a first try, I just wanted to know if people understand that style better than the ramps with directional shadow. I kinda like that they blend in that well, but it would be easy to add something like a 1-pixel edge somewhere to make it clearer.
That way it's communicated to the player that a level consists of a floor and its wall/ramp etc on top. The shadow seen on the middle mockup ("Mayday") feels wrong to me for that reason.
Post by: Oab on March 16, 2019, 10:46:30 am
Quote
No way. That's a game-play mechanic change adding new items and uniforms, just for graphics. That won't be done.
Yeah I understand that, and figured as much. Contradictory visuals is a big negative for me. Maybe I am the minority with this line of thought, but I can't help but think this is going to be a common thing being seen in the con categories on steam reviews.
Quote
That's what we are doing already with the equipment and procedually generated stuff. If injuries are shown, it will work the same way.
That's great. I didn't see it anywhere that you had plans on matching the descriptions beyond the heads and equipment. Is this the plan for all the races or just dwarfs?
Quote
It does look good, but... why do trees give shadows, but a roof wouldn't? The game has inside/outside light/dark tiles, which are ignored. Trees would be the only exception, and the tiles below them are certainly outside/light... yet darkened by shadow. ^^
I think that's obviously something else to consider for roofs. It would make sense for shadows to exist just for the sole purpose of adding a visual indication that it is indoors.
This type of art doesn't apply logic to begin with. The point of view isn't consistent.
Light and shadow are tools to show form. The gradient of your ramp is a good example. Which also happens to look the best imo.
I don't understand how shadows wouldn't be feasible.
I think the shadow of the canopy looks good on your example and definitely implies the canopy is above. A thick forest will actually look like it has a thick canopy using this style so that's a plus.
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 10:56:57 am
Kennels are only used to tame small animals. That's it. They only need 1 boulder, block, log or bar to be build. Kennels are 5x5. Kennels are weird.
In vanilla DF, kennels are shown with 4 grates and 2 earrings (?), which makes no sense to me. Instead I'd go with 4 animal-traps and 2 chains/ropes, since that has something to do with catching animals. I would make the kennel floor tranparent, with rock/dirt at the animal-traps, like a little barn or cattle shed.
What do you guys think? (#1 vanilla setup, #2 my idea, #3 on constructed floor with vermin added for fun, #4 on grass.)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q666UeG.png)
Post by: TwistedMinds on March 16, 2019, 11:01:48 am
I just make new figurines. ^^
:P
Looks good (I also liked your previous one so.. yeah..).
What I meant by flipping them horizontally is, what if all items/constructions that looks like humanoid looked to the other side (right) instead of to the left. Might make it easier to differentiate dwarves/creatures and items(figurine)/construction(statue if they looks like humanoid)
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 11:04:28 am
Quote
Yeah I understand that, and figured as much. Contradictory visuals is a big negative for me. Maybe I am the minority with this line of thought, but I can't help but think this is going to be a common thing being seen in the con categories on steam reviews.We have a lot of time to figure this out before the release. :)
Quote
That's great. I didn't see it anywhere that you had plans on matching the descriptions beyond the heads and equipment. Is this the plan for all the races or just dwarfs?Current plan is to do hair/beard/skin for entities (dwarf, human, elf, goblin, kobold), equipped weapons/armor/shield (for everyone) and frankenstein FBs, Demons, Titans and Nightcreatures together (that will be a difficult one). Maybe equipped axe or pick for woodcutter and miners, since they are the only professions that requires tools to work.
I was playing devils advocate a bit with the shadows. ^^ I do like the look too, let's see if something like that can be added. In secret, I want Warmist to show up here and throw Rendermax into the mix. :D
Quote
What I meant by flipping them horizontally is, what if all items/constructions that looks like humanoid looked to the other side (right) instead of to the left. Might make it easier to differentiate dwarves/creatures and items(figurine)/construction(statue if they looks like humanoid)I might want to do that to undead. They turn undead... muhaha. ba-dum-tsss.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 16, 2019, 11:10:59 am
I just make new figurines. ^^
But if everyone thinks that they look like creatures, so be it.
Maybe go for some more stylized approach that makes it clearer that it's not a creature? Like a figurine without arms or legs like this (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6a/cd/ee/6acdee2e162da00e4c34e3e7739f7eb0.jpg). Imagine it's hard with the limited pixels still.
Community feedback bonus round: Kennels!
Kennels are only used to tame small animals. That's it. They only need 1 boulder, block, log or bar to be build. Kennels are 5x5. Kennels are weird.
In vanilla DF, kennels are shown with 4 grates and 2 earrings (?), which makes no sense to me. Instead I'd go with 4 animal-traps and 2 chains/ropes, since that has something to do with catching animals. I would make the kennel floor tranparent, with rock/dirt at the animal-traps, like a little barn or cattle shed.
What do you guys think? (#1 vanilla setup, #2 my idea, #3 on constructed floor with vermin added for fun, #4 on grass.)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Looks nice, could you show one without the rock/dirt as well for comparison?
Post by: silvernocte on March 16, 2019, 11:11:41 am
Quote
vanilla DF, kennels are shown with 4 grates and 2 earrings (?), which makes no sense to me.I never really questioned the use of earrings in kennels, but now it seems 100% dwarven that they'd tag their livestock and the like with earrings rather than, well, tags.
Anyways, cages and ropes makes a whole lot more sense, but what are your thoughts on maybe having a straw bedding rather than the dirt/stone? Eh, it looks fine as it is, though.
Post by: CLA on March 16, 2019, 11:13:41 am
It doesn't have to be a literal edge, making all lower level tiles consistently darker (including the ramps) would be enough I think.QuoteNon directional shadow on the ramps looks also much better I think (the ones titled "Meph"). I think it would look better when the gradient between floor and ramps leading upwards is more soft, and there's a more visible barrier between the floor and the ramps leading to the level below. It makes it visually clearer that the "up ramps" belong to the current level and the "down ramps" are just "up-ramps" of the level below.It's a first try, I just wanted to know if people understand that style better than the ramps with directional shadow. I kinda like that they blend in that well, but it would be easy to add something like a 1-pixel edge somewhere to make it clearer.
That way it's communicated to the player that a level consists of a floor and its wall/ramp etc on top. The shadow seen on the middle mockup ("Mayday") feels wrong to me for that reason.
Post by: Hapchazzard on March 16, 2019, 11:13:54 am
(https://i.imgur.com/xm1uNeY.png)
As a bonus, maybe add a "PRECIOUS" flag in the material defines, with PRECIOUS materials possibly having a sparkle or two superimposed on the image itself.
Also, how hard/easy is it to make the appearance of specific items modular? For example, making the jewel on the crown actually change color depending on the gem used (if any)?
Post by: Death Dragon on March 16, 2019, 12:49:46 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/6BuwGO4.png)The Mayday ones look graphically fancier, but the Meph ones do solve this one problem I mentioned before:
I like the ramps a lot, but when you have them just on one side, then there isn't really much indication that you're looking at ramps:I think the gradient from low to high could be more uniform though.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/382518915630366721/555928800504840213/ramp.PNG)
Current plan is to do hair/beard/skin for entities (dwarf, human, elf, goblin, kobold), equipped weapons/armor/shield (for everyone) and frankenstein FBs, Demons, Titans and Nightcreatures together (that will be a difficult one). Maybe equipped axe or pick for woodcutter and miners, since they are the only professions that requires tools to work.One of the screenshots showed beakdogs with slightly different appearances. Are those not actually planned for the released game or are they an exception?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/504754524079259678/556532899914973184/unknown.png)
Some really interesting stuff here! How will items made of unusual materials be handled? E.g. artifact floodgates made of ruby? It seems a bit excessive to make sprites for every edge-case, but it would still be weird for them to have regular appearances when they're made of such an exotic material. Would applying some sort duocolor filter, with RGB values given in the raws work? For example, a "ruby floodgate" would look something like this:I agree it would probably be best if there could just be a colour filter automatically applied to a thing's graphic sprite that depends on its raw file. Not sure how feasible this is code wise, but if modular sprites for proc gen'd creatures are feasible, then maybe this could be, too?
Post by: Death Dragon on March 16, 2019, 01:20:42 pm
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/382518915630366721/556542053337530389/unknown.png)
I think this is the direction to go in.
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 01:34:40 pm
Some really interesting stuff here! How will items made of unusual materials be handled? E.g. artifact floodgates made of ruby? It seems a bit excessive to make sprites for every edge-case, but it would still be weird for them to have regular appearances when they're made of such an exotic material. Would applying some sort duocolor filter, with RGB values given in the raws work? For example, a "ruby floodgate" would look something like this:My current idea is sets for items of stone, wood, metal and glass. Gems would just use the glass version.
(https://i.imgur.com/xm1uNeY.png)
As a bonus, maybe add a "PRECIOUS" flag in the material defines, with PRECIOUS materials possibly having a sparkle or two superimposed on the image itself.
Also, how hard/easy is it to make the appearance of specific items modular? For example, making the jewel on the crown actually change color depending on the gem used (if any)?
Modular colors: I only know how it works in TWBT, Toady hasn't coded anything in that regard yet, and I don't know if we will get such a feature. More control over color would be fantastic. I think everyone who ever made a tileset for DF would agree. ^^
Beak dogs: Ups, no. Mike made an updated version, somehow both ended up in the screenshot. But we could probably use one for male and one for female beak dog. :)
Color filters ARE automatically applied in DF. Which is actually kind of a problem.
I also made something completely different... the trade depot. I don't know if it makes any sense, but my reasoning was this: The trade depot is one large open area. Dwarves would surely decorate such an area, but they only have the floor. So they either do engravings or a mosaic... well...
The trade depot:
(https://i.imgur.com/zO4eh52.png)
(I know already that we won't use that and I'll make one more fitting to the other workshops, but I thought it looks nice. :D It's like a mini-version of the giant mosaics that people do with floor tiles. Pixelart in pixelart :D )
Post by: LeoCean on March 16, 2019, 01:40:40 pm
I think if you want to make the flood gates bigger, you'd probably have to change how they work. Say make it 2 tiles, like the waterwheel/axle it requires "power", there's no reason it couldn't work similar for flood gates.(without the actual power)("Nope. As I've said, objects will be 1 tile. But you could make creature sprite that is 3x2 tiles in size. The actual creature will be single tile, with multi-tile graphics. That's planned for sure." scratch what I said, that is more or less a feature)
(It'd be nice if he made the military "gear" system like gnomoria, that was very simple to set gear for your "gnomes")
Post by: Alehkhs on March 16, 2019, 01:56:22 pm
Also, people keep discussing "profession=appearance" and having concerns about dwarfs not holding appropriate weapons, etc. I was under the impression - reading Meph's comments - that this really would only apply to the color of clothing (similar to the colors of faces in ASCII). Is that correct? I would prefer that a dwarf not be shown holding anything in their hands unless they're actually holding it / armed with / equipped with it (EDIT: thus a dwarf carrying a sword would be shown holding a sword, but a dwarf with a mining profession would not constantly be shown carrying a pick unless they're actually carrying one).
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 01:58:11 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/9RU8kQ3.png)
Can't make them any thicker than that, otherwise they start to merge in the center.
Quote
(It'd be nice if he made the military "gear" system like gnomoria, that was very simple to set gear for your "gnomes")I have no idea what you are talking about :D
Quote
Also, people keep discussing "profession=appearance" and having concerns about dwarfs not holding appropriate weapons, etc. I was under the impression - reading Meph's comments - that this really would only apply to the color of clothing (similar to the colors of faces in ASCII). Is that correct? I would prefer that a dwarf not be shown holding anything unless they're actually holding it / armed with / equipped with it.It's up for debate. I'd prefer if professions are visible, even if it means adding tools that aren't there; Mike takes your stance, with professions being not very important.
Post by: Rose on March 16, 2019, 02:08:47 pm
Post by: CLA on March 16, 2019, 02:14:14 pm
Color filters ARE automatically applied in DF. Which is actually kind of a problem.With creature graphics, you can already choose to let the game color it or use them as is with ADD_COLOR/AS_IS. Why not expand that to all graphics?
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 02:19:07 pm
Regarding trees, I think one thing that will help them not looking like stumps is to have the center black, just like the way stone walls are right now.Good idea... Trick question for you: With the current rock-wall style we use (inside is black), how would you portray a rock-wall that is revealed from above, without being mined, without it bordering on a floor tile?
Unrelated: Maybe a trade depot design closer to vanilla?
(https://i.imgur.com/t3mA51T.png)
Post by: Pillbo on March 16, 2019, 02:20:08 pm
QuoteI was thinking the game could do it, more like- someone makes a mod of new type of mushroom, and they point the raws at the built in sprites for stock mushrooms with a red filter over top, so you get visually distinct objects that fit right into the look of the stock art.I'll ask Tanya. In theory it should be fine for the Steam version, as long as they don't use the sprites in the free version. Recolors would be the easiest way, yes. If nothing major changes, people can just do that in the raws btw, no need for changing the pictures. Just change the color values in the text files.
Oh great, I was imagining with this full color sprites that color values in raws wouldn't be functional anymore.
(https://imgur.com/enmFFRU.png)
Is this the sprite for war dogs or dogs in general? I like this for hunting dogs, it looks like they are following a scent. I'd prefer something less in-action for a standard dog, and maybe something more aggressive for war dogs.
(https://i.imgur.com/Q666UeG.png)
Maybe adding something food related to the kennel will help it look like animal training happens there too? Hanging meat? A rat in a cage?
I was also wondering if you could make statues be on their sides when 'toppled', right now I often don't even know my statues aren't 'built' until clicking them for some reason.
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 02:51:51 pm
The sprite is the standard dog Mike made, I just added the collar to show that they are trained.
Post by: Rose on March 16, 2019, 03:05:32 pm
Regarding trees, I think one thing that will help them not looking like stumps is to have the center black, just like the way stone walls are right now.Good idea... Trick question for you: With the current rock-wall style we use (inside is black), how would you portray a rock-wall that is revealed from above, without being mined, without it bordering on a floor tile?
Unrelated: Maybe a trade depot design closer to vanilla?
(https://i.imgur.com/t3mA51T.png)
A darker stone pattern, to indicate what's there, but still show that it's inside a wall.
Post by: LordBalkan on March 16, 2019, 03:07:11 pm
At the end I always have to take a look on wiki to check if the stone that my miners just found are "Hey, we found some good stuff here!" or just "hey look, a different kind of simple rocks here".
We have thicker walls, for soils and ores and the like. The thin walls are rock (not important) and the thicker ones, with more surface area to show info, are flux, ores, gems, etc. (important)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Can't make them any thicker than that, otherwise they start to merge in the center.
This here? This is happines heheheheh
About the Depot, chance to really do the spots like if they were Columns? Don't know why but always think at the 5 spots as greek columns supporting whatever, but yes. The pixel-pixel art also looks good and could resemble something like a balance, for the trades you know?
Post by: LeoCean on March 16, 2019, 03:35:03 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
(don't like them either) Stone is used a lot, but the main reason I said that didn't have everything to do with stone, it was also the wood wall that was also black on the inside.(I mean sure from your tileset I see you plan to make walls more visually appealing instead of the short graphics + blackness being shown in these new walls)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
@LordBalkan It was rather easy before to tell between flux, ores ect because the graphics for them were quite different. Of course maybe it was just because I did some graphics work on spacefox after he left, so I knew exactly what those tiles were used for.
Post by: Bumber on March 16, 2019, 03:37:57 pm
We have thicker walls, for soils and ores and the like. The thin walls are rock (not important) and the thicker ones, with more surface area to show info, are flux, ores, gems, etc. (important)
(https://i.imgur.com/9RU8kQ3.png)
Can't make them any thicker than that, otherwise they start to merge in the center.
I think ores and gems would look better as clumps mixed in the wall, rather than as a solid coating. Real life examples:
Gold veins:
(http://raregoldnuggets.com/wp-content/uploads/California-Gold-Specimens-20-Copy-374x300.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J44vYT3bMN0/TyssyuvynMI/AAAAAAAABdQ/-cB2AhhOWBw/s200/GoldVeinBurma-2.png)
Emeralds:
(https://www.gsi.ie/images/images/emerald_istock%20and%20epitavi.jpg)
Rubies:
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vincent_Pardieu/publication/276840931/figure/fig7/AS:442501090811911@1482511889298/Crystals-of-ruby-in-marble-matrix-Photo-by-Vincent-Pardieu-C-GIA.png)
Post by: LordBalkan on March 16, 2019, 03:50:54 pm
@LordBalkan It was rather easy before to tell between flux, ores ect because the graphics for them were quite different. Of course maybe it was just because I did some graphics work on spacefox after he left, so I knew exactly what those tiles were used for.
:'( I guess I would have got used to it, but its tricky for me.
For the walls, looks like meph and mayday have some limits on how to do them as for inside looks.
Since you brought in an image that Meph posted on his own tileset post (heheheh I saw what you did here) I do prefer the Zelda Link to the Past look that he also posted on this same reply...
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 04:04:03 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Those are 8 wall tiles, getting 8 embedded gems. Next one is 16, 24 and 32. That way you can tell the value, the more gems in a cluster, the higher the value. In case that isn't liked, we could also just increase the size of the embedded gems, but I do like the first example more.
Note the two rock walls on the top: Thin rock for "normal" stuff, thick rock for interesting stuff. ;)
and yes, there is a limit, 16pixels to be exact. Tiles are 32x32 and there can be wall-edges on both sides, so a single wall shouldn't be more than 16px.
Ignore the glimmer, that's something I did in my own set. ^^
Post by: Hapchazzard on March 16, 2019, 04:23:41 pm
1. Horizontal merging only
(https://i.imgur.com/7ama5gV.png)
2. Vertical merging (an additional row of wheat added in between fully grown tiles)
(https://i.imgur.com/N85BiVx.png)
It's a really quick photoshop hackjob, but I think it gets the idea across well enough. IMO it makes the field look more like proper, lush farmland, and looks more aesthetically pleasing in general. Would this be possible/hard to implement?
Also, I think random patches of tall grass and flowers on the ground would really help with breaking up the monotony of finely-trimmed green lawn grass.
Post by: LordBalkan on March 16, 2019, 04:24:44 pm
And gems... well:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Those are 8 wall tiles, getting 8 embedded gems. Next one is 16, 24 and 32. That way you can tell the value, the more gems in a cluster, the higher the value. In case that isn't liked, we could also just increase the size of the embedded gems, but I do like the first example more.
Note the two rock walls on the top: Thin rock for "normal" stuff, thick rock for interesting stuff. ;)
The oposite doesn't make more sense? Dont know, when there is many of one thing it just not lose his rareness and get cheaper? hahahha just bothering you I got the ideia an do prefer the "amount of" instead of "the size of" to measure the value.
Ignore the glimmer, that's something I did in my own set. ^^
OH. DANG IT. Was about to ask about the glimmering lol
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 05:06:36 pm
Other grass types and growths, flowers, etc, is something we do have. ;)
Post by: Cruxador on March 16, 2019, 06:55:42 pm
Community feedback bonus round: Kennels!I don't think the vanilla actually has rings, but rather, it has some item which is most closely represented by the same character that rings are. In any case, I think your take on it is solid, with the exception that it has the same flaw as a lot of your workshops do: The cages lack an appropriate appearance of depth. Seriously, just extend the tops like 2.5* as far back, and their appearance will be greatly improved.
Kennels are only used to tame small animals. That's it. They only need 1 boulder, block, log or bar to be build. Kennels are 5x5. Kennels are weird.
In vanilla DF, kennels are shown with 4 grates and 2 earrings (?), which makes no sense to me. Instead I'd go with 4 animal-traps and 2 chains/ropes, since that has something to do with catching animals. I would make the kennel floor tranparent, with rock/dirt at the animal-traps, like a little barn or cattle shed.
What do you guys think? (#1 vanilla setup, #2 my idea, #3 on constructed floor with vermin added for fun, #4 on grass.)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q666UeG.png)
It's up for debate. I'd prefer if professions are visible, even if it means adding tools that aren't there; Mike takes your stance, with professions being not very important.If you consider things from a factual perspective and look at the actual design of the game, professions are not only not very important, they're very nearly meaningless. There is no such thing as a profession in-game, dwarves are just colored by highest skill (or a few specific gestalt cases) because that was most convenient when dwarves were first added to the dwarf game many years ago, probably closer to two decades than to one, and since then it has never had opportunity to be changed until now. It's important only in the sense that there's a tradition among spriters to account for it, since it's the only element that was available to account for. But it isn't actually very meaningful in its own right; not only is the information conveyed of limited importance (thus suggesting that the value is not higher than other opportunities that could be derived from color) but it implies itself to be of higher importance than it is, which means it could lead players unfamiliar with the game to assume that their master cheesemaker and accomplished weaponsmith is useful, because how important is cheese? In this very much non-rare situation, the value of showing profession prominently can even be negative. How, then, can it outweigh the value of giving people what they pay for, and using graphics to represent what's going on in the game as accurately as is feasible? It's sacrificing a primary goal of the tileset in favor of something of arguably negative utility.
And I know I'm repeating myself here, but it bears repeating. This graphical overhaul should be seen as an opportunity to significantly improve how the game is presented, not just to make incremental upgrades to the methods which the very premise of this endeavor holds as inadequate.
Good idea... Trick question for you: With the current rock-wall style we use (inside is black), how would you portray a rock-wall that is revealed from above, without being mined, without it bordering on a floor tile?The only valid answer I see is that you need a ninth tile per stone type, one a bit more like the old wall tiles in that it's designed to fill the tile (or at least most of it) without respect to its surroundings. In other words, a circle or star within your 32 pixel tile showing stone, ore, or whatever else may be there; where your current stuff patterns stone/etc moving away from the line which is the exposed edge of the wall, this would have the same patterns moving away from a point in the middle of the tile. Anything you bodged together using the eight wall tiles so far developed would look bad, and digging downward is an often enough occurrence that this shouldn't look bad. But I think it's find if these revealed tiles don't actually tile well with each other, since there'll rarely be even two adjacent cases revealed, much less many.
Post by: Meph on March 16, 2019, 06:59:00 pm
Realistic looking screwpump aka the archimedes screw:
(https://i.imgur.com/okLMNJX.gif)
The small boxes in the kennels are animal traps btw, cages look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/h6qthsM.png)
Post by: silvernocte on March 16, 2019, 07:17:35 pm
I bet the screwpumps are going to confuse people...Not gonna lie, screwpumps confuse me without any tilesets.
Realistic looking screwpump aka the archimedes screw:
(https://i.imgur.com/okLMNJX.gif)
anyways, is there a way to make a separate sprite for it when it's pumping a liquid, so we could see water traveling up the screw when it's activated?
Post by: Cruxador on March 16, 2019, 07:34:37 pm
I bet the screwpumps are going to confuse people...I would hope not. Besides being common tech, they're readily googlable.
Quote
The small boxes in the kennels are animal traps btw, cages look like this:Oh. Well then, they don't look like what they're meant to be at all. Aside from the appearance, they also don't seem to support this use case. I'm not sure how widespread cage traps would have been in DF's time period, but they really aren't something I could see someone using to house critters in a kennel regardless, except if they had no other option. Of course, you could suppose that the kennels in DF are woefully underequipped based on what is required to build them, but that applies to all workshops; it's assumed to be an abstraction.
(https://i.imgur.com/h6qthsM.png)
The water is in the bottom part where you can't see it anyway. Otherwise it'd just fall out. That two frame animation looks pretty good to me, aside from being one more case where the mix of top down and side-on is going to really make things weird.I bet the screwpumps are going to confuse people...Not gonna lie, screwpumps confuse me without any tilesets.
Realistic looking screwpump aka the archimedes screw:
(https://i.imgur.com/okLMNJX.gif)
anyways, is there a way to make a separate sprite for it when it's pumping a liquid, so we could see water traveling up the screw when it's activated?
Post by: silvernocte on March 16, 2019, 07:46:13 pm
Quote
The water is in the bottom part where you can't see it anyway. Otherwise it'd just fall out.Fair enough. I've definitely seen water actually travel along the thread of the screw, but I'm used to seeing these things with an overpowered motor instead of a dwarf.
Post by: funkydwarf on March 17, 2019, 02:11:36 am
Are the 4 cages in the middle actually representative of anything? Can they all go against the top or bottom row, or side, clumped together like a real kennel?
Flood gates block a tunnel top to bottom. Could they be an amazing feat of dwarven engineering (and more so pixel artist , lol)and be an iris door?
https://cdn.thingiverse.com/renders/7d/47/b9/7a/7d/IMG_2100_1024x768_preview_featured.jpg
Do an image search for iris door for tons of examples, some with as few as 5 or so blades. WWDD? (What would dwarfs do?)
Everything looks really great in general, both ramps look good, especially for quick mockups. Once you get to see how they are going to be implemented, and get to actually develop them, either version is going to polish up real nice.
Post by: clinodev on March 17, 2019, 04:56:54 am
I hope that makes the final cut (and that someone steals the idea and puts it in Phoebus over the weekend! Come on guys!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on March 17, 2019, 05:16:01 am
In general, I think you have the tendency to make small things too oversized. Specific examples:
- Weapons lying on the ground. (Compare them to the size of wielded weapons.)
- Tiny items (Meph's crafts posted recently.)
- Meph's tree trunks (they are huuuge... the size of a bed.)
- The cats!
It seems like you always try to use the whole tile. It allows you to use more pixels, which allows you to make fancier graphics but I'm afraid it's a bit counterproductive. Let's take Meph's crafts or the weapon items. I'd say you're adding too much visual details to the game - while the crown graphics are fancy indeed, the actual in-game item is very unimportant and doesn't deserve so much focus. It really shouldn't be the size of a dwarf! You need to realise that by making unimportant things big you're stealing visual focus from more important things (creatures) which harms clarity. Items should be small and easy to ignore, almost merge to the background. If a dwarf walks through a stockpile, he/she should be clearly visible even in the corner of your eye. I'm afraid that with these huge items, dwarves would be drown in visual bloat and unnecessarily hard to spot.
Item sprites should only be as large as you need to in order to make them distinctive, and not a single pixel larger. Take the weapon items. You are already able to make weapons distinctive enough when wielded in hand, and there really isn't any reason to make the item sprites any larger than that just for adding more detail – that's just a visual distraction.
Making small things oversized also makes you want to make big things even bigger - see the elephant debate. I understand that if a cat is almost the same size as an elephant, you want to differentiate them a bit. Instead of making the elephant bigger, make the cat (much) smaller.
===
As for the clothes debate:
While theoretically, showing the actual items that the dwarves wear seems cool, you have to realise that the in-game economy / clothing system is very primitive. IIRC, dwarves currently have only 3 different dyes, and everybody wears the same set of clothing. Showing realistic items would only have one effect: everybody would look the same, it would be a visual mess, and you would lose any ability to tell different dwarves apart. You can already test this in Stonesense - all dwarves are interchangeable, you can't see individuals.
Telling dwarves apart is critical! You need that for narrative purposes, to be able to create stories in your head. Anything that makes all dwarves look the same is the exact opposite of what you want to achieve.
Even just using profession colors gives you much more variety that using the 3 dye colors that the game has. But forget about professions! Much more important are the unique profession sprites, like mayors, nobles, priest, guard captains. You really want these to stand out from the crows, not to merge with everyone else.
When, and only when, the game actually makes nobles wear fancier clothing, makes blacksmiths wear blacksmith tools, guard captains wear different-colour uniforms, makes priests wear priestly robes... only at this point it becomes useful to show the actual items worn. Until that time it would be actively harmful because it would just create a visual mess of non-distinctive individuals.
===
It all comes down to this: the purpose of graphics is to add clarity. Not to add fanciness.
===
And please allow me one wish: different tiles for different tree species! This would probably mean different bark and different leave sprites. Trees are so omnipresent that it would be a shame to have them all look the same.
Keep up the good work, I can't wait to play this!
Post by: utkonos on March 17, 2019, 05:17:15 am
Screwpump looks a bit jiggy for me. Maybe it would be better like that? (https://i.imgur.com/Z2RoCt9.gif)
Post by: Meph on March 17, 2019, 07:01:07 am
Quote
Oh. Well then, they don't look like what they're meant to be at all. Aside from the appearance, they also don't seem to support this use case. I'm not sure how widespread cage traps would have been in DF's time period, but they really aren't something I could see someone using to house critters in a kennel regardless, except if they had no other option. Of course, you could suppose that the kennels in DF are woefully underequipped based on what is required to build them, but that applies to all workshops; it's assumed to be an abstraction.The tiles in the kennels are not cage traps but animal traps.
Quote
Flood gates block a tunnel top to bottom. Could they be an amazing feat of dwarven engineering (and more so pixel artist , lol)and be an iris door?That could be a cool idea. I actually went with a round hatch for my first design, but somehow it always ended up like a floor hatch or sewer entry to me. As if the round opening would go straight up-down, instead of left-right.
https://cdn.thingiverse.com/renders/7d/47/b9/7a/7d/IMG_2100_1024x768_preview_featured.jpg
Quote
The stockpiles with the little type designation icon in the corner make me unreasonably happy, cheers!Just an idea so far. ;) The color change idea was also good. Both have one obvious weakness: Custom stockpiles and stockpiles that accept more than one type.
I hope that makes the final cut (and that someone steals the idea and puts it in Phoebus over the weekend! Come on guys!)
Quote
In general, I think you have the tendency to make small things too oversized. Specific examples:I whole heartily agree. I sneakily asked 4 months ago about that on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/9u0g5b/working_on_improving_the_meph_tileset_your/ My own opinion is that things should stick to their relative size as much as possible, Mike prefers the largest, clearest images to be available. Both have their merit. Our internal discussion often goes like "Mike draws a perfect, wonderful bar/block sprite." "Meph shrinks them down and stacks them, yelling incoherently about stack size and how dwarves can't lift a bar that is as large as them." "Mike facepalms". ;)
- Weapons lying on the ground. (Compare them to the size of wielded weapons.)
- Tiny items (Meph's crafts posted recently.)
- Meph's tree trunks (they are huuuge... the size of a bed.)
- The cats!
It seems like you always try to use the whole tile. It allows you to use more pixels, which allows you to make fancier graphics but I'm afraid it's a bit counterproductive. Let's take Meph's crafts or the weapon items. I'd say you're adding too much visual details to the game - while the crown graphics are fancy indeed, the actual in-game item is very unimportant and doesn't deserve so much focus. It really shouldn't be the size of a dwarf! You need to realise that by making unimportant things big you're stealing visual focus from more important things (creatures) which harms clarity. Items should be small and easy to ignore, almost merge to the background. If a dwarf walks through a stockpile, he/she should be clearly visible even in the corner of your eye. I'm afraid that with these huge items, dwarves would be drown in visual bloat and unnecessarily hard to spot.
Item sprites should only be as large as you need to in order to make them distinctive, and not a single pixel larger. Take the weapon items. You are already able to make weapons distinctive enough when wielded in hand, and there really isn't any reason to make the item sprites any larger than that just for adding more detail – that's just a visual distraction.
Making small things oversized also makes you want to make big things even bigger - see the elephant debate. I understand that if a cat is almost the same size as an elephant, you want to differentiate them a bit. Instead of making the elephant bigger, make the cat (much) smaller.
Quote
While theoretically, showing the actual items that the dwarves wear seems cool, you have to realise that the in-game economy / clothing system is very primitive. IIRC, dwarves currently have only 3 different dyes, and everybody wears the same set of clothing. Showing realistic items would only have one effect: everybody would look the same, it would be a visual mess, and you would lose any ability to tell different dwarves apart. You can already test this in Stonesense - all dwarves are interchangeable, you can't see individuals.True, and one of the main reasons I'm against it too. They mostly just wear identical items in either brown (leather) or white (pretty much everything else, from pigtail fiber, sheep yarn to silk).
Quote
Telling dwarves apart is critical! You need that for narrative purposes, to be able to create stories in your head. Anything that makes all dwarves look the same is the exact opposite of what you want to achieve.Again agreed. But fear not! We will probably end up with a really nice compromise, because again, Mike and me have different opinions. So he'll stand up for everyone who thinks that professions are not important, while I'll stand up for everyone who thinks they are. :D I hope in the end we get a bit of both.
Even just using profession colors gives you much more variety that using the 3 dye colors that the game has. But forget about professions! Much more important are the unique profession sprites, like mayors, nobles, priest, guard captains. You really want these to stand out from the crows, not to merge with everyone else.
Quote
And please allow me one wish: different tiles for different tree species! This would probably mean different bark and different leave sprites. Trees are so omnipresent that it would be a shame to have them all look the same.Is planned. While not officially on any list atm, it's firmly in my head to do that. At least a couple of barks, leaves and especially leaf vs needle vs saguaro/cactus.
Screwpump looks a bit jiggy for me. Maybe it would be better like that? (https://i.imgur.com/Z2RoCt9.gif)That's better. 1px fewer to the side, I guess?
Post by: Isabelle82 on March 17, 2019, 08:48:37 am
I myself am more Mike's opinion, and find clothes should be visible. However, I understand the argument because of the jobs. Maybe there would also be the option to switch visible clothing on or off.
I think everyone could be satisfied with that. However, this is of course a question of the possible.
Anyway, I congratulate for the good work on the tileset.
Post by: Meph on March 17, 2019, 09:04:14 am
Anyone can guess what this should be?
(https://i.imgur.com/hU58bLB.gif)
Post by: Isabelle82 on March 17, 2019, 09:16:40 am
Post by: Oab on March 17, 2019, 09:48:04 am
Quote
If you consider things from a factual perspective and look at the actual design of the game, professions are not only not very important, they're very nearly meaningless. There is no such thing as a profession in-game, dwarves are just colored by highest skill (or a few specific gestalt cases) because that was most convenient when dwarves were first added to the dwarf game many years ago, probably closer to two decades than to one, and since then it has never had opportunity to be changed until now. It's important only in the sense that there's a tradition among spriters to account for it, since it's the only element that was available to account for. But it isn't actually very meaningful in its own right; not only is the information conveyed of limited importance (thus suggesting that the value is not higher than other opportunities that could be derived from color) but it implies itself to be of higher importance than it is, which means it could lead players unfamiliar with the game to assume that their master cheesemaker and accomplished weaponsmith is useful, because how important is cheese? In this very much non-rare situation, the value of showing profession prominently can even be negative. How, then, can it outweigh the value of giving people what they pay for, and using graphics to represent what's going on in the game as accurately as is feasible? It's sacrificing a primary goal of the tileset in favor of something of arguably negative utility.
And I know I'm repeating myself here, but it bears repeating. This graphical overhaul should be seen as an opportunity to significantly improve how the game is presented, not just to make incremental upgrades to the methods which the very premise of this endeavor holds as inadequate.
I have to agree with you, but I think all we’re going to get is incremental upgrades for now.
An overhaul that brings tile set support to modern day standards would most likely require a lot of under the hood work, and I imagine we would still have issues with CPU usage in the end. Mifki would be the best person to ask how feasible any of this actually is outside Toady himself.
Hi everyone, great work, you're making me very excited about the game. Some humble feedback:
In general, I think you have the tendency to make small things too oversized. Specific examples:
- Weapons lying on the ground. (Compare them to the size of wielded weapons.)
- Tiny items (Meph's crafts posted recently.)
- Meph's tree trunks (they are huuuge... the size of a bed.)
- The cats!
===
As for the clothes debate:
While theoretically, showing the actual items that the dwarves wear seems cool, you have to realise that the in-game economy / clothing system is very primitive. IIRC, dwarves currently have only 3 different dyes, and everybody wears the same set of clothing. Showing realistic items would only have one effect: everybody would look the same, it would be a visual mess, and you would lose any ability to tell different dwarves apart. You can already test this in Stonesense - all dwarves are interchangeable, you can't see individuals.
I agree with your assessment about over sized items. I noticed the weapon on ground versus the ones wielded and thought the same thing.
I also think that Mike/Mephs art styles are compatible with lower res items without any sacrifice to visual clarity or quality.
When making smaller item sprites it may not be a bad idea to create them with 8x8 and 8x16 restrictions. This would make the overall visual be more consistent.
Naturally you want to create the nicest looking sprites possible so it’s easy to be overzealous with detail
Concerning clothing; clothing isn't on the table at this time from my understanding. Hair, beards, armors, weapons, and shields will be though.
With the large number of skin tones, hair, and beard variety being in the game every dwarf and other entities using this should theoretically look unique. It really just depends on how many Meph and Mike decide to add.
Profession based sprites aren't nearly as important with this approach, but it would be nice to see unique bodies and tools for the assigned profession.
By the way Meph do you have a list of all the beard and hair styles per gender/entity? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Post by: snow dwarf on March 17, 2019, 10:55:17 am
Post by: Meph on March 17, 2019, 11:56:52 am
Sure. The types are head hair, sideburns, moustaches and the beard. Lengths are clean-shaven, stubble, (very) short, medium, (very) long. And styles are braided, double-braided, unkempt, neat combed and ponytail (ponytail only for head hair, rest for everything)
So it's 4 types * 5-8 lengths * 4-5 styles = 80-160 sprites.
Post by: Hapchazzard on March 17, 2019, 12:13:20 pm
By the way Meph do you have a list of all the beard and hair styles per gender/entity?
Sure. The types are head hair, sideburns, moustaches and the beard. Lengths are clean-shaven, stubble, (very) short, medium, (very) long. And styles are braided, double-braided, unkempt, neat combed and ponytail (ponytail only for head hair, rest for everything)
So it's 4 types * 5-8 lengths * 4-5 styles = 80-160 sprites.
Wow, that's a lot of beards! Should help with differentiating the dwarfs! Will skin tone also be a variable?
Post by: Meph on March 17, 2019, 12:32:56 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/sb1jn7U.png)
Colors are:
(https://i.imgur.com/TGJseM7.png)
Post by: Cruxador on March 17, 2019, 12:55:03 pm
I was referring to cage traps as in the things in real life upon which your animal trap tiles appear to be based. The fact that cage traps are also a thing that exists in DF could perhaps be seen as an argument against making animal traps also be traps which are cages, but that wasn't what I was getting at.QuoteOh. Well then, they don't look like what they're meant to be at all. Aside from the appearance, they also don't seem to support this use case. I'm not sure how widespread cage traps would have been in DF's time period, but they really aren't something I could see someone using to house critters in a kennel regardless, except if they had no other option. Of course, you could suppose that the kennels in DF are woefully underequipped based on what is required to build them, but that applies to all workshops; it's assumed to be an abstraction.The tiles in the kennels are not cage traps but animal traps.
We'll see once we have a test version running and actually see it ingame.Yep, unless you're about to tell me that it's supposed to be a windmill, it reads clearly. I'm wary of how things will look in practice (a top down waterwheel next to a side-on screw pump?) but independently of one another, they're quite good.
Anyone can guess what this should be?
(https://i.imgur.com/hU58bLB.gif)
By the way Meph do you have a list of all the beard and hair styles per gender/entity?Sounds like a lot, but if you consider that shorter ones are basically just moving the end up a pixel, it's really just 17 sprites (for each style/type combo) with eightish variants each.
Sure. The types are head hair, sideburns, moustaches and the beard. Lengths are clean-shaven, stubble, (very) short, medium, (very) long. And styles are braided, double-braided, unkempt, neat combed and ponytail (ponytail only for head hair, rest for everything)
So it's 4 types * 5-8 lengths * 4-5 styles = 80-160 sprites.
Post by: gchristopher on March 17, 2019, 01:08:06 pm
Is there a plan for color coded levers/constructions in the new graphics? That's one huge quality of life issues for me; being able to have levers be really visually distinct and match the color of corresponding doors/bridges/floodgates. Plus it was a fun challenge to find/smelt/import enough materials to produce things in each color. I typically go as far as having my stone quantum stockpiles sorted by rock color so I can easily see when it's time to search/trade for more kaolinite, cinnabar, garnierite, or give up on pitchblende purple and smelt more black bronze.
Is that approach to material colors still the plan? How about for color-coded workshops, mostly for aesthetic purposes?
I'm also excited to see how you tackle wormy tendrils!
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 17, 2019, 01:30:53 pm
I bet the screwpumps are going to confuse people...
Realistic looking screwpump aka the archimedes screw:
(https://i.imgur.com/okLMNJX.gif)
Will a pump pumping north to south/south to north use the same sprite flipped on the side or a separate one? Looks cool anyhow, and some confusion is bound to happen regardless :P (would be a shame to have to settle for the boring but safe route of having the screw covered up somehow)
Post by: Pillbo on March 17, 2019, 02:18:02 pm
If profession is important I'd rather there be a different way to recognize it. Some games do the displayed names floating over or under units as they move around, something like that would be good to me. Maybe that could be moddable- options like Unit Display Options: Full Name, First Name, Last Name, Nickname, Profession, Name & Profession.
Post by: Hapchazzard on March 17, 2019, 03:00:12 pm
-snip-
Thanks! Glad to see that there is likely to be significant diversity in dwarven appearances!
On a side note, I'll also throw in my support for the 'actual clothes instead of professions' side. I never personally found profession info to be too important.
EDIT2: Might as well state my opinion/preferred solution for every 'dilemma' there has been so far:
Clothing: based on actual clothing.
Trees: original, isometric. They look pretty to me, and I think shading the interior black would help differentiate them from stumps, as someone else suggested before me. The newer, 2D version looks strange and unsightly, in my opinion. I definitely like the experimental tree shadows.
Critter sizes: relative sizes represented, at least to some degree.
Slopes: Mayday's, though Meph's are a close second.
Also, a minor, offhand suggestion related to the experimental tree shadow - maybe having the game sometimes add a fake 'god ray' effect underneath the tree. It would just be two random, translucent streaks of light that would spawn occasionally beneath trees, but might be able to add to the 'fantasy primeval forest' vibe in sufficiently dense woodland. Just randomly tossing ideas around, not sure how feasible any of them all.
Post by: voliol on March 17, 2019, 03:13:54 pm
Regarding the issue with naked dwarves, it could be solved by simply removing parts off the profession-specific attire, so that a miner lacking upper-body cover will be shown as wearing the miner-specific clothes, but with the shirt part missing.
Post by: Oab on March 17, 2019, 03:20:38 pm
Sounds like a lot, but if you consider that shorter ones are basically just moving the end up a pixel, it's really just 17 sprites (for each style/type combo) with eightish variants each.
This really comes down to the artist's choice and the sprite size/detail level.
For example my set focuses more on higher detail head/faces with smaller bodies. I plan on having different facial features for each skin tone to further differentiate them. Just changing the skin tone and nose size creates a much different looking character, now combine that with things like thicker/thinner eyebrows, larger eyes, and all the possible hair and beard combinations. Its a huge improvement over the existing system of professions.
So unless the descriptions are exactly the same you will be able distinguish each dwarf pretty easily even with lower res characters. I doubt this would even occur in a single fort let alone several in a row.
To give you a better idea; when I originally made my dwarf set I Frankensteined them in a similar manner to reduce the workload. I ended up with over 350 unique characters. I had trouble choosing which ones to use for the set. I could have easily multiplied this number further, and this was just for male dwarfs.
This process of generating entities is 10x that number in potential outcomes, and a huge decrease in the workload of the artist. Pretty exciting stuff for graphics enthusiasts.
Thanks Meph that is very helpful. Now to get working on some prototypes.
Post by: Meph on March 17, 2019, 03:34:55 pm
I'll change the screwpump to be top-down. I made a north/south aligned one, it looks too different from the east/west one.
windmill: Maybe this?
(https://i.imgur.com/FcHkvkz.gif)
gchristopher: Color-coded levers would be great. You can put color-coded notes next to it though... atm lever would look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PHoA78P.png)
Red/green and I/O for on/off, for the colorblind players. :)
No idea about colors yet.
Quote
I'm also excited to see how you tackle wormy tendrils!I do have wormy tendrils, (all grasses in fact), but Mike urges caution from adding too distracting grasses. There are 40 grasses and 7 growths, and the sprites I made for those might be too much.
Seems lots of people have strong opinion about profession sprites vs equipped items sprites. :D
Oab: Our sprites don't do different facial features like noses, eyebrows, etc. They are 1px max each. Not sure if Toady would code up something that is not being used in the Steam release. :/
Post by: silvernocte on March 17, 2019, 03:43:51 pm
windmill: Maybe this?
(https://i.imgur.com/FcHkvkz.gif)
Now I'm not an expert in how windmills work, but are the wooden poles supposed to become longer than the panels when the blades are diagonal?
Post by: Oab on March 17, 2019, 03:52:11 pm
Oab: Our sprites don't do different facial features like noses, eyebrows, etc. They are 1px max each. Not sure if Toady would code up something that is not being used in the Steam release. :/
I meant that I plan on making 18 different looking faces determined by the skin tone.
Post by: Cruxador on March 17, 2019, 04:13:57 pm
IIRC, dwarves currently have only 3 different dyes,Four, RGB and black but the latter is hard to get because it's only in evil biomes. But making the dyes actually visible seems like it would bring dye diversification up in priority. Keep in mind that the system decided here is not just for the initial steam release, although it should be good at that time, but is likely to remain the foundation of the game's graphical system indefinitely.
They mostly just wear identical items in either brown (leather) or white (pretty much everything else, from pigtail fiber, sheep yarn to silk).Well, an increase from sixteen colors to allow shades of brown and white would be pretty nice. But common colors being common only makes it cooler when you either find an exotic leather, dye your clothing to make a uniform, or get an artifact item of clothing made from gems or something. Personally, I think that the diversity of faces (the skin and hair colors you've mocked up are already quite distinct, and will only become moreso with hair styles and lengths added, even if facial features are probably never going to be representable at this scale) will do more than enough to diversify individuals, and unlike clothes and professions, those don't change. Although I think the styles of clothing are also relevant to appearance, even if colors wind up being similar. Remember the old dungeon master, wearing several cloaks and nothing else?
In general I would vouch for the clothes being profession-based. Sure, I might personally prefer the clothes and all that to be shown in detail to get a more "realistic" view of my fort, but this is still a commercial release with the target audience being new players, who need/want graphical support. I don't believe focusing on the color of a sock should be the kind of graphical support prioritized before the dwarves' professions.This is predicated on two ideas that I think are wrong. Firstly, that professions matter. I've already written a bit about this. Secondly, that it is rare for the typical player to care about their dwarves' outfits. For this latter point, I'd like to call your attention to the existence of scores of games with literally no goal other than playing dressup, to the hours that countless people put into designing their characters in RPGs, to the premium that aesthetic items command in MMOs and microtransaction-based games, and to games where dressup has overtaken the original premise of the game, such as Soul Calibur. Furthermore, I would like to point out that megaprojects are generally pointless endeavors of purely aesthetic merit, and that their popularity shows that dwarf fortress players are not immune to a penchant for the aesthetic.
Quote
You also can't assume the players will have their dwarves wear different clothes, as there is also the option to mass-produce identical clothes locally, and if they don't very little information is gained from looking at each dwarf.If a player wants their dwarves to match, shouldn't that be fine?
Cruxador: Oh... so what should an animal trap that catches live prey be? I thought it's a tiny cage.A cage-style trap can be used for that purpose, but they don't look much like what you depicted. They're smaller and they've got trappy bits at each end - an opening at one that closes, and a trigger at the other, usually with bait. You could also use a snare for live capture, you just have to set a stop or what you catch will usually end up choking out.
Quote
I'll change the screwpump to be top-down.Good luck with making the slope/directionality look right then, I don't know how I'd go about doing that.
Quote
I do have wormy tendrils, (all grasses in fact), but Mike urges caution from adding too distracting grasses. There are 40 grasses and 7 growths, and the sprites I made for those might be too much.In general, I agree with him here, but the evil biome grasses would be the exception. Wormy tendrils and staring eyeballs are supposed to be a horrendous writhing mess. Don't back down from making them that way in the official graphics.
Post by: Meph on March 17, 2019, 05:06:13 pm
Ehm... ... ... YES! *runs awaywindmill: Maybe this?
(https://i.imgur.com/FcHkvkz.gif)
Now I'm not an expert in how windmills work, but are the wooden poles supposed to become longer than the panels when the blades are diagonal?
ah, cool idea. :)Oab: Our sprites don't do different facial features like noses, eyebrows, etc. They are 1px max each. Not sure if Toady would code up something that is not being used in the Steam release. :/
I meant that I plan on making 18 different looking faces determined by the skin tone.
Cruxador: Well, players can't play dress-up with their dwarves, because you can't tell them what to wear. Unless you mean via military squads, and assigning individual armor for everything is hidden behind so many menus and such a burden, I don't think people would use it much for ornamental purposes.
Professions matter. Not all of them, but for example you see a bunch of miners idling around your dining room, you know you messed up your mining patterns. ^^ Even more so for your nobles. Where is your trader? Who was made king, and why does the king look like any other peasant (if we don't do profession sprites). Is that walled-in vampire really the bookkeeper?
Animal-traps: Ok, so it was mostly the detail on the animal trap that was missing.
Post by: Bumber on March 17, 2019, 05:06:34 pm
I'll change the screwpump to be top-down. I made a north/south aligned one, it looks too different from the east/west one.Also consider where the dwarf is supposed to pump from: The tile near the intake. The tile near the output is impassible to fluid and dwarf. (I imagine it's a solid block with a borehole drilled through it for the screw. I guess you'd show the screw through the above view, due to the z-level slicing.)
Will the screw pump take on a different appearance based on material, e.g., green glass vs wooden?
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 17, 2019, 05:44:12 pm
Quote
Well, players can't play dress-up with their dwarves, because you can't tell them what to wear. Unless you mean via military squads, and assigning individual armor for everything is hidden behind so many menus and such a burden, I don't think people would use it much for ornamental purposes.And Adventurer. Remember that?
I know it's traditionally ignored when it comes to complex tilesets (and TWBT being crashy probably didn't help that) but with native support I think you're going to have to consider it (or add a paper-doll type equipment screen).
People are much more invested in their characters in Adventurer. I don't want my entire party to look exactly the same just because I've armed them with swords. Where's my leader's dashing silk cape and bandana? How about the guy in black robes who skulks about in the background?
--edit
Sorry, that's not meant to sound like a demand. Unfeasible is unfeasible, that's understandable. I just don't think "Not doing it because no player would do it in Fortress mode" is a good enough reason.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 17, 2019, 06:01:35 pm
Post by: Bumber on March 17, 2019, 06:10:16 pm
I think more people would dye their dwarves' clothing if they could actually see the results.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 17, 2019, 06:17:38 pm
Edit: I guess unless you guys were to put in the effort to make all the different kinds of clothing I suppose, and some preliminary variation to diversify some of the nobles/professions, which I totally get that you have enough on your plate as it is already without.
Post by: VislarRn on March 17, 2019, 06:22:36 pm
I think more people would dye their dwarves' clothing if they could actually see the results.I agree. People ignore dyeing because they can't see the results.
My personal humble preference would be dwarves to be represented in actual clothing, since it would make things more interesting as cultures get simulated more deeply in later versions of the game.
Post by: Pillbo on March 17, 2019, 06:27:23 pm
QuoteWell, players can't play dress-up with their dwarves, because you can't tell them what to wear. Unless you mean via military squads, and assigning individual armor for everything is hidden behind so many menus and such a burden, I don't think people would use it much for ornamental purposes.And Adventurer.
There's also the possibility of forbidding and dumping clothes players don't want their fort wearing then mass producing what they do want. Some people will want to do that, Rimworld players seem fond of making uniforms for their people. I think it's a safe guess that most new Steam players will be coming from Rimworld which displays clothing accurately. RW has some skintones, a handful of hairstyles and as far as I can tell there are only 12 items of clothing (https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Clothing#Headgear_Table) in Rimworld and 29 distinct leathers/cloth/wool options they can be made from(+10 armor items (https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Armor) that are made from 7 materials), and no dyes. DF has about 37 clothing/armor options and if we consider the color variety of hundreds of leathers, and who knows how many wools, plus all the metals/gem/glass/wood/bone wood armor can be made from) it's kind of a lot.
Leather could be practically and color if it's accurate to the creatures they come from. Alpacas alone can be BLACK, BROWN, WHITE, GRAY, LIGHT BROWN, DARK BROWN, TAN, AUBURN, CHESTNUT, SLATE GRAY, CREAM, CINNAMON, BUFF, BEIGE, CHOCOLATE, CHARCOAL, ASH GRAY, RUSSET, IVORY, FLAX, PUMPKIN, GOLD, GOLDEN YELLOW, GOLDENROD, COPPER, SAFFRON, AMBER, MAHOGANY, OCHRE, PALE BROWN, RAW UMBER, BURNT SIENNA, BURNT UMBER, SEPIA, DARK TAN, PALE CHESTNUT, DARK CHESTNUT, TAUPE PALE, TAUPE DARK, TAUPE SANDY, TAUPE GRAY, TAUPE MEDIUM, ECRU- I'm guessing nobody will program DF to make the wool's color match the description of the alpaca it came from, but maybe alpaca wool could randomly be one of those colors?
Then there are dyes too. Going the profession route make the industry pointless.
Post by: Meph on March 17, 2019, 06:35:01 pm
Post by: Cruxador on March 17, 2019, 06:43:36 pm
Cruxador: Well, players can't play dress-up with their dwarves, because you can't tell them what to wear. Unless you mean via military squads, and assigning individual armor for everything is hidden behind so many menus and such a burden, I don't think people would use it much for ornamental purposes.First of all, people already do that. I don't see why making the results more visible would cause less people to do so; rather I think it would be more common. And the military screen is one of the things Toady mentioned in the AMA (I believe) is on the short list to get another pass because it's intimidating. The current UI for a feature being inconvenient is not adequate reason to suggest that the feature shouldn't be counted when considering the future of the game.
Second, even when you're not making direct choices, you're the one who decides what clothing elements get made in your fort.
Third, what Shonai said.
--editIt's only a couple dozen sprites (or sprite elements) as far as I can think of. It's not trivial, but it's definitely feasible. Considering how often you encounter clothed people in the game, whether in fort mode or adventure mode, I'd say it's well worth it.
Sorry, that's not meant to sound like a demand. Unfeasible is unfeasible, that's understandable. I just don't think "Not doing it because no player would do it in Fortress mode" is a good enough reason.
Meph, about professions, I'm pretty sure everyone only has the normal worker professions. Miners, nobles and other special cases obviously do deserve specific sprites. This, in connection with the fact that most clothes are brown or white, definitely makes me stay away from the idea of such accurate depiction of worn clothing."Obviously" seems like a bit of a hot take considering that if you go back over the past couple pages, it looks like most posters aren't in favor of profession-based icons and those who are levy significant caveats, while nobody else has applied a caveat similar to yours to the idea of having accurate representations.
I also contest the idea that miners are a special case in the way you're describing for two reasons. First of all, they're objectively not a special case within the context of the game's code. They are a skill-based worker profession just like all the others. The only way in which they're unusual is that, unlike most professions, they actually carry a tool. And that's the second reason. Since they've got their pick on them pretty much 24/7 (and nobody else carries those), there's actually less reason to give them a special sprite than any other job except, arguably, woodcutter. As long as you represent their held item accurately, as with weapons, you can already recognize them readily.
Even without being able to see the results, people do use dyes.I think more people would dye their dwarves' clothing if they could actually see the results.I agree. People ignore dyeing because they can't see the results.
I'm guessing nobody will program DF to make the wool's color match the description of the alpaca it came from,It wouldn't surprise me at all if Toady were to do that. He just hasn't as of now, as Meph says. But while I would hardly consider this a particularly immediate priority, it would be reasonable for some gameplay elements of a particularly visual nature were considered in light of the Steam release. With regards to color property throughput, I suspect it would be a relatively significant timesink (and Toady doesn't really go off on tangents any more the way he did a decade ago) but I could be wrong, and other things might be on the table.
Post by: Meph on March 17, 2019, 07:42:03 pm
Quote
It's only a couple dozen sprites (or sprite elements) as far as I can think of. It's not trivial, but it's definitely feasible. Considering how often you encounter clothed people in the game, whether in fort mode or adventure mode, I'd say it's well worth it.It's a couple hundred sprites, because the same clothing sprites that fit dwarves wont fit humans, wont fit kobolds, wont fit legless animal men, wont fit very large or small animal men. ^^
Quote
most posters aren't in favor of profession-based iconFrom my 2 year experience in running a tileset, most players are in favor of seeing professions. Of course I could be wrong. I assume that we'll make a big poll at some point, with all the undecided, rather binary design choices and see what is more popular. Even then the popular vote might not help much, because players are not designers. ^^
Post by: Rose on March 17, 2019, 07:54:19 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: voliol on March 17, 2019, 08:13:49 pm
...it looks like most posters aren't in favor of...
I misread the what your comment was referring to, and either way Meph has already touched at this. My bad.
Post by: Meph on March 17, 2019, 08:33:25 pm
Feedback like this always has to be enjoyed with a bit of erring on the side of caution. Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) It wouldn't surprise me if the loudest 80% with the strongest opinions make up about 20% of the player base. ;)
Post by: Cruxador on March 17, 2019, 09:08:00 pm
Yeah, I should clarify that I doubt it will be worthwhile to fully support every possible combination, just the four civilization-building races and whatever low-hanging fruit (say, if animal men have similar torsos to humans) take little extra work. Considering that, and considering that the racial variants are modifications rather than whole new sprites, I think that it should remain similar in magnitude to doing the hair sprites.QuoteIt's only a couple dozen sprites (or sprite elements) as far as I can think of. It's not trivial, but it's definitely feasible. Considering how often you encounter clothed people in the game, whether in fort mode or adventure mode, I'd say it's well worth it.It's a couple hundred sprites, because the same clothing sprites that fit dwarves wont fit humans, wont fit kobolds, wont fit legless animal men, wont fit very large or small animal men. ^^
Quote
I don't think that's really a meaningful point of reference, since the tileset you made was for Dwarf Fortress without any new graphical capabilities. Certainly, if profession is the only thing you can show, you may as well show profession. But Toady is going to be working on improving what the game can show, so there's no need to remain bound by what has been possible in the past.Quotemost posters aren't in favor of profession-based iconFrom my 2 year experience in running a tileset, most players are in favor of seeing professions. Of course I could be wrong.
Quote
I assume that we'll make a big poll at some point, with all the undecided, rather binary design choices and see what is more popular. Even then the popular vote might not help much, because players are not designers. ^^Yeah, Toady is the designer. Nobody's contesting that. But as it happens, lots of DF players know a thing or two about design. I agree that going by raw numbers isn't meaningful, which is why I only mentioned that with regard to whether something could be considered obvious. But the content of posts shouldn't be disregarded solely on the basis that the person making it isn't Toady, there are plenty of good and meaningful arguments made in this very thread, which should be read on their own merit.
To sum up, based on my perception of those arguments, the main points in favor of coloring by profession:
1. Because profession information is sometimes a useful approximation of a dwarf's intended role in the fortress, that should be always visible; otherwise new players may be confused
2. Because the use of dyes and other forms of attention to color and to uniform or type of equipment is some degree less than total, dwarves depicted in their actual clothing would be homogeneous, as seen in Japa's screenshot where most articles of clothing are one of five colors*.
And arguments for representing clothing accurately:
1. On the general principle that people are specifically paying to have graphics that represent what's happening accurately, rather than symbolic graphics as in the ASCII version, the contents of the fort should be represented as accurately as is feasible.
2. People like to care about how their dwarves (or adventurers) look, and their choices in this regard should be respected.
There has been a counterargument to the second of those, that people rarely color their dwarf clothing now because the UI is not convenient to do so. Despite being numeric in nature, that counterargument has not been supported with data.
Arguments for representing clothing accurately also include counterarguments to the notion of profession-based representation:
1. Because profession information is often misleading with regards to a dwarf's potential role in the fortress, making them always visible will confuse new players
2. (Applying both to the second argument for profession iconicism, above, and the counterargument to the second argument for accurate representation): People do set uniforms and outfit their adventurers with aesthetic concerns in mind, including the use of dyes. Intuitively, it can be supposed that if these aesthetic choices were made visible, more players would be interested in making them.
Regardless of whether these arguments were made by designers or not, they can be examined on their own merits.
If I have missed any major arguments, I apologize, please feel free to re-levy them in that case.
What he said.Hang on now, a moment ago you were saying that players are not designers; that the backing of the majority does not imply that an option is the correct one. Now you're implying that an option can't be correct unless it's backed by the majority? The fact that the people in this thread are not sampled randomly from the entirety of the population that will play the Steam release is not a bad thing. Didn't you yourself say in another thread that the steam forums, for example, are a mess of ignorance (or something to that effect)? This thread biases towards those with a greater level of interest in the game and its presentation, who therefore will have a more solid understanding of the game and of game design both with regards to presentation and otherwise. That makes the posts here more worthy of consideration, not less.
Feedback like this always has to be enjoyed with a bit of erring on the side of caution. Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) It wouldn't surprise me if the loudest 80% with the strongest opinions make up about 20% of the player base. ;)
*Note, though, that his screenshot doesn't do a complete job representing the diversity of clothing options since the robes and dresses look very similar in that art style, and the fact that they're all the same profession may have some importance there too. It's probably most representative of colors.
Post by: Putnam on March 17, 2019, 09:26:33 pm
Post by: Rose on March 17, 2019, 09:34:56 pm
You'd still need custom sprites for snake people and walrus people though.
Post by: Meph on March 17, 2019, 09:36:21 pm
Hmm. I'd prefer sprite pieces using raw-defined color associations rather than hardpainted colors for each possible hair color or however, unless I'm understanding the purpose of that mockup.It was a mock-up to show Mike and Toady how it looks using raw colors. I'm not going to make 3700 beard sprites, no worries. The colors should be taken from the raws, maybe, hopefully.
Quote
Now you're implying that an option can't be correct unless it's backed by the majority?No? That's not what I meant at all. I'm saying that the majority of the feedback comes from a minority of the players.
Quote
Didn't you yourself say in another thread that the steam forums, for example, are a mess of ignoranceI didnt say that.
Post by: Hapchazzard on March 17, 2019, 09:52:06 pm
Post by: Cruxador on March 17, 2019, 10:11:51 pm
You said someone was complaining that the women have beards. Which is more polite than my phrasing, but same general idea.QuoteDidn't you yourself say in another thread that the steam forums, for example, are a mess of ignoranceI didnt say that.
Quote
Perhaps I read too much into it then, but otherwise I must have missed what you intended to convey by choosing to point that out when you did, sorry.QuoteNow you're implying that an option can't be correct unless it's backed by the majority?No? That's not what I meant at all. I'm saying that the majority of the feedback comes from a minority of the players.
In any case, we're deviating a bit from the topic here.
Post by: gchristopher on March 17, 2019, 11:44:09 pm
gchristopher: Color-coded levers would be great. You can put color-coded notes next to it though... atm lever would look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PHoA78P.png)
Red/green and I/O for on/off, for the colorblind players. :)
No idea about colors yet.
Awesome!
To illustrate color usage, here's a typical, partially completed fortress entrance where I use color-coded levers and identically colored bridges to make it easy to tell which ones go together. (Without notes or help from dfhack.) This is only five colors (the purple is for purple hatches one layer up that drop the gold carts full of gold carts into the cyclotron grinders. (Nesting carts for extra mass explains why the T and the blood has only made it as far as the first grinder, but this is an early game before any serious sieges.)
(Annotations added with the text that might be in the note over each lever, but in general, they control the identically colored bridges to their left.)
(http://gchristopher.net/df/lever_colors2.jpg)
Constructions on serious long-term games get a lot more complicated than this, so the clearly colored levers, bridges, hatches, and doors help a lot!
I do have wormy tendrils, (all grasses in fact), but Mike urges caution from adding too distracting grasses. There are 40 grasses and 7 growths, and the sprites I made for those might be too much.In general, I agree with him here, but the evil biome grasses would be the exception. Wormy tendrils and staring eyeballs are supposed to be a horrendous writhing mess. Don't back down from making them that way in the official graphics.
I'm on the side of trying to keep it less visually painful. I don't think we should ever intentionally make the game hard to look at. That will happen on its own naturally from the accumulation of tree droppings, evil rain, blood/gore/expended bolts/teeth.
I almost always play in evil biomes, and when the surface is an eye-bleeding mess of pixelated animations, I either change the tileset or mod wormy tendrils out of the game. There's no reason to inflict eyestrain on myself in the name of trying to enjoy a game.
Post by: Starver on March 18, 2019, 12:31:48 pm
Couldn't you put related tools on top of their clothes? E.g., a blacksmith has a tool belt over their clothing. You could also give them a color-coded sash instead of coloring their whole outfit.A coloured sash was my thought earlier in this thread (or micro-tabbard/whatever, sufficient to be seen even over similarly-hued underlay, but not to be deemed 'clothing'), then I morphed this idea into maybe an effect like an aura, halo (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Anime/TimeOfEve) or some sort of floating hula-hoop band around them at a handy height. If animated enough to demonstrate its disconnection and lack of ingame reification.
Or, if a sash, one sash-orientation (\) could be civilian, the other one (/) could be military. Heck, you could even retain any [civ|mil] sash as a subordinate layer when they don the [mil|civ] one, according to any rule of significance you care to apply (master+ of a profession retains the indicator, say, when on militaey duties just to stand out from mere dabblers in anything non-military conscripted for their weapon proficiencies). It could also mix and match the current wielded weapon (or tool) with the actual expertise(s?) they have.
But that's far too complicated, I'm sure. I'm not even even your primary market for all of this gorgeous-looking graphical bounty, I'm afraid, so take my admiration for the work, please, but you don't need to bend over backwards to try to apply my 'solutions' to what I know is going to be a hard thing to implement within such a narrow span and height of pixels.
I see someone also mentioned shadows of tree-tops (to distinguish them from stumps, though stumps aren't classically a thing without sending a woodcutter up a Z to chop at Z+1 level, right?), and I was previously (except that I thought I'd only be lurking, so refrained) going to suggest a 'ground shade' of overlying Z-obstructions. If the graphics engine could manage it, more diffuse the higher the shadow-casting Z was (adding loads of necessary computational power, but then you're already stressing one core of you CPU with all the physics, you might as well ask the other core(s) to pull their weight, right? ;) ).
And one can continue the above ideas with half-transparent/'hovering and bobbing' overlays to put hints over other things (e.g. your icon(s) indicating stockpile types, with or without any goods in them to show explicitly, allowing a food stockpile with left-over logs in it to show both intention and reality).
But this is beyond my paygrade (especially if this is now a financially remunerable effort, congrats!) so probably not a set of ideas to take too seriously. But food for thought, or at least a quick snack to keep you going before your late lunch, right?
Post by: Meph on March 18, 2019, 12:54:26 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/Gs6VTJf.gif)
With 3 frames more and some shading:
(https://i.imgur.com/Z5k9m1Q.gif)
Maybe we can add a color overlay when it has liquids inside:
(https://i.imgur.com/Y0LYhOB.png)
Sashes would be cool, or toolbelts, or whatever, but... there might not be that many pixels left for clothing, clothing color, sash and profession-somethings. ^^
Remember, this is the size we are using: (red shirt, brown vest, brown skirt, green/farmer sash)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q1P5oFl.png)
Post by: Rose on March 18, 2019, 01:02:37 pm
What about showing clothes, but have an easily changeable option to either show real colors or job colors? Stonesense does it this way.
Post by: Hommit on March 18, 2019, 01:07:16 pm
Btw, windmill animation should have atleast 4 frames.
Post by: Rose on March 18, 2019, 01:10:15 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 18, 2019, 01:22:54 pm
Post by: Cruxador on March 18, 2019, 01:36:29 pm
Top-down screwpump with an impassable tile:Looks pretty great. As Japa says, you've got it pumping towards the pumper, which isn't how it works, but just mirror the actual pump part. It does look like it has a relatively low water capacity (shallow threads) for its size, so it might make sense to allow an extra two pixels or so between each thread, but it's basically fine now - I'm just picking at nits since of course I want it to be as good as it possible can. I'm not sure the handle works as well; it looks like it's staying up but just wobbling back and forth, I think because the perspective doesn't change.
(https://i.imgur.com/Gs6VTJf.gif)
With 3 frames more and some shading:
(https://i.imgur.com/Z5k9m1Q.gif)
Quote
Maybe we can add a color overlay when it has liquids inside:It's a good thought. Those specific colors look too saturated though, it's like water with blue and red food coloring. It might need actual spriting rather than just a color overlay to look good, unfortunately.
(https://i.imgur.com/Y0LYhOB.png)
Quote
Sashes would be cool, or toolbelts, or whatever, but... there might not be that many pixels left for clothing, clothing color, sash and profession-somethings. ^^This works way better than I expected, it looks great. You could probably knock off a whole sash pixel from the rightward side of the image (the dwarf's left) and still have enough sash if you're concerned about using too many pixels, but honestly I think it's good now.
Remember, this is the size we are using: (red shirt, brown vest, brown skirt, green/farmer sash)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q1P5oFl.png)
What about showing clothes, but have an easily changeable option to either show real colors or job colors? Stonesense does it this way.Well, it's definitely an option. Having seen the sash, I think that would make a good default that compromises between the possibilities, but I do reckon adding an option to hide the sash for purists would be significantly easier on the Toad (and possibly on the CPU) than having two separate systems for how clothing colors work.
I believe this might be a case of Toady getting screw pumps a bit backward to start with? All the images I get up of an archimedes screw imply the operator would stand at the end of it, pumping towards himself, whereas the DF version works the opposite (and would imply the operator is pumping while underwater/magma, or somehow be standing under/over the pump).That would be typical, but I'm assuming Toady made a modification to the design for gameplay purposes so that dwarves could pump water or magma without drowning or immolating themselves. It would only take like two or three gears to transfer the force to where the dwarf stands (definitely over, since a screw pump takes from the level below it; this is why a dwarf can stand on the downward side of the pump without being immersed in anything) regardless of which end the handle is connected to. Figuring out what the hell is actually going on with a DF screwpump could be a good idea for spriting, but actually I think a relatively simplified version where there's a handle on the downside could be fine, even though it wouldn't be very ergonomic in real life.
EDIT: Actually, if you consider the function of the downward tile in accepting power in a pump stack, slapping a gear on there somehow might make sense. Say, one on the end with a gap to allow the fluid entry, and one perpendicular to it on the side, with the handle then projected over the pump itself? Just thinking aloud, no idea if this would look good in practice.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 18, 2019, 01:42:38 pm
Edit: Something like this, sorry for the lack of paint skills Dx
(https://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn201/Mikael_Hultman/Screw_zpsvdjdalcz.png) (https://s305.photobucket.com/user/Mikael_Hultman/media/Screw_zpsvdjdalcz.png.html)
Something like that would be what would make the most sense relative to ingame I'd assume? Though the dwarf would cover the lever then, bah, not my area of expertise exactly so eh, just spitballing here ^^
Post by: Rose on March 18, 2019, 01:47:34 pm
Post by: Cruxador on March 18, 2019, 01:58:43 pm
Come to think of it, it might look good with half the number of threads.That would be five whole pixels of additional spacing. Maybe it's worth a try to see what it looks like, but I think it would be less aesthetically pleasing than a more moderate change.
Although now we're headed towards debating individual pixels, and down that road lies madness.
Post by: Meph on March 18, 2019, 02:38:12 pm
(https://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn201/Mikael_Hultman/Screw_zpsvdjdalcz.png) This looks interesting...
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 18, 2019, 02:44:13 pm
And yeah, maybe pumps will be one of the things changed when we get the whole engineering update, but for now making it implied one end dips down into the source would probably help a lot with making new players understand somewhat how they work.
Post by: Starver on March 18, 2019, 03:36:14 pm
I suggest the 'with three frames more' animation under (and orientated correctly to) the top-handled version but every other/every third thread (with frame multiplication to loop properly). The handle on the off-one-end version looks linear waggling back and forth, but that's hard to repress the perception of with such small distance 'travelled' and not enough pixels to make over and under travel past the centreline look different. Impractical as it might be IRL as a windlass¹ for practical extended manual winding , can I suggest a top-down handle (clearly rotating head on to the 'viewer') with as much hint/suggestion as you can imbue into the pixels to suggest a bevel-gear set translating the into-screen axle/face-one cog meshing with the pump-length axle/edge-on cog that chain-drives the screw.
There's also a question of how the chain/belt drive works, but it's handily hidden. I'm going to assume that the upper axle, handle or bevel-gear driven, has a chain that passes around the entire width of the rotting screw, within the pipe housing.
Code: [Select]
•¬ Handle/input
/_\ Chain/belt drive passing from handle to screw with large mechanical advantage.
( \ ) Around a rimmed part of the screw (rim+belt snug-enough to the unshown pipe housing, without catching)
~~~ The liquid sloshing up, and presumed base of the screw-rim with belt and (still unshown) pipe.
Sending it via a more 1:1 pair of belt gears would require a split in the screw which would compromise the through-flow and backflow protection, somewhat.
Not that I think this needs drawing in, I'm just musing out loud how it might be engineered to (purely coincidently!) look like how the dorf design must look.
Post by: Meph on March 18, 2019, 03:59:49 pm
It a screw, a tube section and a block. That's it, according to DF. Even the handle I invented, because it's on pictures of old RL archimedes screws. Certainly no chain or belt involved.
Post by: Rose on March 18, 2019, 04:14:12 pm
Post by: Bumber on March 18, 2019, 04:31:49 pm
Remember, this is the size we are using: (red shirt, brown vest, brown skirt, green/farmer sash)Hmm... How about as a belt around the waist, instead? Or maybe you could make the sash thinner without sacrificing visibility?
(https://i.imgur.com/Q1P5oFl.png)
Post by: Cruxador on March 18, 2019, 05:00:39 pm
That's a bit (a lot) over my head.You bike, right? Imagine the chain of your bike, with a gear at each end. Well, in this case instead of powering a wheel, it powers the screw. And instead of going forward parallel to the ground, it goes up, and receives power from a handle rather than peddle (the only difference being that it's powered by hand, rather than ped, or foot). That's the basic mechanism he's discussing.
And then instead of receiving the power from the handle directly, it receives it from a gear which is powered by a perpendicular gear to which the handle is attached, so that the path of the handle looks circular from above, to dodge the waggling appearance of the handle in the previous animation.
He's saying pop that mechanism on a thingamajigger like what Manveru made, and you'll have something that would work in real life, is consistent with its function in the game, and visually you can tell more or less what's going on.
Quote
It a screw, a tube section and a block. That's it, according to DF. Even the handle I invented, because it's on pictures of old RL archimedes screws. Certainly no chain or belt involved.Like forging tools with no hammer or tongs, lot of things have to be thought of as abstracted. A chain might be going a bit too far since you'd think that would be hard to manufacture at dwarven tech level, but the items needed to construct something can't be much more than a guideline. Still, with regards to the chain specifically, you could also just have two connected gears, one connected to the screw (presumably at the end, by means of a short axle) and another above, interlocking directly without the aid of a chain.
Post by: Meph on March 18, 2019, 05:47:23 pm
Minecarts, Wheelbarrows and traction bench.
Post by: mifki on March 18, 2019, 06:30:40 pm
Post by: Jiri Petru on March 18, 2019, 06:34:02 pm
You keep talking about professions but professions aren’t that important. It’s the unique positions that are crucial and need to be seen at glance. And their in-game clothing isn’t any different.
Post by: Cruxador on March 18, 2019, 08:32:52 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/TgnGxYd.png)Minecart and wheelbarrows look good, although I'm not sure if that kind of pipe-based wheelbarrow would be period accurate. Based on the contemporary images I can find, it seems like the most common depiction is of a wheelbarrow where two staves, often curved, stretch wheel (usually just one, but sometimes two on an axle) to the point where they become handles, and between the two are slats to make a surface on which to pile things. Many examples of this type of wheelbarrow don't even have sides, much less that relatively difficult to produce (with pre-industrial tech) pipe frame.
Minecarts, Wheelbarrows and traction bench.
I don't know what a medieval traction bench should look like, but I agree that doesn't look well suited to its in-game function.
How do you show a duke using a sash? And distinguish him from a baron? How do you show the mayor, the bookkeeper, the captain of the guard, a bard, a priest, the chief medic, the dungeon master?I don't really agree that it's important to recognize unique positions at a glance; I think seeing a purple sash should be enough to judge if you have some reason to loo[k] more closely. However, I also think it wouldn't be too hard to put some one or two pixel badges or metals on such a sash, or for very important positions such as king, lots of gold edging or embroidery or whatever looks good.
You keep talking about professions but professions aren’t that important. It’s the unique positions that are crucial and need to be seen at glance. And their in-game clothing isn’t any different.
Post by: Meph on March 18, 2019, 08:49:42 pm
Quote
I don't really agree that it's important to recognize unique positions at a glanceI don't even know what to say anymore.
Post by: LordBalkan on March 18, 2019, 08:59:22 pm
LMAOQuoteI don't really agree that it's important to recognize unique positions at a glanceI don't even know what to say anymore.
that's all I have to say about this
Can only read and laugh. The good think is, at the end, no matter what, we all gonna play this game as we always been doing.
I do liked the minecarts, wheelbarrows and... well never used tractionbench don't know what they're good for, nor used minecarts as well though but I know how the look, even if they do not look "period accurate" :P
Post by: Cruxador on March 18, 2019, 10:48:13 pm
Well, not as important as Jiri is saying, at least. And why should it be? If you need them for something, it's not like you're going to comb your fort for them manually. That's what the unit list is for. If you see them in the dining hall or tavern or whatever and you happen to care about their position at that time, but don't generally care about them enough to recognize their faces in the new system, you can [v]iew them, and you'll have plenty of info right there. They pretty much all either do their job with little player input (the leadership positions) or else you tell them what to do specifically on rare but specific occasions (book keeper, military leaders, broker) and you'll find them individually and check them then. Unless you do something silly like drown your fort in bards, then it's not such a big problem. I think little modifications to the sashes are totally adequate for that.QuoteI don't really agree that it's important to recognize unique positions at a glanceI don't even know what to say anymore.
I also suspect some people care more about individual dwarves than I do in general, but that tendency should be both addressed and enhanced by visually unique faces.
Post by: funkydwarf on March 18, 2019, 10:59:59 pm
Traction bench is used to treat (some?) broken bones in game.
Post by: Cruxador on March 18, 2019, 11:06:09 pm
The period changes with every new world. There is no "period".I mean the pre-1400 tech level to which Toady roughly limits the game. I know details can vary depending on actual implementation, and there's also the whole scholarship system (which doesn't tie all that directly to tech) but more modern industrial type designs should still probably not be a source of primary inspiration for the vanilla graphics.
Post by: Starver on March 18, 2019, 11:17:47 pm
I don't really agree that it's important to recognize unique positions at a glance; I think seeing a purple sash should be enough to judge if you have some reason to loo[k] more closely. However, I also think it wouldn't be too hard to put some one or two pixel badges or metals on such a sash, or for very important positions such as king, lots of gold edging or embroidery or whatever looks good.Frogging. Braid. Trim. Something a mere pixel (the current 'edge' line, or the next pixel in?) in size, 'gold' in hue (whichever off-yellow RGB you prefer) or silver (a light grey) or just a good colour to contrast with the base 'field' of the sash (defined as "XOR what's below with White", in the code, a possibly useful feature to build into the sprite-generation engine - though exceptions to make an override so low-saturation grays 'contrast' by the most distant no-saturation and hueless luminosity level), and intermittent in proportion to the hierarchical rank (solid for monarch, widely spread individual pixel spots for Expedition Leader).
Or indeed badges/pips (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_officer_rank_insignia) (or smudges representative of them, given the resolution being worked ) along the centre-line, contrasting as above. Or 120° rotated round the colour-wheel where that means anything at all under the chosen core shade.
Post by: Kromtec on March 19, 2019, 03:01:18 am
Sashes would be cool, or toolbelts, or whatever, but... there might not be that many pixels left for clothing, clothing color, sash and profession-somethings. ^^
Remember, this is the size we are using: (red shirt, brown vest, brown skirt, green/farmer sash)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q1P5oFl.png)
I was a little bit torn between easy position readablity and being able to see that noble that went crazy, cowering naked in a corner, because he didn't get his turtle shell earrings. ;D
But after seeing this mockup, I think this can work and we could get the best of both sides.
As Starver said, pips/lines/... on the sash/toolbelt/... could help to get in some hierarchy information. I am sure it is not an easy task, to encode that much info into so little space, but if it works, oh boy!
Post by: Jiri Petru on March 19, 2019, 03:56:11 am
And with this, I think I've said everything I have to say on this topic.
Whatever the end result, I have confidence that Mike and Meph will do something gorgeous. Can't wait! ;)
Post by: Meph on March 19, 2019, 04:00:31 am
Hair style (5), length (5) and color.
Beard style (5), length (5) and color.
Sideburns style (5), length (5) and color.
Moustache style (5), length (5) and color.
Eye color.
Skin color.
Clothing types (~30) and color.
Professions. (~100)
Maybe skill in some form. (~15)
Positions. (Nobles, ~100)
Equipment. (Weapons, armor, shields, picks/axes, ~30)
Injuries. (?)
Gender/Sex (2).
With 32x32 pixels. ^^
To be honest I wouldn't be super opposed to some kind of colored bar with stars/stripes in it, below/above the dwarf. An icon, depicting skill/profession. Something optional that can be toggled.
If only everything could be a snarky flying skull. Would make spriting much easier. :P
Post by: FantasticDorf on March 19, 2019, 04:12:42 am
To be honest I wouldn't be super opposed to some kind of colored bar with stars/stripes in it, below/above the dwarf. An icon, depicting skill/profession. Something optional that can be toggled.
If only everything could be a snarky flying skull. Would make spriting much easier. :P
Professions isn't nessecarily 100% required i don't think, if you use utilities like stonesense for instance that give visual feedback on what dwarves are wearing therefore making it more incentivised to use dyes and exotic clothing pieces.
Especially since you can have dwarves go between jobs, with the other personal features it seems restrictive to overlay a uniform when layered pieces can be in effect to especially hammer home the aspect of your dwarves as having individual flair and improve the adventurer sprites rather than have a generic (adventurer) uniform or citizen base sprite for your hero dressed in 3 cloaks and metal armor appearing as if they are wearing a tunic.
Post by: Meph on March 19, 2019, 05:17:50 am
"if you use utilities"... you have to keep in mind that this tileset is for new players coming from Steam. With no third-party utilities at the beginning.To be honest I wouldn't be super opposed to some kind of colored bar with stars/stripes in it, below/above the dwarf. An icon, depicting skill/profession. Something optional that can be toggled.
If only everything could be a snarky flying skull. Would make spriting much easier. :P
Professions isn't nessecarily 100% required i don't think, if you use utilities like stonesense for instance that give visual feedback on what dwarves are wearing therefore making it more incentivised to use dyes and exotic clothing pieces.
Especially since you can have dwarves go between jobs, with the other personal features it seems restrictive to overlay a uniform when layered pieces can be in effect to especially hammer home the aspect of your dwarves as having individual flair and improve the adventurer sprites rather than have a generic (adventurer) uniform or citizen base sprite for your hero dressed in 3 cloaks and metal armor appearing as if they are wearing a tunic.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 19, 2019, 06:33:02 am
To be honest I wouldn't be super opposed to some kind of colored bar with stars/stripes in it, below/above the dwarf. An icon, depicting skill/profession. Something optional that can be toggled.
I guess if Toady could somehow easily whip up an extra info toggle to support something like that that'd be ideal, maybe even tack on first name/initials unless that gets too bloated, but sounds like a lot to hope for for now.
Post by: funkydwarf on March 19, 2019, 07:42:36 am
Post by: Hommit on March 19, 2019, 08:00:28 am
With no third-party utilities at the beginning.Imo, but DF is unplayable (literally unplayable, i say!) without Dwarf Therapist
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 19, 2019, 08:29:03 am
Post by: Cruxador on March 19, 2019, 10:45:29 am
This green sash looks nice. I just think that when you keep adding badges, pips and crowns for nobles etc., you end up hiding so much of the original sprite that the base clothing isn't really visible any more. At this point you may as well draw a unique noble sprite.I was thinking those would be on the sash. Maybe in extreme cases (the king) could expand beyond it, but more as an exception to the rule.
Professions. (~100)With the sash method, professions are just 1+color, which seems adequate to me. Skill level of the top skill could be represented by simple pips on the lower end of the sash, upgrading to a band or chevron on legendary. But it again runs into the issue that you're obscuring skills other than the highest by implicit focus, which is a pretty questionable choice from a game design perspective.
Maybe skill in some form. (~15)
Quote
Positions. (Nobles, ~100)You definitely don't need a unique sprite for every possible position. Even with the positions that you encounter rarely, there's only like two or three dozen types by function, tops.
Quote
To be honest I wouldn't be super opposed to some kind of colored bar with stars/stripes in it, below/above the dwarf. An icon, depicting skill/profession. Something optional that can be toggled.That's the exact same thing as the sash, functionally. Of the two, I think the sash is less destructive to the aesthetic and immersion of the game.
Text needs tons of pixels, you need 4*7 per character at absolute minimum. That's not gonna work out on anything that can be always on. It might be cool to have a mouse hover thing that's like a middle ground between no focus on the character and using a key press and a click to [v]iew a character, though. Depends on where Toady goes with the UI improvements. That wouldn't be on my shortlist, personally. A context-specific right click to [v]iew a unit if there is one, else to [q]uery a building if there is one, else to loo[k] at the tile would cover most functionality you'd want from something like that and more, and might well be easier to add besides.To be honest I wouldn't be super opposed to some kind of colored bar with stars/stripes in it, below/above the dwarf. An icon, depicting skill/profession. Something optional that can be toggled.
I guess if Toady could somehow easily whip up an extra info toggle to support something like that that'd be ideal, maybe even tack on first name/initials unless that gets too bloated, but sounds like a lot to hope for for now.
Post by: Jack-22 on March 19, 2019, 11:06:40 am
I know this might not work, but have you thought about doing a triangular shadow for the darkest points of the ramp?
(https://i.imgur.com/9XSKngk.png)
This works for me. I see the ramp without the visual paradox up/down the art of the cubes.
Post by: Isabelle82 on March 19, 2019, 11:13:24 am
With no third-party utilities at the beginning.Imo, but DF is unplayable (literally unplayable, i say!) without Dwarf Therapist
Never used Dwarf Therapist so i can (can´t) say how much there is a difference. Had Forts with 150 Dwarfs upward and was fine doing everything manualy.
It even takes a while for me even to use Tilesets/ Lazy Newb Pack. Ever played Ascii, until my Bfriend at this time get´s sick of me playing this because he couldn´t get what I´m doing. So I decided to use graphics so he could see that this is a game and no cryptic "Matrix" style programing language (so he called it before I used Graphics) ;)
Post by: Starver on March 19, 2019, 11:30:21 am
It even takes a while for me even to use Tilesets/ Lazy Newb Pack. Ever played Ascii, until my Bfriend at this time get´s sick of me playing this because he couldn´t get what I´m doing. So I decided to use graphics so he could see that this is a game and no cryptic "Matrix" style programing language (so he called it before I used Graphics) ;)Speaking of which, I hope you're still on for our 'business meeting' at the Θ. You bring the §s, I'll bring the ÷ and ¶s...
Post by: Meph on March 19, 2019, 11:39:48 am
What? ^^It even takes a while for me even to use Tilesets/ Lazy Newb Pack. Ever played Ascii, until my Bfriend at this time get´s sick of me playing this because he couldn´t get what I´m doing. So I decided to use graphics so he could see that this is a game and no cryptic "Matrix" style programing language (so he called it before I used Graphics) ;)Speaking of which, I hope you're still on for our 'business meeting' at the Θ. You bring the §s, I'll bring the ÷ and ¶s...
Post by: Starver on March 19, 2019, 12:40:12 pm
Post by: Hommit on March 19, 2019, 02:23:16 pm
Ever played Ascii,
Had Forts with 150 Dwarfs upward and was fine doing everything manualy.Suuuure you did. Problem is, it's 2019 now, and i'm (and lots and lots of other non-ascii-hardcore ppl) not going to browse zillion of keyboard ascii-style tables. Most DF interface have... super bad usability.
Post by: scourge728 on March 19, 2019, 02:29:00 pm
Post by: voliol on March 19, 2019, 03:02:12 pm
It even takes a while for me even to use Tilesets/ Lazy Newb Pack. Ever played Ascii, until my Bfriend at this time get´s sick of me playing this because he couldn´t get what I´m doing. So I decided to use graphics so he could see that this is a game and no cryptic "Matrix" style programing language (so he called it before I used Graphics) ;)Speaking of which, I hope you're still on for our 'business meeting' at the Θ. You bring the §s, I'll bring the ÷ and ¶s...
"...our 'business meeting' at the bed. You bring the chains, I'll bring the +fine blueberry roast+ and goblets..."?
Post by: Meph on March 19, 2019, 03:05:17 pm
I'm not sure if this is entirely on topic and I sure hope you know Isabelle82 very, very well in RL.
Everyone, please return to tilesets, sprites and Steam. Thank you.
Post by: Eric Blank on March 19, 2019, 04:27:38 pm
In more serious news, when i looked at the images posted in the announcement, it looked to me like this new graphics set layers some textures over the top of others. How is that achieved, or am i just seeing things that arent there?
Post by: Putnam on March 19, 2019, 07:18:04 pm
Will this tileset alleviate the headache of having a microcline vein run through the middle of your nice black gabbro temple? :P
In more serious news, when i looked at the images posted in the announcement, it looked to me like this new graphics set layers some textures over the top of others. How is that achieved, or am i just seeing things that arent there?
Transparency features are planned
Post by: FantasticDorf on March 19, 2019, 07:22:20 pm
Post by: snow dwarf on March 20, 2019, 03:59:25 am
Post by: Rose on March 20, 2019, 08:50:39 am
Post by: Superdorf on March 20, 2019, 12:20:15 pm
Have a question. Have you considered that ramps are often used in keeps and generally world gen buildings instead of stairs? How would that look?
Hm. Well, I ain't no Meph or Mike Mayday, but from what I've seen so far... it'd maybe look something like this?
(https://imgur.com/vUyyJwi.png)
But less sloppy, of course. And smaller.
Post by: Toen on March 21, 2019, 08:21:27 am
Some questions about future graphic capabilities :
-Will the new graphics support for variations between tiles of the same type? (for instance, little variations on the tile for the same smoothed floor or even grass, not only in the color/tone but also on the texture)
-Will it be possible to add animation to sprites? (as in, let's say, idle standing animation for a unit)
That's it :)
Thank you for working so hard!! Loving all the updates!
Post by: LordBalkan on March 21, 2019, 08:34:18 am
It's said that Meph posted on discord channel:
https://imgur.com/QV7gw3s?r
The question is, it will now be possible to smooth/engrave into "dirt" tiles??
Or was already a thing and I've never managed to figure this out?
Post by: Superdorf on March 21, 2019, 08:42:51 am
It's very pretty engraved siliceous ooze. I just don't quite... understand its purpose.
Post by: snow dwarf on March 21, 2019, 08:45:04 am
The question is, it will now be possible to smooth/engrave into "dirt" tiles??No, it won't. It's not a thing in the base game and it makes sense that it isn't.
Or was already a thing and I've never managed to figure this out?
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 21, 2019, 08:51:27 am
Most of those sprites are not currently planned for use in the base game anyway.
Post by: Superdorf on March 21, 2019, 08:54:11 am
Post by: methylatedspirit on March 21, 2019, 08:56:49 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 21, 2019, 08:58:37 am
(https://i.imgur.com/l1FDuZ7.png)
WARNING, as the text says, this is not something currently being considered for DF by Tarn, it's a solution I'd like to propose.
@Superforf: that's actually a pretty accurate mockup of what it'd look like in a castle, yes.
Post by: Meph on March 21, 2019, 08:58:50 am
I kinda just made all of them, since it's the same automated process for anything smoothed/engraved.The question is, it will now be possible to smooth/engrave into "dirt" tiles??No, it won't. It's not a thing in the base game and it makes sense that it isn't.
Or was already a thing and I've never managed to figure this out?
As Mike said, it will probably not end up in the Steam version at all, but I like having all inorganics ready for a mod. ;)
Smoke and ooze: Yes, we have sprites for that.
Post by: Superdorf on March 21, 2019, 09:13:03 am
Business is slow on the project forum for now, so I wanted to check your opinions on this solution:
Aww cool. That works, I think. The blue fog's a nice transition into the open-space tiles, and lends a lovely atmosphere to it all.
Only thing is... do you intend to put back the rounded edges from your last mockup? I really liked those.
Smoke and ooze: Yes, we have sprites for that.Heyy, we actually have a use for that! (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173393.0)
@Superforf: that's actually a pretty accurate mockup of what it'd look like in a castle, yes.I'm flattered. :)
Post by: Cruxador on March 21, 2019, 09:33:07 am
Business is slow on the project forum for now, so I wanted to check your opinions on this solution:Looks good to me. At this point, although there can be aesthetic concerns, I don't think there's much issue of whether it reads correctly. It still looks overly steep but that's about it.
EDIT: I also think the misty effect should be like 50% or 75% stronger per z-level.
Only thing is... do you intend to put back the rounded edges from your last mockup? I really liked those.He said that was cut (and why) almost immediately after posting it.
Post by: DeKaFu on March 21, 2019, 09:43:55 am
Just wanted to say that mockup looks absolutely gorgeous. I really hope something along those lines actually makes it in.
Post by: Death Dragon on March 21, 2019, 10:04:30 am
Business is slow on the project forum for now, so I wanted to check your opinions on this solution:Looks a lot better I think, but could you post mockups of single tile ramps?
(https://i.imgur.com/l1FDuZ7.png)
I especially wonder what it would look like if the red tile here was the only ramp tile:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/366288212597014558/558304189613342724/unknown.png)
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 21, 2019, 10:23:12 am
(https://i.imgur.com/UnUf9Xu.png)
Post by: Meph on March 21, 2019, 10:29:12 am
Post by: Rose on March 21, 2019, 10:44:31 am
(https://i.imgur.com/hW1O5hI.png)
Currently what you have is on the right.
Left looks a little more natural.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 21, 2019, 10:53:44 am
(https://i.imgur.com/EM0o1mC.png)
Post by: Rose on March 21, 2019, 11:13:34 am
(https://i.imgur.com/YGEkBJO.png)
Post by: Meph on March 21, 2019, 11:21:12 am
Post by: Rose on March 21, 2019, 11:22:28 am
(https://i.imgur.com/wjzdfop.png)
Post by: Cruxador on March 21, 2019, 11:50:13 am
Post by: Death Dragon on March 21, 2019, 12:07:57 pm
A suggestion for grass and other natural ramps:I think you're probably right. Quick mockup:
(https://i.imgur.com/hW1O5hI.png)
Currently what you have is on the right.
Left looks a little more natural.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/504754524079259678/558335454051827712/unknown.png)
What would it look like when you have ramps on the top left 3 tiles of the plus sign situation though?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/504754524079259678/558335920114368513/unknown.png)
Post by: Rose on March 21, 2019, 12:09:25 pm
Post by: Death Dragon on March 21, 2019, 12:17:53 pm
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/504754524079259678/558338087881670668/unknown.png)
It does sorta make the inside corner tile look higher up than it actually is though.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 21, 2019, 12:35:44 pm
Kinda like this?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/504754524079259678/558338087881670668/unknown.png)
It does sorta make the inside corner tile look higher up than it actually is though.
All we really know about what "actually is" there is that within that 2x2x3 meter area there's a grassy slope facing roughly northwest, pretty much (with countless different all technically correct ways to display it with a tileset). The minecart tracks is probably the biggest issue with doing it like that, even if it looks much better imo, unless there's a good fix for it somehow. The whole straight vs diagonal walls/ramps feels like a pretty big can of worms to open up though, can't remember if anything had been said about that here previously.
Post by: LordBalkan on March 21, 2019, 01:13:10 pm
No, it won't. It's not a thing in the base game and it makes sense that it isn't.Well, is never too late for dwarfs to learn how to do new tricks hehhehehehe
That's just Meph being Meph ;))Better be safe then sorry....
Most of those sprites are not currently planned for use in the base game anyway.
Business is slow on the project forum for now, so I wanted to check your opinions on this solution:WARNING, as the text says, this is not something currently being considered for DF by Tarn, it's a solution I'd like to propose.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
WOW!! Thats awesome!! Agreed with Superdorf about the mist, but also with Cruxador about it's density.
Even knowing that just a mockup and probly not going to final version.
Only thing is... do you intend to put back the rounded edges from your last mockup? I really liked those.I know, right!!
Sad story is, like Cruxador said, Mike himself said that the round corners would not work well with multi-level view.
Good thing is, now that I saw how that sharp corners look in multi-level they make more sense for me.
Post by: Death Dragon on March 21, 2019, 01:36:05 pm
WELL, I'm afraid smooth ramp corners would make multilevel view a LOT more difficult for Toady. So I'm skipping that one for now, sorry.Why do smooth corner sprites make multilevel view more difficult?
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 21, 2019, 01:47:07 pm
Post by: that_eye on March 21, 2019, 02:29:14 pm
Post by: Starver on March 21, 2019, 03:20:40 pm
That is correct! Thanks Meph and JapaI don't like that as much. What you have with that is the inner point of the ramp being the only 'steppable' access up the ramp from the bottom. If you tried to come straight south in the midde of the tile (also straight east) you'd come up a cambered slope and have half a Zed's step to climb up unless you moved somewhat to the corner then back to the midtile position upon crowning the slope.
(https://i.imgur.com/EM0o1mC.png)
The topology is always going to be weird, because the first version of this that (to my eye) meets flat at top of the slope on both edges asks for the centre 'fold' in the ramp (see Lego brick example (https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/1yAAAOSw011bgF9x/s-l300.jpg), with the diagonal slope of the first like the diagonal slope of this brick (https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/dqYAAOSwJpda3ceZ/s-l640.jpg), but with the orthagonal slopes being built up to straight-sided abuttments) and presents a full triangular cliff to the transition onto the ramp from the lower level.
What you maybe ideally (or better than either of these?) want is to have the half-way points flush with the surfaces they should be flush with by making it a compound slope that doesn't go out of joint with either end.
I was thinking the following. The strings of numbers between the *s are the orthogonally adjacent tiles (which match at all the midpoints), the *s themselves you can assume as the diagonal corners meeting the tile whose heightmap we are actually framing. The numbers are of course 0 at the lower level and 8 at the higher.
edited to change the edges. The Ls are the (flat) Lower level tile neighbour edges, assume @0, the Us are thr similarly flat and level but elevated Upper neighbouring tile edges, which you can assume are @8. Hopefully it looks slightly better.
Code: [Select]
*LLLLLLLLL*
L000001234U
L000012345U
L000123456U
L001234567U
L012345678U
L123456788U
L234567888U
L345678888U
L456788888U
*UUUUUUUUU*That means theoretically that if arriving at the slope from around the corner-cliff it provides access to (or descending to go round there) it might be thought more necessary to dodge sufficiently to the west/north side centre to get onto the slope, but you basically do anyway (insofar as the granularity of moving entity positions is, anyway, on DF as it always has been).
Does this make sense, without actually digging up an art program of my own (which would take time to make available for viewingmon forum, sorry!) that might still not remain clear?
But it's just my thoughts, I'm sure the artists of this thread don't need my guidance in this. (And, while I'm having On-Topic thoughts, I can now properly apologise to the self-same artists for my somewhat off-topic jest the other day. I've dialled it back to Strictly Relevent, since then, among other things.)
Post by: Vince on March 21, 2019, 03:35:07 pm
Business is slow on the project forum for now, so I wanted to check your opinions on this solution:
(https://i.imgur.com/l1FDuZ7.png)
WARNING, as the text says, this is not something currently being considered for DF by Tarn, it's a solution I'd like to propose.
The main problem I have with this is that it still looks like walls to me.
Yes, the perspective wouldn't make sense, but my brain still screams "walls".
That is correct! Thanks Meph and Japa
(https://i.imgur.com/EM0o1mC.png)
That looks a LOT better.
I wonder how it would look combined with Mephs tiles (https://i.imgur.com/6BuwGO4.png).
Those were the best in my opinion, since they look more natural and provide a better stylistic contrast to the angular fort.
<snip>
I see what you mean and thought a bit about it.
What about this, that would add a slight curve:
(https://i.imgur.com/IZa8cyo.jpg)
Post by: Sanctume on March 21, 2019, 04:47:31 pm
Post by: Meph on March 21, 2019, 05:05:05 pm
What exactly was negative about the directionless top-lit ramps? Did anyone misunderstand those; did anyone mis-read them as walls or confuse up with down?
We'll add the nice cyan/blue fog shading, and that's it. I even made a version that simply uses a shading overlay, without any new sprites. Mike I know you are putting a lot of work into the ramps, but I don't think they'll ever work with the directional shading, next to top-down terrain.
(https://i.imgur.com/lV8ZeWM.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FnjBlgK.png)
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 21, 2019, 05:13:22 pm
Besides, this particular method of generating ramp graphics is so automatic that I can very well see implementing both as an option.
Post by: Vince on March 21, 2019, 05:17:16 pm
I still mistake yours with walls, Mike, it's those hard lines.
Of course, if both get implemented, everyone would be happy.
Also this will be modable as well, right?
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 21, 2019, 05:24:05 pm
In the long run there shouldn't be a problem with smoothing them. For the first version I wanted to focus on the part that is simpler to code, which would be used anyway for constructed ramps.
Post by: Meph on March 21, 2019, 05:31:03 pm
Hey Meph - I'm super into the Egyptian themed tileset you posted a while, and I'm wondering if such things as greco-roman, egyptian, nordic, celtic, and so on would be available in the new tiles? Or if there's any plan to have such themes selectable by default?That would be a ton of extra work. ^^ I don't know if the code will support stuff like that, but for now you can have your cake and eat it at the Meph tileset.
There are no plans to add those themes in the official tileset. Very unlikely in fact, since they are so clearly RL-race inspired.
Post by: IlFedaykin on March 21, 2019, 05:37:57 pm
I don't think this is going anywhere.They actually look the best in my opinion. You'd need to check how the look with the rest of the shaded sprites, tho. On a different note, Japa's solution is indeed the most eye-pleasing. It would make sense to have ALL the ramps with a piece of the lower level floor (since while you stand on the ramp tile, you are on the lower floor). This would also solve the problem with canyon-like ramps (wall-ramp-wall), which you didn't consider, up to now!
What exactly was negative about the directionless top-lit ramps? Did anyone misunderstand those; did anyone mis-read them as walls or confuse up with down?
We'll add the nice cyan/blue fog shading, and that's it. I even made a version that simply uses a shading overlay, without any new sprites. Mike I know you are putting a lot of work into the ramps, but I don't think they'll ever work with the directional shading, next to top-down terrain.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
In the case of inner corners something like Death Dragon's and Vince's solutions would be best: they look way more natural and if the top-floor flat is narrow enough, it won't confuse anybody.
Kinda like this?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/504754524079259678/558338087881670668/unknown.png)
It does sorta make the inside corner tile look higher up than it actually is though.
What about this, that would add a slight curve:
(https://i.imgur.com/IZa8cyo.jpg)
EDIT: I just realized basically any configuration of walls and ramps with opposing walls would be pretty hard to draw... and there's a ton of possibilities! If math doesn't fail me, there should be 256 possible configurations. Considering rotations, you'll need less. But still a lot.
Post by: Cruxador on March 21, 2019, 05:53:36 pm
Because the smoothing needs to be extended to neighbouring tiles, which means extra coding and lots of extra considerations. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm trying to keep things minimal for the first release.Because of how Steam release hype tends to work, I reckon that the first release should be as complete and polished as possible. Maybe Kitfox have some knowledge of this that's more specific to indie games than my experience, but I don't reckon that this is a time to err on the side of conservatism.
In particular, a generalized conditional tile override system (whether based on the existing one for smoothed walls or not) with adjacency triggers would be a super powerful aesthetic tool with vastly wide reaching applications for improving the appearance of the game.
I know it may feel like a big ask from Toady, but I'd also like to point out that he's a grown man and it's his project in the first place. He's perfectly capable of being given a potential task and then deciding whether it would be worth it, and it's reasonable based on that to push for more features or otherwise convey how useful things could be. It could even be considered part of the job.
Hey Meph - I'm super into the Egyptian themed tileset you posted a while, and I'm wondering if such things as greco-roman, egyptian, nordic, celtic, and so on would be available in the new tiles? Or if there's any plan to have such themes selectable by default?This, on the other hand, is something that definitely isn't needed at release.
The main problem I have with this is that it still looks like walls to me.I don't really think there's a way around this without switching from geometric to a more painted rolling hills type look, which would also require adjacency awareness.
Yes, the perspective wouldn't make sense, but my brain still screams "walls".
What exactly was negative about the directionless top-lit ramps?Not as pretty. It may be a worthwhile tradeoff from a game design perspective, but this is meant to sell copies largely on looks as well.
Post by: IlFedaykin on March 21, 2019, 06:04:40 pm
Post by: Meph on March 21, 2019, 06:36:15 pm
I added my shading on top of Mikes shading (only for the current zlvl, not the one above or below):
(https://i.imgur.com/qFiQfEH.png)
Post by: Bumber on March 21, 2019, 07:11:41 pm
What exactly was negative about the directionless top-lit ramps? Did anyone misunderstand those; did anyone mis-read them as walls or confuse up with down?The grass near the underground just looks like a lighter shade of grass that's flat. Maybe with a different gradient it would look better.
[...]
(https://i.imgur.com/lV8ZeWM.png)
Maybe sort of non-linear like: ██████
Or maybe just go a little bit darker than the flat tiles at the bottom of the ramp?
The brick version looks okay because the bricks face a different direction from the flat tiles.
Obviously the defined edges in your most recent post fixes the issue, but if smoothed edges remain an option, it might work.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 21, 2019, 07:41:42 pm
And as for needing additional coding to make further changes, I'd say ramps are probably one of the things most worth improving with how much it informs the topside scenery, depending of course on how large a rewrite it would be? But I'd assume since further updates on the graphics front would be many years off one could make a good case for trying to unlock as many new tools as possible now so they're available for tinkering around with during the big wait, both for the official set and modders?
Also in favor of the Japa suggested version (if that's a possibility), it's the only way afaik to have a hill like that look like an actual hill.
Edit: Then again, it's obviously easy for us to sit here and argue for all the possibilities we're teased with, since we're not the ones who have to put the work in. What's the plan for future updates like if that's okay to ask, as in after the steam release is out? Are regular graphics tinkering during future updates planned or will it be a spur of the moment thing like a lot of other stuff? Are you guys aiming at staying the official tileset makers/updaters for subsequent updates too or is that too far in the future to have been discussed?
Post by: Oab on March 21, 2019, 10:00:56 pm
My question is do they even need to be visible? The inclusion of multi-layer rendering should provide enough perception of the layers by itself.
This is a 5 minute mock up of what I had in mind for a solution.
(https://i.imgur.com/5DiQ9DM.png)
The tile on the grass is a channeled hole.
Technically the bottom of the ramp is on the current level so this makes the most sense to me. Just imagine the ramp itself being between the tiles.
This approach would also make it a lot easier to comprehend complex wall layouts and things like tracks between layers. Multi-layer rendering will indicate height to provide context when there isn't a ramp.
Post by: Cruxador on March 21, 2019, 10:29:34 pm
Bit of both?Looks great honestly, it keeps Mayday's aesthetic but really helps with the "looks like a wall" problem. Only thing is that the bottom of the ramp has too distinct of an edge against the ground, but I think that's a problem that can be addressed if it's not just overlayed on an existing mockup.
My question is do they even need to be visible?Well... Yeah. You definitely need to be able to tell where your dwarves (and every other thing that walks) can go up a z-level and where they can't.
Post by: Superdorf on March 22, 2019, 01:22:36 am
Bit of both?
Woah.
I... uh. Wow. That's bold.
Personally I liked the atmosphere of the last better... but it sounds like this has better visibility for some people? It's a good compromise, I suppose-- but the bottom edge does need a smoothing out of some kind.
How does the inside corner tile look with this new shading?
Post by: Death Dragon on March 22, 2019, 03:06:16 am
Bit of both?Yeah, I agree. Though the latest Mayday mockup (https://i.imgur.com/l1FDuZ7.png) did already have a bit of that additional shading.
I also made a similar mockup some pages ago:
I just made a 5 second mockup of what the Mayday directional shading ramps would look like with an additional shading gradient:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/382518915630366721/556542053337530389/unknown.png)
I think this is the direction to go in.
I don't think this is going anywhere.The problem with these directional-shading lacking ramps is that they don't look plastic enough. They look more like differently coloured, flat ground to me.
What exactly was negative about the directionless top-lit ramps? Did anyone misunderstand those; did anyone mis-read them as walls or confuse up with down?
We'll add the nice cyan/blue fog shading, and that's it. I even made a version that simply uses a shading overlay, without any new sprites. Mike I know you are putting a lot of work into the ramps, but I don't think they'll ever work with the directional shading, next to top-down terrain.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Starver on March 22, 2019, 04:20:28 pm
EDIT: I just realized basically any configuration of walls and ramps with opposing walls would be pretty hard to draw... and there's a ton of possibilities! If math doesn't fail me, there should be 256 possible configurations. Considering rotations, you'll need less. But still a lot.There are 'only' 51 ramp combinations, if you boil all rotations and reflections down to one ur-example that can cover each set.
Spoiler: Going into more depth, but mainly musing and not that useful to M&MM (click to show/hide)
PS, I do like the 5-second mockup in Death Dragon's post although I wouldn''t know how much of the mocking up was not easily replicable by an automated renderer, in lieu of an artistic eye. And M@MM have plenty of other things to worry about, I assume.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 22, 2019, 06:16:57 pm
Post by: Rekov on March 23, 2019, 01:01:06 am
There are five different possibly configurations I've come up with. I will be using the same exact same landscape for each one to make the differences more obvious. The tiles are checkered so you can see which faces belong to each tile.
1. I'm starting with this one because it does not work.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/504754524079259678/558335920114368513/unknown.png)
This is what that would look like in 3D, and obviously it's nonsense.
(https://i.imgur.com/DGJJtGS.png)
2. The geometry on this one actually works. It has smooth slopes along the horizontal, but jagged slopes along the vertical. The disadvantage is that it makes half of the corner ramp tile solid wall, which would look weird with a sprite on top of it. I've converted Death Dragon's mock-up into a gif that shows what it would have to look like one z-level down.
(https://i.imgur.com/bnj6DTm.gif)
Here is the 3D:
(https://i.imgur.com/ge1gBJ0.png)
3. This the option that most of Mike and Meph's demos have used so far. It is the opposite of option 2 in the sense that it has smooth vertical slopes but jagged horizontal slopes.
Mike's v3:
(https://i.imgur.com/l1FDuZ7.png)
Meph's v3:
(https://i.imgur.com/lV8ZeWM.png)
3D model of v3:
(https://i.imgur.com/TAf7KeS.png)
4. This is a hybrid. It uses the convex corners from v2 and the concave corners from v3.
(https://i.imgur.com/KFIfipi.png)
5. This is the opposite hybrid, using the convex corners from v3 and the concave corners from v2.
(https://i.imgur.com/Sfy0Wod.png)
Bonus Version 6:
If you don't care about keeping things planar, you could go for a series of saddle shapes. The problem though is I think it's hard for the human mind to get a good grip on this just based on shadows and light, and it wouldn't work very well in 2D because of this.
(https://i.imgur.com/H3JVIEL.png)
In conclusion, I think version 3 has to be the way to go. Version 2 works equally well in 3D, but it doesn't work in 2D tiles because those concave corners put half of the sprite 'in the wall'
Post by: Sanctume on March 23, 2019, 01:18:14 am
Also, pathing that dwarf moves from floor to floor and not necessarily steps on the ramp?,
Code: [Select]
.._
_^#
Post by: that_eye on March 23, 2019, 01:26:22 am
it's a tile approximately 3x3x3 feet wall + 3x3x1 floor?
I've heard on these forums that tiles are roughly 2 meters wide by 2 meters long by 2.5 meters tall (0.5 is the floor), but of course, they are also infinitely large since any sized creature can exist on them
Post by: Cruxador on March 23, 2019, 01:37:22 am
The other "true" number is based on minecart physics, but it doesn't have to be considered canon.
Post by: Bumber on March 23, 2019, 01:50:04 am
Yeah, I agree. Though the latest Mayday mockup (https://i.imgur.com/l1FDuZ7.png) did already have a bit of that additional shading.I'm curious what that looks like with multi-level rendering. Word from Mike was that rounded edges didn't play nice, but we haven't yet seen a mockup of the result.
I also made a similar mockup some pages ago:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/382518915630366721/556542053337530389/unknown.png)
Post by: BlackSmokeDMax on March 25, 2019, 12:50:46 pm
Top-down screwpump with an impassable tile:Damn those look good!
(https://i.imgur.com/Gs6VTJf.gif)
With 3 frames more and some shading:
(https://i.imgur.com/Z5k9m1Q.gif)
Maybe we can add a color overlay when it has liquids inside:
(https://i.imgur.com/Y0LYhOB.png)
Sashes would be cool, or toolbelts, or whatever, but... there might not be that many pixels left for clothing, clothing color, sash and profession-somethings. ^^
Remember, this is the size we are using: (red shirt, brown vest, brown skirt, green/farmer sash)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q1P5oFl.png)
Oh and PTW.
Post by: Meph on March 26, 2019, 03:47:39 am
Post by: Sabin Stargem on March 26, 2019, 02:32:24 pm
Post by: Cruxador on March 26, 2019, 02:40:50 pm
If you managed to secure enough blood, is there liquid graphics? Not even sure if blood has liquid mechanics, but hey...figured someone out there might want to make their vampire-castle of the damned.Blood does not have liquid mechanics, but you can have bloody water.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 26, 2019, 06:28:30 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/87p3INF.png)
I'll let Meph show his variations :)
Post by: Cruxador on March 26, 2019, 10:23:41 pm
While your mammals have characterful and accurate faces, I'm not sure you've quite achieved the same mastery over the birds. It took me a while to figure out what the guinea hen was (It is that, right? My first guess was one of them little geese) although I understand their flecked look is very difficult to make this small, but even if you're just dithering, black and white are a better choice I reckon.
But the peacock looks like a blue swan carrying a green clam. Maybe try it with the tail down? Otherwise you'll have to shrink it a lot to make the tail fit in the sprite area. With the tail down, it could be smaller if it's early in the season. If you do do it like this, you should be aware that the "tail" part of the feathers actually starts up on the back, which is where the most brilliant green is. And the wings are like a black and white that maybe just works out to greyish. But also be aware: There isn't a linear nature to the green bits of the tail, only the white bits. And the eyes are black and white and need to pop more, even if you can't fit as many as a very impressive display would have. As for the beak, #505050 is definitely wrong, though I'm not sure I have a better one within your palette.
Anyway, this is a lot of talk for somebody not doing any work, so here's a quick edit of your sprite to show a more realistic coloring and posture:
(https://i.imgur.com/NfWWjTF.png)
I'm not super happy with how striped the wings look on the male, or the tail, and the female especially looks overly goosey (I think it´s the head shape(EDIT: Changed a few pixels to address this)) but you get the idea; it's a step in the right direction anyway.
All those colors are taken from the creatures in that compilation there by the way, except the darkest blue on the male's belly since there wasn't an adequately dark example.
Post by: Rose on March 26, 2019, 10:55:59 pm
Post by: Putnam on March 26, 2019, 11:51:53 pm
Post by: Plump Helmet on March 27, 2019, 01:47:52 am
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 27, 2019, 02:24:26 am
What will the giant animals look like? Will they use the same graphics as the ordinary-sized versions?With a big capital letter painted on their sides, so you know they're giant. :)
Post by: Meph on March 27, 2019, 04:17:05 am
What will the giant animals look like? Will they use the same graphics as the ordinary-sized versions?Giant creatures will look a lot bigger. In most cases we will probably go with the same sprite, 2x the size. In case of the giant insects we probably have to make new sprites.
Post by: Superdorf on March 27, 2019, 01:14:34 pm
Post by: Tinnucorch on March 27, 2019, 01:17:20 pm
On the other hand, the cat seems a little bit too large and, like the cavy pup, it's head seems to be sticking out a little.
Post by: voliol on March 27, 2019, 04:43:12 pm
Post by: Cruxador on March 27, 2019, 04:51:03 pm
ReindeerI thought it was an elk. The color is more like a reindeer, but it lacks the distinctive lighter chest. Then again the hump on its back is not only bigger than a reindeer would have, but also bigger than an elk would have, more moose like, and the head doesn't distinctly look like any of them. So maybe it needs another pass.
Post by: Magistrum on March 29, 2019, 09:52:49 pm
Will war/hunting trained animals have different sprites?
Post by: Cruxador on March 29, 2019, 10:12:04 pm
That Troll(?) looks so friendly!All good trolls do. That's part of why they say trolling is a art.
Post by: Meph on March 30, 2019, 04:11:52 am
That Troll(?) looks so friendly!Yes
Will war/hunting trained animals have different sprites?
Post by: Asin on March 30, 2019, 12:06:39 pm
Post by: Starver on March 30, 2019, 08:34:34 pm
(j/k, mostly. And given it's a lot better than I'd manage with such a small handful of pixels, I haven't got a nuanced opinion of my own.)
Post by: Cruxador on March 30, 2019, 09:54:31 pm
All this negativity... Trolling?No point even having this thread if there's no feedback.
Post by: Meph on March 31, 2019, 06:22:25 am
The zombies might be a bit oversaturated, but I wanted to stick to the vanilla DF purple coloring. ^^
Mike did a few changes since I made that, so a couple will be updated. Some male/female versions will be added too.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 31, 2019, 06:53:03 am
Post by: Cruxador on March 31, 2019, 09:43:53 am
Post by: Starver on March 31, 2019, 10:35:26 am
Seriously though that peacock needs another pass in order to look like a peacock.I'd say at most a pixel or two nip'n'tuck to the head and upper neck.
Spoiler: First picture found that has much the same pose (click to show/hide)
Ok, if we're going that in depth (and not everyone took my "trolling about Trolls" comment as light-heartedly as I thought was intended), I also feel like an idiot in thinking there's either a llama or an alpaca represented there, when there's both. I think.
Considered the differing ears of these cousins (in the two or three pixels that probably make the difference) and the more extreme difference in the face. That's assuming the one I thought was your llama is your alpaca and the one above that I seem to have managed to miss the first time of viewing is actually your llama. If the upper one is something else, then I'm no longer sure which camelid either might be.
Post by: Magistrum on March 31, 2019, 10:40:23 am
Here, just so it not looks like I'm being annoying for no reason, I tried to MSPaint what I'm talking about:
Spoiler: Forgive my lack of transparency. (click to show/hide)
I think it is important to keep the open tail posture, since it is the most iconic thing about the creature, what do you think?
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 31, 2019, 10:52:38 am
The touched up tail-fan eyes ala Magistrum looks slightly better imo, so yeah, more than one pixel for those in some way would probably help.
Post by: Cruxador on March 31, 2019, 11:51:19 am
The only way to call it a peacock is in the very broad sense that there aren't any birds that look closer to it. Like how a kid's poorly made clay sculpture of a four legged animal tends to parse as a dog. But the posture isn't one you'll normally see, even if you've managed to find a photograph that looks that way.Seriously though that peacock needs another pass in order to look like a peacock.I'd say at most a pixel or two nip'n'tuck to the head and upper neck.The 'erectness' of the tail-fan is also slightly different, but that is probably a function of the bird's current dedication to the display. Otherwise I say it's undeniably a peacock, within the general caricaturing scheme, and nothing else. (Peahens/chicks will be much harder to differentiate with their counterpart fowls.)Spoiler: First picture found that has much the same pose (click to show/hide)
Quote
I think it is important to keep the open tail posture, since it is the most iconic thing about the creature, what do you think?I mean, no, but then I do see them more often than most people probably. The presentation of the tail is definitely over-represented on Google images, which is the closest proxy for general perception that came to mind, although even then it's mostly in a head-on angle. I don't think that means it definitely needs to look that way in DF though, especially if it doesn't look good. This seems to veer uncomfortably close to "other people did it wrong so we will too" way of thinking. It's an option, sure, but it's definitely weird to have peacocks walking around with their tails up. And it's not related to not doing the anatomy or colors thoroughly.
Post by: Starver on March 31, 2019, 12:31:49 pm
The only way to call it a peacock is in the very broad sense that there aren't any birds that look closer to it.There are also effectively no birds to which it looks closer. If you want to differentiate a peacock from anything else then the colour (the famous Indian variety mostly, the Green variety not so much), the eye-fan and the hovering-crest are pretty much the key markers. I don't know if you think the fan looks more like a turkey's (noting that a turkey is there, as well, for comparison, and obviously not a retouched version but a fresh depiction) or if, like me, you think the neck and head could be marginally less duck/goose-like (although, comparing to the others, again it's not the same), but I don't consider minor details of that kind disqualification from it clearly being an iconic¹ representation of an iconic² bird.
(¹ Small bitmap, ² Notably singular)
Refine the head and neck a bit, as I suggested (I was going to call for it to be more 'aquiline', but that's etymologically a minefield, and I don't mean make it more like an eagle) and perhaps send the raised tail back a little bit (in both position and angle), and I like the accentuation of the 'eyes' idea. It's also possible that a non-displaying peacock shape could be used, given that they don't permanently strut around like that, with instead the long train of feathers streamed behind it, but that sacrifices a key caricature aspect to what are supposed to be easier things to differentiate than the ASCII rasters.
So I respectfully disagree.
Quote
even if you've managed to find a photograph that looks that way.That was for direct comparison. As you point out there are a lot of pictures, disproportionate to reality, of their display posture, I wanted a part-angle on the head and neck to match the Meph version and that was maybe a dozen or so pictures along in the search results, as opposed to the overwhelming head-on (or tail-on) set that didn't help so much. The raised fan was incidental, whatever differences it also may have presented to a critical eye.
Post by: Magistrum on March 31, 2019, 12:52:58 pm
This seems to veer uncomfortably close to "other people did it wrong so we will too" way of thinking. It's an option, sure, but it's definitely weird to have peacocks walking around with their tails up.
That is the cruxador :P of the question tough, right? If we make it a more precise representation of a peacock, we make it remind less of a peacock. Is it more important for it to be more realistic, or for it to be a better representation for the player? Both are possible, since even if it doesn't exactly looks very "peacockish", if it is distinct from other sprites enough the player will look and see the name anyway.
Post by: Meph on March 31, 2019, 02:58:39 pm
Post by: Superdorf on March 31, 2019, 03:29:52 pm
Failing that, bloodless is probably best. Like Manveru said, a violently killed creature is liable to have some blood surrounding it anyway, and a peaceful death would look weird with the body bleeding all over the floor.
Of course, given the way DF handles such things...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
...maybe death by old age isn't so peaceful after all.
Post by: CL3AR on March 31, 2019, 03:52:14 pm
Post by: Meph on April 01, 2019, 05:30:45 am
The most iconic RPG enemy. ^^
Post by: Putnam on April 01, 2019, 05:39:48 am
Post by: Meph on April 01, 2019, 05:41:13 am
Have at it, then. :P (That one is a floating guts. Amoeba with clear skin and visible organs)
Edit: And a flesh ball, liked for their calming roundness:
(https://i.imgur.com/KD1MoXm.gif)
Edit2: Bugbats!
(https://i.imgur.com/dQoAL2r.gif)
Edit3: Elkbird.
(https://i.imgur.com/nepowpd.gif)
I kinda want to make their antlers even larger:
(https://i.imgur.com/fevNtSj.png)
Edit4: Everyone knows what that is. ^^
(https://i.imgur.com/OrKPtnG.gif)
Post by: scourge728 on April 01, 2019, 08:43:55 am
Post by: Meph on April 01, 2019, 08:57:19 am
Edit: Cave floater?
(https://i.imgur.com/lDPd6Py.gif)
Post by: Cruxador on April 01, 2019, 09:41:10 am
I always assumed plump helmet men were entirely purple.... although they might very well not be since I never actually checked that in the raws hehYou're right, that definitely needs fixing. Probably still not as bad as changing the floating guts into a pile of guts though.
Post by: Superdorf on April 01, 2019, 09:47:06 am
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 01, 2019, 10:00:02 am
According to the raws, they are entirely purple. But if you look at RL mushrooms, the cap usually has a color, while the stem is pale/milky white.
Varies wildly depending on the species. I'd suggest at least having a purplish tint to the body if one wants the cap more discernible (which isn't uncommon in irl mushrooms either (https://www.google.com/search?q=purple+mushroom&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP_b-2k6_hAhUv2aYKHXW7ALwQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=1007)).
Post by: Meph on April 01, 2019, 10:17:57 am
Like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/Iw2imis.png)
Edit: Hungry Head:
(https://i.imgur.com/R0YI7gJ.gif)
Post by: voliol on April 01, 2019, 11:06:24 am
(https://i.imgur.com/8p1wzdY.gif)
Have at it, then. :P (That one is a floating guts. Amoeba with clear skin and visible organs)
Floating guts also have a heart. Maybe add it and make the guts more "gutsy"(thicker) to make it more easily recognizable? Especially if animated sprites don't go through.
Edit: Cave floater?
(https://i.imgur.com/lDPd6Py.gif)
According to the raws their color is "clear", which is seemingly identical to the "grey" color. I'm not sure how this ties into them being a yellow "f" in ASCII, though. Or is their gas green?
(https://i.imgur.com/osKHrMq.gif)(https://i.imgur.com/4e8iQhg.gif)
The most iconic RPG enemy. ^^
Edit: And a flesh ball, liked for their calming roundness:
(https://i.imgur.com/KD1MoXm.gif)
These look a bit flat. Do they look better against a cavern floor? I would also argue the flesh-ball could have more of a meat-ball texture, though that might be a strange (and uncommon) preference. What is the orange stuff at the bottom of the second cave blob picture?
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 01, 2019, 11:15:50 am
Like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/Iw2imis.png)
Yeah, definitely better in my opinion at least ^^
Post by: Meph on April 01, 2019, 11:29:40 am
Cave floaters are indeed clear (white). I somehow automatically made them green, because green=poison gas, in my mind. Will be corrected. Or yellow, like their tile.
Orange stuff under cave blob is the blob excretions/extracts. Blobs cover the ground with slime, like a snail.
Flat? It's perfectly round. ^^
lil' creep'n eye anyone?
(https://i.imgur.com/1pGSmgW.gif)
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 01, 2019, 11:36:28 am
Post by: Magistrum on April 01, 2019, 12:44:29 pm
[Probably still not as bad as changing the floating guts into a pile of guts though.
I second the request, please make the floating guts float.
Post by: Meph on April 01, 2019, 12:46:01 pm
No. Floating guts don't actually float. It's the guts floating inside of the blob.[Probably still not as bad as changing the floating guts into a pile of guts though.
I second the request, please make the floating guts float.
Post by: Giant Dwarf on April 01, 2019, 01:18:55 pm
But will the Graphics-Overhaul also allow to scroll and zoom smoothly?
This would be an absolute killer feature, which would also make the game a lot more accessible and appealing to newer players.
I mean, no doubt I will buy it anyways (and so will a lot of DF-fans), but I think there's a potential for a lot more customers with "polish"-things like this.
Post by: Cruxador on April 01, 2019, 01:26:03 pm
I agree that it's better, but it would still be more accurate for the entire body to match the head. The helmet is notable for its plumpness after all, not its color.Like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/Iw2imis.png)
Yeah, definitely better in my opinion at least ^^
I like their current coloration. I think the flesh balls are the ones that currently best capture the surreal absurdity that is present in the raws and descriptions of the cavern creatures. At least of the first batch, I like the creeping eye too. Although for an animation I'd have rather made the the digits creep than the eye bob and blink. But I appreciate that it would be more work.Edit: And a flesh ball, liked for their calming roundness:These look a bit flat. Do they look better against a cavern floor? I would also argue the flesh-ball could have more of a meat-ball texture, though that might be a strange (and uncommon) preference.
(https://i.imgur.com/KD1MoXm.gif)That's what we're talking about. Right now, they're just piled up with a layer of blob on top. If that's how the creature looked, it would be called "slimy gut pile". The guts should instead be suspended within the blob so that they appear as though they're floating. Your depiction also has more actual guts than the creature should. Remove a lot of guts and leave the space blank, and your guts will float appropriately within the gooey mantle. But it might work better if you draw a digestive system and heart and draw a gooey perimeter around that rather than having it match the other slime as a default.No. Floating guts don't actually float. It's the guts floating inside of the blob.[Probably still not as bad as changing the floating guts into a pile of guts though.
I second the request, please make the floating guts float.Floating guts are named for their guts... thought I best show those.As shown now they look more like brains. Keep in mind that few taxa have absolute masses of small intestine like humans and other advanced mammals.QuoteCave floaters are indeed clear (white). I somehow automatically made them green, because green=poison gas, in my mind. Will be corrected. Or yellow, like their tile.It's definitely a good idea to double check the raws on Toady's fictional creatures. It's easy to have a mistaken perception of them that never really changes after it's initial formation, and that's more true the more alien they are.
Post by: Magistrum on April 01, 2019, 01:46:20 pm
Yeah, the thing is how to make it apparent that they just float inside a transparent blob, instead of simply a transparent slime with guts on the bottom.No. Floating guts don't actually float. It's the guts floating inside of the blob.[Probably still not as bad as changing the floating guts into a pile of guts though.I second the request, please make the floating guts float.
Then again, the raws do say that it is small and has no limbs, so, not too different from slimes.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 01, 2019, 01:53:00 pm
I agree that it's better, but it would still be more accurate for the entire body to match the head. The helmet is notable for its plumpness after all, not its color.
That would probably make it less clearly identifiable as a "mushroom" man (as the caps do tend to have more color generally). I agree it would make sense to give it a rounded cap considering the name though :P
Post by: Meph on April 01, 2019, 03:54:24 pm
Maybe I missed an update on the subject, but was the whole animated creature sprites thing happening then, or still undecided but these being done just in case? Looking great either way!Sorry that I missed this earlier: Animations are a possibility. As far as I understood Toady, the coding side would not be too hard; the game already has alt-tiles for vermin creatures anyway.
The problem would be the time/budget for creatures. If there are 767 creatures, each with child/undead version, that's 2200-ish sprites. With a 3 frame animation each, that's 4400 extra sprites. Depending on the animation, it ranges from "move everything 1px down", over "twiggling appendages" all the way to custom sprites, like the 3 versions of wings in different states of being folded.
It might be a bit excessive for the first Steam release.
But I wanted to create some animations, just in case, and to show Toady how it would look. Maybe he'll like it so much that he adds the possibility. :)
Post by: Magistrum on April 01, 2019, 04:51:48 pm
Now that you mention twigging appendages, have you guys and toady worked out the overview of how procedural creatures are going to be represented yet?
Post by: Meph on April 01, 2019, 04:53:46 pm
Quote
Now that you mention twigging appendages, have you guys and toady worked out the overview of how procedural creatures are going to be represented yet?Sure, we frankenstein them together from bodyparts. They will not look 100% their description, but close enough to make a difference. :)
Post by: Magistrum on April 01, 2019, 05:02:19 pm
Maybe Toady can make the game color your sprites based on the creature's body material? That already works to a certain extent, right?
Post by: Criperum on April 01, 2019, 05:42:53 pm
Post by: Meph on April 02, 2019, 12:17:28 am
Oh, I'm sure that will be just lovely to handle! Since it looks like we can't be pleased with the small creatures even when we agree on how they look. I don't envy you.Oh, I'm pretty hardened up when it comes to user feedback. I love getting it, but I have no issues ignoring it when it makes no sense. Even if a sprite (or mod feature) would look/work perfectly as indented, there will always be people that simply have a different personal taste.
Maybe Toady can make the game color your sprites based on the creature's body material? That already works to a certain extent, right?
Maybe; it would be cool to use ingame colors, but they only effect parts of the sprite. How should the game know which parts are the skin, or the feathers, or the hair, if we don't make a pre-set for every creature manually. It's possible but would mean a lot more work.
Post by: Cruxador on April 02, 2019, 12:29:11 am
Maybe; it would be cool to use ingame colors, but they only effect parts of the sprite. How should the game know which parts are the skin, or the feathers, or the hair, if we don't make a pre-set for every creature manually. It's possible but would mean a lot more work.It's probably still worth it for common creatures like dogs, though, and it wouldn't be much more work for many single-colored creatures, of which there's a few - Llama, sheep, horse, and donkey could work that way in the sprites Mayday posted. In fact, cats and dogs fit that criteria anyway.
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 02, 2019, 03:42:00 am
You don't need bloody corpses. There is already blood splatter in the game, which I suppose will be rendered. So if someone kills a character, you render the blood and corpse separately and it looks all proper. If someone dies of old age, you just show the sprite and there's no blood splatter.
Basically, don't include blood in the sprites, is what I'm saying. It's redundant.
Post by: Starver on April 02, 2019, 09:11:23 am
Maybe; it would be cool to use ingame colors, but they only effect parts of the sprite. How should the game know which parts are the skin, or the feathers, or the hair, if we don't make a pre-set for every creature manually. It's possible but would mean a lot more work.Frankenstein everything, but at least with a single creature you can plausibly match each overlay (from the entire body of a given fur colour to the perhaps single-pixel of eye-colour, if you so wish) so that it matches perfectly rather than your 'attempt to make the &/FB sensible from endlessly permutative nonsensical body layout list' dilemma.
Although the phrase "If I wanted to go there, I wouldn't start from here" comes to mind.
Post by: Putnam on April 02, 2019, 09:28:43 am
Maybe; it would be cool to use ingame colors, but they only effect parts of the sprite. How should the game know which parts are the skin, or the feathers, or the hair, if we don't make a pre-set for every creature manually. It's possible but would mean a lot more work.
I can think of two ways for this:
1. separate sprites for each color, with the graphics raws selecting the tissue that the color will be taken from;
2. separate alpha channels or similar for each color, which i literally can't decide if it's less or more work (and would require moving away from BMP which... okay, that's actually not a bad thing at all)
Post by: Meph on April 02, 2019, 10:14:41 am
Post by: Cruxador on April 02, 2019, 11:10:46 am
*which technically refers to the channel for transparency; although you might be able to coloration that way, doing it as a normal color channel (like the red, green, and blue channels) would, by my reckoning, be simpler both for the people and for the hardware.
Post by: Starver on April 02, 2019, 11:23:39 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
But all that's probably pie-in-the-sky thoughts, both options. Just thinking out loud. And reinventing someone else's wbeel, as well, no doubt. (That Cruxador's post happen during, I notice as I try to Submit.)
Post by: Liamar on April 03, 2019, 05:58:38 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Might I suggest making dogs in this position:
(https://huntingwithstyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Hunting-Dog-Pointing.jpg)
Due to the nature of tiles the stillness of the pose will be easier on
Post by: Magistrum on April 03, 2019, 12:18:03 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 03, 2019, 05:18:40 pm
Raised paw dog would be nice, agreed. Would need to see how it would look in 32px goodness though.Wouldn't it look kind of weird sliding along with one paw raised?
Well, if animation is coming, I guess it doesn't matter.
Post by: Cruxador on April 03, 2019, 06:49:27 pm
Although I agree with whoever said that it might make more sense to give that pose to hunting dogs specifically.
Post by: Meph on April 04, 2019, 02:58:15 am
Post by: Criperum on April 04, 2019, 04:48:58 am
Post by: Meph on April 04, 2019, 05:20:02 am
First pass at elemental men. Mud, Blood, Gabbro, Iron, Amethyst, Blizzard, Magma, Fire Men. Feel free to critique, they all share the same basic body layout and took 2h of slight changes and retextures. ^^
(https://i.imgur.com/v3IyfNQ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/67oCEF8.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/sZKslVY.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LnuX8RR.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/IhjbUTN.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/GrZCeBi.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/urKNW6v.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/czsQ8zD.png)
Post by: Criperum on April 04, 2019, 05:44:34 am
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 04, 2019, 05:53:59 am
Then what did toady mean by software rendering in latest fdf?Here's the conversation he had with mifki on the subject (and whatever else they may have discussed offline).
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=138754.2610
Post by: Criperum on April 04, 2019, 06:10:26 am
Post by: Starver on April 04, 2019, 07:32:09 am
Mud, Blood and Dangerous To Know, indeed.
I rather imagined a Blizzard Man to be slightly more disassociated mass of whirling snowflakes/hail (Man-Of-Bees-ish, but white and not buzzing?), but that's just from the name. If (haven't checked) it's more like a packed snow-man, then that's me that was wrong. But as you have wisps of fire in the latter of those (and glow of heat from his cousin), perhaps some sort of flurry effect in the surrounds? Your call, obviously.
Post by: Meph on April 04, 2019, 08:09:39 am
[BODY_DETAIL_PLAN:STANDARD_MATERIALS]
[BODY_DETAIL_PLAN:STANDARD_TISSUES]
Pretty standard humanoid, except for the skin, teeth and eye color. The fire men are actually made out of fire.
Post by: Starver on April 04, 2019, 09:08:59 am
Post by: Cruxador on April 04, 2019, 10:56:28 am
Blizzard men = A large humanoid monster from the wild tundra. It has translucent skin, icicles for teeth, red glowing eyes and pointed ears.Sounds like the golem body shape is maybe not the best fit then? Between translucent skin and pointed ears it sounds very elfin. Just, a very northerly elfin monster, with big teeth. Definitely not seeing the ice-sculpted blue thing you've drawn.
[BODY_DETAIL_PLAN:STANDARD_MATERIALS]
[BODY_DETAIL_PLAN:STANDARD_TISSUES]
Pretty standard humanoid, except for the skin, teeth and eye color.
Something about the knee position is also odd. Especially the ones standing in a pile of what their bodies are made of, but they look like they're in the middle of skateboarding up to the just-for-scale dude.
Post by: Rose on April 04, 2019, 12:46:29 pm
Post by: Liamar on April 04, 2019, 12:50:49 pm
@Meph will you and Mayday be making colored variants for sprites of players, friendly and enemy units? I am currently confused by the hordes of goblin-raised dwarves invading me.
Post by: Meph on April 04, 2019, 12:52:13 pm
Quote
@Meph will you and Mayday be making colored variants for sprites of players, friendly and enemy units? I am currently confused by the hordes of goblin-raised dwarves invading me.Ehm... not really, but the equipped item sprites might depend on the civ. That's just spitballing here, but there is a small chance that their equipment will look goblin-like.
Post by: Mike Mayday on April 04, 2019, 04:37:39 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/DX4zgg2.png)
Bronze colossus:
(https://i.imgur.com/2U18k7I.png)
Post by: Superdorf on April 04, 2019, 05:13:39 pm
You did an excellent touch-up job on those peafowl-- the detail on that tail is lovely to behold-- and the roc is fearsome, as it should be. Very nice.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 04, 2019, 05:49:34 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Probably intentional what with the limited space? Still, probably better to reduce the body size a tad at least even if it makes them seem a bit too small in comparison to the other birds. If one were to not leave it at that that is.
Post by: Cruxador on April 04, 2019, 10:33:39 pm
On the fence with the peacock - did some changes and I think I'll leave it at that.It's a big improvement, and definitely it could be hard to get it much better with respect to the form of the creature. But considering that the wings are visible in your sprite, they should probably be the colors of peacock wings (white, black, and orange) and not just blue. Whether you can actually see them when the animal is displaying depends on the angle a lot but it's not unbelievable for it to be visible from the angle you've got.
Also, there is gonna be a female turkey, right?
Oh, I just realised what feels weird with the peacock, the body/plumage proportions are just waaay off:Eh, I think that's fine. Everything in this art style is a bit caricaturized, for example look at the human for scale in Meph's image; his head is nearly a third of his total height. The main problems were shape/giss, but although there's still some things a bit off there (I think the breast is too fat, for one) it's definitely recognizable as a peacock now, and would be even without the color or tail.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Probably intentional what with the limited space? Still, probably better to reduce the body size a tad at least even if it makes them seem a bit too small in comparison to the other birds. If one were to not leave it at that that is.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 05, 2019, 03:33:55 am
Eh, I think that's fine. Everything in this art style is a bit caricaturized, for example look at the human for scale in Meph's image; his head is nearly a third of his total height. The main problems were shape/giss, but although there's still some things a bit off there (I think the breast is too fat, for one) it's definitely recognizable as a peacock now, and would be even without the color or tail.
I know, was just thinking the difference might just be a bit too big in this case (with a human for example it would be more like the head being half to two thirds of the while thing). Just though I'd mention it since I hadn't even realized that's what felt off to me before making a closer comparison. But yeah, minor thing overall, definitely says peacock more than anything else ^^
Post by: Starver on April 05, 2019, 04:18:30 am
Everything in this art style is a bit caricaturized,Which is, ultimately, necessary. Photorealism (especially within 32x32-or-whatever limitations) would make it far less clear to differentiate possibly similar creatures (https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/12/21/371714463/is-this-a-goat-or-a-sheep-its-harder-than-you-think) that wouldn't even be an issue under the default ASCII-like tiles.
One artist's ideas of character to pump into their caricature will differ from another's, of course, as far as quirks go. It's one of the reasons why there are so many different versions of tilesets from different sources, with legitimately admiring adherents to each. That our two thread-artists aren't too dissimilar in style (though I've no doubt there'll be subtle style-wars waged behind the scenes, at various points, to resolve or demarcate mismatches in overlapping illustrative territory) probably bodes well for the choice to ask them to both work together in this task.
Post by: Meph on April 05, 2019, 05:01:44 am
Quote
though I've no doubt there'll be subtle style-wars waged behind the scenesGenerally we stick to Mikes designs, while I make the majority of the sprites, sticking to his ideas for the most part. I usually just yell angrily at clouds whenever things are too small/too large in comparison to their RL size, that's about it. ;)
Post by: Mike Mayday on April 06, 2019, 10:48:37 am
Anyway, dragon, cyclops (repurposed from the small colossus), plus small colossus fixes:
(https://i.imgur.com/95jzlMH.png)
Dragons may grow to be even larger than colossi so I was tempted to make the sprite larger as well, but wide sprites will look reaaally dumb when next to walls:
(https://i.imgur.com/REHpXuE.png)
This is what the dragon looks like in a 1-tile corridor. Do you think I should squash it to have both left legs visible in the tile?
Post by: Cruxador on April 06, 2019, 12:32:57 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on April 06, 2019, 12:43:46 pm
Of course, my skill level is probably at 1% of his... I don't mind making the arms meatier, but the legs are actually exactly how I'd like them to stay.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 06, 2019, 12:44:54 pm
Post by: Superdorf on April 06, 2019, 01:37:42 pm
The colossus is looking better.
Post by: Mike Mayday on April 06, 2019, 03:58:09 pm
MORE fixes for the colossus, beefied up the arm of the cyclops, and made the dragon 2px narrower so that both his legs are visible in a corridor.
Post by: Magistrum on April 06, 2019, 03:59:35 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on April 06, 2019, 04:09:49 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 06, 2019, 04:24:57 pm
Post by: Meph on April 06, 2019, 05:01:16 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on April 07, 2019, 07:38:51 am
(https://i.imgur.com/Dfoftuc.png)
Post by: voliol on April 07, 2019, 11:57:14 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on April 07, 2019, 12:21:24 pm
See, the thing is that Patrick and Tarn DO want to have the sprites of the megabeasts to take up more space. Of course we could squish it to nearly 32x32px, but it's not
Are you guys cool with having all the semis use the same general body sprite?
(https://i.imgur.com/IG0kLhC.png)
Post by: Cruxador on April 07, 2019, 12:26:40 pm
Damn, those are some grimdark sprites, I love them!No reason why not. I will say though, in addition to the legs being very slender, they look a bit mechanical; you should probably break the line that defines the tip of the kneecap in keeping with the general use of lighting.
See, the thing is that Patrick and Tarn DO want to have the sprites of the megabeasts to take up more space. Of course we could squish it to nearly 32x32px, but it's not
Are you guys cool with having all the semis use the same general body sprite?
(https://i.imgur.com/IG0kLhC.png)
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 07, 2019, 12:27:59 pm
Damn, those are some grimdark sprites, I love them!
See, the thing is that Patrick and Tarn DO want to have the sprites of the megabeasts to take up more space. Of course we could squish it to nearly 32x32px, but it's not
Are you guys cool with having all the semis use the same general body sprite?
(https://i.imgur.com/IG0kLhC.png)
Makes sense to me, at least for the 3 right ones since they're are all pretty much just variants of giants and roughly the same size. Probably worth it to make a different one for the minotaur tho, since the other 3 are kind of a seperate class, not to mention roughly 40 times bigger than the minotaur.
Post by: Mike Mayday on April 07, 2019, 12:34:09 pm
EDIT: I've made it slightly smaller - after all the more common context to view a minotaur is against an adventurer, and they ARE 3x human size.
Fixed the knees and did a gremlin!
(https://i.imgur.com/wiGsReR.png)
Post by: Inarius on April 07, 2019, 01:23:58 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 07, 2019, 01:48:34 pm
Post by: voliol on April 07, 2019, 04:21:15 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It might not really matter too much though, as the dragon not really fitting in the corridors might just showcase how big it is, in which case the current sprite can be used with no repercussions.
Post by: Cruxador on April 07, 2019, 04:51:20 pm
Maybe a sitting dragon then, that exceeds tile limits mostly in height? Something like this:Yeah, not fitting in corridors is fine, it's just a question of whether it looks good while not fitting. I think it's fine in its current state.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It might not really matter too much though, as the dragon not really fitting in the corridors might just showcase how big it is, in which case the current sprite can be used with no repercussions.
Post by: Meph on April 07, 2019, 05:03:47 pm
Post by: Luriant on April 07, 2019, 05:30:23 pm
Post by: BearMilitia on April 08, 2019, 12:44:50 am
So... I had a try at ramps myself.
(https://i.imgur.com/xYXyBcL.png)
To start with, when I saw the steam page yesterday for the first time the ramps were the most jarring part of the screens that was immediately confusing to me. I looked through the entire thread to see if anyone had brought this up but meph you, on your first try, already got what I would say is the easiest way to make this much more easily read than just playing with shadows - directional texture. Just taking the regular texture and twisting it about 45 degrees immediately seems to solve the corner issue in the picture but unfortunately it looked like further down the pages people started to ignore this bit. If I were brand new, which I basically am, I can immediately see that the ramps here are a different tile from the grass around it and at that point its a simple scroll of the look cursor over to see its a ramp and bam! I now know that those tilted textures are ramps. Basically serves the same purpose as the arrows while looking a bit nicer.
(https://i.imgur.com/Y0LYhOB.png)
This is another very good, immediately readable option compared to the first screw pump you posted earlier meph. The first one looked more like some kind of spike trap or shredder or something and if I didn't know what a real screw pump was I could be pretty lost as to what that means.
Now, at risk of showing exactly how new I really am, the last steam page screenshot shows some underground hallways covered in white soil looking tiles - is that snow or some other tile I haven't seen before?
Since the different sized sprites are being shown off it made me thing, what about the smallest things like earthworms, leeches, and spiders? What about their giant versions?
Post by: scourge728 on April 08, 2019, 07:14:14 am
So I'm very new to dwarf fortress having started to play this week, before even seeing the store page for it, so I feel like I can act like a good "new player" sounding board in this thread.When I look at that image all I see is flat groundSo... I had a try at ramps myself.
(https://i.imgur.com/xYXyBcL.png)
To start with, when I saw the steam page yesterday for the first time the ramps were the most jarring part of the screens that was immediately confusing to me. I looked through the entire thread to see if anyone had brought this up but meph you, on your first try, already got what I would say is the easiest way to make this much more easily read than just playing with shadows - directional texture. Just taking the regular texture and twisting it about 45 degrees immediately seems to solve the corner issue in the picture but unfortunately it looked like further down the pages people started to ignore this bit. If I were brand new, which I basically am, I can immediately see that the ramps here are a different tile from the grass around it and at that point its a simple scroll of the look cursor over to see its a ramp and bam! I now know that those tilted textures are ramps. Basically serves the same purpose as the arrows while looking a bit nicer.
Post by: Criperum on April 08, 2019, 08:38:37 am
The same. I try hard but all i see is flat grass plate with just different shades of grass. I saw once such grass distinction. There were two types of gras that cannot live together for some reason so the grass created sort of patched coloured terrain pretty much the same as i see on this pic.So I'm very new to dwarf fortress having started to play this week, before even seeing the store page for it, so I feel like I can act like a good "new player" sounding board in this thread.When I look at that image all I see is flat groundSo... I had a try at ramps myself.To start with, when I saw the steam page yesterday for the first time the ramps were the most jarring part of the screens that was immediately confusing to me. I looked through the entire thread to see if anyone had brought this up but meph you, on your first try, already got what I would say is the easiest way to make this much more easily read than just playing with shadows - directional texture. Just taking the regular texture and twisting it about 45 degrees immediately seems to solve the corner issue in the picture but unfortunately it looked like further down the pages people started to ignore this bit. If I were brand new, which I basically am, I can immediately see that the ramps here are a different tile from the grass around it and at that point its a simple scroll of the look cursor over to see its a ramp and bam! I now know that those tilted textures are ramps. Basically serves the same purpose as the arrows while looking a bit nicer.
(https://i.imgur.com/xYXyBcL.png)
Post by: Starver on April 08, 2019, 09:51:16 am
Luckily, I think later versions came about in this thread that enhanced both the 3d-from-2dness-at-a-glance and headed towards making which change-of-height it was more obvious. Though the Resident Artists of the thread have moved onto the creature sprites, so I think we still have to see what scheme they'll have adopted by the time this is publicly revisited. (I can't add more to it than has previously been said, given my ultimate solution would involve synchronised shadowing from the movements of the sun and moon, as game-time passes, which I think is beyond the scope intended here. Though it would be a good Adventure Mode visual, despite the trouble it would be in Fortress.)
Post by: Hommit on April 12, 2019, 12:00:28 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 12, 2019, 12:26:26 pm
By the way, Meph - not really about the tileset, but do you know if there is proper mouse support&interface planned (in paid version only maybe)? Because harcore keyboard controls in 2019 for wide audience, well... :-\
Depending of course on your definition of proper, yes.
https://www.pcgamer.com/tutorials-and-mouse-support-could-make-dwarf-fortress-on-steam-vastly-easier-to-play/
Also, all fundamental changes to the game like that will be shared between versions, it's only the tileset and music/sounds (and steam workshop) that are limited to the paid version.
Post by: Starver on April 12, 2019, 12:39:51 pm
By the way, Meph - not really about the tileset, but do you know if there is proper mouse support&interface planned (in paid version only maybe)? Because harcore keyboard controls in 2019 for wide audience, well... :-\I'm sure I've seen it mentioned here and and another couple of Bay12 threads and also Steam (when I lurked a bit, but unable to reply) that there will be something of additional use for the mouse.
Not sure what can usefully be done, extra. I know I'd not be reaching for the mouse to right-click and start the necessary cascade of options and sub-options and sub-sub-options, etc, until they rejiggle the hotkey menu nesting too (which will probably annoy me for a while, but may be done so each input method matches the structure of the other) as also mentioned - all this as being under Zach's purview, I think it was said, to investigate.
I mean, Meph might be able to clarify better detail, but AIUI it's still way up in the air, so it'll probably change from what's imagined at the moment (even by someone closer to the project) anyway.
(And keyboards aren't particularly hardcore, IMO. Unless you've tabbed-away the hint segment of the screen it tells you what you can press. No worse than a drop-down or context-sensitive menu, given that any context is just as universal to the cursor you've just chosen by following the same hint. But each to their own. The imprecision of the mouse/touch-screen suits some people for things other than pattern-painting, but I'm just more tactile.)
Post by: malvado on April 17, 2019, 04:42:12 pm
I have to say I'm looking forward to pay and play DF with the graphic you guys are working on, it's a game that has evolved a lot over time and even though I haven't donated that often and hopefully my cash will help a little bit everyone that works with this project :-)
Post by: Meph on April 18, 2019, 02:13:10 pm
What is not clear is the style: Should it look like an actual birds-eye representation of a living game world; or rather like the goat-skin parchment map a dwarf would carry around with him?
Due to the information density in DF (biome, plants, constructions, good/evil regions), we can't make anything too sepia/monochrome colored.
What do you guys think?
Simplistic icon-based map: (super wip)
(https://i.imgur.com/wO2msyF.png)
Or rather full-on graphical world view: (super not-done-by-us)
(https://i.imgur.com/wPv6yhG.png)
My personal favourite would be something like this, but sadly that's not possible with tileset-based painting and lacks the necessary information due to the lack of color.
(http://feedthemultiverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/manzikertmaponlyfinal-1240x827.jpg)
Post by: Real_bang on April 18, 2019, 02:28:29 pm
Post by: ZayZe on April 18, 2019, 03:17:55 pm
I think people who get it on steam would welcome graphics like those more. Zeh Casualz
Post by: BearMilitia on April 18, 2019, 03:20:07 pm
going only on what is there now full graphics looks clear and nice
Post by: voliol on April 18, 2019, 03:33:56 pm
I do believe a icon-based variant would be best for both of the maps though. Trying to reach for a realistic option won't work as well as, well, then you would need to fit in as many trees in a tile as it actually contains, or the worlds would look really, really tiny.
Post by: CL3AR on April 18, 2019, 04:41:57 pm
Post by: Rekov on April 18, 2019, 04:49:25 pm
Figure out all of the different kinds of info that need to be represented first.
It might be easier to have different versions of the world map that show different things, just like you can tab through different views in the Embark screen like relative elevation, cliff height, etc.
Maybe you need a Biome/Nature map and a civilizations/road map. Or whatever. Temperature and rainfall as a map, or as overlays/tints to the tiles that you can toggle.
Post by: CL3AR on April 18, 2019, 04:53:42 pm
(https://fantasyanime.com/squaresoft/images/maps/ctworldmap1000ad.png)
Post by: Starver on April 18, 2019, 04:56:46 pm
The more "full-on-graphical" thing looks like it's supposed to be the form, at 1:1scale, a bit like the Mario world map does with the road(s) you progress through between stage 'spots' (though your WIP one that I like also has that feel it's the baasic tiledness, and my 'dithered tile shuffling' idea could be applied equally to that to 'improve' it) with its 'forced perspective'.
In my head I have this procgen method of (consistently, for the same features in a map porthole on the world, regardless of viewport bounds) adding variations to a superset of basic arttwork to make it look like a "There And Back Again" illustration, with all the data one might ask (in the most-zoomed in map, that'd include altitude/slope/biome-membership rendering also) but it might be beyond what you're likely to get as a set of capabilities. In this first Steam-prettified version, at least. But putting it out there as a concept anyway.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 18, 2019, 05:14:28 pm
Post by: Cruxador on April 18, 2019, 06:20:14 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 18, 2019, 11:09:11 pm
Post by: funkydwarf on April 19, 2019, 12:34:20 am
Post by: Real_bang on April 19, 2019, 01:53:09 am
Post by: Starver on April 19, 2019, 02:10:21 am
Post by: gchristopher on April 19, 2019, 02:15:34 am
How do you think the display of sites vs. underlying biomes will work? Do you know if you can paint the sites in a way that shows their actual positions? (which aren't aligned with world map tiles) Any possibility of fancy zoom mechanics that show more detail when zoomed in?
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 19, 2019, 02:40:52 am
It seems the current logic selects the character/tile to use based on a precedence list, with the biome at the bottom and (probably) inhabited sites at the top, with volcanoes, summits, and rivers in between. If the current logic remains that constrains what can be done (you can't e.g. show elevation beyond the implicit one of mountains being high elevation by definition, and you can't show a river cutting through a dry broadleaf forest). I don't even know if the current logic allows for a better biome discrimination than the broad biome type ("jungle", mountain, hills, etc.) displayed currently, although the tropicality (i.e. tropical/temperate version) is actually shown today, as is the evilness level.
I assume you won't be able to dig down to the mid level tile level (those on the leftmost map) for the top level tile, as digging up that information takes far too much time (we're talking minutes for a maximum size world), but it ought to be possible to e.g. overlay a biome tile with a river overlay.
My preference would be to show as much information as possible, so each biome would have its own image, with an overlay for river (preferrably differing between brook/stream and the river sizes, and obviously variants for the various ways it can cross the tile, including merges) and other overlays for summits and volcanoes. Caves (when shown) ought to be possible to show as an overlay as well, while habitations would probably have to take over the tile completely (although necro towers might join caves as being possible to show on top of the biome). Showing elevation would be a nice addition as well.
Once it's known what can be shown (or probably can be shown, as I'd expect the display selection code to have to change to show more than what's shown now, and so wouldn't be nailed down completely before it's actually done), the next step would be to decide what you'd try to display and what would have to be sacrificed, which would be both a technical one (what can be done with the pixels available), and an art style one.
I wouldn't go for a "real" map style unless the mid level tile info was available, as you'd really need that level of biome boundary information to produce a good looking map, and at that point it wouldn't really be tile based (the character version would still have to be, though, but it also wouldn't look like a parchment map regardless). As indicated above, that isn't really feasible now, but might be something to strive for after the map rewrite (and, if so, would provide an input requirement/request for the rewrite).
gchristopher's point about the ability to actually locate desired sites is a good one, so a grid toggle would probably be helpful with a post map rewrite parchment style map.
Post by: Hommit on April 19, 2019, 03:25:05 am
What about the large scale map being simplistic and small scale (adventure mode) map looking realisticProbably something like this.
While simplistic map is too simplistic and bleak, it can indeed show biomes without cluttering. But middle/small scales map absolutely must be graphic.
Post by: Criperum on April 19, 2019, 03:54:53 am
I personally lean to simplistic version due to it's what i'm most used to in current game version. Also I allows understanding edges of different map objects like forests and mountains. Full graphic version has overlappings (especially mountains) that can confuse people. The parchment version looks awesome too and you are right it lacks of colour but it can be added actually and it will still could be looking as parchment. May be using some faded colours will make if more realistic?
Post by: Meph on April 19, 2019, 01:27:36 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/rB1r7MC.png)
Post by: Rose on April 19, 2019, 02:14:46 pm
Post by: Inarius on April 19, 2019, 03:01:37 pm
Post by: Cruxador on April 19, 2019, 03:39:55 pm
That earthworm "mouth" doesn't look like an earthworm mouth. It's also missing its reproductive ring.
Aside from that, I'm not super sold on the shape of the heads of the big snakes (especially the python, since their actual head shape is so distinctive) and the squiggly body shape of the normal sized ones doesn't really reflect how they actually move. But it'll be pretty hard to make that look right with perspective so I dunno.
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 19, 2019, 04:31:28 pm
Post by: Bumber on April 20, 2019, 08:38:40 am
(https://www.attractiveape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ADOM-with-tiles.png)
Post by: Meph on April 20, 2019, 09:00:46 am
What about this level of detail?Those hills and mountains are 64x64. We want to work with 16x16.
(https://www.attractiveape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ADOM-with-tiles.png)
This size:
(https://i.imgur.com/UD21eEa.png)
Post by: voliol on April 20, 2019, 12:20:03 pm
Also, what exactly are fire snakes? They are another weird DF creature, but according to their in-game description and raws they are made of pure fire; maybe they should look something akin to the Fire Man?
(https://i.imgur.com/czsQ8zD.png)
Post by: Meph on April 20, 2019, 12:42:16 pm
Post by: Meph on April 21, 2019, 10:23:01 am
Among the things on the table are coast lines. Any preferences here?
(https://i.imgur.com/Vi5d2Hk.png)
Post by: Cruxador on April 21, 2019, 10:34:34 am
Post by: Starver on April 21, 2019, 10:46:30 am
Also it brings back memories of some renderings of Earth's topology I did a long time ago.
if (height>nearlyzero()) { colour=between(green(),white(),height/maxheight)
} elseif (height<nearlyzero()) { colour=between(cyan(),blue(),height/maxdepth)
} else { colour=yellow() }
Or code to that effect. ;)
ETA: Trying to remember more about inland lake shores, and what happens on ice-sea boundaries. I presume you've got those variations in mind, as necessary.
Post by: Criperum on April 21, 2019, 12:40:32 pm
Post by: funkydwarf on April 21, 2019, 03:40:46 pm
Post by: Real_bang on April 22, 2019, 03:04:22 am
Post by: Meph on April 22, 2019, 11:39:29 am
I like the beach but favor the water in the third one with just the gradation instead of waves. I like the waves in 4 too, but may look weird around a whole continent un broken.It's not really waves, it's lines like in a map of this style:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Lurker28 on April 22, 2019, 11:59:35 am
Post by: Starver on April 22, 2019, 12:13:50 pm
Post by: Magistrum on April 22, 2019, 12:38:22 pm
Personally, I find the lines pleasant. Don't know if it would be the same on a full map tough.
Post by: Lurker28 on April 22, 2019, 12:45:12 pm
Here are some examples that go from pixel art to painterly I personally find appealing:
Low Density Pixel Art:
(http://i.imgur.com/FrKvEkxm.png) (https://imgur.com/FrKvEkx)
High-Density Pixel Art:
(http://i.imgur.com/b53xjDhm.png) (https://imgur.com/b53xjDh)
Hybrid:
(http://i.imgur.com/V3c1pJZm.jpg) (https://imgur.com/V3c1pJZ)
Painterly:
(http://i.imgur.com/4v2D9Ggm.png) (https://imgur.com/4v2D9Gg)
Because I'm vain, I'll link my own attempt at map making using my own textures, someone else's brushes, and many hours of digital painting (not recommended for dwarf fortress):
(http://i.imgur.com/BxmRqtdm.jpg) (https://imgur.com/BxmRqtd)
Post by: Superdorf on April 22, 2019, 01:04:28 pm
Post by: Cruxador on April 22, 2019, 04:31:43 pm
Ooh, painterly is nice... elegant, readable, and just a little bit archaic.That's a hand-crafted map, though. You can get a painterly look with tiles (see for example, Orteil's NeverEnding Legacy) but it's not easy and it gets less easy the more different kinds of things you intend to show.
Post by: Death Dragon on April 23, 2019, 12:14:55 pm
(see for example, Orteil's NeverEnding Legacy)I was just playing that some days ago. Here is what the map looks like there if anyone's curious:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/504754524079259678/570295979434311700/unknown.png)
It's all square tiles, but they blend into each other so well that you can barely notice it.
Edit:
Here is a fully scouted and explored world map from the game:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/504754524079259678/570433299139395595/unknown.png)
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 24, 2019, 04:14:46 am
- The tiles display sub tile details which are not available in any realistic fashion using the current DF map layout (i.e. access to mid level tile data). Of course, you could have a number of pre generated tiles with boundaries that do not have any actual relation to where the boundaries are within the tile, but I definitely wouldn't like misleading fake details (which would immediately be exposed as false when you look at the local map pre embark and see that it doesn't match what's on the corresponding region map tile).
- You'd need a huge number of tiles to cover all combinations of information you (or at least I) would like to see displayed, which probably requires either a large number of layers of tiles each adding its own bit, or computer generated tiles that piece the information together (which basically would be a pixel based display packaged in a tile format). You would have to generate the tiles only once with the current DF model, or at trigger points with future versions (magically produced landscape changes, and possibly gradual sphere influence waxing and waning).
- Note that with a 16*16 tile size, each mid level tile would correspond to a single region map tile pixel (ignoring that you currently can't get that information in a timely manner, so it would have to be supported by the map rewrite if you wanted to use it). If you wanted to display region boundaries correctly you'd be reduced to pixel color or a pattern to fill the region with to distinguish between different biomes (although you could use the same pattern with different color to indicate different variations of the same broad biome type, but displaying evilness as well makes even that a bit tricky). The end result would probably look more like a current day political map, where different countries (regions in DF) have different colors, than maps with little forests in green, deserts in yellow, etc. (which would be complicated by evilness, savagery, and tropicality).
While the mid level tiles haven't been brought up yet, they suffer from the same issue that the region one do, namely the unavailability of the underlying detail, which, with the current DF data layout, doesn't exist at all pre embark (and that detail is 48*48 in game tiles per local map tile, should the map rewrite generate the surface level in game tile general information together with the mid level tile one). This assumes the map rewrite retains the current 3 level system with the same ratios as they have in the current version, of course.
Post by: Baloney on April 25, 2019, 07:07:28 pm
This would allow tweens to illustrate movement of all in-game actors. Compared to sprites teleporting from one position to another it would improve the game visually about 5000% and shouldn't be that hard to implement. Will make the game more acceptable by the mainstream for sure.
Would also allow for example optional walking animations during tweening and a different static animation when it has the same position as the previous state. That's more graphics work than just having a static sprite tween around of course but it could be left for modders in the future.
Thank you!
(Btw the reason I want the tween time to be configurable is because those that don't want tweens can set it to be 0 milliseconds and then actors will teleport between positions like in the original. And those that want to watch the game in slow motion can increase the time between state updates.)
(Btw2 please also consider releasing the game on for example GoG, for people that dislike Steam.)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 25, 2019, 09:11:52 pm
You gotta find someone as dedicated as Meph & co to make a tileset that takes advantage of all the features, of course. That might take a while...
Post by: Cruxador on April 26, 2019, 11:56:27 am
(Btw2 please also consider releasing the game on for example GoG, for people that dislike Steam.)Not only is that not the business of the guys in this thread, it's not even really Toady's job, since taking care of business like that is the reason Kitfox gets the publisher cut.
Also, I think most people who dislike Steam are satisfied with Itch.io, and the people who dislike both are pretty rare.
Post by: Putnam on April 26, 2019, 05:43:06 pm
(Btw2 please also consider releasing the game on for example GoG, for people that dislike Steam.)
it's coming to itch.io. itch.io has been in every single press release about this. it's on itch.io, an indie-centric game store. you may purchase it on itch.io if you do not wish to purchase it on steam. it is available, for purchase, on itch.io. as you can see by its itch.io page (https://kitfoxgames.itch.io/dwarf-fortress), one may purchase it on itch.io, an alternative to steam. steam is not necessary, as you may also buy it through itch.io.
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 26, 2019, 06:03:39 pm
Post by: LeoCean on April 27, 2019, 08:09:59 am
Post by: Meph on April 27, 2019, 08:19:47 am
The tileset doesn't have a name, but there was some talk about Mephday. (Meph+Mayday)
I'm at fault for naming this thread, I might as well add Itch.io.
Post by: voliol on April 27, 2019, 10:08:24 am
Post by: Meph on April 27, 2019, 11:31:25 am
Post by: BrythonLexi on April 27, 2019, 02:08:57 pm
Sincerely, NoXIILarxene / AlastríonaCatskill / Alexis DeSilva
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 28, 2019, 04:18:01 am
When it comes to version naming, "Dwarf Fortress" vs "Dwarf Fortress Classic" works fine in marketing material where both versions are mentioned, but not in discussions, as there is no way to distinguish between "Dwarf Fortress", the game, from "Dwarf Fortress", the commercial version of the game, apart from context, and the context may not be unambiguous. Thus, there's a need for a specific term for the commercial version ("Dwarf Fortress Premium/PremiumDF" vs "Dwarf Fortress Classic/ClassicDF would work, for instance).
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 28, 2019, 05:13:10 am
Thanks for renaming the thread. That should help counter some confusion.Or just talk about "Dwarf Fortress" and occasionally mention the "premium tileset/soundtrack". There's not much need to differentiate is there? The more we do, the more chance of confusing new people into thinking some regular part of the game is a "premium feature", when it's not.
When it comes to version naming, "Dwarf Fortress" vs "Dwarf Fortress Classic" works fine in marketing material where both versions are mentioned, but not in discussions, as there is no way to distinguish between "Dwarf Fortress", the game, from "Dwarf Fortress", the commercial version of the game, apart from context, and the context may not be unambiguous. Thus, there's a need for a specific term for the commercial version ("Dwarf Fortress Premium/PremiumDF" vs "Dwarf Fortress Classic/ClassicDF would work, for instance).
Mods made for "premium DF" which are limited to "Steam Premium DF" (Workshop) and not "Itch.io premium DF" are bound to get confusing at some point.
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 28, 2019, 08:09:59 am
Since this thread is dedicated to a Premium DF feature discussions here ought to have that as the starting point, so any mentioning of DF here ought to be assumed to be the Premium DF unless stated otherwise (but there shouldn't be much need to mention DF much, as it's part of the context).
Post by: Pillbo on April 28, 2019, 03:37:01 pm
Post by: Meph on April 30, 2019, 08:49:11 am
This is without sites/constructions, good/evil biomes or lakes/rivers.
We used up to 5 variations of different borders and corners, to avoid straight edges; and fill out biomes like mountains or forests with copies of sprites across tiles.
(https://i.imgur.com/5gqUaqQ.png)
Post by: Rose on April 30, 2019, 09:42:23 am
Also maybe a line of sand along the coastlines, unless toady's secretly working on coastline cliffs, which would be amazing.
Post by: Cruxador on April 30, 2019, 09:52:16 am
Aside from that, the spritely bits (mointains and trees and hills) could really use some variation so they tile more elegantly, but I suppose you know that since you already did it with the marsh.
That's looking prety decent, but I feel the hills could use a bit more in-between hills to break it up a bit.Yeah, it would be great if for each border between two hill tiles there was another hill sprite placed overlapping with a random offset from the middle of the edge on both axes with a value in pixels ranging from zero to like three quarters of tile width. And then slap an offset on the center hills as well, of maybe 25% of tile width, and the grid look will be fixed. This kind of randomization would work prettily with mountains and trees too, I reckon, and eliminate the grid-like appearance which is the biggest detriment of the current draft.
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 30, 2019, 11:04:07 am
I see hilly desert, which isn't shown in the current version, but on the other hand the deserts don't have the colors of the different kinds of sand. It shouldn't be consider a complaint, but rather a thing to consider whether to keep or not.
Post by: Iduno on April 30, 2019, 01:07:43 pm
Tarn wrote up a little script to test worldmaps, and Mike came up with a beautiful, simplified design that's very readable. It's still very WIP, but I'm curious if you guys have some good ideas. :)
This is without sites/constructions, good/evil biomes or lakes/rivers.
We used up to 5 variations of different borders and corners, to avoid straight edges; and fill out biomes like mountains or forests with copies of sprites across tiles.
Do you have one with volcanoes?
Post by: Cruxador on April 30, 2019, 02:37:47 pm
Looks like a very good starting point for a map using the info that's currently used. I assume you've verified that the tile selection/composition logic actually has access to border information (i.e. what's on the surrounding tiles). Tropicality, Evilness, and Savagery will complicate things, of course, as do rivers, while lakes probably won't be trickier than oceans. Covering all biomes (if that's a goal) will probably be tricky, though as Evilness+Savagery will probably eat up most of the color spectrum.Sand color is very important to the look of a place, losing that info would be a big aesthetic step back. What's more iconic than the red color of the tablelands of the American west, for example. Portraying iconic scenes in a way that resonates is something that the graphic set, in order to be an upgrade, definitely needs to preserve.
I see hilly desert, which isn't shown in the current version, but on the other hand the deserts don't have the colors of the different kinds of sand. It shouldn't be consider a complaint, but rather a thing to consider whether to keep or not.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 30, 2019, 02:58:59 pm
Post by: Death Dragon on April 30, 2019, 03:55:25 pm
That's looking prety decent, but I feel the hills could use a bit more in-between hills to break it up a bit.Agree with both of these.
Also maybe a line of sand along the coastlines, unless toady's secretly working on coastline cliffs, which would be amazing.
Maybe hills should get a tile backgrond colour that is slightly differently coloured from normal green grass. Or they should be touching each other like the mountains are.
Post by: Rekov on April 30, 2019, 06:02:02 pm
Post by: IlFedaykin on April 30, 2019, 07:27:06 pm
Sand color is very important to the look of a place, losing that info would be a big aesthetic step back. What's more iconic than the red color of the tablelands of the American west, for example. Portraying iconic scenes in a way that resonates is something that the graphic set, in order to be an upgrade, definitely needs to preserve.I have to agree, to a certain extent. I wonder if a bright/dark coloration for good/evil biomes would be better than the current color change...
Post by: Loci on April 30, 2019, 07:58:56 pm
Sand color is very important to the look of a place, losing that info would be a big aesthetic step back. What's more iconic than the red color of the tablelands of the American west, for example. Portraying iconic scenes in a way that resonates is something that the graphic set, in order to be an upgrade, definitely needs to preserve.
Strongly disagree. Of all the useful details that could be shown on the world map, the color of the functionally identical sand is near the very bottom of my list.
Iconic or not, can you actually find a map of the United States that shows accurate sand colors?
Post by: Death Dragon on May 01, 2019, 01:00:34 am
It would be kinda funny if the tileset actually lost to the ASCII graphics on graphical fidelity on this front:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/504754524079259678/573022918364364820/unknown.png)
Iconic or not, can you actually find a map of the United States that shows accurate sand colors?Google maps satellite images?
Post by: voliol on May 01, 2019, 04:31:08 am
Post by: Cruxador on May 01, 2019, 08:54:08 am
Strongly disagree. Of all the useful details that could be shown on the world map, the color of the functionally identical sand is near the very bottom of my list.When it comes to "useful", ASCII is already fully functional. My understanding is that the premium version intends to go beyond functional on a basic level, and instead be aesthetically a large improvement. And yet, even the ASCII version has powerful aesthetic elements. The beauty of a field in bloom or waves crashing against a beach is something that tilesets in the past could rarely preserve, because of the limited options, and it's because of things like that (as well as generally muddy or poorly readable sprites) that have kept a substantial portion of the player base from considering tiles an upgrade. But even tilesets before now haven't stripped something as simple as representing color, as Toady already does, from easily recolorable things. And sand is easily recolorable - you don't even need more than one color channel, really. I wasn't being hyperbolic when I said that to be (and, perhaps more importantly, to be perceived as) an upgrade, the graphical version can't cut content.
Iconic or not, can you actually find a map of the United States that shows accurate sand colors?
Also, yes, I can find real-color maps. I can't post any from mobile, but most terrain-oriented maps that don't use color for elevation go for real color. Pretty much all maps that go for an iconic orientation to the point of showing cities as cities, forts as forts, and forests as masses of trees will either show true color or even exaggerate it to convey the general impression of a place more strongly. If your Google-fu is too weak for this, remind me in a bit and I'll make up an annotated list of examples.
Post by: VislarRn on May 01, 2019, 09:05:28 am
It would change a cartographic style a bit to make more sense in scale-wise. Right-now those trees won't give me an impression of real forest, they are more like small park. They also make mountains look too small.
What do you think about something similar instead?
(https://i.imgur.com/yz7fG5N.png)
Post by: Real_bang on May 01, 2019, 09:40:50 am
I was wondering if trees could be smaller and doubled by four.
It would change a cartographic style a bit to make more sense in scale-wise. Right-now those trees won't give me an impression of real forest, they are more like small park. They also make mountains look too small.
What do you think about something similar instead?
(https://i.imgur.com/yz7fG5N.png)
On the small scale tree map swamps look like lakes though.
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 01, 2019, 12:16:57 pm
Thus, you can argue whether Evilness or sand color is the most important thing to show for a desert, but it would only be a loss of information amount if the choice was to remove the sand color and not replace it with Evilness (which, in my opinion, is more important [as well as consistent with the display of other features], but that's obviously a matter of taste).
Once Evilness/Savagery gets added to the mix somewhat realistic colors get tossed out the door (and it's going to be even more complicated handling Spheres after the Myth&Magic release). One way to deal with Evilness/Savagery now might be to use saturation for Savagery, color for Evilness, and texture for biome (possibly letting each biome use its own unique RGB values for the 9 members of the set [18 if Tropicality is indicated by color as well, and although many biomes are directly tied to the Tropicality, some are not]). Another method would be overlays/alternative views in the same vein as the current tab view for the Local map, with one composite map (show as much as possible) as the default, sphere influences as another, a "realistic" map as a third, a detailed biome one as a fourth, and an elevation map as a fifth one (there may be other things you'd like to show apart from those, of course).
Post by: Cruxador on May 01, 2019, 12:53:43 pm
I was wondering if trees could be smaller and doubled by four.I think that makes the mountains look better, but everything else look worse. That suggests to me that a better action would be to make the mountains bigger, perhaps making a set of multi-tile mountains for when there's a 2x2 (or other shapes) area of mountain and tiling that, with little 1x1 mountains only coming into play in border areas where bigger mountains don't fit.
It would change a cartographic style a bit to make more sense in scale-wise. Right-now those trees won't give me an impression of real forest, they are more like small park. They also make mountains look too small.
What do you think about something similar instead?
(https://i.imgur.com/yz7fG5N.png)
Regarding evilness and savagery, I reckon that would be better off turned into an overlay than sending different colors through the channel, though a separate set of sprites which reflect the sphere's theme (and specific flora, as appropriate) would probably be the best option. "Everything is purple" may be a handy way to show evil in ASCII, but the tileset has a bigger toolbox.
Post by: Death Dragon on May 01, 2019, 03:38:22 pm
I also agree that alignment should probably be an overlay, but you could also just do what ASCII does and make separate sprites for good/evil versions of all terrain. Evil Forests could be shown as wormy tendrils and eye balls for example.
That would be a bunch of sprites though and would require a ton more once the magic update hits.
@Cruxador: It can be noted that DF displays the color of sand in deserts at the expense of showing the Evilness. It took me a fair while to realize that desert color did NOT represent Evilness but sand color, as opposed to most other biome types.The wiki says that good deserts are cyan and evil deserts purple, is that not true?
http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Map_legend#Biome.2FRegion_key
Post by: Clatch on May 01, 2019, 05:01:26 pm
Post by: Clatch on May 01, 2019, 06:23:16 pm
Looking at some of the examples here, you'd need some of the current hacks and auxiliary plugins to produce this tileset and accompanying sounds. Is Toady providing a new platform to launch this tileset off from or is dfhack and sound plugins now a part of the release?
Post by: Cruxador on May 01, 2019, 06:48:33 pm
This has probably already been answered, but I'm too lazy to look -- so feel free to flame me:You... You haven't been following along at all, have you? This is for the premium version that Toady is making. It's all features that are part of the game, or will be at the time it's released.
Looking at some of the examples here, you'd need some of the current hacks and auxiliary plugins to produce this tileset and accompanying sounds. Is Toady providing a new platform to launch this tileset off from or is dfhack and sound plugins now a part of the release?
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 01, 2019, 07:12:10 pm
This has probably already been answered, but I'm too lazy to look -- so feel free to flame me:
Looking at some of the examples here, you'd need some of the current hacks and auxiliary plugins to produce this tileset and accompanying sounds. Is Toady providing a new platform to launch this tileset off from or is dfhack and sound plugins now a part of the release?
Basically, all (or most of?) the stuff that those plugins do now will be coded in and made baseline for both the premium and classic version, along with whatever other graphical upgrades are easily done or Toady feels are worth doing. Lots of stuff that's been talked about and shown all throughout the thread so worth a glance if you feel up for it ^^
Post by: Clatch on May 01, 2019, 09:16:44 pm
Basically, all (or most of?) the stuff that those plugins do now will be coded in and made baseline for both the premium and classic version, along with whatever other graphical upgrades are easily done or Toady feels are worth doing. Lots of stuff that's been talked about and shown all throughout the thread so worth a glance if you feel up for it ^^
OK, well, thanks for going easy on me -- I can hardly believe it though! WOW.
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 02, 2019, 04:29:35 am
Post by: Meph on May 02, 2019, 07:25:13 am
(https://i.imgur.com/JOsmFgz.png)
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 02, 2019, 07:50:05 am
- Washed out/Normal/Saturated colors for the base tile (might be better for Tropicality?); [Would it work to use saturation to indicate elevation/depth, as another alternative use for that dimension?]
- Another overlay band (in which case they'd have to be narrower);
- A different overlay color (i.e. 9 versions, where the normal savagery, normal evilness would be absent/completely transparent);
- Another overlay with bands in the other direction;
Post by: Meph on May 02, 2019, 08:10:02 am
(https://i.imgur.com/WRcx7zG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/3x2oral.png)
Post by: Mike Mayday on May 02, 2019, 08:30:21 am
I obviously don't want to spend time making too many mockups when it's something we'll be able to work on "live" later on.
Post by: Cruxador on May 02, 2019, 08:36:49 am
My personal choice would be something like this for evil/good biomes:It conveys the information effectively, and is extensible to cover additional spheres, but it also mars the general aesthetic. I think it's fine as long as it can be toggled, but then that would still be better if combined with variant tiles.
Post by: Rose on May 02, 2019, 09:08:14 am
Post by: Meph on May 02, 2019, 09:11:21 am
Post by: Rose on May 02, 2019, 09:31:51 am
Spoiler: Something like this? (click to show/hide)
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 02, 2019, 09:32:59 am
Two examples with smaller trees. Half size and quarter size.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Personally vote for the half size version, definitely looks nicer than the full size one imo, but smaller than that and the ability to immediately see that it's supposed to be trees is lost (and also doesn't look as nice).
As for the evilness, probably the best/easiest solution for now. Just an idea that probably would be a bit much work for now but maybe for the M&M future, would it be possible to do the "sphere color" on the outline of the biome features, so trees/hills/mountains with a purple border in this case, along with the edge of the area like that? (since I assume the full saturation was too much). Might not look as cool in practice as in my head of course. Though I suppose depending on what we end up with it might warrant some unique sprites rather at some point.
Post by: Grimbot on May 02, 2019, 11:52:18 am
Post by: Death Dragon on May 02, 2019, 11:54:51 am
My personal choice would be something like this for evil/good biomes:This looks way too jarring to me. It looks like a construction site or a restricted area. Could end up too distracting on the world map.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
If it's toggleable, then I guess it doesn't matter, but I'm still kinda hoping for individual sprite sets (or at least something that meshes better with the rest of the map) because screenshots of DF world maps get shared a lot and it would be cool if those showed off every bit of individualism the world has to offer without needing some overlay.
Two examples with smaller trees. Half size and quarter size.I think I prefered the bigger trees, but my real problem with these are the repetitive patterns on the forest and mountain areas.Spoiler (click to show/hide)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Original tree size together with bigger mountains might be my favourite, but we'll see how that will actually look like.
Post by: Meph on May 02, 2019, 12:45:00 pm
Of course an evil mountain could be more spiky, and a good ocean could be calm, with less waves... but it might not be super obvious to the viewer, especially new players.
Post by: Death Dragon on May 02, 2019, 01:26:38 pm
I agree that it's generally not that easy to see alignment on the map with the ASCII graphics though. Having a map overlay separately that highlights alignment would of course still be useful to have for new players (I guess right now we only really have the search function), but I don't think it should be the only way to see the terrain's alignment on the map.
Post by: Meph on May 02, 2019, 01:49:37 pm
Post by: Rose on May 02, 2019, 02:24:52 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 02, 2019, 02:25:44 pm
Animations would certainly help a lot more to show that there's something special about that particular patch of land.
Post by: Doomblade187 on May 02, 2019, 02:51:07 pm
Post by: Hommit on May 02, 2019, 03:02:01 pm
Idea for savage lands: Patches of missing map scattered through the tiles.wut?
savagery could actually be done with color saturation, which nicely combines with fog/sparkles(rays) for good/evil
Post by: Clatch on May 02, 2019, 03:38:49 pm
I like the way it looks, though I fret over the details lost on the trees. I've already suggested sparser but bigger mountains, so I'll try to mock it up and we'll see.
I obviously don't want to spend time making too many mockups when it's something we'll be able to work on "live" later on.
I'm more for the over exaggerated art look in my opinion as opposed to a satellite map.
Post by: Doomblade187 on May 02, 2019, 04:20:12 pm
Yeah, sorta a fog effect. Basically the concept that a savage biome would be "uncharted".Idea for savage lands: Patches of missing map scattered through the tiles.wut?
savagery could actually be done with color saturation, which nicely combines with fog/sparkles(rays) for good/evil
Post by: Superdorf on May 02, 2019, 04:43:23 pm
Yeah, sorta a fog effect. Basically the concept that a savage biome would be "uncharted".Idea for savage lands: Patches of missing map scattered through the tiles.wut?
savagery could actually be done with color saturation, which nicely combines with fog/sparkles(rays) for good/evil
Uhh. That sounds like it would be seriously irritating. I want to know what my embark's gonna be like.
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 02, 2019, 05:36:19 pm
It's a bit of a stretch to think savage biomes should be uncharted. Elves should have no problem with the giant animals (assuming the elves are not so illiterate they don't make maps), while evil areas with thralling mists ought to be a fair bit harder to map.
Post by: Cruxador on May 02, 2019, 06:11:24 pm
He's talking about the look of "uncharted" areas on fantasy maps in general, not saying that details should be obscured.Yeah, sorta a fog effect. Basically the concept that a savage biome would be "uncharted".Idea for savage lands: Patches of missing map scattered through the tiles.wut?
savagery could actually be done with color saturation, which nicely combines with fog/sparkles(rays) for good/evil
Uhh. That sounds like it would be seriously irritating. I want to know what my embark's gonna be like.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on May 02, 2019, 06:40:59 pm
He said "patches of missing map" to represent savage biomes. That would be seriously irritating.He's talking about the look of "uncharted" areas on fantasy maps in general, not saying that details should be obscured.Yeah, sorta a fog effect. Basically the concept that a savage biome would be "uncharted".Idea for savage lands: Patches of missing map scattered through the tiles.wut?
savagery could actually be done with color saturation, which nicely combines with fog/sparkles(rays) for good/evil
Uhh. That sounds like it would be seriously irritating. I want to know what my embark's gonna be like.
Post by: Clownmite on May 04, 2019, 02:28:16 pm
Apologies if this has been suggested elsewhere, but have you thought about making a "parchment" -style world map? So instead of making it look like a satellite view (with lively colors), making it look more like you've unfurled an old scroll? Something similar to
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51h5kRXyipL._SX425_.jpg)
Post by: Meph on May 04, 2019, 02:30:25 pm
Post by: voliol on May 04, 2019, 02:51:54 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Superdorf on May 04, 2019, 03:05:36 pm
Post by: Criperum on May 04, 2019, 03:43:11 pm
Post by: CL3AR on May 04, 2019, 03:52:55 pm
Post by: IlFedaykin on May 04, 2019, 04:12:04 pm
Post by: funkydwarf on May 04, 2019, 05:47:03 pm
Post by: Clownmite on May 04, 2019, 06:09:39 pm
you are talking about a parchment tileset when you say parchment style map.
That's exactly what I meant, sorry for any confusion. But it seems this has been discussed at length before, and I agree the parchment tileset is probably less readable than the colorful one.
Post by: Superdorf on May 04, 2019, 09:04:18 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 05, 2019, 03:25:35 am
I hope the mid level tile data will become available as part of the map rewrite, but it's not due until the first Myth&Magic release (and my hope isn't supported by anything Toady has said).
Post by: Mike Mayday on May 05, 2019, 11:57:48 am
(https://i.imgur.com/OAwbvlv.png)
Post by: Giant Dwarf on May 05, 2019, 02:03:26 pm
We are currently discussing the worldmap. Since 32x32 is a bit large, the idea is to use 16x16 tiles for it, to show more map at a time.So no changes to the "engine" in the ragard of zooming and panning?
If it's somehow possible it would be super nice, if we could zoom/pan around smoothly (not in huge steps as it is right now). Like in RimWorld.
Is this possible?
Will it maybe be in the Steam Release?
Post by: Meph on May 05, 2019, 02:17:50 pm
BTW, did I ever post these here?Nope, you did not. First time even I see the Hydra. :P
(https://i.imgur.com/OAwbvlv.png)
Giant Dwarf: No idea.
Post by: Magistrum on May 05, 2019, 02:29:23 pm
Post by: Superdorf on May 05, 2019, 04:04:29 pm
BTW, did I ever post these here?
(https://i.imgur.com/OAwbvlv.png)
Those are some gorgeous sprites. I approve.
Post by: Cruxador on May 05, 2019, 04:13:52 pm
BTW, did I ever post these here?I feel like the abdomen and cephalothorax of the spider aren't adequately delineated. It would help a lot to darken just a few pixels, like so:
(https://i.imgur.com/OAwbvlv.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/jOs93VS.png)
Also, it's weird that (based on the eyes) it's angling its cephalothorax to its right, while (based on the markings, shading, and silhouette) it's angling the abdomen to its left.
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 05, 2019, 04:59:49 pm
The first Myth&Magic release will include a major map data rewrite, and it's unlikely the tile set support work for the Premium version will touch these issues. Thus, it should be highly unlikely that Toady would delve into that only to rip it up as soon as the Premium release is out. It's out of the question that the Steam specific version of the Premium version would have a graphics feature the Premium version doesn't have (i.e. that Itch.io or any potential additional outlets of the Premium version would be discriminated against in that department).We are currently discussing the worldmap. Since 32x32 is a bit large, the idea is to use 16x16 tiles for it, to show more map at a time.So no changes to the "engine" in the ragard of zooming and panning?
If it's somehow possible it would be super nice, if we could zoom/pan around smoothly (not in huge steps as it is right now). Like in RimWorld.
Is this possible?
Will it maybe be in the Steam Release?
As I said in the previous post, I hope the M&M map rewrite will make some of the Mid Level Tile data available at all times, resulting in a map resolution of (16*16) * (World Width) * (World Height), i.e. 256 * 257 * 257 "pixels" (a bit less than 17 million data points for a max size world [assuming the world sizes remain the same, which doesn't have to be the case]).
However, keeping the next level stored permanently (the above times 48*48 2*2 meter In-Game tiles) would require about 39 Giga data points, and so isn't realistic. On the fly generation of the visible surface data for the zoomed in area might be something Toady may try to implement for pre embark (allowing you to actually see the site, rather than just a general idea of it), and possibly the fort mode civ screen as well. However, I'd guess we're still going to have 3 different zoom levels rather than something smooth (plus the pre embark World map where world tiles are mashed together into an even smaller set), so Adventure Mode would probably see little change (except fewer delays when crossing "feature shell" boundaries).
Post by: Mike Mayday on May 05, 2019, 05:00:46 pm
Post by: Death Dragon on May 05, 2019, 10:54:39 pm
Post by: Cruxador on May 06, 2019, 08:46:40 am
The huge back and the short legs make the GCS look more like a tick to me, which I guess is also a spider, just not the kind I was thinking of.1. Although also an arachnid, a tick is not a spider and in fact they're more closely related to mites.
2. I can kind of see how you could get that impression, now that you said it, but I definitely didn't feel that association myself; the front end is very different from a tick and is noticeably aranean. And it's not like they're aren't plenty of spiders who also have large abdomens.
Post by: FantasticDorf on May 06, 2019, 09:10:19 am
Spoiler: "Mild Epilepsy warning, lots of flashing gem windows" (click to show/hide)
To kind of draw upon the point, will extra considerations be took to try and not make it too scalding to look at from a aesthetic + health viewpoint?
Post by: Meph on May 08, 2019, 03:00:25 pm
Post by: Rekov on May 09, 2019, 05:52:53 pm
Since we have the option to show multiple gem-colors on one sprite, I don't think the flickering will be necessary anymore.
It's debatable, but it could be argued that that was a feature. People used it to make simple animations, after all.
I think it would probably look more aesthetic to have some kind of framed stained glass window kind of thing.
Post by: Seradest on May 20, 2019, 01:15:51 pm
and how many animals/monster parts must be made when we get "intersexual breeding" ???
Post by: Superdorf on May 20, 2019, 06:25:38 pm
Spoiler: ...and revised. (click to show/hide)
They're much prettier now.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on May 20, 2019, 10:29:59 pm
and how many animals/monster parts must be made when we get "intersexual breeding" ???You mean inter-species breeding? Like half-elves?
Lots!
Although we're likely to have procedurally generated races before then (including all the main playable ones) so some kind of sane solution for all the combinations and how they wear their clothes may have been worked out by then.
Post by: Meph on May 26, 2019, 11:02:32 am
Post by: voliol on May 26, 2019, 11:23:30 am
Post by: Meph on May 27, 2019, 06:03:46 am
Post by: Meph on May 31, 2019, 12:08:10 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/b4JGiIv.png)
Post by: Rose on May 31, 2019, 12:16:17 pm
Post by: Meph on May 31, 2019, 12:32:17 pm
Prickle berries, straw berries, fisher berries and sun berries also have a separation of plant (full of berries) and plant (devoid of berries).
To be honest, making super-tiny individual seeds for plants is fun, but in the long run (112 plants/seeds) might be confusing for players. I do like the option to give them unique sprites, but maybe a single seed-sprite would suffice, while at the same time would be easier to recognize for the player. On the other hand, seeds are mostly in bags or planted in farmplots anyway. What do you think?
I also proposed the idea of growth-stages for farm plots, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/CQG4x8V.png)
It hasn't really been discussed yet. It does raise the plant sprite count up by about 560 extra sprites though. :D (I just dislike how farm plots change from "empty" to "fully grown plant" in 1 ingame tick, giving players no warning that their food might be ready)
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 31, 2019, 03:14:05 pm
Seeds, wild plant (terrain), picked (object).
Prickle berries, straw berries, fisher berries and sun berries also have a separation of plant (full of berries) and plant (devoid of berries).
To be honest, making super-tiny individual seeds for plants is fun, but in the long run (112 plants/seeds) might be confusing for players. I do like the option to give them unique sprites, but maybe a single seed-sprite would suffice, while at the same time would be easier to recognize for the player. On the other hand, seeds are mostly in bags or planted in farmplots anyway. What do you think?
I also proposed the idea of growth-stages for farm plots, like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/CQG4x8V.png)
It hasn't really been discussed yet. It does raise the plant sprite count up by about 560 extra sprites though. :D (I just dislike how farm plots change from "empty" to "fully grown plant" in 1 ingame tick, giving players no warning that their food might be ready)
Looks good! I'd say for seeds having most of them represented by a few generic tiles (like say small/medium/large seeds, mushroom spores as well as whatever other visually distinct subgroups there are) would be well enough. It's not like one would be able to distinguish most kind of seeds that easily anyhow, and being able to instantly tell that something is seeds, rather than some other type of picked plant is probably more useful in most cases than being able to tell at a glance what seed it is. Special cases that can always be given their own tiles where it feels appropriate. Also as you say they will be in bags mostly anyhow ^^
Growth-stages sounds like a good idea too, and you could always settle for 3 stages if it ends up too much (and I assume some would be easier than others, ie swapping the color on the berries to show if they're ripe or not?), curious how it would look in a field though? The empty soil is already looking a bit jarring when it comes to stuff like wheat (I know you answered it but felt like seconding this guys post, if it's in any way doable to some extent that'd be just amazing...)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Putnam on May 31, 2019, 04:32:45 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 31, 2019, 05:15:22 pm
I agree a limited number of "generic" seeds ought to be enough. They're typically found cluttering the Tavern as a result of dorfs eating there, but otherwise are kept in bags, as mentioned. Unless seeds get some kind of function in themselves (exploding, or whatever, requiring caution or special collection efforts), it's not of much importance.
Post by: FantasticDorf on May 31, 2019, 05:24:59 pm
Post by: Cruxador on May 31, 2019, 05:37:54 pm
They're are others that look weird and botanically implausible, but they don't exist in real life so I don't know how they're actually supposed to work.
Regarding seeds, I somewhat disagree with Manveru. In real life, just about anyone who gardens can tell most seeds apart readily at least to the level of genus, and someone who has specific experience can tell apart similar seeds of closely related species such as mustard and cabbage. Furthermore, there's really no reason that they couldn't all be depicted to look like seeds while still looking distinct. But taking into account what you've come up with to represent seeds, and the fact that time spent here isn't spent elsewhere, I'm gonna say don't bother. Just make a few different seed sprites for broad groups of seeds and make special ones for any with especially unique seeds.
Regarding intermediate growth sprites, I don't think you need to commit to the same number for everything. For commonly grown plants, your five stages make sense. For all other plants, even one "growing" stage would be a very good amount.
Also regarding the example, uh, that's not how wheat grows. It might be a good idea to consult with people who are generally knowledgeable for some of these sprites, such as a farmer or an older person in general. Although perhaps it can be said that that's what this thread is for. In the case of wheat, it stays about the color you have it in the second stage until it reaches its final stage and becomes ready to harvest, turning yellow means the plant has died and it doesn't keep growing after it dies. It also doesn't grow seeds straight out of the ground, first it grows in a purely vegetative form (looking like grass, because that's what it is) and then after reaching its full height (or nearly so) it "flowers" (though grass flowers don't look very floral) and then the flowers grow into seeds. You could probably do the first three as just a grass sprite offset different amounts like what you've done for the ripe sprite. On the plus side, you can use the whole sprite set for similar looking grains like barley and rye, and the first part before the flowering and seeding should be shareable among other more distantly related grains like oats and rice.
Plants aren't even visible until they are ready to harvest or recognised in the T inspection screen other than seeds, i agree to disagree with the creeping in of a feature that won't be represented in the vanilla game in any capacity that simply makes more work for yourselves. How would this convert to steam-versions ascii alternative with no mechanical detail to base it on?I'm not sure I understand the meaning of your last sentence. Surely the ASCII version would simply have the ability to show this while in actuality retaining current visuals?
Post by: FantasticDorf on May 31, 2019, 05:48:23 pm
Steam version and vanilla are meant to be mechanically similar if not identical in given statements, though i know the steam version is fancier. Id wait for Toady to change all the farming mechanics in line with the main game on the development goals before anything like this would take place.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 31, 2019, 06:52:03 pm
Regarding seeds, I somewhat disagree with Manveru. In real life, just about anyone who gardens can tell most seeds apart readily at least to the level of genus, and someone who has specific experience can tell apart similar seeds of closely related species such as mustard and cabbage. Furthermore, there's really no reason that they couldn't all be depicted to look like seeds while still looking distinct. But taking into account what you've come up with to represent seeds, and the fact that time spent here isn't spent elsewhere, I'm gonna say don't bother. Just make a few different seed sprites for broad groups of seeds and make special ones for any with especially unique seeds.
Meant more at the scale that's available to work with here, unless one wants to make them even bigger than what's done here (which would probably just make things worse). There's only so many ways one can make dots and squiggles distinct, and with enough of them there'll probably be too many to remember and identify anyhow.
Post by: Meph on June 01, 2019, 05:37:51 am
Plants aren't even visible until they are ready to harvest or recognised in the T inspection screen other than seeds, i agree to disagree with the creeping in of a feature that won't be represented in the vanilla game in any capacity that simply makes more work for yourselves. How would this convert to steam-versions ascii alternative with no mechanical detail to base it on?I got bad news for you then. Most if not all of the graphical enhancements that are planned won't be represented in the vanilla ascii version. Since when is this a negative? I've yet to see someone complain that rilesets have 200 profession sprites for dwarves, while ascii dwarves only have one icon. It would be the same for the plants: graphical version could show growth, while ascii shows an empty field till they pop up.
Seeds should realistically be only the fraction of a pixel. Even for most plant growths, catkins, cones, buds, pods, flowers... All of those are so small that I need to abuse artistic liberty and enlargen them. :-\
Strawberries are larger than life, I needed the pixels to give them their recognizeable shape. Same problem as described above.
Post by: Seradest on June 01, 2019, 05:41:04 am
What the heck, this seems to be harmless enough. Plant_standard.txt. Criticism always welcome.
(https://i.imgur.com/b4JGiIv.png)
Helmet Plumb = thicker stems pls
Pot sweet = looks to flat
Tuber bloated = pls make more colors on it so i can look like some lightsource is shining on it
Berries straw = make them 10% bigger so you can add seeds on their surface
Weed blade = to symetric for something "nature" has made
silver barb = you dont need an dark outline is the darkest part of the plant and the colors lookto smooth make harder steps from light to dark so it fits well with all the other pixel arts
Berry sun = make the yellow berrys a little bigger and in the left top corner more shiny so that the look rounder and not so flat.
when you want i can doo all this ? i dont want anything for it i only need the original files
Post by: Meph on June 01, 2019, 05:44:13 am
You can modify the files all you want, but I don't think community created sprites will go into the commercial df version. There are laws and such. 😉
Also: hahaha, I love this (please dont murder me). It's always fun seeing feedback on mods and sprites: two people commented on the strawberries: #1 says they are too large and should be smaller. #2 says they are too small and should be made bigger. 😆
Post by: Seradest on June 01, 2019, 05:49:02 am
Thanks for the detailed feedback. ☺️
You can modify the files all you want, but I don't think community created sprites will go into the commercial df version. There are laws and such. 😉
Also: hahaha, I love this (please dont murder me). It's always fun seeing feedback on mods and sprites: two people commented on the strawberries: #1 says they are too large and should be smaller. #2 says they are too small and should be made bigger. 😆
wait dont you make sprites here for the steam version ?????
Post by: Meph on June 01, 2019, 05:52:04 am
Post by: Seradest on June 01, 2019, 05:55:05 am
I do, yes. Mike mayday too. We are both under contract. You are not. If you were to make changes to any sprites, Tarn isn't allowed to use them commercially anymore. (Or to be more precise: kitfox games)
ah ok than i can only help you by tips not by making art
that is ok too
the strawberry have to much green on their top the real ones has green that only makes 5-10% of the whole mass of the berry
and the berrys need little pixel points on them that are a little darker than the rest
Post by: Bumber on June 01, 2019, 08:02:03 am
(https://exviking.net/springtime/small/image/sarcoscypha.jpg) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Sarcoscypha_coccinea_pl_322.jpg/400px-Sarcoscypha_coccinea_pl_322.jpg)
I'm pretty sure sliver barbs are black...Only the dye is. Plant is dark gray, seeds are red.
Post by: Seradest on June 01, 2019, 08:35:28 am
I do, yes. Mike mayday too. We are both under contract. You are not. If you were to make changes to any sprites, Tarn isn't allowed to use them commercially anymore. (Or to be more precise: kitfox games)
so best pixel tutorials ae this here. they helped me many many times https://www.hongkiat.com/blog/pixel-art-tutorials/
Post by: Seradest on June 01, 2019, 11:08:13 am
Bit of both?
I added my shading on top of Mikes shading (only for the current zlvl, not the one above or below):
(https://i.imgur.com/qFiQfEH.png)
it makes no sence visual to make an ramp from ground to top at full block size.......
solution 1
make the ramp always only 25-50% of an full cell/block or my solution...
Solution 2
dont make any ramps just miniblocks that dont block the player/enemy/animal visual but make sense you can climb/walk up when it is not to high
(http://i.imgur.com/Aulicem.jpg) (https://imgur.com/Aulicem)
Post by: Meph on June 01, 2019, 01:52:29 pm
They are ramps, not steps. Just try to teach a wagon to move up that vertical wall you painted.
We are not making a sidescroller...
Post by: Seradest on June 01, 2019, 02:15:42 pm
That makes no sense at all.
They are ramps, not steps. Just try to teach a wagon to move up that vertical wall you painted.
We are not making a sidescroller...
ok sorry
BUT pls make the ramps in your prototype picture 75% shorter ,they are so long that wehn an dwarf let only one block untouched and stands directl next to the block ,that he stands to high above because of the ramp
Post by: Rose on June 01, 2019, 02:20:15 pm
The ramps in meph's picture are exactly how ramps actually are.
Post by: Meph on June 01, 2019, 02:47:12 pm
Post by: Superdorf on June 01, 2019, 03:13:53 pm
Pictures! Pictures pictures pictures!
Post by: Seradest on June 01, 2019, 04:09:10 pm
Mike Mayday has also improved them greatly since that picture was posted.
that make no sense on you picture at the point where the dwarf stands is only 1 block !
and this block is one level high
the ramps are also 1 block long i dont know but this is to extreme it makes no sense visually because when you dig an 1 block wide corridor you hafe 2 ramps from both sides that stuck together
pls make an 1block corridor with the graphic option you tested and you can see it for yourself
Post by: Meph on June 01, 2019, 05:21:41 pm
Of course the ramps are exactly 1 tile in size. And if there is a corridor with ramps up in two directions, it will show them correctly. They are context sensitive.
Post by: Real_bang on June 01, 2019, 07:02:57 pm
Dude you're overdoing your critique. If steam tileset looks that bad for you then make a new and better tileset when steam version is live. Actually you can start making it right now, so your tileset will be up for the steam release.Mike Mayday has also improved them greatly since that picture was posted.
that make no sense on you picture at the point where the dwarf stands is only 1 block !
and this block is one level high
the ramps are also 1 block long i dont know but this is to extreme it makes no sense visually because when you dig an 1 block wide corridor you hafe 2 ramps from both sides that stuck together
pls make an 1block corridor with the graphic option you tested and you can see it for yourself
Post by: Superdorf on June 01, 2019, 09:14:23 pm
Post by: Cruxador on June 01, 2019, 11:45:47 pm
Strawberries are larger than life, I needed the pixels to give them their recognizeable shape. Same problem as described above.I feel like strawberry plants look pretty distinctive regardless. It's just that your strawberry plants don't really have that distinctive look since you've made them so small and separate from each other. In fairness I've just image searched "strawberry plant" and the results were all pretty and manicured houseplants, and similarly regulated farm rows. Bougie shit, in other words.
Also: hahaha, I love this (please dont murder me). It's always fun seeing feedback on mods and sprites: two people commented on the strawberries: #1 says they are too large and should be smaller. #2 says they are too small and should be made bigger.He's right that if you could show the seeds, they would look less like tomatoes, but that applies in particular to the fruit on their own. I was speaking about the strawberries on the plant; in real life a strawberry plant is many times bigger than its berries. The size of the strawberries on their own isn't really relevant to this.
the strawberry have to much green on their top the real ones has green that only makes 5-10% of the whole mass of the berryMass doesn't relate to appearance in that way. It doesn't matter to the appearance how much the leaves weigh. The real issue with them is just that they stick up, not that they are large. Setting aside the big flavorless supermarket cultivars, the sepals are generally similar in width to the berry, or in wild ones even extend further, wild strawberries (or cold weather strawberries) are not very large at all.
Shouldn't dimple cups (♥) be cup mushrooms?In addition to making more sense, in context of both the name and the ASCII representation, it would be good to represent more than one fungal morphology.
Post by: Putnam on June 02, 2019, 12:39:13 am
I'm pretty sure sliver barbs are black...Only the dye is. Plant is dark gray, seeds are red.
Code: [Select]
[STATE_NAME_ADJ:ALL_SOLID:sliver dye]
[STATE_COLOR:ALL_SOLID:BLACK]
[DISPLAY_COLOR:0:0:1]Code: [Select]
[PICKED_COLOR:0:0:1]PICKED_COLOR is the same as the DISPLAY_COLOR for the dye and STRUCTURAL doesn't have a STATE_COLOR applied at all. Since default STATE_COLOR is BROWN for STRUCTURAL, I think it's safe to assume the STRUCTURAL color is the same as the MILL color, unless of course there's crayon art or statements or similar that prove me wrong.
Post by: Seradest on June 02, 2019, 05:15:34 am
What the... ?
Of course the ramps are exactly 1 tile in size. And if there is a corridor with ramps up in two directions, it will show them correctly. They are context sensitive.
ok i think my bad english skills are not enouth to understand what you mean and not enough to explain myself......... i just wait some month and look whats happen
Post by: skenera on June 03, 2019, 06:50:43 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/VtUIi5r.png)(https://i.imgur.com/4TZxuK0.png)
Post by: Meph on June 04, 2019, 11:00:51 am
Have you seen those?
Post by: skenera on June 04, 2019, 06:25:53 pm
In the second one, the smooth transitions helps make it look like it's the same surface but it also looks a bit out of place with how blurry it is.
While the third one is not too distracting, it's not very obvious whether the ramp goes up or down.
Post by: Rose on June 04, 2019, 09:21:34 pm
Post by: CL3AR on June 04, 2019, 09:41:18 pm
Post by: mifki on June 04, 2019, 10:34:47 pm
I suppose it's upramps, and the road is lower than the black unmined area, right? In that case, it's very difficult for me to "see" it on the middle picture, and almost impossible on the right one. Like those optical illusions where you can't see something on a picture at all until you somehow manage to see it for the first time and then it's easier.
Post by: Rose on June 04, 2019, 11:36:00 pm
Post by: jocke the beast on June 05, 2019, 02:58:55 am
Honestly, looking at just these pictures, I can't understand what's going on at all. Upramps? Downramps? Which part is higher than which?
I suppose it's upramps, and the road is lower than the black unmined area, right? In that case, it's very difficult for me to "see" it on the middle picture, and almost impossible on the right one. Like those optical illusions where you can't see something on a picture at all until you somehow manage to see it for the first time and then it's easier.
Amen.
Post by: Real_bang on June 05, 2019, 07:18:50 am
(https://i.imgur.com/6BuwGO4.png)I like the first version
Have you seen those?
Post by: voliol on June 05, 2019, 10:14:48 am
Post by: Meph on June 05, 2019, 10:40:31 am
Angled, unconnected, etc: (MOCK-UPS, not ingame)
(https://i.imgur.com/vIAWYzY.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/QmjYoZy.png)
Post by: Oab on June 05, 2019, 12:34:04 pm
Yes; I just quoted that old post because someone was using really old steam-announcement shots and was trying to improve them. Mayday already improved them. ;)
Angled, unconnected, etc: (MOCK-UPS, not ingame)
(https://i.imgur.com/vIAWYzY.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/QmjYoZy.png)
I am curious how this looks in game and especially curious how the caverns will look.
Have you guys done any mockups using a complex map as a template? I imagine it’s going to be pretty tough to visually digest maps with a lot of ramps and funky wall layouts.
For feedback:
I see issues with the contrast.
The problem is that there isn’t any hue shifting going on which causes it to look flat, and the colors only show light direction and not depth or form well.
I would suggest altering the Hue towards purple for shadows and more towards yellow for highlights. The colors showing lower elevation should be less saturated. Generally the farther the object is the less saturation is has.
Reducing the amount of colors would help improve visual clarity by a lot here. The current tiles have over 40 colors where 7 to 9 would be more than enough, and it would give better control over showing form and elevation.
Another issue I see is that corners appear too sharp which make the terrain look artificial. Breaking up those straight lines on the corners a bit would help it look more natural.
Post by: Meph on June 05, 2019, 01:14:40 pm
Post by: Rekov on June 05, 2019, 04:17:34 pm
Post by: tpssurvivor on June 08, 2019, 09:27:07 am
Post by: Meph on June 09, 2019, 04:20:28 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/coHUZcL.png)
Minor variants of the same objects, like these cabinets, coffins and beds.
Just want to know what you guys think, this is probably nothing that will happen in the first release, but for example it's possible right now with TWBT.
Post by: Real_bang on June 09, 2019, 06:06:02 pm
I've been messing around with items lately and I had a stupid dwarf idea: What if furniture/items have "varied tiles", just like floors? Players could pick if they have 1 sprite or 4 sprites (and possibly cycle between them, to keep the symmetry if they like it).
(https://i.imgur.com/coHUZcL.png)
Minor variants of the same objects, like these cabinets, coffins and beds.
Just want to know what you guys think, this is probably nothing that will happen in the first release, but for example it's possible right now with TWBT.
This is a cool idea but surely will require a lot of work. (and also isnt it for the meph tileset instead of the steam one?)
Post by: Cruxador on June 09, 2019, 06:48:21 pm
Also it's somewhat weird, though not unbearably so, that dwarves will tuck their sheets in but not straighten their pillows.
Post by: KassaK on June 09, 2019, 07:29:04 pm
Can't wait for the steam version.
Can't wait for the steam version.
Can't wait for the steam version.
Can't wait for the steam version.
Can't wait for the steam version.
Can't wait for the steam version.
Can't wait for the steam version.
Can't wait for the steam version.
.....
Can't wait for the steam version.
Post by: Meph on June 10, 2019, 05:23:28 am
Cruxador: good thing they are not wooden coffins, but stone sarcophagi 😉
Post by: Cruxador on June 10, 2019, 08:34:41 pm
Cruxador: good thing they are not wooden coffins, but stone sarcophagiThat purely nominative distinction isn't pertinent to my point at all.
Post by: Meph on June 10, 2019, 11:47:18 pm
Post by: Cruxador on June 11, 2019, 01:04:10 am
It is. Stone sarcophagi don't have the shape of a wooden coffin. They are mostly rectangles or have curved corners. But not the wide shoulders of a coffin.They can be, and wooden coffins can be rectangular or have curved corners. These days, they usually do. Regardless of any of that, the sprite ought to be identifiable as what it's intended to represent. As it is now, the material (stone) is unambiguous, but the function and nature of the item is otherwise not apparent. It looks more like a table or altar than a sarcophagus. Hell, if we're talking about sarcophagi that people actual know about, the most famous ones are the Egyptian ones which have the form of an individual molded as the primary aesthetic aspect of their form. European ones are less well known, and also don't look much like what you've depicted. They have form. I'm not saying this is an easy problem with a single obvious solution, but suggesting that there's neither need nor room for improvement simply because what you made is rectangular and sarcophagi are often rectangular? That's the behavior of the fabled ostrich with its head in the sand.
Post by: IlFedaykin on June 11, 2019, 03:23:42 am
That would, imho, make it clearer and help differentiate it from a table. Making it a little more bulky might help, too.
Post by: Bumber on June 11, 2019, 05:17:26 am
Post by: Meph on June 11, 2019, 05:52:39 am
Btw, in case anyone is wondering why Mike hasn't posted here in ages... That's the reason 😉 (I'm ok with harsh feedback, delivered more and/or less friendly, I'm used to it from modding, but please consider that we are also human)
Post by: tpssurvivor on June 11, 2019, 07:03:58 am
I’m fine wit the “art” or engraving on them.
This is a tile set. A representative thing. Sure feedback is important but sometimes people act like they were jealous for not being able to do it (or have it done) their way.
Just sharing my opinion.
Also, I have a question, will there be a sprite for male and female for humans too? If yes, are they gonna be in the release?
Can you show us a peek? :D
Post by: Cruxador on June 11, 2019, 04:24:45 pm
Well, I could put RIP or a cross on them, to show that they have something to do with burials, but dwarves don't speak Latin, nor are they christians.Yeah, as I said there isn't a single obvious solution.
Quote
Btw, in case anyone is wondering why Mike hasn't posted here in ages... That's the reason 😉 (I'm ok with harsh feedback, delivered more and/or less friendly, I'm used to it from modding, but please consider that we are also human)If this is meant to be a point about civility, I should perhaps point out that all the other posters are also human. Most are adults, in fact, but even otherwise, are for the most part reasonably intelligent individuals – there's no call to go talking down to people all the time.
And if you're talking about me specifically, I'd like to point out that after you insulted my intelligence, I responded quite neutrally. After six hours, enough time to put a bit more thought into an interaction even if you were feeling snippy due to having a bad day or whatever, you chose to double down. I don't think my use of emphatic language when clarifying my point entitles you to assume this level of sanctimony.
You know, since you brought it up.
Post by: Superdorf on June 11, 2019, 10:18:26 pm
I don't want to butt in too much on this whole coffin thing, seeing as it's such a... hotly contested topic just now, but I'll just say: there actually do exist a bunch of medieval-European effigy sarcophagi, quite a few of them very dwarfy indeed in appearance. What if we did something like this?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
(Pardon the mediocre mockup)
Post by: PatrikLundell on June 12, 2019, 04:00:56 am
Post by: Cruxador on June 12, 2019, 02:19:25 pm
I don't want to butt in too much on this whole coffin thing, seeing as it's such a... hotly contested topic just nowI don't think the topic itself is, particularly.
Quote
but I'll just say: there actually do exist a bunch of medieval-European effigy sarcophagi, quite a few of them very dwarfy indeed in appearance. What if we did something like this?It's definitely a step in the right direction.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
(Pardon the mediocre mockup)
Post by: Rekov on June 12, 2019, 03:24:01 pm
I think all you need to try, Meph, is to have a line of shadow where the seam between lid and coffin is, and then shade the sides of the coffin the same or very close to the sides of the lid.
Post by: Magistrum on June 12, 2019, 09:40:10 pm
Post by: Cruxador on June 12, 2019, 10:55:31 pm
Maybe you can make it super simple and people will figure it out once they loo'k' at the object a few times like the good old days of ascii.If you have to loo[k] and memorize, then what's the point in paying for a graphical tileset? In addition to looking pretty, it's supposed to lower as many barriers to entry as possible, not just shift them.
Post by: Magistrum on June 12, 2019, 11:39:27 pm
If we absolute representation quarry bushes would only have five leaves, so I think we can be somewhat flexible with that.
Post by: IlFedaykin on June 13, 2019, 01:49:44 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on June 13, 2019, 03:08:20 am
Would it be possible to show empty coffins slightly open? I don't remember if they change tile in the ascii version already, but it should be a very easy AND useful addition, talking about lowering the entry bar.Whether it's "easy" or not depends on what information is available, and I believe it's Toady that writes the code, while the artists "just" provide the images that code selects.
When it comes to showing usage state information, free/used is one parameter, but in case of coffins there's also the built/allocated one, as you first have to order coffins built, and later have to come back when that's done to specify how the coffin may be used (burial/pets/tomb). There's a similar designation state information issue with tables/chairs/beds/pedestals... you can designate locations from (and in the case of beds there's also the free/owned and citizen/tavern distinctions for the allocated ones).
Thus, that "easy" change can quickly snowball to a fair number of cases, each of which may be easy to do.
Post by: IlFedaykin on June 13, 2019, 05:08:25 am
Post by: Hommit on June 13, 2019, 08:47:28 am
Thus, that "easy" change can quickly snowball to a fair number of cases, each of which may be easy to do.Could be done with different half-transparent masks, probably...
Post by: PatrikLundell on June 13, 2019, 10:53:28 am
I'm not worried about the graphical part, as we've got competent artists handling that, including judging what's reasonable to do and what's not, but about the underlying code Toady would have to write to select which tile variant to display.Thus, that "easy" change can quickly snowball to a fair number of cases, each of which may be easy to do.Could be done with different half-transparent masks, probably...
Post by: mifki on June 13, 2019, 05:23:58 pm
Would it be possible to show empty coffins slightly open? I don't remember if they change tile in the ascii version already, but it should be a very easy AND useful addition, talking about lowering the entry bar.
Yes, actually, I don't know if this has been discussed already, but what are the plans in general regarding using more tiles to show different states of various buildings? Empty coffins, locked doors, dry wells, full nest boxes and so on.
Post by: Meph on June 14, 2019, 05:20:17 am
But it may gut be a good idea to collect community suggestions or requests for those. 😊
Post by: zhamz on June 14, 2019, 01:25:26 pm
So three hopes out of the steam release
#1 simple, documented, robust system for adding tilesets via workshop or elsewhere.
#2 Tileset selection in-game from main menu.
#3 Have the original ASCII graphics always available. It would be weird to have to mod back in acsii graphics for the steam version.
Post by: Putnam on June 14, 2019, 01:59:00 pm
Post by: Cruxador on June 14, 2019, 04:06:09 pm
2. I asked Toady about this when he was doing the Discord Q&A. He said that he's open to the possibility and it might even happen just for the sake of convenience when making the official tileset.
3. This is already guaranteed, the only thing that's not certain is the technical detail of how you'll select the ASCII.
Post by: Mike Mayday on June 19, 2019, 11:39:19 am
Here's some mood/status icons for your consideration.
(http://goblinart.pl/files/DFD/status%20icons.png)
Do you have any tips on making them more distinct?
Post by: Rose on June 19, 2019, 11:54:13 am
Post by: Cruxador on June 19, 2019, 12:14:57 pm
The moods could use being different colors.Yeah, no reason not to use color more for many of these.
Post by: IlFedaykin on June 19, 2019, 12:38:08 pm
Also, i agree with less faces and more color coding.
Distracted doesn't really get to me... maybe an upside down question mark?
Post by: voliol on June 19, 2019, 12:54:03 pm
Melancholy could be blue and probably frown even more, as is it looks a bit too much like normal stress.
Madness could have... spots in different colors? Something to make it uneven even when color is applied.
Fevered i think could have a face icon. Something like a face looking down with a red forehead should be recognizable.
Also, to be in line with the hungry and thirsty icon, you could have the drowsy icon be a bed or something like that.
Post by: Hommit on June 19, 2019, 01:09:39 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on June 19, 2019, 01:22:22 pm
Maybe lightbulbs (in different colors) for the strange moods?
And yeah, agree the unconscious and paralyzed ones feel a bit off, and maybe have the madness one do a bit more of a crazy smile?
Post by: Doomblade187 on June 19, 2019, 01:38:49 pm
Post by: Rekov on June 19, 2019, 03:34:58 pm
The moods could use being different colors.
I think this is a good idea, maybe as a soft glowing outline behind the symbols?
(https://i.imgur.com/4vKIsPb.png)
Post by: Seradest on June 19, 2019, 04:23:47 pm
The moods could use being different colors.
I think this is a good idea, maybe as a soft glowing outline behind the symbols?
(https://i.imgur.com/4vKIsPb.png)
can we use colors or forms that are unique ? i mean some look the same
Post by: Cruxador on June 19, 2019, 08:12:40 pm
can we use colors or forms that are unique ? i mean some look the sameThose are purple, blue, green, orange, and red. They're as different as can be (well, almost, a limier green and a more neon orange are available since there's no yellow), they only look similar because the shade is similar and they're faded onto the speech bubble. I wonder if making the speech bubble colors other than white wouldn't be excessive.
Post by: Death Dragon on June 19, 2019, 08:14:13 pm
The skin colour could be different depending on what kinda emotion it is. Red smiley for stressed, yellow smiley for distracted, etc.
Post by: Mechanoid on June 20, 2019, 12:45:10 am
Do you have any tips on making them more distinct?Play around with some different angles on the facing instead of just straight forward.
Addition of colors always helps immensely where monochrome relies entirely on forms.
To help identify more critical icons, the white background on the bubble can be dropped for something else.
Not everything needs a face, sometimes abstract really is best.
20x20? Challenge accepted.
(https://i.ibb.co/JB6KXC5/Dwarf-Fortress-Emotes.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
Post by: Magistrum on June 20, 2019, 07:39:04 am
Wow, Mechanoid's bubbles look incredible! Can't we make him sign something and rip his?
Post by: Rose on June 20, 2019, 08:47:20 am
Spoiler: Wrestling (click to show/hide)
Post by: Bumber on June 20, 2019, 12:01:30 pm
Ideas:
Migrant = Use Mechanoid's
No job = ? over safety helmet or hammer
No destination = ? over a pair of footprints
Hungry = Either a fork and knife (without Mech's black background), or a food item that's easier to distinguish at a distance than Mayday's drumstick
Thirsty = A shot glass full of water/fluid or Mech's mug w/o background
Drowsy = Yawning face
Stressed = Mayday's is fine, or a scribble ball
Distracted = Thinking face emoji?
Sleeping = Z z z
Fey mood = ! (with black outline) over workbench
Possessed = ! over workbench
Secretive = ! over workbench
Fell mood = ! over workbench
Macabre = ! over workbench
Tantrum = Face with red anger symbol
Stumbling = Swirly eyes? Something like this (http://clipart-library.com/images/kiMK6xLdT.jpg)? Huge vacant eyes? O_O (Does catatonic get its own status icon?)
Madness = Mayday's is fine
Melancholy = Tears streaming from eyes
Berserk / Enraged = Mayday's are fine
Martial = Determined face with headband
Terrified = Mayday's is fine
Wrestling = Arm wrestling
Minor Injury / Major Injury = Mayday's are fine
Paralyzed = Mayday's is decent. Maybe a pair of yellow zig-zag lines / lightning bolts
Stunned = Yellow-orange stars, either a cluster of three or possibly orbiting in a circle. Maybe a face with stars for eyes? *_*
Nausea / Winded = Mayday's are fine
Unconscious = Add some space between Mayday version eyes so it doesn't look like a Libra horoscope. Maybe a bit of drool at the corner of the mouth.
Fevered = Thermometer sticking out of mouth, sweat on forehead.
Yielding = White flag
Make believe = Mayday's is fine
Story = Could be less messy. Maybe Mech's without the big splotch in the top left.
Poetry = Mech's is fine; or same as Story but the 3rd and 4th lines are shorter, representing rhyming pairs or something.
Performing = Mech's without the staff lines on the sides
Post by: Mechanoid on June 20, 2019, 06:13:44 pm
Can't we make him sign something and rip his?I'm not starting a legal battle over a 125^2 pixel image i dumped out in 2-3 hours (would've been far faster if not for constant interruptions) for someone who wanted simple feedback, but then i guess some other people are just that egotistic/petty on this 3 ring circus planet. If any of them were actually used even just in concept, i would be very surprised and happy about it and absolutely give my permission to use them.
Personally, i think i made some of them a bit too anime and stylized. Mayday's is much more realistic and straight forward.
Post by: Real_bang on June 20, 2019, 09:52:27 pm
Post by: Meph on June 22, 2019, 07:51:01 am
Post by: Pillbo on June 24, 2019, 12:07:28 am
Post by: Cruxador on June 24, 2019, 01:03:00 am
Maybe Xs for eyes on the unconscious icon?x_x
Post by: Superdorf on June 24, 2019, 12:59:19 pm
Post by: voliol on June 24, 2019, 04:07:43 pm
Mm, maybe. Might look a bit too much like "dead".You could use the old ”spirals as eyes” (as in the Pokemon anime, and more, I’m sure). Then again, that might be confused for ”drunk”.
Post by: Magistrum on June 24, 2019, 05:43:27 pm
Post by: Bumber on June 25, 2019, 04:19:31 am
Post by: Meph on June 25, 2019, 04:39:48 am
Now that I think of it, strange moods should probably show a workbench or something.I don't that would fit, because some moods are textiles/leather (soft), others rock/gems (hard), others make metal objects (smithing), and the workbenches and tools required would look different.
Post by: Bumber on June 25, 2019, 04:56:07 am
It's symbolic. Almost anyone should be able to recognize that a woodworking bench with a vice on it relates to crafting stuff.Now that I think of it, strange moods should probably show a workbench or something.I don't that would fit, because some moods are textiles/leather (soft), others rock/gems (hard), others make metal objects (smithing), and the workbenches and tools required would look different.
A saw and chisel/hammer would also work. Those could have a colored outline/glow instead of an exclamation point.
Post by: Meph on June 25, 2019, 05:15:00 am
(https://cdn0.iconfinder.com/data/icons/business-management-and-growth-1/64/88-512.png)
or this:
(https://cdn0.iconfinder.com/data/icons/head-color-2/100/Head__9-512.png)
Aka an "I have an idea and need to start thinking/working real hard"-icon. Obvious issue is that lightbulbs didn't exist back then, but it's a UI element for the player, not an ingame item.
Post by: PatrikLundell on June 25, 2019, 08:12:05 am
Post by: Criperum on June 25, 2019, 08:28:05 am
Post by: Cruxador on June 25, 2019, 12:02:22 pm
Post by: Superdorf on June 25, 2019, 12:22:10 pm
...Actually, a gear-head might be a bit finicky to do with so few pixels to work with. What if you just did a gear or two by themselves?
Post by: voliol on June 25, 2019, 04:53:08 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on June 25, 2019, 05:21:53 pm
Post by: Bumber on June 26, 2019, 04:13:01 pm
Post by: Pillbo on July 07, 2019, 06:11:24 pm
Like if some wizard cursed dwarves with slug bodies, or animal heads, or wings could those parts from the animal men be swapped in/added to?
Post by: Meph on July 08, 2019, 03:04:56 am
That being said, forgotten beasts should use correct sprites for their limbs, wings, etc, so I think at the very least, the basis should be there. Even if mifki has to TWBT-magic it together in the end for us modders. ^^
Post by: Fleeting Frames on July 08, 2019, 12:21:22 pm
Edit, since this is kind of old:
Not sure what can usefully be done, extra. I know I'd not be reaching for the mouse to right-click and start the necessary cascade of options and sub-options and sub-sub-options, etc, until they rejiggle the hotkey menu nesting too (which will probably annoy me for a while, but may be done so each input method matches the structure of the other) as also mentioned - all this as being under Zach's purview, I think it was said, to investigate.
I mean, Meph might be able to clarify better detail, but AIUI it's still way up in the air, so it'll probably change from what's imagined at the moment (even by someone closer to the project) anyway.
Kind of late here, but maybe you'd be interested in taking a look at how photoshop does menus - option chosen depends on mouse movement direction after choosing.
Another option is to have user-sensitive menus with most (recently) used options quickest to choose, rather than in the order they were developed; similar to how one can encode most used letters to use least number of bytes.
Post by: Real_bang on July 09, 2019, 07:39:32 am
There is an internal discussion about showing things like individual limbs (for injuries) and how many different sprite-parts we can use (number of layers that are baked into one sprite) without making it too resource intensive. For now the focus is on improving the vanilla system, once that is done I can pester Toady a bit about mod support.
That being said, forgotten beasts should use correct sprites for their limbs, wings, etc, so I think at the very least, the basis should be there. Even if mifki has to TWBT-magic it together in the end for us modders. ^^
Would individual limp system be hard on old CPU? also maybe toady would add multi core support for the steam version? heheehe. Yeah i know
Post by: Pillbo on July 10, 2019, 09:02:29 pm
That being said, forgotten beasts should use correct sprites for their limbs, wings, etc, so I think at the very least, the basis should be there. Even if mifki has to TWBT-magic it together in the end for us modders. ^^
Very cool, the possibility of modded races being able to mix and match body part sprites to retain the game's look is really exciting.
Post by: Cruxador on July 10, 2019, 10:46:15 pm
You could do that anyway by just modding the sprites and manually frankensteining bits together.That being said, forgotten beasts should use correct sprites for their limbs, wings, etc, so I think at the very least, the basis should be there. Even if mifki has to TWBT-magic it together in the end for us modders. ^^
Very cool, the possibility of modded races being able to mix and match body part sprites to retain the game's look is really exciting.
Post by: Meph on July 11, 2019, 07:10:12 am
I could try to keep a file with just arms and legs and wings and heads around in a table. ;)
Post by: Rekov on July 11, 2019, 08:45:58 pm
You could do that anyway by just modding the sprites and manually frankensteining bits together.That being said, forgotten beasts should use correct sprites for their limbs, wings, etc, so I think at the very least, the basis should be there. Even if mifki has to TWBT-magic it together in the end for us modders. ^^
Very cool, the possibility of modded races being able to mix and match body part sprites to retain the game's look is really exciting.
Well I don't know how far you guys are planning ahead, but if Toady eventually wants to have (at least as an option) ALL races be totally procedurally generated, something like this would seem to be to be the only option for actually doing that.
Post by: Meph on July 19, 2019, 05:55:46 am
Post by: Fleeting Frames on July 20, 2019, 01:40:12 pm
Post by: Pillbo on July 20, 2019, 02:05:02 pm
Just a little update: creatures, creatures, creatures. That's what we are working on atm.
Any you can post?
Post by: Meph on July 20, 2019, 05:55:54 pm
Hum, will regular, raw-editable creatures going to be (able to) utilize "some assembly required" spritesheets as FBs?
Maybe. Currently planned for civ members and procedurally generated creatures, but not used for regular creatures.
Maybe Mike will post some. ☺️ We are working on regular surface animals at the moment,nothing super exciting.Just a little update: creatures, creatures, creatures. That's what we are working on atm.
Any you can post?
Post by: deathisinevitable on August 01, 2019, 01:10:09 am
I have a question that is only partially related to this thread, but I'm not sure where else to put it: Meph - will you be integrating your own tileset with the extra graphical abilities that Tarn is going to program for the commercial edition? Will you add your map tileset to your game tileset? Also, will your tileset be available with all the Meph Launcher features on Steam? Although I like the Official Tileset for its ease of access and gamelike feel, I will probably usually play using the Meph textures as they are more immersive to me.
Super excited to see your updates on creatures!! Keep up the good work!!
Post by: Meph on August 01, 2019, 07:59:51 am
Post by: Cruxador on August 03, 2019, 11:28:34 pm
In general: Yes. I don't know what Mifki plans to do with TWBT, but I can port some of my tileset to the new DF. That being said, I might end up in Westafrica this winter for 3 months, so in that time I can't do much when it comes to DF/online things.If you find yourself in the eastern Yoruba villages of primarily non-Yoruba areas, see if you can confirm the origin of the word Lucumí.
Post by: Lomax on August 15, 2019, 07:19:56 pm
Thanks for giving us a glimpse of the future, and for opening up to community feedback - a little foolhardy, perhaps, but a commendable effort :)
Post by: Meph on August 24, 2019, 07:14:59 pm
I've just finished reading all 49 pages of this thread, and with great interest too! Very impressed with the quality and attention to detail - not to mention the mindboggling complexity of all the sprite variations (profession, hair, clothes, armor, weapons, etc). I'm curious to hear if you've got any tools for assembling a complete sprite based on a given set of properties, or if you manually compose each variant (e.g. in Photoshop)?So far we've been doing everything in Photoshop, but the plan is to have the large variations partly based on raws. Especially when it comes to civ members (hair/skin color, equipment) and procedurally generated creatures like Titans, FBs, demons, etc.
Thanks for giving us a glimpse of the future, and for opening up to community feedback - a little foolhardy, perhaps, but a commendable effort :)
Have I ever posted these? ;) (It's been a while since anyone posted anything here ^^)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZXYSTTV.png)
Post by: Wokko on August 24, 2019, 07:35:56 pm
Post by: Rose on August 24, 2019, 10:35:40 pm
Post by: Superdorf on August 24, 2019, 10:43:18 pm
Also the weapon racks and armor stands showing them being used are innacurate. They don't actually ever get used in-game :PClearly, Meph is an optimist. ;)
Everything there looks lovely! What are those horizontal bar things below the bookshelves?
Post by: Pillbo on August 25, 2019, 11:13:57 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/ZXYSTTV.png)
What are the fifth and seventh row from the top?
Post by: voliol on August 26, 2019, 12:44:19 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
What are the fifth and seventh row from the top?
The fifth row is hatch covers, I'm pretty sure. The seventh, closed floodgates maybe?
Post by: Meph on August 26, 2019, 08:30:45 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on August 26, 2019, 01:54:27 pm
Pipe sections. ;)I find the last one (metal?) to be lacking in its indications of roundness, with the 3:rd one doing the best job in that department (probably due to the indication of a light source shadowing the lower half slightly, and the first two could probably get some improvement in that respect).
Post by: Cruxador on August 28, 2019, 11:00:54 am
How well do these sprites inherit the colors of their materials? Or is that something it'll be impossible to determine until Toady implements a more advanced system for that?
I find the last one (metal?)Glass. Look at the corresponding table; you can see the legs through the surface.
Post by: snow dwarf on August 30, 2019, 08:54:28 am
Post by: voliol on August 30, 2019, 09:33:28 am
If I'm being honest, the cabinets don't really fit the feeling too much. They have a very modern sleek look to them. But great job so far with everything. I especially like the tables and hatch covers although again, glass looks too modern in my opinion. Maybe make it a bit more stained glass like?I agree on the cabinets. It seems most medieval cabinets had doors rather than drawers (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=medieval+cabinet&atb=v110-1&iar=images) so just changing that up could work.
Post by: Pillbo on August 31, 2019, 03:37:10 pm
If I'm being honest, the cabinets don't really fit the feeling too much. They have a very modern sleek look to them. But great job so far with everything. I especially like the tables and hatch covers although again, glass looks too modern in my opinion. Maybe make it a bit more stained glass like?I agree on the cabinets. It seems most medieval cabinets had doors rather than drawers (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=medieval+cabinet&atb=v110-1&iar=images) so just changing that up could work.
I also agree. To be honest I like the looks of beds, cabinets and pipe sections from the Meph tileset more.
Post by: Rekov on September 01, 2019, 11:49:03 am
Pipe sections. ;)I find the last one (metal?) to be lacking in its indications of roundness, with the 3:rd one doing the best job in that department (probably due to the indication of a light source shadowing the lower half slightly, and the first two could probably get some improvement in that respect).
I think the reason it's confusing is because specular highlights on cylinders basically always stretch out along the axis of the cylinder, and are narrowed along the circumference. The current highlight on the glass pipe isn't really possible IRL.
(https://i.imgur.com/q0yeHLr.png)
That said, the current glass pipe clearly belongs to the same set as the other glass furniture, so it may be that it's worth sacrificing a realistic highlight for the sake of making it clear that it's the same material in game.
Post by: Meph on September 06, 2019, 07:44:55 pm
That way we can hopefully overlay their correct equipment later on, breastplate, weapon, shield, etc.
The results are not super pretty, but I'd like to hear what you think nonetheless. The are WIP (which is why they look a bit rough around the edges here and there).
(https://i.imgur.com/jERaF4r.png)
Post by: Inarius on September 07, 2019, 04:03:57 pm
Post by: Meph on September 07, 2019, 04:28:27 pm
Can you use another color for the description ? It'l almost unreadable ? (dark brownish over black)
Spoiler: Sure (click to show/hide)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 07, 2019, 07:35:40 pm
They look like snake people here, as if they're using their tails to stand up on something as opposed to swimming (which is what they do 100% of the time).
Kind of boring overall, no representation of size differences for example (doesn't have to be perfect, but bird person meets elephant person is just going to look wrong). Animal sprites seem to at least attempt this.
Well, I guess it was always going to be a compromise to try to represent everything with graphics. Good job considering the monumental task. Just a shame Adventurer is still considered "low priority".
Post by: Meph on September 07, 2019, 07:48:21 pm
It's more a budget restraint. Using the same base is faster (ergo cheaper).
Post by: PlumpHelmetMan on September 07, 2019, 07:53:45 pm
Post by: Plump Helmet on September 07, 2019, 08:32:18 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 07, 2019, 08:47:40 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 07, 2019, 09:03:10 pm
Post by: voliol on September 08, 2019, 01:41:44 am
Regarding individual ones, the neck of the ostrich man is a bit too white and thick, and it's head is too tall; I'd probably guess it to be a goose man if I didn't know better. I also find it strange that the snail/slug, worm/leech and spider men are so large here while they really are among the smaller animal people in-game. Even if nothing changes among the other animal men it would be nice to see them shrunk.
The oriole man I don't quite get either, shouldn't it have some black plumage? There are many kinds of birds bearing the name "oriole" though, so you might just be basing it off some species I'm not thinking of.
Post by: Inarius on September 08, 2019, 04:15:55 am
Post by: Meph on September 08, 2019, 05:39:55 am
Three sizes, small, medium and large, are what I'm personally are hoping for in the end.
Post by: Cruxador on September 08, 2019, 08:05:13 pm
Dealing with specifics:
The emphasis on distinct and clearly defined pinions makes the birdman wings feel more like demon wings or dragon wings; the proportions draw too much from fantasy and not enough from reality. Look at the size and angle in particular. Of course it's gonna be hard to make them look super accurate with the amount of space you've got no matter what, but having them come to such a sharp point at the elbow while pointing out rather than down is definitely not doing you any favors; bird wings just don't work that way. The raven wings are an exception to this, so the simplest fix would probably be to just recolor those wings for the others; I would shift them one pixel up since they look more like they're behind him than attached to him, but they're definitely preferable to the other wing design even before that.
I agree with Manveru that the shading on the oriole could use another pass.
The leech is way too long. Some of them can stretch out but in general they're stubby little critters, assuming the worm man is meant to represent annelids in general, they certainly shouldn't be longer than that.
It's certainly weird for a skink to be green... And for that matter, for an anole to be purple. Did you just swap their labels by accident maybe? Not that skinks are purple either, but I guess that it could look brown in some context, which plenty of skinks are. The shape of the one labeled anole looks more like an anole than the one labeled skink, but it also looks more like a skink than the one labeled skink so I can't really tell based on that.
Pond turtles are also not typically very green. I guess some species can be, sort of, but definitely not that green. The art is really solid and looks great on the desert tortoise, but I would consider another pass on the coloring.
I'm not 100% on board with that chameleon's face, he's giving me pepe the frog vibes, but they're weird looking animals at the best of times, and very diverse.
The ostrich head doesn't capture their wedge-like shape, that big flat bit right in front of the eyes isn't accurate and makes it look like a goose. Even though they have proportionally smaller beaks, the swan head would capture the feel of an ostrich's head better than the one you've got now. Or, better, recolor the emu head for it and make the neck one pixel longer if you've got the room.
I appreciate that it's not easy to make these into cute little humanoids, but the roach and beetle heads don't look anything like roach and beetle heads. In fact they look less like roach and beetle heads than a human head does.
I suspect you have limited space to work with for technical reasons, but the snail and slug would look a lot more like snail and slug if their antennae weren't bent, since they don't do that in real life. You could also give them the two little feelers down below, if that wouldn't complicate the layering.
The gila monster also looks unnecessarily weird. I think because the angle of the forehead, especially, but really I think that position is just too ambitious for the amount of pixels you've got available. There's also no need to give them those glowing white eyes; I know the eyes would be hard to make out otherwise but they are in real life too. Finally, you've given it a skink's tongue – gila monster tongues are forked, so it you remove that bottom left pixel (assuming you don't redraft it entirely), you'll have improved it a lot.
Those are the things that stood out to me when evaluating it as I would if I was making the sprites myself, though I know if I do that it'll be useless to you for legal reasons. The mammals categorically look great and most of the reptiles do too, and the spiders and ants are adorable and the bird faces are super cute too.
Post by: Magistrum on September 10, 2019, 09:29:20 am
Post by: Meph on September 10, 2019, 09:35:03 am
This is good and all, but can we talk about how Meph was just ousted as a light mode heretic?A what?
Post by: snow dwarf on September 10, 2019, 09:44:10 am
Post by: Meph on September 10, 2019, 10:16:37 am
Quick question. One of the great things about ASCII dwarf fortress is the need to be creative with your colors. For example garnierite. It's only useful, because it's the only thing that gives that amazing light green. Or black bronze that gives the dark purple. Will that still be the case with the tileset, or do you guys plan on adding more color variety?That's up to Toady One.
A couple hardcoded colors are nice for sprite making, to avoid the entire object looking purple or yellow, but I wouldn't mind more colors.
TWBT offers that option btw, if you want to try out more colors, you can use that. ;)
Post by: Cruxador on September 10, 2019, 01:54:03 pm
The implication is that, because of your choice of font color, you must browse this forum on light mode rather than the correct Toady-ordained dark color scheme.This is good and all, but can we talk about how Meph was just ousted as a light mode heretic?A what?
Increasing the color range would be a pretty basic improvement, and the current color limits are something that Toady has mentioned specifically when describing the array of limited display/usability features that are far short of what they ought to be. Although I know you're not wanting to make an official statement on something that isn't officially confirmed, from an unofficial perspective it seems pretty certain.Quick question. One of the great things about ASCII dwarf fortress is the need to be creative with your colors. For example garnierite. It's only useful, because it's the only thing that gives that amazing light green. Or black bronze that gives the dark purple. Will that still be the case with the tileset, or do you guys plan on adding more color variety?That's up to Toady One.
A couple hardcoded colors are nice for sprite making, to avoid the entire object looking purple or yellow, but I wouldn't mind more colors.
TWBT offers that option btw, if you want to try out more colors, you can use that. ;)
Also, there's no reason, depending on Toady's implementation, that you couldn't have a full 32-bit color on a sprite, with a separate channel (or more than one, which would require deeper changes in order to be done meaningfully in most cases, but for which there's already obvious application in creature sprites) to fill with the color that's designated in the raws. Even with a ground layer, a building layer, and an item layer or two, plus a creature layer, this isn't going to tax systems at all when compared to modern 3D games. That can maybe get more when the amount of potential layers a creature could be made of, especially if there's a lot on screen, so for older systems it might be better to use 16bit color with index transparency, but adding a channel for the raw colors is still plenty compatible with having "hardcoded" RGB colors in the sprites, if that's what you're talking about.
As far as [the beneficial effect of] having a limited amount of colors that raws can supply, I think that's an art/design concern rather than a technological one, but considering that you guys aren't adhering to any design limits on the palette so far, I think it would be meaningless to apply one to the colors inherited from raws.
Post by: Meph on September 10, 2019, 03:32:57 pm
Thanks.The implication is that, because of your choice of font color, you must browse this forum on light mode rather than the correct Toady-ordained dark color scheme.This is good and all, but can we talk about how Meph was just ousted as a light mode heretic?A what?
No, I'm not a light mode heretic. It's just that the animal men sheet was not made for this forum specifically. It was originally posted somewhere else ;)
Post by: Magistrum on September 10, 2019, 05:00:22 pm
Tried TWBT extra coloring some time ago, but the original color just feels more right after all this time. Maybe with Steam DF the sprites will make it fit in.
Post by: Pillbo on September 21, 2019, 04:06:35 pm
- Cave fish people look kind of like horses in the face.
- Orioles have a good amount of black in their plumage.
- I see what you're going for with the slugs/snails but it looks like they have eye-stalks instead of heads.
- Muskox horns look a little more like hair braids that drop down the side of their face then turn up. Yours look more like longhorn cattle.
- Ant person reads kind of spidery, though that has to be tough to distinguish
- Roach and beetle are also tough to read, not sure what you could do about it though.
- I don't mind the Merfolk body but I would imagine the head as less standard human than that.
These are all just suggestions, you're doing a great job.
Post by: Fleeting Frames on October 21, 2019, 08:00:20 am
1) Testing should probably include these; I recall some tilesets didn't handle the colorswap well.
2) Creatures could change facing depending on which way they face.
Post by: voliol on October 21, 2019, 08:26:10 am
An errant thought strikes my head: Adventure mode has visible view cones when sneaking.
1) Testing should probably include these; I recall some tilesets didn't handle the colorswap well.
2) Creatures could change facing depending on which way they face.
1) +1
2) I believe 4 sprites for each creature would be too much, but a right/left flip depending on the most recent of the two directions might be nice, as long as the flipped shading doesn’t look all too strange.
Post by: Fleeting Frames on October 21, 2019, 09:37:18 am
Alternatively, shading could be desribed in the raws and calculated on save load.
Post by: Meph on October 21, 2019, 09:58:23 am
Testing will of course include adv mode.
Post by: tpssurvivor on October 22, 2019, 10:21:47 am
Whenever you can, feed us mike and meph, with some delicious sprites
I really want to see some different human sprites with different hairs and beards etc... :P
Post by: Mike Mayday on October 22, 2019, 03:17:46 pm
Here's a summary of most creatures I've done (Meph has done hundreds more :)
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/DF_small_creautres.png)
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/DF_large_creatures.png)
Post by: tpssurvivor on October 22, 2019, 03:27:53 pm
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/DF_small_creautres.png)
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/DF_large_creatures.png)
I just love the shading of the sprites! Makes it so unique! Keep up the good work lads!
Post by: Meph on October 22, 2019, 04:09:17 pm
Spoiler: New dragon protoype sprite. plz dont share (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mike Mayday on October 22, 2019, 04:12:06 pm
And here's some current WIPs of civs.
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/civs_1022.png)
Post by: tpssurvivor on October 22, 2019, 05:00:43 pm
And here's some current WIPs of civs.
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/civs_1022.png)
Hit me in my face! This is AWESOME!
Post by: Superdorf on October 22, 2019, 05:49:37 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on October 23, 2019, 01:12:44 am
Post by: voliol on October 23, 2019, 02:06:45 am
At the end of the first section (normal-sized creatures), I see:
Alligator, Lion, One-humpted Camel, Gerbil (?), Foul Blendec, Crundle,
Fire Imp (?), Sasquatch, maybe a Draltha or a Manticore but the latter don’t exist and it doesn’t have a stinger so Draltha, Giant Tick (?), Gorlak, Green Devourer.
The very last ”giant” creatures confuse me as well. After the GSC we have a Giant Cave Toad? Or maybe just a normal Giant Toad, as Cave Toads are grey. Then, a hornless unicorn? And a very very large duck of a species I feel like I recognize but can’t quite determine. That one is the most confusing to me.
Post by: Mike Mayday on October 23, 2019, 02:17:39 am
-fire imp, sasquatch, Drunian
-GSC, giant toad, Draltha, giant cave swallow
You can see my first attempt at a draltha here. I decided it needs to be a bit more graceful, even if now it looks smaller.
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/dfd_resume.png)
Post by: Inarius on October 23, 2019, 04:23:01 am
Post by: voliol on October 23, 2019, 12:59:02 pm
-That's a Chinchilla, not a gerbil
-fire imp, sasquatch, Drunian
-GSC, giant toad, Draltha, giant cave swallow
You can see my first attempt at a draltha here. I decided it needs to be a bit more graceful, even if now it looks smaller.
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/dfd_resume.png)
I totally forgot about drunians, that explains a lot. I think the size of the draltha is good. It is larger than most other creatures yet smaller than an elephant. Give it yellow(er) hair and it's perfect.
The cave swallow I believe could use a swallow tail to make it more recognizable as a swallow, as the wings probably can't be lengthened due to size restraints.
Post by: Mike Mayday on October 23, 2019, 02:19:20 pm
Post by: Rekov on October 23, 2019, 05:26:04 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/RPRfrBL.png)
Post by: Mike Mayday on October 23, 2019, 05:34:55 pm
Post by: Superdorf on October 23, 2019, 06:06:00 pm
Post by: voliol on October 24, 2019, 12:49:15 am
Funnily enough, cave swallows lack the distinct swallow shapes: https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Cave_Swallow/media-browser/68122171
Huh, I thought cave swallows were something the Adams brothers came up with. TIL. Then all is well!
Post by: Fleeting Frames on October 28, 2019, 03:19:02 pm
When a cat steps on mason's workshop, it slightly moves the equipment part of it.
Spoiler: image (click to show/hide)
Obviously this is caused by TWBT only applying transparency/override once for topmost, but there are vanilla things like doors that change their appearance when creature goes through (currently, only to floor tile, but could instead show being opened).
When reworking backend graphics, might be useful to standardize "creature goes through" for all buildings.
Post by: Proudbucket on November 10, 2019, 11:46:44 am
I can identify all animals except this one. Is it a mandrill or mythic creature?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qx4HF3J2/DF-large-creatures.png)
Visually there is not much difference between these two, that might confuse players. I'd suggest adding a visual identifier such as replacing the pelt thong with an improvised pelt cloth covering half the chest.
Besides that I'd say that the tiles look amazing. Keep them going!
Post by: Fleeting Frames on November 10, 2019, 02:14:49 pm
Is this planned for the tileset? Are there plans to treat multi-part items (i.e. procedural instruments) like multi-part creatures?
Post by: Rose on November 10, 2019, 02:39:11 pm
Post by: LargeSnail on November 14, 2019, 11:20:38 am
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XRDZKyw/DF-small-creautres.png)
I can identify all animals except this one. Is it a mandrill or mythic creature?
It looks like a Drunian.
Post by: Meph on December 06, 2019, 03:40:48 am
Just saying hi, we are still around, just biding our time. ;)
Post by: Jack-22 on December 06, 2019, 12:53:59 pm
here between us ... you know something about the next release date and they don't say anything because they are contractually barred, right
I am very looking forward to the steam release :(
Post by: dirkzen on December 07, 2019, 02:02:18 am
Also glad to see Mikes still around and in the forums. :D
Also, the steam release is gonna be pretty darn interesting, i'll give it that
Post by: Putnam on December 07, 2019, 03:21:03 pm
I'm just kidding, but...
here between us ... you know something about the next release date and they don't say anything because they are contractually barred, right
I am very looking forward to the steam release :(
release dates don't really work this way, more likely literally nobody knows, including the people making the dang game
Post by: Pillbo on December 08, 2019, 02:33:43 pm
Post by: ophaq on December 09, 2019, 10:21:28 pm
Post by: voliol on December 10, 2019, 02:04:46 am
Any chance we could get a preview of the upcoming necromancer monstrosities?
They probably haven’t started working on these, considering they need the mix-and-match system to work, and until Toady starts working on the graphics the details of this mix-and-match system won’t be clear.
How will this texture pack / Steam release work with the Masterwork mod and the monsters in it? I'm so used to playing with that but it's been ages since I last played DF because I'm waiting for official release lol. Also, how will the performance be with this texture pack compared to other popular texture packs?
Masterwork will need to be worked on separately, just like the other mods. If all goes well, it will be installed through the Steam Workshop. Meph seems to have already started with the Masterwork tiles(http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=161047.0), so I don’t think a port of it will take too long after the steam release.
Post by: Meph on December 10, 2019, 07:58:16 am
My tileset can be updated for the new version and will be, while it's a bit trickier with the big MasterworkDF mod, purely based on its size. There are so many workshops, items, creatures, plants, etc that would need new, fitting 32x32 sprites, it will take a while. But it will still be playable with upscaled 16x16 sprites in the meantime.
Release date: Same day as Half-Life 3. :P
Post by: Rekov on December 20, 2019, 08:43:27 pm
Post by: Cruxador on December 21, 2019, 05:45:11 pm
I don't know if this has been discussed in this topic yet. Are there any plans (that can be discussed, I suppose) to increase the number of colors that are part of a color scheme for the steam release?Toady has mentioned color increases vaguely as a possibility, without specifics.
Post by: darkhog on January 05, 2020, 11:11:17 pm
Post by: Meph on January 06, 2020, 06:57:10 pm
Post by: darkhog on January 10, 2020, 09:25:00 am
Post by: darkhog on January 10, 2020, 09:56:44 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on January 10, 2020, 12:21:52 pm
Regarding world map, why can't it be like the region-detailed map you get when exporting legends (example (https://i.imgur.com/4y31imz.jpg))? With perhaps sites, etc. put on top.Technical limitations...
The reason is the current map design (one of the things that is to be changed as part of the Myth & Magic non backwards compatible changes). The Mid Level Tiles (MLT) literally do not exist outside of the current world tile + the world tiles immediately adjacent to it (a 3*3 world tile area, and that area is shrunk further to a single world tile pre embark). When you enter a new world tile ones outside of that 3*3 area are removed from memory and the new required ones are generated from seed (and the remaining ones are shifted around), with some kind of logic handling modifications of the areas if they have been loaded earlier. Note that this is a simplified explanation: there are additional complications from the current map handling system.
One of the things the map rewrite intends to achieve is to decouple different levels of the world from each other, so caverns, etc. can be generated only as needed, which is particularly important in adventure mode, where you move along the surface a lot, but rarely have any need for the caverns (and into the rock layers even less). This decoupling ought to allow for the MLT level to be loaded at all times (but the detailed, in-game level still has to be generated/unloaded even if the surface is completely decoupled from the levels below [a maximum size world is 257 * 256 world tiles * 16 * 16 MLTs * 48 * 48 in-game tiles = 38,957,285,376 ~ 39 Gigatiles, each of which has to keep track of material, fluids, plant growth, construction, ... in it]).
Thus, it is a possible outcome of the map rewrite, which can be estimated to be released during the latter half of this decade, assuming the current plans aren't deviated from too heavily.
Post by: Proudbucket on January 18, 2020, 08:47:42 pm
You might want to check the post at reddit that discusses the tileset:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/eqiz53/opinion_poll_about_graphic/
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on January 18, 2020, 09:10:22 pm
Meph, Mayday,Hopefully the OP adds a link to this thread. It's very odd to see people discuss the state of the ramps all over again.
You might want to check the post at reddit that discusses the tileset:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/eqiz53/opinion_poll_about_graphic/
Post by: Vordak on January 20, 2020, 05:50:57 am
Bay 12 Games or Kitfox Games?
Upd.
Spoiler: Answer from discord: (click to show/hide)
Post by: Meph on January 20, 2020, 12:27:37 pm
Legal questions are better aimed at Tanya from Kitfox. ;)
Post by: Magistrum on January 20, 2020, 12:30:29 pm
Post by: Meph on January 20, 2020, 12:34:51 pm
Post by: Wokko on February 04, 2020, 12:20:42 am
Post by: Meph on February 04, 2020, 12:28:44 pm
Once we have sprites, I will make sure to share some.
Have some of Mike's gorlaks and green devourers in the meantime. Not sure if he ever posted them here. ;)
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/green_1020.png)
Post by: Untrustedlife on February 04, 2020, 12:33:29 pm
Nope. Mike and me are pretty much waiting on Tarn to finish the bugfix villains, before everyone delves into the graphics proper.
Once we have sprites, I will make sure to share some.
Have some of Mike's gorlaks and green devourers in the meantime. Not sure if he ever posted them here. ;)
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/green_1020.png)
Always imagined gorlaks as more yellow
Post by: Meph on February 04, 2020, 12:56:14 pm
Post by: Untrustedlife on February 04, 2020, 01:21:31 pm
That's pretty much the same thing Tarn said. ;) They will be recolored to goldenrod. ;)Good to hear. You guys are doing an awesome job so far. (there is one other issue ive had with past screenshots, troll zombies should probabbly have cyan insides/blood instead of red insides/blood but maybe that's already changed)
Post by: Meph on February 04, 2020, 03:42:58 pm
Post by: Intigracy on February 04, 2020, 10:14:40 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/zIJbdyB.png)
Post by: jecowa on February 09, 2020, 02:29:00 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on February 09, 2020, 04:29:29 am
Are we able to make graphics packs for the steamitch version of the game? Is the new graphics format much different? Do you think there would be any point to porting classic packs like Phoebus and Spacefox to the new format?It's probably too early to tell how much different the full format will be. However, since the baseline tileset of DF will be a character one, I don't see why it should be pointless to port classic tile only sets, although they would eventually have to compete with full alternative graphics sets (as well as the commercial one, for paying customers).
Post by: clinodev on February 09, 2020, 04:52:14 am
Are we able to make graphics packs for the steamitch version of the game? Is the new graphics format much different? Do you think there would be any point to porting classic packs like Phoebus and Spacefox to the new format?
I don't have any technical answers, but I sure hope someone does, because as I understand it the new graphics format is going to be the only graphics format. If no one updates older tilesets, vanilla won't have any tilesets.
Post by: jecowa on February 09, 2020, 05:31:38 am
Post by: clinodev on February 09, 2020, 06:16:09 am
Toady's no more interested in supporting two completely different releases than the modding community is, which is great for everyone.
Post by: Meph on February 09, 2020, 11:30:43 am
Current tilesets will still work, but will need updating for two reasons:
- updating to the new set of base files, like any tileset does for every regular new df version.
- new sprites, if they want to make full use of the new graphics; or remapping old sprites to remain looking like they are.
So Phoebus could look like it always did, but over time people might improve it by adding new sprites, just like they did with twbt.
The paid and free versions will be identical as far as tileset authors and modders are concerned and should be interchangeable. Only big change is that the steam graphics are copyrighted and can only be used with the paid version.
ASCII version will be available too of course, most likely with an ingame toggle, similar to the truetype font and tile-based font are switched atm.
Rounded ramps is something I'll do for my own private set. ;)
Any questions I missed?
Post by: Untrustedlife on February 09, 2020, 11:41:40 am
On my phone, please excuse the brevity.
Current tilesets will still work, but will need updating for two reasons:
- updating to the new set of base files, like any tileset does for every regular new df version.
- new sprites, if they want to make full use of the new graphics; or remapping old sprites to remain looking like they are.
So Phoebus could look like it always did, but over time people might improve it by adding new sprites, just like they did with twbt.
The paid and free versions will be identical as far as tileset authors and modders are concerned and should be interchangeable. Only big change is that the steam graphics are copyrighted and can only be used with the paid version.
ASCII version will be available too of course, most likely with an ingame toggle, similar to the truetype font and tile-based font are switched atm.
Rounded ramps is something I'll do for my own private set. ;)
Any questions I missed?
Hi there meph, can you explain in simple terms to me why tarn cant just edit the default font images and get decent graphics out of that. Am trying to explain it to someone on reddit, i know the jist of it (its simply because that is what is used as the displayed font, as also happens in LIBTCOD which i use for my own roguelike games), but you are more initimately familier...
Post by: Meph on February 09, 2020, 12:01:11 pm
Df currently uses a single 256 tile tileset. It's impossible to add more than that.
Adding graphics for most items, plants, etc, requires the same setup he uses for creatures atm: external folder with files specific to the ingame item.
That's required for the new update, as well as lots of other stuff, like merging its own sprites from components; transparency; multiple sets for the map, the menu, ingame...
Post by: Untrustedlife on February 09, 2020, 12:04:09 pm
Font images aren't really a thing. Truetype fonts use glyphs saved in a ttf file. Those are monochrome.
Df currently uses a single 256 tile tileset. It's impossible to add more than that.
Adding graphics for most items, plants, etc, requires the same setup he uses for creatures atm: external folder with files specific to the ingame item.
That's required for the new update, as well as lots of other stuff, like merging its own sprites from components; transparency; multiple sets for the map, the menu, ingame...
SDL actually lets you feed it a .png file as a font image doesnt it? ( http://sdlcontrols.sourceforge.net/sdlfont.htm ). It ends up being mostly indistinguishable from a tileset as you think it, since it is used for all text being displayed) Libtcod only allows png or ttf files (font images) aswell for its fonts ( https://libtcod.readthedocs.io/en/latest/core/console.html ).(The choice is ttf or an image in default SDL as far as im aware (and png works for this if its layed out as glyphs))
(so it is a thing its just sometime referred to as a tileset since it really is just being drawn on the console as individual characters and so is techincally a tile set)
Thank you very much . So Its transparency, more glyph space, and such that necessitates this :)
Post by: Untrustedlife on February 09, 2020, 12:20:40 pm
Guess they are called bitmap fonts. (an image that is just an array of glyphs) i cant believe i never called it that after 7 years developing roguelikes lol.
Post by: jecowa on February 09, 2020, 02:24:06 pm
On my phone, please excuse the brevity.
Current tilesets will still work, but will need updating for two reasons:
- updating to the new set of base files, like any tileset does for every regular new df version.
- new sprites, if they want to make full use of the new graphics; or remapping old sprites to remain looking like they are.
So Phoebus could look like it always did, but over time people might improve it by adding new sprites, just like they did with twbt.
The paid and free versions will be identical as far as tileset authors and modders are concerned and should be interchangeable. Only big change is that the steam graphics are copyrighted and can only be used with the paid version.
ASCII version will be available too of course, most likely with an ingame toggle, similar to the truetype font and tile-based font are switched atm.
Rounded ramps is something I'll do for my own private set. ;)
Any questions I missed?
Thank you. For some reason I thought the Steam version was fancier version and Windows-only. Maybe because the Steam page lists Windows but not Mac or SteamOS + Linux.
Post by: PatrikLundell on February 09, 2020, 04:02:59 pm
Post by: Cruxador on February 10, 2020, 11:31:41 am
The reason for the commercial Premium version currently isn't listed for other OS' isn't related to graphics, as far as I understand it from Toady's comments, but the demands of development for those platforms in combination with the commercial outlet requirements combined with his crummy setups and limited knowledge. I haven't seen anything indicating the non commercial version should drop support for other platforms, though.Hopefully this means that if you have an OS other than windows, you can download the free compile for your OS, purchase the windows version, and copy over the media files from the paid version to the functional version, thereby gaining all the in-game benefits of the paid version and missing out on only a smidgen of the convenience.
If that turns out to be an involved process, I imagine someone in the community will make a script for it.
Post by: darkhog on February 11, 2020, 09:13:42 pm
Post by: Meph on February 12, 2020, 07:26:02 am
Post by: Proudbucket on February 12, 2020, 02:28:11 pm
Hopefully this means that if you have an OS other than windows, you can download the free compile for your OSYou cannot compile DF, Toady only offers binaries. You will probably be able to buy the windows version and move the tileset files into your linux or mac version. Ethically I think it is fine and mechanically it should not be that complicated.
Post by: JesterHell696 on February 12, 2020, 11:29:14 pm
I recently saw a game called Stone Shard on steam and its art reminded me of a high definition DF with multi-tile creature support and while Toady has yet to really start on the artistic rewrite, focusing on doing post release bug first before really diving into the art I can't help but wonder how extreme the rewrite is going to be, I was going to ask in FotF but previous post there about the official tileset have been redirected here.
I'll Lime green them just cause and sorry if they been answered already but I checked the OP and there is nothing there.
OK a spent over a hour and went though the whole damn thread, maybe add some more of the Information spread though out the thread into the OP? Anyway, while I am late to the party I'll still voice my opinions on some of the things discussed.
Creature Sprites:
I personally am in favour of the "realistic" depiction with the actual clothes and items a character is wearing/holding to be depicted, I don't think professions or nobles need to be identifiable at a glance as their profession or as nobles because you don't issue orders directly to your dwarves, you don't need to find the broker so that you can tell them to go trade, you do that at the trading deport and if you do need to find a specific dwarf it will most likely be faster from units/nobles screen then searching the fortress manually.
Also I think that it is really great for adventure mode, having your adventurer holding a sword and shield while they really wielding a great axe in both hands is less then ideal, plus dressing up you character is a staple of RPG's, everyone I know like seeing that shiny new armour on their character.
If profession are needed I would support the idea of an option/setting of choosing whether the game takes clothing colours from the material RAWs or from professions, aka depict what they actually wearing but players choose in options to present either the clothes real RAW colours or profession colours, since DF classic will still use professions colours I can't see why DF premium couldn't do it as an option, but maybe its more work then its worth.
Do you think action/position based variants will be possible? examples being standing and prone sprites or dancing, singing and playing an instrument sprites?
I ask because I just watched a LP of a game called Stone Shard and it looks kind of like how I imagined a high definition DF tileset would look in adventure mode, I'll post a link to the store page and trailer from it and link few images from the steam store page directly.
- Stoneshard store page-
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
-trailer-
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
-images-
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
In that last two images with the inventory/character sheet and conversation block it has a little portrait of the characters (not procedural), I had a suggestion in the suggestion forums back in December about making a paper doll portrait system converting DF's current text text descriptor into artistic composites, (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=175240.0) I ultimately dropped the subject because it does seem a bit resource intensive funding wise for a first pass.
Shonai did suggest I come here and ask you guys then but I figured it was really up to Toady as to whether it would get done and didn't bother.
Now after reading though the whole thread and seeing how you guys are in effect consultants on all things art I feel I should ask, both for your opinion and because, truthfully if the idea appeals to you, you might take it to Toady in house circumventing the suggestion forums processes altogether :P
As the contracted artists how feasible/realistic is such a thing as procedural constructed facial portraits based upon the preexisting descriptors for fortress mode description screens and adventure mode conversations?
Map Tiles:
I'm in favour of the full graphical maps over the "parchment" ones for world gen and legend but I could see something like Stone Shards parchment map for adventure mode.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I find the stripe good/evil thing a bit off putting, as someone else mentioned it looks like a "restricted area" warning, which while not completely inaccuracy doesn't mesh well with the rest of the map IMHO, would fit more with parchment maps then full graphical ones, I vote in favour of either something like the "fog" idea or just using the current colouring scheme, light blue for good, purple for evil, not ideal but IMHO better then stripes.
What is the reasoning behind choosing 32x32 bit art/tiles for in-game?
Is the only reason for 16x16 bit ones from maps to fit more map on screen at once? I personally would prefer 32x32 map tiles and have to scroll around.
Will it be possible to mod in larger Tilesets like say 64x64 or 128x128 for the truly committed?
Would/could it be possible for DF to switch between tilesets of different sizes depending upon zoom/scroll level? might make it possible to "expand" the official tileset after launch with higher definition tiles, provided DF sells really well.
Post by: Cruxador on February 13, 2020, 12:50:14 am
Also, having been in this thread for a bit, I can respond to a few things.
Do you think action/position based variants will be possible? examples being standing and prone sprites or dancing, singing and playing an instrument sprites?Possible but not feasible. Since the sprites are meant to represent things accurately, each other possible state would need to include variation for clothing, facial features, and etc.
Quote
As the contracted artists how feasible/realistic is such a thing as procedural constructed facial portraits based upon the preexisting descriptors for fortress mode description screens and adventure mode conversations?Although this is doable, nobody made any mention of such a thing being planned, and it would require a certain amount of funding from Kitfox; since it's beyond what they've discussed, that may be a significant impediment. If not considering that, it's actually a pretty good idea for a way to extend support, but there would need to be some UI considerations for when dwarf faces would be shown. It would be a shame to do the degree of work that would be required and then sequester them into the unit description.
Quote
Will it be possible to mod in larger Tilesets like say 64x64 or 128x128 for the truly committed?Considering that's possible now and every indication is that strict requirements will actually become freer (E.G. transparency, units larger than their tile) I think you can be reasonably certain it will continue being possible.
Quote
Would/could it be possible for DF to switch between tilesets of different sizes depending upon zoom/scroll level?[/color] might make it possible to "expand" the official tileset after launch with higher definition tiles, provided DF sells really well.That seems like a really awkward way to implement it, to me. Why not just make a bigger tileset and then let it resize automatically when zooming out? That works fine for current tilesets, after all.
By that noun form of "compile" I meant "the result of having compiled" not "source code". What you said is also what I said; we agree.Hopefully this means that if you have an OS other than windows, you can download the free compile for your OSYou cannot compile DF, Toady only offers binaries. You will probably be able to buy the windows version and move the tileset files into your linux or mac version. Ethically I think it is fine and mechanically it should not be that complicated.
Post by: Erendir on February 13, 2020, 05:59:42 am
QuoteWould/could it be possible for DF to switch between tilesets of different sizes depending upon zoom/scroll level?[/color] might make it possible to "expand" the official tileset after launch with higher definition tiles, provided DF sells really well.That seems like a really awkward way to implement it, to me. Why not just make a bigger tileset and then let it resize automatically when zooming out? That works fine for current tilesets, after all.
There is a difference in quality between automatically scaling an image down and drawing it in the smaller size.
Post by: jecowa on February 13, 2020, 06:22:15 am
Post by: Meph on February 13, 2020, 08:57:10 am
It would be awesome if dwarves' hair matched their descriptions. It would be insane if their faces matched. What if a dwarf loses a leg? Does the graphic change? Could we see them in crutches?Those are not too unrealistic expectations. ;)
Jester: The images you shown are amazing pixelart, but are not tile-based, and most things in it are just textures, not objects that can be interacted with or change. For example trees in df grow, lose leaves, change color, show flowers, seeds or fruits. Dwarves can cut them down, climb them, pick individual fruits...
In stoneshape, the trees are just images, with a "don't walk through trunk" clipping. Big difference.
Post by: Cruxador on February 15, 2020, 10:36:21 am
It's theoretically possible to work around this in DF by taking a tiled zone as a group and applying a texture to the block of tiles. Consider for example the old Sierra city builders were groups of four small houses would turn into a big four tile house. This is theoretically possible in all cases, but although it's a ridiculously poor use of time to do this for most cases, it might be a good idea for certain textures that are likely to appear in great amount (e.g. bare stone) to reduce the obviously unnatural appearance that tiling would beget. Random variety in which of several similar textures was applied to a tile or block of tiles would also be handy here.
Jester: The images you shown are amazing pixelart, but are not tile-based,
In addition, there are certain key cases that are very likely to occur due to the sort of things that players like to make (double doors, long tables) which might be worth addressing in this manner.
Depending on how much hassle it would be for Toady to add this capability, naturally.
Post by: darkhog on February 15, 2020, 01:14:06 pm
Post by: Meph on February 15, 2020, 01:15:00 pm
But it's an unrealistically large amount of assets for most objects, especially the millions (billions?) of tree variants.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on February 15, 2020, 03:21:41 pm
We had this idea for furniture, tbh. Merging tables next to each other into one large one. I have a working version of that, manually controlled by the player, in my own tileset using twbt. Not sure if toady will adopt something like this though. (Mostly because it's factually incorrect, showing 1 3x3 table while it's actually 9 tables)
But it's an unrealistically large amount of assets for most objects, especially the millions (billions?) of tree variants.
If one placed 9 square tables like that right next to eachother it'd probably look like 1 big one from certain angles/distances so I wouldn't necessarily agree it's always incorrect as such. Not really sure what Toady has planned for future larger constructions tho, may well be we'll actually get large tables or doors etc eventually when multi-tile creatures and constructions gets a pass.
Post by: Meph on February 15, 2020, 04:18:13 pm
How it looks? Here an example dining room I build:
(https://i.imgur.com/7YtSvL6.png)
There is a clear difference between single tables and those that merge.
Post by: Ziusudra on February 15, 2020, 05:59:11 pm
If one placed 9 square tables like that right next to eachother it'd probably look like 1 big one from certain angles/distances so I wouldn't necessarily agree it's always incorrect as such. Not really sure what Toady has planned for future larger constructions tho, may well be we'll actually get large tables or doors etc eventually when multi-tile creatures and constructions gets a pass.Except that tables and other furniture don't take up the entire tile which is why they don't block movement.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on February 15, 2020, 06:04:35 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Ah, yeah, I was imagining something slightly different, more along the lines of the right side but without the edges being removed. So not complete merging but more that there just won't be gaps where the floor is showing if you place two tables next to each other. (which works better horizontally than diagonally I suppose, but even just that would be good enough for me, I'd just design my longtables to always go west to east).
Except that tables and other furniture don't take up the entire tile which is why they don't block movement.
Well, maybe they should ;P (and also have it fixed so one could have several chairs work with a single table)
Post by: Cruxador on February 15, 2020, 10:30:15 pm
But it's an unrealistically large amount of assets for most objects, especially the millions (billions?) of tree variants.For something like trees, although making every possible tree would be ludicrous, there is a possibility that normal tile-built trees could look better with some procedurally placed joining pieces. Which isn't necessarily different than having ramps show slopes, it just means that what's shown for a segment is aware of what's in adjacent segments. Of course, if that segment is able to be a multi-tile sprite then that's a more powerful system, but I don't know what there's a lot to be gained from that with regards to trees specifically.
Post by: Wokko on February 16, 2020, 01:19:32 am
Post by: Meph on February 16, 2020, 09:20:59 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 19, 2020, 05:26:09 am
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/manera-yeti.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/lobster-satyr.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/reacher.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/rutherer.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/creatures_1119.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/civs_1022.png) (http://goblinart.pl/upload/green_1020.png) (http://goblinart.pl/upload/creatures1014.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/cs_draltha.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/creatures1007.png)(https://goblinart.pl/upload/0217creatures.png)(https://goblinart.pl/upload/0218creatures.png)
Cave lobster, Manera, Yeti, Cave lobster old, Satyr, Reacher, Rutherer, Gorlak, Jabberer, Kobold, Elf, Dwarven plate armour, Gorlak (old), Green devourer, Giant tick, Giant cave swallow, Drunian, Giant Cave swallow (too big), Draltha, Giant toad, Dromedary, wolf, Sasquatch, molemarian, cave crawler, troglodyte, Stangler, naked mole-dog, giant mole, giant olm
Post by: clinodev on February 19, 2020, 06:18:59 am
Yeah, I'm intentionally avoiding mockups... they look great but they're a lot of work that I'd rather spend working on the actual product.
I hear you, but honestly I think the old mockups still being on the Steam and itch.io pages is terrible advertising.
I shut the threads down as quick as I can, ("They're just mockups, no, you're not the only one confused by the ramp, no, strangely visualize is a really old thing, hey check out this thread on the B12 forum full of a year and 18 pages of updates,") but of course only a tiny minority of the people who see the Steam page or an article will ever see one of those reddit posts, or find this thread on their own.
Hmm, maybe Kitfox should link this forum thread on the Steam page ... .
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 19, 2020, 06:27:27 am
I understand and share your worries, but at this point I'd rather just wait until we can produce screenshots.
Post by: JesterHell696 on February 19, 2020, 06:55:21 am
Jester, you shouldn't expect DF to look as good as Stone Shard. That's especially well made art of this kind even among the professional world, and the people doing the DF pack are just modders who got contracts. They're only able to work according to their own skill level, and also weren't aiming for that style in the first place. They've already shown us enough samples, it won't have that kind of painterly quality or palette control. Additionally, things represented in Stone Shard don't necessarily cleave entirely to a tile system; making the 3D procedurally generated trees of DF look like those in your screenshots wouldn't be possible no matter the skill of the artists.
I've thought some of the stuff Meph has produce in the past was of "Professional" quality, never followed Maydays work say can't speak for him but I wouldn't mark Stoneshard quality level as beyond them artistically, I would say its to expensive financially, it was less of a "DO DF LIKE THISSS!!!!" and more of a "when I imagined full graphics for DF this is what I pictured mentally." its why I said it was how I Imagined a high definition tileset would look would
I was thinking Script trickery with the trees, with multi level view being slated for inclusion anyway I could see each level of tree above the current view level being shunted one tile north for the purposes of drawing them, then apply a semi-transparency thing to the branches and leaves to create that style of "tall tree", combined with a tileset that isn't top down but has a fake perspective like those posted on the first page and you get something like my hack job here.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Do you think action/position based variants will be possible? examples being standing and prone sprites or dancing, singing and playing an instrument sprites?Possible but not feasible. Since the sprites are meant to represent things accurately, each other possible state would need to include variation for clothing, facial features, and etc.
Even if the default tileset doesn't use it because of the reasons you've listed having it be a possible function of the graphics rewrite would be cool, then it could wither be added aftert eh fact or modded in by those willing but if the functionality itself never get done then it would end up as DFHack requirement thing, I would rather the functionality for this to be included in DF itself and not used then having to use DFHack to achieve it because it wasn't included in base.
QuoteAs the contracted artists how feasible/realistic is such a thing as procedural constructed facial portraits based upon the preexisting descriptors for fortress mode description screens and adventure mode conversations?Although this is doable, nobody made any mention of such a thing being planned, and it would require a certain amount of funding from Kitfox; since it's beyond what they've discussed, that may be a significant impediment. If not considering that, it's actually a pretty good idea for a way to extend support, but there would need to be some UI considerations for when dwarf faces would be shown. It would be a shame to do the degree of work that would be required and then sequester them into the unit description.
Never said it was planned, explicitly said it was based upon a suggestion that I had made as a QoL/Noob feature, most people in the mainSteam are used to seeing how a character looks not reading how a character looks.
I originally had the idea for adventure mode, I personally prefer adventure mode and once Adv. mode is more developed I probably wont play fortress mode at all so unit description was just my first thought, it could also be applied to Diplomat Meetings, Broker Trading, Sheriff Interrogations, Petitioners Requests and some announcements, so then when a dwarf gets a strange mood you see that dwarfs portrait.
Will it be possible to mod in larger Tilesets like say 64x64 or 128x128 for the truly committed?Considering that's possible now and every indication is that strict requirements will actually become freer (E.G. transparency, units larger than their tile) I think you can be reasonably certain it will continue being possible.
Really? I thought there was an engine limitation that stopped larger tilesets from working without DFhack magic, oh well my bad.
QuoteWould/could it be possible for DF to switch between tilesets of different sizes depending upon zoom/scroll level?[/color] might make it possible to "expand" the official tileset after launch with higher definition tiles, provided DF sells really well.That seems like a really awkward way to implement it, to me. Why not just make a bigger tileset and then let it resize automatically when zooming out? That works fine for current tilesets, after all.
Because resizing looks a bit dodgy I guess? its works but it is not the best aesthetically, a 64x64 tile set would look a lot better for adventure mode where you're a lot "closer" to the action while that might be too much for fortress mode where 32x32 looks better, if they did do both, one for each mode (unlikely I know), then allowing DF it dynamically switch between them based upon zoom level would be great, even just the functionality without being used would be great as then it could be expanded or modded in later.
It would be awesome if dwarves' hair matched their descriptions. It would be insane if their faces matched. What if a dwarf loses a leg? Does the graphic change? Could we see them in crutches?Those are not too unrealistic expectations. ;)
Jester: The images you shown are amazing pixelart, but are not tile-based, and most things in it are just textures, not objects that can be interacted with or change. For example trees in df grow, lose leaves, change color, show flowers, seeds or fruits. Dwarves can cut them down, climb them, pick individual fruits...
In stoneshape, the trees are just images, with a "don't walk through trunk" clipping. Big difference.
It was less of a "DO DF LIKE THISSS!!!!" and more of a "when I imagined full graphics for DF this is what I pictured mentally.", on the issue of trees I never use DFHack but I thought some of the trickery it pulled could be used to to make it work.
I was thinking that with DFHack's trickery with multi level view being slated for inclusion anyway I could see each level of tree above the current view level being shunted one tile north for the purposes of drawing them, then apply a semi-transparency thing to the branches and leaves to create a style of "tall tree", combined with a tileset that isn't top down but has a fake perspective like those posted on the first page and you get something like my hack job here.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I admittedly don't know that it could be done it just seems like something that could be done and its probably not worth the effort to do anything more then include the fuctionality for future expansion or modding, the the kind of tables you posted could be done without DFHack trickery even if not included in base/premium.
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 19, 2020, 07:13:30 am
I can honestly say the art in Stoneshard is way beyond my skill level, but then you also have to remember that DF is a completely different game. I consciously decided on a more contrasting palette and simpler details because a typical DF screen is extremely crowded - so the goal is to provide a clear visualisation of what's going on. So it's not just a matter of skill and being strictly tile-based, it's a also a matter of what you might expect to see on the screen. Also remember the locations in Stoneshard are hand-crafted to look good - there's no such thing in DF, where the locations are procedurally generated with almost no attention to visual attractiveness - and then we have to slap a graphics set on top of that and have it all be be readable and good-looking at the same time.
So yes- even if we had as much skill as the Stoneshard artists, it's impossible for DF to maintain a similar style without huge art-oriented changes to the whole game - which, I assume, nobody is really interested in.
Post by: Meph on February 19, 2020, 08:17:26 am
Mike is the actual digital artist here. ;)
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on February 19, 2020, 08:39:02 am
Yeah, I'm intentionally avoiding mockups... they look great but they're a lot of work that I'd rather spend working on the actual product. Toady will soon start doing the coding, which will eliminate the need for mockups - you'll get actual screenshots instead! In the meantime, here's some creatures I've been working on recently:
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/manera-yeti.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/lobster-satyr.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/reacher.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/rutherer.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/creatures_1119.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/civs_1022.png) (http://goblinart.pl/upload/green_1020.png) (http://goblinart.pl/upload/creatures1014.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/cs_draltha.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/creatures1007.png)(https://goblinart.pl/upload/0217creatures.png)(https://goblinart.pl/upload/0218creatures.png)
Cave lobster, Manera, Yeti, Cave lobster old, Satyr, Reacher, Rutherer, Gorlak, Jabberer, Kobold, Elf, Dwarven plate armour, Gorlak (old), Green devourer, Giant tick, Giant cave swallow, Drunian, Giant Cave swallow (too big), Draltha, Giant toad, Dromedary, wolf, Sasquatch, molemarian, cave crawler, troglodyte, Stangler, naked mole-dog, giant mole, giant olm
Amazing as always ^^ If anything the Jabberers background leg could probably need a tad more detail somehow imo (maybe an outline), feels slightly too disjointed from the rest and like it blends into the plumage a bit much maybe?
Post by: Superdorf on February 19, 2020, 02:13:21 pm
Post by: Wokko on February 19, 2020, 09:17:42 pm
Also, aren't elves a little too small? They are supposed to be the same size as dwarves. Though maybe it looks like that because they are thinner, maybe it's fine.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on February 19, 2020, 10:08:26 pm
Kobolds look too cute, I think. Imo, would be better to make them look more evil, or uglier, kind of like Warcraft's kobolds.Size is a bit weird in DF. Elves are tall and thin, dwarves are short and stout which comes to the same "size" number and inexplicably means they can wear the same stuff. But hey, a human can wear a helmet specifically made for a similar sized animal person regardless of how little sense that makes (and will look so strange with these new graphics as squads go through their equipment swapping routines). :)
Also, aren't elves a little too small? They are supposed to be the same size as dwarves. Though maybe it looks like that because they are thinner, maybe it's fine.
Post by: Bumber on February 19, 2020, 10:33:20 pm
Kobolds look too cute, I think. Imo, would be better to make them look more evil, or uglier, kind of like Warcraft's kobolds.
Here's a drawing of one by Toady (from Kobold Quest,) but I'm not sure an appropriately sized sprite could do it justice:
(https://dwarffortresswiki.org/images/5/51/Kobold_KQ.png)
Post by: Cruxador on February 19, 2020, 11:24:11 pm
That may be, I'm not familiar with the full body of what he's done, but just enough to be familiar with his style. But professional work isn't hitting a high note occasionally. Art is a competitive field, and professional work therefore requires being able to consistently output excellent work, and with an ease that allows it to be a financially rewarding use of time. As far as I'm aware, the only professional artist who does DF stuff is ......... and his art isn't really of the sort suitable to a tileset. Plus, he's presumably busy with his art career.Jester, you shouldn't expect DF to look as good as Stone Shard. That's especially well made art of this kind even among the professional world, and the people doing the DF pack are just modders who got contracts. They're only able to work according to their own skill level, and also weren't aiming for that style in the first place. They've already shown us enough samples, it won't have that kind of painterly quality or palette control. Additionally, things represented in Stone Shard don't necessarily cleave entirely to a tile system; making the 3D procedurally generated trees of DF look like those in your screenshots wouldn't be possible no matter the skill of the artists.
I've thought some of the stuff Meph has produce in the past was of "Professional" quality, ...
Quote
I wouldn't mark Stoneshard quality level as beyond them artisticallyI don't mean to belittle wither Meph or Mayday by saying this, but I'm not sure you understand the amount of knowledge on display in that game. The mastery of both palette and shading that's on display there is impossible to replicate without both training and practice, and not a tiny amount of either. Not only do I think it's beyond Meph and Mayday, but I think it's beyond anyone who hasn't spent years of their life with the primary aim of gaining skill in that style or in a similar style but in applications very nearly identical to that situation. Everyone who can do that is probably doing it for money right now, unless they've retired. Most games that make it to market don't have anywhere near that level of art, and it isn't because the idea of having better art never occurred to anyone on the dev team.
Quote
I was thinking Script trickery with the trees, with multi level view being slated for inclusion anyway I could see each level of tree above the current view level being shunted one tile north for the purposes of drawing them, then apply a semi-transparency thing to the branches and leaves to create that style of "tall tree", combined with a tileset that isn't top down but has a fake perspective like those posted on the first page and you get something like my hack job here.This would be less representative, and wouldn't look as good as your example game or necessarily better than what Mike&Meph are planning now anyway.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote
Even if the default tileset doesn't use it because of the reasons you've listed having it be a possible function of the graphics rewrite would be cool, then it could wither be added aftert eh fact or modded in by those willing but if the functionality itself never get done then it would end up as DFHack requirement thing, I would rather the functionality for this to be included in DF itself and not used then having to use DFHack to achieve it because it wasn't included in base.Sad as it is, the DF community isn't as alive as it was in the 40d-2014 era. If Meph doesn't do something, graphically, it's not reasonable to expect that someone else is going to do more. At least in the foreseeable future. The Steam release may bring in more people, but we should also remember that it's doing this by lowering the barrier to entry, so new people may not be more productive, especially in areas where the barrier to entry is actual rising, as when it comes to making tilesets.
Plus, adding this functionality would use Toady's time. If it's very quick and easy then fine, but instead of graphical gimmicks that may never be used, he could also spend that time on the actual game.
Quote
Never said it was plannedWell yes, if you had then that wouldn't have been much of an answer from me, would it?
Them giant toads are real pretty. :DI like the cute olm. The mole as well.
Kobolds look too cute, I think. Imo, would be better to make them look more evil, or uglier, kind of like Warcraft's kobolds.They're meant to be a middle ground, based on previous discussion. Some people like their kobolds cute, some people don't.
Also, aren't elves a little too small? They are supposed to be the same size as dwarves. Though maybe it looks like that because they are thinner, maybe it's fine.
Post by: Rose on February 20, 2020, 12:17:14 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This wouldn't need any actual new art, but would require a bit of graphical programming work. (This can be used with more than trees, tbh)
Post by: Superdorf on February 20, 2020, 12:19:35 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 20, 2020, 02:22:51 am
(https://i.imgur.com/VuaUFT8.png)
Post by: Superdorf on February 20, 2020, 02:39:17 am
Post by: JesterHell696 on February 20, 2020, 04:32:31 am
Well, there's an interesting discussion.
I can honestly say the art in Stoneshard is way beyond my skill level, but then you also have to remember that DF is a completely different game. I consciously decided on a more contrasting palette and simpler details because a typical DF screen is extremely crowded - so the goal is to provide a clear visualisation of what's going on. So it's not just a matter of skill and being strictly tile-based, it's a also a matter of what you might expect to see on the screen. Also remember the locations in Stoneshard are hand-crafted to look good - there's no such thing in DF, where the locations are procedurally generated with almost no attention to visual attractiveness - and then we have to slap a graphics set on top of that and have it all be be readable and good-looking at the same time.
So yes- even if we had as much skill as the Stoneshard artists, it's impossible for DF to maintain a similar style without huge art-oriented changes to the whole game - which, I assume, nobody is really interested in.
I personally wouldn't say its impossible to have a similar style difficult absolutely but impossible is not a word I like to use especially went its not in relation to a hard limit of reality like FTL travel, I could envision system where though some scripting tricks it would be possible to do a facsimile of Stoneshard art style, it wouldn't be an exact copy but similar.
A change to how roofs exist/work so that instead of floors being roofs there was an actual "roof" construction/thatch with styling like with ramps shown earlier in this thread would an enable a similar thing with towns, using Alehkh's mock up you could do the cut shunting to show multi-levels of wall at the same time.
Ah, I wasn't meaning full isometric, but just that the "southern" face of the walls be perceptible, rather than entirely parallel with the player's view.
A quick, 1-minute mockup:
(https://i.imgur.com/3IrxY69.gif)
My dodgy as fuck mock ups are done from an adventure mode perspective with the troll as the adventurer I guess.
tree leaves
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
no tree leaves
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
inside
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Would look better done by an actual artist and even better still with a higher resolution tileset but the idea is shown.
Change the colour of roof thatch to help it standout from the ground, the idea is based primarily on two things, first that what ever mechanical changes Toady make for graphic now are basically going to be it until multi-tile creature require a revisit, second an adventure mode perspective where there is a distinct focus point, either the adventurer themselves or looking cursor point.
With fortress mode the focus point is either the centre point of the screen or a one of the many looking/inspection cursors, Toady would have to write the script so that the area around the focus point get cut down/more transparency allowing the player to see what there doing while also providing a more stylised look for things outside the focus point.
All in all it is probably not worth the extra time and art assets needed but its not outright impossible, but even if its not utilised with the release graphics I think that adding the functionality now would enable modders to use it and for the official graphics to be easily extended to support it after release if DF sell well enough to justify such an expansion without needing Toady to do another pass over of graphics, I bringing it up here because questions about graphics are being redirected here and Meph and Mayday are acting as both artists and consultants so it seem like the best place to put it.
Basically I want to see DF's new graphics system to be as robust and modifiable as possible for ease of future expansion by the official artist themselves without you needing to wait for Toady again or for modders even if the official art doesn't get a another pass for 15 years.
Yeah, and please mind that I'm a modder and curator of content first and foremost. While I do pixelart for fun, the "professional" work you've seen in my own tileset might as well have been some of the many free art assets by other authors (listed in each release post in the credits).
Mike is the actual digital artist here. ;)
Fair enough but I counter with this my own stubborn logic.
The moment you accepted a contract and started getting paid for your art under that contract you became a "professional artist" in that you are "a person engaged or qualified in a profession." that profession in this case being pixel artist, you could add this to your resume or portfolio so I say it technically counts Meph McArtist. :P
That may be, I'm not familiar with the full body of what he's done, but just enough to be familiar with his style. But professional work isn't hitting a high note occasionally. Art is a competitive field, and professional work therefore requires being able to consistently output excellent work, and with an ease that allows it to be a financially rewarding use of time. As far as I'm aware, the only professional artist who does DF stuff is ......... and his art isn't really of the sort suitable to a tileset. Plus, he's presumably busy with his art career.
We have different definition of professional, a professional is anybody good enough to earn a wage getting hired to do a thing, the text book definition is "a person engaged or qualified in a profession." and both Meph and Mayday have been "Engaged" to produce art for a commercial product, they are therefore professional artists as far as I'm personally concerned, are they at the very top of their field probably not but that is just the nature of art, nobody can ever be the very best because of stylistic BS.
I personally don't think most "professional" art is actually any good anyway so the term in relation to art has less meaning to me.
I don't mean to belittle wither Meph or Mayday by saying this, but I'm not sure you understand the amount of knowledge on display in that game. The mastery of both palette and shading that's on display there is impossible to replicate without both training and practice, and not a tiny amount of either. Not only do I think it's beyond Meph and Mayday, but I think it's beyond anyone who hasn't spent years of their life with the primary aim of gaining skill in that style or in a similar style but in applications very nearly identical to that situation. Everyone who can do that is probably doing it for money right now, unless they've retired. Most games that make it to market don't have anywhere near that level of art, and it isn't because the idea of having better art never occurred to anyone on the dev team.
I got to be honest and just agree to disagree, But that is because I don't view professional art with same.... reverence you seem to, I'm not saying its not a skill as it definitely is a skill but it is not a skill that requires a degree to be considered a professional, unlike say a doctor or nuclear physicist where the degree is required.
This would be less representative, and wouldn't look as good as your example game or necessarily better than what Mike&Meph are planning now anyway.
I personally think it would be more representative as its showing you more info at the same time, it allow you to see the height of the trees with a glance and the same could work on walls so the you could see a castles high walls without having to change your viewing level, and like I said it was not a "Make DF exactly like this" but aim for something closer to this stylised look rather then pure top down terrain but pure fake perspective creatures.
I personally would rather both creature and terrain use the same perspective, so if its top down for terrain then I would vote top down for creatures, but top down for creatures sucks so I want creature from a perspective which means I want terrain from a perspective, its just my minor ocd, its like how I don't like the map and fort mode tile set being different sizes, it doesn't really matter to me the practicality of it, they don't match and it is irritating to my delicate sensibilities so I vote against it, doesn't mean much but I'm still going to say it.
As for the quality, well it is a hack job by a guy that doesn't do art so of course it doesn't look as good, get someone that knows what their doing to redo it instead of a guy using paint and the cutting tool to cut and paste shit and it would look better.
Sad as it is, the DF community isn't as alive as it was in the 40d-2014 era. If Meph doesn't do something, graphically, it's not reasonable to expect that someone else is going to do more. At least in the foreseeable future. The Steam release may bring in more people, but we should also remember that it's doing this by lowering the barrier to entry, so new people may not be more productive, especially in areas where the barrier to entry is actual rising, as when it comes to making tilesets.
Plus, adding this functionality would use Toady's time. If it's very quick and easy then fine, but instead of graphical gimmicks that may never be used, he could also spend that time on the actual game.
The point of adding the feature even if it is not used initially is to make doing it easy for modders, there was a lot that never done with tilesets until TWBT was made and it was after TWBT that tilesets started getting more high quality with lots of little details, rather then wait and see try to get as many features into the graphics rewrite now as there is no telling how long until the next time graphics will be worked on, there has been talk about changing the dev cycle but a decade of habits is hard to break so I don't see such change really taking off.
Well yes, if you had then that wouldn't have been much of an answer from me, would it?No, but you talked about it not being planned when I said it was from suggestions forum, seemed redundant, my response was as tongue in-cheek as the initial "question" was a suggestion dressed up as a question.
Now after reading though the whole thread and seeing how you guys are in effect consultants on all things art I feel I should ask, both for your opinion and because, truthfully if the idea appeals to you, you might take it to Toady in house circumventing the suggestion forums processes altogether :P
I was saying "I made this suggestion but you guy's (Mayday and Meph) seem to be both artists and consultants on DF's graphical rewrite so what do you think about it?" just more tongue in-cheek and phrased as a fake/leading question because that often happens in FotF questions and I thought it would be amusing to parody it here, its why I used lime green for the questions. :P
That is more or less the look I'm planning already:
(https://i.imgur.com/VuaUFT8.png)
Which does look good, it's just jarring to my sense of perspective to have a top down tree trunk next to a troll with a front left angle perspective, I'd rather one or the other, top down or faked perspective not mixing both, it hurts my delicate sensibilities, problem is I really want perspective for creature so that means I also want perspective for terrain, I'm the kind of guy that will buy one bag of each colour of jelly beans and put them out in separate bowls during a party, except purple, they're mine and mine alone. ;)
Post by: clinodev on February 20, 2020, 04:48:28 am
Post by: tpssurvivor on February 20, 2020, 08:24:01 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 20, 2020, 09:17:33 am
I 100% agree that a consistent perspective, preferably 3/4 top-down would work best. It is, however, out of scope of this phase of the project.
So I had the choice of making everything pure top-down or doing multitile stuff top-down and objects / creatures 3/4 top-down.
I chose the latter because it's much easier to put more character into the graphics (I don't know if it's even possible to make the icons as readable when drawn 100% top-down as in 3/4, but it's certainly outside MY ability).
I hope one day we can get that, I even did mockups of it. For now we've gotta work with what we have.
And yes, my first instinct was to make the trees in the same perspective as the creatures, but since they are 3d structures, I had to switch to the same perspective as the walls, as it got even more confusing otherwise.
Post by: Rose on February 20, 2020, 11:28:53 pm
Post by: Cruxador on February 21, 2020, 12:41:22 am
By that standard, there are even fewer professional artists since most art is lump sum or per-output and not wage-based. I don't think defining "professional" on the basis of the type of contract signed is meaningful for purposes of defining it (however loosely) as a quality or ability standard. While type of contract might make sense if you're writing tax policy, in practice I think who has or doesn't have that kind of gig is more based on networking ability and inclination than artistic ability. That being the case, I think being able to live off the money is a pretty solid (albeit somewhat variable, according to cost of living) metric for differentiating between a professional and a hobbyist that takes commissions.That may be, I'm not familiar with the full body of what he's done, but just enough to be familiar with his style. But professional work isn't hitting a high note occasionally. Art is a competitive field, and professional work therefore requires being able to consistently output excellent work, and with an ease that allows it to be a financially rewarding use of time. As far as I'm aware, the only professional artist who does DF stuff is ......... and his art isn't really of the sort suitable to a tileset. Plus, he's presumably busy with his art career.
We have different definition of professional, a professional is anybody good enough to earn a wage getting hired to do a thing, the text book definition is "a person engaged or qualified in a profession." and both Meph and Mayday have been "Engaged" to produce art for a commercial product, they are therefore professional artists as far as I'm personally concerned, are they at the very top of their field probably not but that is just the nature of art, nobody can ever be the very best because of stylistic BS.
Quote
At what point did I say "degree" or reference formal education at all? Doctors and nuclear physicists need formal qualifications to verify that they're as skilled as they say they are, because of the severity of the potential problems if they turn out not to be. Even then, you can do any research you can get funding for and publish in any journal regardless of your qualifications, if the research is good enough. But that's beside the point. No matter what populist view you take on it, the art you posted as an example showcases a lot of skill. Nobody has that skill who has not acquired that skill, and although talent can mitigate this, at the end of the day gaining skill always requires time spent learning. There's no "reverence" there, that's just how it works.I don't mean to belittle wither Meph or Mayday by saying this, but I'm not sure you understand the amount of knowledge on display in that game. The mastery of both palette and shading that's on display there is impossible to replicate without both training and practice, and not a tiny amount of either. Not only do I think it's beyond Meph and Mayday, but I think it's beyond anyone who hasn't spent years of their life with the primary aim of gaining skill in that style or in a similar style but in applications very nearly identical to that situation. Everyone who can do that is probably doing it for money right now, unless they've retired. Most games that make it to market don't have anywhere near that level of art, and it isn't because the idea of having better art never occurred to anyone on the dev team.
I got to be honest and just agree to disagree, But that is because I don't view professional art with same.... reverence you seem to, I'm not saying its not a skill as it definitely is a skill but it is not a skill that requires a degree to be considered a professional, unlike say a doctor or nuclear physicist where the degree is required.
Quote
That's not what representative means. Because what it shows you bears less relation to the actual situation (the trees don't lean north along the ground, but go up to the next z-level) it is less representative; it does not represent the "reality" of what happens in the game engine. Unless the game were converted to full isometric, it basically has to be top-down to not be confusing, games that use the method you describe have to have everything carefully constructed and make exceptions in all the right places where they won't be noticed. Otherwise you'll have tons of situations where you can't see what's going on because it's behind a tree or castle or mountain. Of course, most people's idea would be "like Stonesense but in the game" but the degree of rework would be substantial and might also necessitate functionality changes.This would be less representative, and wouldn't look as good as your example game or necessarily better than what Mike&Meph are planning now anyway.
I personally think it would be more representative as its showing you more info at the same time,
In short, there's a limit to what's reasonable to expect.
Post by: Meph on February 21, 2020, 07:20:04 am
Black interior for trees is something we tested, didn't quite like it, though it would be the logical fit to the black interior we use for earth/rock atm.
Is there any more feedback about the creature sprites posted? Because that's something we can work with. :)
Post by: PatrikLundell on February 21, 2020, 08:59:59 am
Just quickly about the trees: making them 3/4 view is really odd because you can go up/down zlevels and the trunk and crown would be shown in the wrong place. They have to be top-down. Walls too, just imagine multiple constructed walls on top of each other.Would a darker (but not black) tree trunk interior work (sorry, no useful critter feedback: I think you're doing a good job)?
Black interior for trees is something we tested, didn't quite like it, though it would be the logical fit to the black interior we use for earth/rock atm.
Is there any more feedback about the creature sprites posted? Because that's something we can work with. :)
Post by: voliol on February 21, 2020, 09:00:33 am
Is there any more feedback about the creature sprites posted? Because that's something we can work with. :)
- Some of the creatures need more polish, obviously; the latter ones like the giant mole look much less finished compared to the giant toad, draltha and dromedary.
- Sizes are always important; as much as I like the current giant toad (giant cave toad?) and jabberer the proportions between them and the giant olm seems off. Remember, jabberers are not much less volymous than elephants, and giant toads and giant olms are the same size, less than a tenth of the jabberer's.
- The sasquatch and yeti also look a bit small to me, but that might just be my mind playing tricks; they should still be larger than the standard humanoids.
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 21, 2020, 09:15:37 am
But don't worry guys, we're going to continue the discussion on trees when the coding work on them starts. For now we have what we think is the best compromise, we want to test it and see how it goes.
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 21, 2020, 09:27:23 am
I agree that some icons are simpler than the others, but what would you add to the giant mole specifically? Personally I was satisfied with it so I moved on.
Post by: voliol on February 21, 2020, 10:14:58 am
...what would you add to the giant mole specifically? Personally I was satisfied with it so I moved on.
Highlighting/texture for the fur I think would go a long way. Moles all seem to have quite reflective fur (I haven't seen one myself IRL, so I'm using pictures on the internet), and the current giant mole sprite is untextured compared to the other sprites.
I am sorry for the sass, I genuinely believed these were WIP and acted without any further thought.
Also, thank you for the size explanation, and all the great sprites :)
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 21, 2020, 10:20:09 am
I'll see about adding more texture to the mole.
Post by: Pillbo on February 22, 2020, 09:08:37 pm
Is there any more feedback about the creature sprites posted? Because that's something we can work with. :)
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/manera-yeti.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/lobster-satyr.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/reacher.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/rutherer.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/creatures_1119.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/civs_1022.png) (http://goblinart.pl/upload/green_1020.png) (http://goblinart.pl/upload/creatures1014.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/cs_draltha.png)(http://goblinart.pl/upload/creatures1007.png)(https://goblinart.pl/upload/0217creatures.png)(https://goblinart.pl/upload/0218creatures.png)I really like the toads, camel, wolves, mole, olm and swallows. It's hard for me to really understand what I'm looking at with the molemarian, I don't have a suggestion, it just seems indistinct. The Draltha, I'm a little confused by it's front legs, is it walking on it's elbows? The Rutherer body looks like a white crocodile to me, at first I thought it was a cave croc with a strange head.
Looking back at the hair images- I wanted to say the Long and Very Long Unkempt hair options actually seem very short. In fact the Very Long Unkempt hair is shorter or comparable to the Stubble Braided and Stubble Ponytail.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
When I think long unkempt hair I think big wild hair, more like:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Oh and about the ramps!:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
edit- oops draltha not drunian
Post by: jecowa on February 23, 2020, 02:31:32 am
Post by: Pillbo on February 23, 2020, 12:19:38 pm
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/rutherer.png)
The Rutherer body looks like a white crocodile to me, at first I thought it was a cave croc with a strange head.
Looking again I think I know what's going on. Are those tufts of fur coming out of the top of it's back? Since they align with the legs on the other side they appear to be toes, giving it a squat, wide-legged look (like a reptile) instead of appearing to have the legs directly under the mass of the animal (like in mammals).
(https://i.imgur.com/96Bxebf.png)
Maybe rotating the the Draltha a little will make it look more in-motion and less laying-down.
edit- oops draltha not drunian
Post by: jecowa on February 23, 2020, 12:38:01 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 23, 2020, 04:21:03 pm
That's the Draltha, the Drunian is under the giant tick. I envisioned it as having long, sloth-like arms and it's supposed to be walking on its claws/elbows. Kinda like this: https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/sloth-walking-on-sand-at-beach-picture-id962246776?s=2048x2048
So - I guess you got it right!
And those are indeed tufts of hair on the Rutherer, I may move them to other places so that they don't look like legs. BUT! I did want the legs to look like they're a bit to the sides, like a crocodile's!
The problem is that there's very little description to go by for many of DF's original creatures, so I'm trying to give everyone some weird features to make them stand out.
Post by: Pillbo on February 23, 2020, 07:14:27 pm
Not that I want to deny you creative control, but in general has Toady made any attempt to describe his invented creatures to you? Or done any crayon drawings that could be helpful?
Post by: Meph on February 24, 2020, 02:53:41 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 24, 2020, 04:37:46 pm
Some edits and minor stuff:
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0224creatures.png)
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/2102creatures.png)
I'm very happy with this nightwing:
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0220creatures.png)
Post by: voliol on February 24, 2020, 05:12:35 pm
Oh and rats come in three sizes right: normal, large and giant. Am I right to assume the one shown here is the giant one?
There are also demon rats, but I suppose those are just meaner red normal rats, who bleed goo for some reason.
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 25, 2020, 03:41:32 am
Post by: Wokko on February 25, 2020, 03:53:54 am
This one looks flat, almost Rimworld-esque.
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 25, 2020, 04:51:50 am
Post by: Hans Lemurson on February 26, 2020, 02:45:44 pm
Post by: Pillbo on February 26, 2020, 04:14:25 pm
Post by: darkhog on February 26, 2020, 07:12:31 pm
Post by: Wokko on February 26, 2020, 11:36:45 pm
Post by: Rose on February 26, 2020, 11:38:20 pm
That said, I really hope that the capability is put in, as well as for showing clothing.
Post by: clinodev on February 27, 2020, 01:28:38 am
My understanding is it's too early to tell.
That said, I really hope that the capability is put in, as well as for showing clothing.
The ability to color some main portion or portions of clothing based on dye would be a fantastic advance! It would open up a fairly detailed industry (which is currently ignored by most players,) to widespread use. Pretending no one cares about fashion in games (when it's visible,) is so a decade and tens of billions of dollars in DLC skins ago, especially in a game where people regularly mine out colored stone to build elaborate mosaics, and pump magma to cast obsidian for that sweet Black Pyramid action. (Not that anyone's doing that, I'm sure.)
The goblins fear to enter the Black Greeting Hall and face my Bloodcloak Guard!
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 27, 2020, 04:52:03 am
On the one hand, I believe that it's a fantastic use of the ability to display actual clothing colours- though pretty much the only good reason to do it.
On the other hand, we don't want to push Toady to implement changes in the gameplay just for the sake of the graphics update.
And the we don't want to push him to do extra work on graphical functionality to support a gameplay change that won't be there yet.
It's a great prospect and I hope it makes it to the game eventually, but personally I won't be pushing for Tarn to include it in the initial release.
Post by: Wokko on February 27, 2020, 05:26:41 am
And it's not really "gameplay change that won't be there", cloth dyeing is already ingame, unless I misunderstand what you mean.
I understand that you want Tarn to do only the necessary work on graphics, but things like these are quite important to work on. Even if there won't be different beards/haircuts for dwarves, cloth coloring would be a nice addition.
Post by: Mike Mayday on February 27, 2020, 06:40:30 am
Post by: Cruxador on February 27, 2020, 06:27:23 pm
Post by: snow dwarf on March 02, 2020, 01:35:32 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 02, 2020, 04:24:21 pm
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0226creatures.png)
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0302creatures.png)
Post by: voliol on March 02, 2020, 04:47:12 pm
Some new stuff, some variations. Lots of cats!Ice wolf, lizard, squirrel, chameleon, butterfly, ??(axlotls aren't in, are they?), olm,Spoiler (click to show/hide)
two-legged rhino lizard, leopard gecko, grasshopper, leech, some spider, tick, hare,
chimpanzee, elk(m), elk(f), capybara, swan,
large rat, beaver, ??, gray langur, coyote,
gorilla, lynx, bobcat, cheetah, jaguar, leopard,
killer whale, basking shark, sperm whale?
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 02, 2020, 05:05:33 pm
That chimp is due for a remake BTW.
The lizard is specifically an anole (I love that they're in the game), axolotls ARE in, I was aiming for deer but when I get to elk I'll probably know how to differentiate them better.
That's a coati and capuchin, I'm very happy you got all the cats right :D
EDIT: Holy crap, I didn't know elk are so huge! D:
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 02, 2020, 05:34:40 pm
Some new stuff, some variations. Lots of cats!
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0226creatures.png)
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0302creatures.png)
Niice! Only notes: the anole kinda looks like it has a weird thick horn rather than having it's head peaked upwards with the throat flap out, dunno if moving up the eye slightly might help? Also, maybe a teensy bit bigger ears on the rat if possible?
Post by: clinodev on March 02, 2020, 05:49:41 pm
Cervus canadensis is very big, with deer-type horns.
Alces alces is freaking enormous, with "palmate horns"
Post by: Cruxador on March 03, 2020, 12:01:10 am
Alces alces is freaking enormous, with "palmate horns"I imagine this must be what you're alluding to with those quotation marks, but they're technically antlers, not horns. They are unquestionedly palmate though, to my knowledge.
Post by: Wokko on March 03, 2020, 12:37:54 am
Some new stuff, some variations. Lots of cats!Imo, it's better to draw butterfly diagonally, to give it more sense of motion.
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0226creatures.png)
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0302creatures.png)
Post by: voliol on March 03, 2020, 02:03:26 am
The killer whale looks off, not in that it is bad-looking in any way, but it is seemingly lacking the black outline all other creatures have, even other black creatures.
The anole’s dewlap could be even redder, to make it clearly distinct from the rest of the throat.
The swan should have ”floofier” wings, even when folded, and a bit longer body. They really are large IRL, especially the mute swan.
The lynx could be the size of the current bobcat, to show that it’s quite a bit smaller than the panthera. However, then the bobcat would have to be too small to probably be recognizable. The current solution works well.
If DF deer are red deer then differentiating them may be tricky, it and the elk were recently considered subspecies of the same species. The elk should simply be bigger though, and have shaggy brown necks. But maybe the ”deer” is a mule deer, or another species of deer an American would rather default to than a eurasian species?
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 03, 2020, 08:33:51 am
Meanwhile, here's my proposal: elk (wapiti), (red) deer, moose:
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0303creatures.png)
As always, please remember we don't have the space to display accurate size differences, merely suggestions of them.
Post by: Inarius on March 03, 2020, 08:49:11 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 03, 2020, 09:22:41 am
We are not currently planning accurate representation of a creature's skin colour variants.
Post by: Meph on March 03, 2020, 10:14:39 am
Post by: Cruxador on March 03, 2020, 04:38:41 pm
In raws, yes. In sprites, no.Seems like it would be well worth doing, though, and not very hard to just slap a dynamic channel under some shading.
We are not currently planning accurate representation of a creature's skin colour variants.
Post by: jecowa on March 03, 2020, 05:45:24 pm
Post by: Meph on March 03, 2020, 06:19:30 pm
Post by: jecowa on March 03, 2020, 07:18:31 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 03, 2020, 07:41:06 pm
I'm worried their ancient computers won't be able to handle the graphics. My 2008 laptop could not run Meph and it could only run Mayday with Tallcastle's creatures after a fresh reboot.So don't play with graphics. They'll be completely optional as they always have been. Just play as you've always done.
Post by: jecowa on March 03, 2020, 07:45:27 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 03, 2020, 07:57:59 pm
My new 2012 laptop can handle Meph, but I'm worried about the developers computer.Toady's computer?
He earned $15000 last month. Can probably afford to upgrade if he really needs to. I expect Kitfox would lend him a graphics card if he really needs it...
Post by: Cruxador on March 03, 2020, 10:43:58 pm
Yeah, do it like TWBT. Color in the bottom layer based on the fur color. Then the top layer adds the parts that don't get recolored. The game already has the ability to color in stuffAlthough it would work, that's not as efficient as a setting a channel. The downside of setting a channel, of course, is that the available selection of image formats and programs which support dymanic channels (beyond repurposing of aRGB channels) it is smaller, and fewer people know how to do it. But it's not like it's hard to pick up.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 04, 2020, 03:56:35 pm
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0304creatures.png)
Post by: voliol on March 04, 2020, 04:38:08 pm
Everyone will say the fox is too big, but I love foxes so much that I couldn't help but choose a size that would allow me to give it sufficient detail.
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0304creatures.png)
The fox is a good size, I think, at least in comparison to the elephant seal which could be much bigger. Or maybe it’s just the frontal perspective where most of its body is hidden; the height compared to a dwarf looks like it should be roughly right.
Hmm, it would be nice if you put up a dwarf sprite next to all of these to make the size visualization easier. I guess I could do that myself though :p
The crab should be bigger, it’s not a vermin in DF after all, but a creature twice the size of a cat.
Also, is that a grimeling? I’m stoked to finally see one!
Edit: I really like how the deer turned out :)
Edit 2: crabs
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 04, 2020, 05:04:09 pm
Also, according to the wiki, they actually grow to be quite bigger than cats?!
Post by: voliol on March 04, 2020, 05:24:46 pm
Oh man, that's great about the crabs because that's another animal I also really like!
Also, according to the wiki, they actually grow to be quite bigger than cats?!
Haha wow, I remember drawing the comparison before but my memory must have been corrupted towards the ”reasonable”. IIRC they turned out larger than the coconut crabs I modeled for my mod (roughly, using cylinders), and coconut crabs are ”at the size limit for terrestial arthropods” according to wikipedia (citation needed though).
Post by: Cruxador on March 04, 2020, 08:56:32 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 05, 2020, 03:07:25 am
Or are they somehow significant in-game?
Post by: voliol on March 05, 2020, 04:16:53 am
The crab sprite should bigger though; what's "reasonable" for DF graphics should be whatever is closest to the DF raws, and in this case they tell us crabs are non-vermin larger than cats (or relatively to a dwarf ~the size of a cat, I've already had my case of size nitpicking).
Post by: Cruxador on March 05, 2020, 09:21:20 am
@cruxador Are you talking about Forgotten Beasts, GSCs and other non-RL beings? I would argue them being fanciful by nature allows them to break the laws of physics even more than others, but I digress. Larger-than-life crabs are fine, my comment was mostly of a joke about the sillyness of the situation."fanciful by nature" isn't a thing in DF physics either. There aren't magic critters and normal critters, they all just work the same.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 05, 2020, 02:40:45 pm
Sharks! (doo doo doo doo doo doo)
Today I've noticed that my pixelart has (IMO) noticeably improved since I started working on this project. So... that's nice.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 05, 2020, 03:37:03 pm
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0305creatures.png)
Sharks! (doo doo doo doo doo doo)
Today I've noticed that my pixelart has (IMO) noticeably improved since I started working on this project. So... that's nice.
Soo, clearly you need to start over so as to have everything be at this new improved quality? ;D (joking ofc!) Nice work as always, any room left to make the bigger sharks have a slightly longer "tail"? Feels a tad squished, but not too badly.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 05, 2020, 03:41:47 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 05, 2020, 03:44:21 pm
Edit: I guess you can kinda see them curving slightly it if you try to yeah
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 05, 2020, 04:35:57 pm
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0305creaturesB.png)
Post by: Inarius on March 05, 2020, 04:48:04 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 05, 2020, 05:17:20 pm
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0305creaturesB.png)
Gray langur tails curve upwards rather than down (if I'm correct in assuming that's what it is) ^^ The limbs feel kinda weird as well without the hands/feet, not sure some faint bit of it could be worked in? (same for the capuchin). Would help a lot with giving it more of a monkey feel.
Post by: voliol on March 06, 2020, 01:02:50 am
The nurse shark doesn't look quite right, I keep trying to improve it but... it's a very weird fish!
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0305creaturesB.png)
Are the seals here (in order left to right) elephant seal, leopard seal, harp seal? Elephant seals are not only ”elephant” for their proboscises, but also for their size (duckduckgo search) (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=elephant+seal+size&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images). All the seals are, in fact, larger than a dwarf, though by a varying amount. The elephant seal could also use a female variant, as they don’t have the proboscis and are considerably smaller (relatively, they still weigh ~900 kg).
What’s the difference between this squid and the one from before?
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 06, 2020, 03:22:07 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 06, 2020, 04:13:15 am
The guidelines are as follows:
-without specific need, the sprite should not exceed 32x32px
-when it does exceed, it should not obscure sprites on neighbouring tiles (so far the Colossus is the only exception, the giant elephant is probably going to be another one)
-small pieces sticking out are ok (horns, tails etc. - things that don't obscure much. This is why I was able to make the giraffe so tall, its neck and head are conveniently placed along the tile border).
I think the elephant seal is actually fine in this case? In this position it should be not much higher than a human. So if we just consider the two, obviously I'd need to make the seal bigger. But if we consider the whole range of creatures in the game, (and how little space we have for the hugest ones) I believe keeping it in the 32px tile is the good solution.
Once we put the creatures in the game I'll be making further adjustments, of course. So anything that looks unnecessarily squashed will most likely be corrected.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 06, 2020, 04:46:08 am
I think the elephant seal is actually perfectly fine in this case? In this position it should be roughly the height of a human.
While kinda true, it does make it it seem misleadingly small. And as long as DF makes things with a lot of bulk really dangerous it probably helps to have it visible that this is one of the biggest "animals" in the game (6th biggest unaltered animal in fact, tied with the rhino, ahead of giraffes, great whites etc).
Edit: Using it's iconic half upright pose would be a nice compromise I guess, letting it fill up most of the tile. I'm sort of also thinking from the standpoint that less people probably instantly know what an elephant seal is than say a rhino or elephant, so while those are apparent to be large creatures no matter what the sprite shows, this one would be more likely to trick someone into thinking it's just a seal.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 06, 2020, 05:02:35 am
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/sealsizes.png)
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 06, 2020, 05:09:23 am
Well, it is much bigger than the other seals though! For now I've made it 1px taller (to fill the square). Like I said, I'm not opposed to doing revisions later, for now I want to have all the 385 base creatures ready.
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/sealsizes.png)
Oh, right, I was talking about the wrong sprite xD (completely missed that the male was in that other picture). I assumed the one to the right of that was the elephant seal male, that one tho is perfectly good in giving the illusion of size ^^ Sorry for all the confusion.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 06, 2020, 05:35:51 am
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 06, 2020, 05:42:57 am
Haha, ok! That was a child! I don't think seals have castes?
"[CASTE:FEMALE]
[FEMALE]
[BODY_SIZE:0:0:91000]
[BODY_SIZE:2:0:455000]
[BODY_SIZE:5:0:910000]
[CASTE:MALE]
[MALE]
[SET_BP_GROUP:BY_TYPE:LOWERBODY][BP_ADD_TYPE:GELDABLE]
[BODY_SIZE:0:0:300000]
[BODY_SIZE:2:0:1500000]
[BODY_SIZE:5:0:3000000]"
You mean size differences like that (from the wiki), or something else?
Edit: Seemingly the other seals don't but the elephant seal does.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 06, 2020, 05:47:34 am
Post by: Cruxador on March 06, 2020, 09:37:20 am
I was trying to draw them with somewhat of foreshortening to fit in the 32px square. There's not a single pixel left, unfortunately. The great white is definitely longer / less squashed.You can try to enhance the perspective effect with more dramatic shading.
Of course, although I say this, it's not like I don't know that shading is one of the hardest things to do at this size.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 06, 2020, 10:12:30 am
X-posting from discord: For DF "deluxe" we're facing a problem of having roughly 1500 undead sprites to create. There's no way for us to handle all of that for the initial release, so I've devised a "placeholder" edit that shouldn't take more than a few seconds for each sprite. I'm curious about your reaction:
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/undead.png)
Post by: Wokko on March 06, 2020, 10:14:04 am
Post by: Meph on March 06, 2020, 10:23:02 am
If we do dark cyan, like the Ñ undeads atm, it looks confusing for any green or cyan creature. Lots of reptiles, snakes, even undead goblins, would be hard to keep apart from the life ones. The only tell would be the eyes, which are just a few pixels.
In the end I hope to manually create sprites for all zombies, with blood, gore, organs and bone showing. Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/wXoPgGT.png)
But for now we focus on higher priority spriting. :)
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 06, 2020, 10:29:07 am
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 06, 2020, 12:12:51 pm
Also, the wiki list of creatures by adult size (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:List_of_creatures_by_adult_size) seems like a handy estimate, everything that's too large for bridge operation to work by the listed cutoff (as well as weird cases with protruding elements like giraffes etc) is probably something worth showing as being really large and thus slightly bigger than 1 tile (and are probably the main ones likely to be made multi-tile in the future as well).
Post by: voliol on March 06, 2020, 01:26:51 pm
Good argument about the purple, with that my only complaint is the smooth instead of pixelated eyes, but I suppose that is a placeholder placeholder?
Also, the wiki list of creatures by adult size (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:List_of_creatures_by_adult_size) seems like a handy estimate, everything that's too large for bridge operation to work by the listed cutoff (as well as weird cases with protruding elements like giraffes etc) is probably something worth showing as being really large and thus slightly bigger than 1 tile (and are probably the main ones likely to be made multi-tile in the future as well).
+1
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 06, 2020, 01:55:46 pm
But here's what it will actually look like:
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/undedwhale.png)
Post by: jecowa on March 06, 2020, 02:39:16 pm
I think I'm just gonna make the sharks larger, and the great white even larger than planned.
X-posting from discord: For DF "deluxe" we're facing a problem of having roughly 1500 undead sprites to create. There's no way for us to handle all of that for the initial release, so I've devised a "placeholder" edit that shouldn't take more than a few seconds for each sprite. I'm curious about your reaction:
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/undead.png)
The consistent purple coloring will make them easy to recognize them as undead at-a-glance.
Post by: Cruxador on March 06, 2020, 02:45:04 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 06, 2020, 02:59:33 pm
Post by: FantasticDorf on March 06, 2020, 03:25:12 pm
Well, it IS a placeholder, but for many creatures it might hold this place for a long time. What colour would you suggest?
I had to pause myself to say green with red eyes... That's already goblins; But the purple with weird xray effect is pretty distinct already to look nice.
- I think for the constraint you can't really put a aura around them for something based on size and physiology, blood flecks, more sunkeness in the eyes, with some subjective limb & skin tears without much detail into the injuries might make it obvious as a edit-over rather than reconstruction of the whole sprite. Generic i know.
Spoiler: "meme inside" (click to show/hide)
Post by: Meph on March 06, 2020, 03:29:33 pm
A. All adults in one file; all children in another file; all undeads in another file; etc.
B. All creature_domestic animals in one files; all creature_ocean in one file; all creature_subterranean in one file, etc.
There are pros and cons to both. A is easier to find everything, but if you add one creature you need to edit a lot of files. Has less files, but more sprites per file. B is how tilesets are currently set up, making it easier for sets to update, but people need to look up in the raws which files have which creature. Has more files, but less sprites per file.
Post by: Vordak on March 06, 2020, 03:41:09 pm
B. This, as I understand it, is what most tilesets already have. Not bad, except for birds and creature_standard. My choice.
C. All creature_domestic animals in one folder, for each creature one file with all variations of castes, dead, children and hunter/war and other types.
Post by: jecowa on March 06, 2020, 03:43:02 pm
We are having an internal discussion about setting up the spritesheets. What would you guys prefer for creatures?
A. All adults in one file; all children in another file; all undeads in another file; etc.
B. All creature_domestic animals in one files; all creature_ocean in one file; all creature_subterranean in one file, etc.
My first thought was definitely "B", since "A" would make a massive tilesheet, but with a single 1024x1024 image, you could hold all 805 creatures and still have 219 spaces to spare.
How would you handle trained animal sprites? And what about races with profession sprites?
If each creature has its own tilesheet, it would make it easier for users to mix and match the ones they like. Someone could make an alternate dog breed mod that just requires dragging over a modified dog.png.
Post by: FantasticDorf on March 06, 2020, 03:44:35 pm
I would be suprised that you wouldn't have any qualms yourself Meph about having all the conveniently layered out for Masterwork, I dont know how exactly steam will represent the DF graphics folder (or wherever to constitute being used for steam-workshop to add to/alter) but they might sub-divide the lists anyway however they feel fit no matter how it might be presented.
- List of newly sprited stuff here and there, splitting up cavern creatures by level over-here etc. etc. Stuff they already do for RAWS, so a definite B for baseline.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 06, 2020, 03:49:42 pm
For me the choice to separate the gfx files is:
A) in the same way as DF's original raws (next_underground, large_riverlake) etc.
B) in a way that allows to immediately tell where a creature will be (base, -man, giant)
BTW, regardless of choice, the files will also be split into different sprite sizes by necessity.
Post by: Wokko on March 06, 2020, 06:16:52 pm
A. Why do you want to open ten files when you draw a single cow?C sounds like the best solution.
B. This, as I understand it, is what most tilesets already have. Not bad, except for birds and creature_standard. My choice.
C. All creature_domestic animals in one folder, for each creature one file with all variations of castes, dead, children and hunter/war and other types.
Post by: Meph on March 06, 2020, 06:24:22 pm
Option A: You have to alter 1 file.
Option B: You have to alter 33 files.
Option C: You have to alter 819 files.
Post by: jecowa on March 06, 2020, 06:57:03 pm
Post by: Meph on March 06, 2020, 07:36:03 pm
Mh, technically tilesets can keep their setup as is in that regard, it only gets a bit difficult once they add to the Steam set (duplicate creature entries everywhere ^^)
Post by: CLA on March 07, 2020, 05:37:56 am
As for Meph's example (modifying a general characteristic on all undead), that issue can be alleviated with an appropriate setup in the photoshop source files. For his example, you could set up a partially masked adjustment layer that gives the undead sprites its hue and when you want to change it, you batch process all files with the custom action "open, move hue of layer XY +100, save, close". The point being that with the proper setup and automation the number of files is irrelevant for the workload.
Of course not every action can be solved that easily, but more complex things need manual intervention anyway, and opening multiple files isn't exactly a difficult or tedious process.
Conversely, you could also construct examples that make it difficult to process the creatures with the other option. Say, you want to edit all 'bird' sprites (undead bird, adult bird, child bird, etc), you have to modify multiple files with option A instead.
Post by: Hans Lemurson on March 07, 2020, 03:38:52 pm
I think I'm just gonna make the sharks larger, and the great white even larger than planned.I think those undead placeholders look awesome!
X-posting from discord: For DF "deluxe" we're facing a problem of having roughly 1500 undead sprites to create. There's no way for us to handle all of that for the initial release, so I've devised a "placeholder" edit that shouldn't take more than a few seconds for each sprite. I'm curious about your reaction:
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/undead.png)
No confusion as to what they are.
Post by: Cruxador on March 07, 2020, 04:28:07 pm
Depends what you want to do. Lets say "I don't like the magenta hue on undeads, I want them to be green". That's an easy color hue change, takes a few seconds in Photoshop per file.I think that's a pretty niche case, though. Aside from this placeholder case, I can't think when else someone would want to batch modify all cases of a specific caste or form for all creatures.
Option A: You have to alter 1 file.
Option B: You have to alter 33 files.
Option C: You have to alter 819 files.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 07, 2020, 05:23:45 pm
The question is whether the creatures should be split exactly as in raw/objects or in another way - for example base, man, giant - but there are other possibilites so I'm interested in your input.
Post by: Meph on March 07, 2020, 06:16:40 pm
Post by: voliol on March 07, 2020, 06:22:37 pm
BTW, regardless of choice, the files will also be split into different sprite sizes by necessity.Does this mean we will get e.g. "graphics_large_tropical_32x32" for most creatures in "large_tropical", and "graphics_large_tropical_64x64" for the elephant, giraffe and rhino? Or just that the creatures will be sorted somehow within the files by size?
Post by: mko on March 07, 2020, 07:15:14 pm
Some new stuff, some variations. Lots of cats!Is there a chance to make butterfly in more alive position?
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0226creatures.png)
(http://goblinart.pl/upload/0302creatures.png)
This standard position is typical for dead ones - see https://emilydamstra.com/news/please-enough-dead-butterflies/
Content warning: "If you hadn’t previously noted the difference between a living and a dead butterfly, I’m afraid you will now begin to see dead butterflies EVERYWHERE, as I do." - like I just did with this tileset.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 07, 2020, 07:18:33 pm
mko: oops, will look into that!
Post by: mko on March 07, 2020, 07:24:04 pm
Voliol: the formerNot sure is it going to be possible to fit it into such small pixel art, but it would be great to try! This is kind of an extreme detail, unlikely to be noticed by most. But DF is all about such details, right?
mko: oops, will look into that!
Post by: Meph on March 07, 2020, 09:30:06 pm
Post by: darkhog on March 09, 2020, 09:44:20 am
Post by: Putnam on March 09, 2020, 09:50:34 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 10, 2020, 10:10:53 am
Post by: jecowa on March 10, 2020, 11:02:08 am
Post by: Inarius on March 10, 2020, 12:42:40 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 10, 2020, 01:42:12 pm
I think there's ~0 work on graphics until Villians updates are finished.My understanding was that Villains IS finished for now with 0.47.04, and that gears would be switched to graphics until the artists have enough to move forward. We'll probably know soon enough, though, as it's about time for a development update.
Post by: Putnam on March 10, 2020, 11:16:48 pm
I think there's ~0 work on graphics until Villians updates are finished.
Might wanna check the devlog there.
Post by: jecowa on March 11, 2020, 07:47:39 am
Post by: Meph on March 11, 2020, 07:53:36 am
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 11, 2020, 08:42:34 am
Last thing he said about graphic work is that it would start in a few weeks. There's lots of devlog content. Which part do you want me to check?Well, Meph already confirmed, but the last post on the devlog said Villains was finished for now and work on Steam was to start. Now we're waiting for the first update on that (which is late, but he said this month would start slowly too because he has things to do which aren't GDC - whatever those might be).
Villains is over until after Steam. Even says so on the development page now.
Post by: Putnam on March 11, 2020, 06:45:37 pm
Last thing he said about graphic work is that it would start in a few weeks. There's lots of devlog content. Which part do you want me to check?
No, he said "this will be the final bug-fix release before we get the code work started on the graphical version." This directly contradicts your "~0 work on graphics until Villians updates are finished." statement, or rather, agrees with it completely but misses the fact that the Villains updates are finished.
Post by: Bumber on March 12, 2020, 12:21:50 am
[...] the Villains updates are finished.They're set to resume after the Steam version. There's a number of things Toady didn't manage to complete.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 12, 2020, 12:40:06 am
Yes. We all know this. Finished for now. No more work right now. Steam has started. It's not waiting for more Villains work.[...] the Villains updates are finished.They're set to resume after the Steam version. There's a number of things Toady didn't manage to complete.
Post by: clinodev on March 12, 2020, 03:05:14 am
But, what's it all mean, Mayday and Meph? Translate it all into uninformed forumite, please?
Post by: Putnam on March 12, 2020, 03:39:19 am
Post by: clinodev on March 12, 2020, 09:42:05 am
Differently sized grids: The game is set up in a grid of tiles. Those determine the sprite size. 32x32 for the ingame world right now; while the UI (text) and the worldmap use smaller sprites.
Identifiers: Toady wants to add a little utility that makes it easier to identify what a tile is showing. Many items in the game don't really have nice IDs. For example when I was working with TWBT, trying to figure how to assign a sprite to a bookcase, the ID was "B:UNK_V42_2:Bookcase::" (https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/fhctjp/devlog_11_march_2020_the_basic_support_for/fkab3su/)
Post by: Putnam on March 12, 2020, 04:44:07 pm
Post by: thurin on March 12, 2020, 05:24:32 pm
Post by: sybir on March 13, 2020, 02:53:43 pm
(https://i.ibb.co/3FRGqfc/ramp.png)
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 13, 2020, 04:33:03 pm
Post by: Schmaven on March 13, 2020, 11:18:23 pm
Post by: Wokko on March 14, 2020, 01:38:00 am
Post by: darkhog on March 14, 2020, 07:29:24 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 14, 2020, 07:39:59 am
Multiple items per tile - probably a problem, we haven't discussed it in detail yet.
Post by: JEB Davis on March 14, 2020, 08:10:46 am
Will the player get the option of choosing square or round corners when designating the work (both constructed and mined/smoothed) in the same tileset?
I think this would be wonderful for aesthetic reasons!
Post by: Cruxador on March 14, 2020, 10:22:46 am
Teeth sprite - no problem.If the "multiple" still caps out at a finite (and, due to diminishing returns, relatively low) number, multiple items shouldn't be too hard to implement. From a code perspective it would need an exception case, but a pretty simple one*. Graphically, it could get jumbled and hard to read but this is hardly the end of the world since that's an expected trait of cluttered messes anyway. And it can be mitigated slightly by giving each stacked sprite a few pushrods of offset in a random direction, although that's another bit of code required, but again a pretty simple one if the current graphic system isn't written in a way to make it not so.
Multiple items per tile - probably a problem, we haven't discussed it in detail yet.
*given that layered graphics with transparency will be implemented regardless and it can just be a couple extra layers
Post by: sybir on March 14, 2020, 12:53:43 pm
Teeth sprite - no problem.If the "multiple" still caps out at a finite (and, due to diminishing returns, relatively low) number, multiple items shouldn't be too hard to implement. From a code perspective it would need an exception case, but a pretty simple one*. Graphically, it could get jumbled and hard to read but this is hardly the end of the world since that's an expected trait of cluttered messes anyway. And it can be mitigated slightly by giving each stacked sprite a few pushrods of offset in a random direction, although that's another bit of code required, but again a pretty simple one if the current graphic system isn't written in a way to make it not so.
Multiple items per tile - probably a problem, we haven't discussed it in detail yet.
*given that layered graphics with transparency will be implemented regardless and it can just be a couple extra layers
That's what I was thinking about as well. The limitation here is size of the sprint - since tile sprite is 32x32, I think it would be reasonable to allow up to 4 overlaying sprites of 16x16 size in each corner.
For example, the tile could have an icon of cherry, small bone depicting goblin's parts, leaf/leaves and whatever else for the remaining one.
I wonder how would it look like though.
Post by: Cruxador on March 14, 2020, 02:55:20 pm
Requiring all items to be only 16x16 just for this seems like a poor tradeoff, and it would look very artificial anyway.Teeth sprite - no problem.If the "multiple" still caps out at a finite (and, due to diminishing returns, relatively low) number, multiple items shouldn't be too hard to implement. From a code perspective it would need an exception case, but a pretty simple one*. Graphically, it could get jumbled and hard to read but this is hardly the end of the world since that's an expected trait of cluttered messes anyway. And it can be mitigated slightly by giving each stacked sprite a few pushrods of offset in a random direction, although that's another bit of code required, but again a pretty simple one if the current graphic system isn't written in a way to make it not so.
Multiple items per tile - probably a problem, we haven't discussed it in detail yet.
*given that layered graphics with transparency will be implemented regardless and it can just be a couple extra layers
That's what I was thinking about as well. The limitation here is size of the sprint - since tile sprite is 32x32, I think it would be reasonable to allow up to 4 overlaying sprites of 16x16 size in each corner.
For example, the tile could have an icon of cherry, small bone depicting goblin's parts, leaf/leaves and whatever else for the remaining one.
I wonder how would it look like though.
Post by: sybir on March 14, 2020, 04:02:58 pm
Post by: Meph on March 18, 2020, 10:52:48 am
In the meantime, please watch grass grow. (None of it is final, it's pretty busy and will be turned down. Bamboo are placeholders for now) Any critique? :)
(https://i.imgur.com/N4Snwju.png)
Post by: jecowa on March 18, 2020, 10:55:48 am
Post by: Vordak on March 18, 2020, 11:46:13 am
Do I need to draw a background of grass for plants like situation right now with your set?
Upd. Tell to Toady my observation:
[PLANT:BAMBOO, ARROW] [PLANT:BAMBOO, GOLDEN] [PLANT:BAMBOO, HEDGE] is better place like plant instead grass.
Post by: mko on March 18, 2020, 11:57:31 am
Any critique?Tiles are really pretty! It is too soon to tell, but I worry that it may be too visible and overwhelming, but maybe more boring grass will dominate noisier and more interesting surface tiles.
Post by: voliol on March 18, 2020, 12:59:13 pm
The bamboo looks weird to me, like there’s a hole in the actual grass, and there’s bamboo inside the hole. Not 100% sure how to show it though, as I assume other crops still grow on bamboo patches?
I get the wormy tendrils and staring eyeballs, but what are the ones after them before the bamboo?
Post by: ZayZe on March 18, 2020, 02:07:30 pm
Post by: Meph on March 18, 2020, 02:47:25 pm
Vordak: No background needed. I said the same to tarn, bamboo should be not pathable.
Voliol: yes, there is a good transportation. :) Bamboo is a placeholder, as I said above. The grasses you asked about are floor fungus and cave moss.
Post by: sybir on March 18, 2020, 03:34:06 pm
I can focus on important things, rather than seeing mishmash of different tiles which represent the grass at different stages of growth (so basically, meaningless thing to me).
Post by: Cruxador on March 18, 2020, 03:39:04 pm
None of it is final, it's pretty busy and will be turned down.Did you already turn it down since posting the image? It looks pretty reasonable to me. If not, may be a question of which screen it's viewed on, since I'm seeing it on my phone at this moment. But either way, I've always liked the vibrant flowering meadows of Dwarf Fortress much better than the unnatural and homogeneous modern lawns which tend to inexplicably turn up in a lot of fantasy and historical games.
Maybe it looks too much worse when tiled? It's not like I checked that.
It would be great to see the grass in big picture. I love the initial screenshots for how clean and focused the graphic is - the grass is grass,To say "grass is grass" in this case is erroneous. Grass has never been a simple homogeneous backdrop unless it's specifically engineered as such. Furthermore, length does matter of you're using the grass to graze livestock, which as far as I can think of is the only case where it matters at all, in a practical sense.
I can focus on important things, rather than seeing mishmash of different tiles which represent the grass at different stages of growth (so basically, meaningless thing to me).
Actually, I think the wildflower blooms in particular are too understated. I ASCII and most tilesets, when spring comes, the vibrant flowers capture the beauty of the same phenomenon in real life. Since this graphical change is meant to be an upgrade, it would be a shame to lose that with the comparatively sparse and dull flowers shown in these examples. Right now, those show only a dirty smattering of color over a great dominant field of the same late summer green that is shown for growth at other times of year.
Post by: Meph on March 18, 2020, 06:23:21 pm
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 18, 2020, 07:02:10 pm
Otherwise, this is looking really good! :D
P.S. Would include an edited graphic to illustrate this, but I'm on my phone right now. Sorry!
EDIT: Whoops, didn't read all the previous posts fully. Sorta similar to what voliol was talking about.
Post by: Cruxador on March 18, 2020, 07:46:54 pm
There needs to be a balance between realism and video game design. ;)There already is. That balance is decided by Toady. Wisely, because aesthetically pleasing scenes and graphics don't actually detract from gameplay, which is the premise under which this project is moving forward in the first place.
Furthermore, this isn't the kind of thing that detracts from game development time. It's not like you guys are the ones designing the game. So since you're hired to improve the tileset, it shouldn't be inferior to the original ASCII one. Not just in terms of imposing your personal priorities on the game by making grass less visible (which is a non-starter of an argument anyway, since goblins are the main thing you need to pick out from the grass, and they're also generally green), but by accurately continuing to reflect the beauty portrayed in the game to begin with.
Post by: Meph on March 18, 2020, 08:43:15 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 18, 2020, 11:43:44 pm
Once again, let's agree to disagree (?)You do see what the argument is, right?
Right now the game features spectacular Autumn and Spring scenes added carefully by Toady and now, you've been paid to make a version of the game that people will have to pay money for, and your argument for not including that work is "There needs to be a balance between realism and video game design".
I mean, that's your call to make of course and it's nice that you have full artistic control over your project, wouldn't want it any other way, but you see how people might be concerned (considering we have no other info to go on about decisions that what you say here).
Post by: Meph on March 19, 2020, 12:03:13 am
1. Tarn makes all final decisions, we just do what he thinks is best.
2. That being said, he doesn't know much about making pixelart, therefore an actual graphic designer suggests the theme we go with.
3. That designer is not me, it's Mike Mayday.
Quote
I mean, that's your call to make of course and it's nice that you have full artistic control over your project, wouldn't want it any other wayIt's not my call, not my project, I don't have the artistic control. If I create a sprite that doesn't end up being used, it's wasted time and effort, nor would I get paid. I even volunteered to not get paid till after the release.
If you have a problem with the art style, talk to Kitfox, Mike or Tarn. I can only relay your messages and I'm the only one who comes by on a regular basis to talk to the people in the forum, that hasn't been permanently scared away.
Just see above: one comment is about how amazing it is that grass is just grass and doesn't distract from the gameplay. The next is about how grass should be wild and full of colors and flowers. Two opposite perspectives. Neither is right or wrong by default.
So what do I idiot do? Talk about a compromise, then get attacked for it, then say "ok, let's politely say that those are just opposing views", get attacked for it some more. Thanks. Really helpful, constructive criticism on the actual pixelart.
Post by: ZayZe on March 19, 2020, 12:09:51 am
Frustrating I bet.
Regardless of the style of art. Either way, it looks amazing.
I'm grateful either way. 100%
Everything done is fine for me. Looks clean.
As you said everyone has their own preference. (If you were to make a few different styles people would all go different ways not saying you need to do that, was using it as an example of art taste and variety.)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 19, 2020, 12:15:51 am
Post by: Inarius on March 19, 2020, 03:19:03 am
I support Meph and Mike and what they are trying to do.
Let's judge when it's over.
For me it's looking fine.
Post by: mko on March 19, 2020, 03:22:47 am
If you have a problem with the art style, talk to Kitfox, Mike or Tarn. I can only relay your messages and I'm the only one who comes by on a regular basis to talk to the people in the forum, that hasn't been permanently scared away.
Ouch. I have seen this process also in other places and I am not sure about solutions for that.
(by "this process" I mean "people making some part of the project, but not the main author, scared away from communication channel used by community due to repeated criticism")
Post by: SuperPluck on March 19, 2020, 04:07:53 am
Post by: voliol on March 19, 2020, 04:37:04 am
And for those really concerned about the beauty of ASCII, well... ASCII is going to be there stillRelated to this, I got a question to kitfox: If they are only posted on Steam Workshop, are edits of the official Mephday/premium graphics okay? If they are, people could alter the graphics to their own preferences and conflicting standpoints like this would be largely dealt with.
Post by: Schmaven on March 19, 2020, 04:50:26 am
If they are only posted on Steam Workshop, are edits of the official Mephday/premium graphics okay? If they are, people could alter the graphics to their own preferences and conflicting standpoints like this would be largely dealt with.
Do you mean like a graphics mod that only adds more vibrant blooms but keeps all other graphics the same for example?
Post by: voliol on March 19, 2020, 05:36:47 am
If they are only posted on Steam Workshop, are edits of the official Mephday/premium graphics okay? If they are, people could alter the graphics to their own preferences and conflicting standpoints like this would be largely dealt with.
Do you mean like a graphics mod that only adds more vibrant blooms but keeps all other graphics the same for example?
Yeah. I imagine it’s an legal issue which is why the question is directed at Kitfox and not Meph/Mayday.
Post by: therahedwig on March 19, 2020, 05:59:09 am
So, I can kind of see the hesitance here?
Post by: socate on March 19, 2020, 07:13:32 am
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 19, 2020, 08:41:10 am
I genuinely don't understand some peoples' issues with this project. We're getting more than we have now, not less. If someone disagrees with the process then they are feel free to make their own tileset or use one of the many that are already available. At the very least least they should realize that their vision for the art style isn't the only one.It's because this isn't a mod, it's the actual graphics of Dwarf Fortress. People want to see this project succeed, because it means the future of the game.
Post by: Meph on March 19, 2020, 10:27:52 am
Steam DF should introduce new players to the game, lower the entry barrier. Make it readable at a glance. That's what we have to take into consideration; while the purists that love the original look can keep playing with it! The tilesets, like any other tileset, is an addition, not a replacement.
voliol: Good question and I asked the same at Kitfox about a year ago. It was never answered, I think it got buried a little bit in the discussions we had. I can ask them again. :)
Post by: Meph on March 19, 2020, 01:10:25 pm
So, why not a set for every civ? (Freshly made WIP mock-up, not final, not ingame. ;) )
(https://i.imgur.com/ebZahCQ.png)
Post by: Uthimienure on March 19, 2020, 01:17:38 pm
(but I'm not sure... maybe an ASCII character is more beautiful ;) )
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 19, 2020, 01:38:38 pm
I appreciate the unique beauty and elegance that Tarn managed to achieve by playing with just symbols and colours. I appreciate the insane amount of detail, variety and changes in the game. If I didn't find it artistically inspiring, I wouldn't have agreed to join the project. I'm going to do my best to translate all that into graphics.
The reason why I was mostly working on creatures for now is that there is very little interdependence between them. You just make a sprite in the right style and that's it.
Civilised multi-layer folks, ramps, walls, floors and trees however are a huge effort to produce a coherent, clear and good looking overall product - and that effort is so much harder when you don't have a version of the game to test on, which has been the situation until now.
Another thing is that (for me at least) it is important to release an MVP (minimum valuable product) as soon as possible to receive feedback from actual players, rather than from viewing screenshots. This means we're making a conscious decision to limit the amount of "flair" for the initial release. Like in the example therahedwig posted, it's silly to base a lot of work on a concept that might itself be completely rejected after user review.
So yes, coloured clothing, seasonal changes, multiple grasses - I really hope we'll be able to do all that, but for now we've gotta focus on the basics!
Post by: mko on March 19, 2020, 01:44:47 pm
So yes, coloured clothing, seasonal changes, multiple grasses - I really hope we'll be able to do all that, but for now we've gotta focus on the basics!Also, projects tend to be more complicated than expected. So it is a good idea to have minimum viable product before spending time on polishing some specific 1%.
Post by: jecowa on March 19, 2020, 01:45:27 pm
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 19, 2020, 01:50:48 pm
I don't really know how armor works in this game. Does the game already keep track of which race made some armor? If you put on armor made by another civ, will you look like that other civ when you put it on, or will it look like your own civ's armor?
I'm pretty sure that, yes, the race that constructed each item is recorded. In adventure mode, it's already recognized in-game that armor you can wear is different depending on which race made it, since armor can be too large or too small for you, so it's probably at least possible to implement different-looking armor for different races.
Post by: Vordak on March 19, 2020, 01:53:24 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 19, 2020, 02:19:48 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 19, 2020, 02:28:53 pm
As part of the fight against clones - is it possible to make each type of armor have several alternative variations when displayed on a character?
I'm certainly hoping we can do that as well. Not possible yet, but Tarn has only just started the actual coding (and it's going fantastic).
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 19, 2020, 02:40:32 pm
So yes, coloured clothing, seasonal changes, multiple grasses - I really hope we'll be able to do all that, but for now we've gotta focus on the basics!Also, projects tend to be more complicated than expected. So it is a good idea to have minimum viable product before spending time on polishing some specific 1%.
To illustrate this point, we're currently pondering accurate depiction of gouged out eyes...
Post by: voliol on March 19, 2020, 03:34:48 pm
I don't really know how armor works in this game. Does the game already keep track of which race made some armor? If you put on armor made by another civ, will you look like that other civ when you put it on, or will it look like your own civ's armor?
I'm pretty sure that, yes, the race that constructed each item is recorded. In adventure mode, it's already recognized in-game that armor you can wear is different depending on which race made it, since armor can be too large or too small for you, so it's probably at least possible to implement different-looking armor for different races.
Hmm, no, I don’t think so. The armors are modelled after a certain race for size-reasons, and in fortress mode it keeps track of the items made in your fort, but afaik there shouldn’t be any data about what civ the armor was made in except that. This means e.g. dwarves serving a goblin (EVIL) civ will have to use the same iron armor graphics as your own dwarves, unless variables for tracking that is added.
If armor is to be specified for both race and civilization (and they have to be specified for race not to look strange) that means ~4 times as much armor graphics will need to be made. No idea how big the armor burden is though, perhaps that wouldn’t make much difference...
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 19, 2020, 04:15:03 pm
If they are only posted on Steam Workshop, are edits of the official Mephday/premium graphics okay? If they are, people could alter the graphics to their own preferences and conflicting standpoints like this would be largely dealt with.
Do you mean like a graphics mod that only adds more vibrant blooms but keeps all other graphics the same for example?
Yeah. I imagine it’s an legal issue which is why the question is directed at Kitfox and not Meph/Mayday.
Definitely. From my perspective it's an icky subject. I personally wouldn't mind because hey, I'm getting paid for it - but Kitfox / Tarn are the ones paying for it and it IS a form of unauthorised distribution in some way at least.
Post by: jecowa on March 19, 2020, 04:27:25 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 19, 2020, 05:02:04 pm
Thus, even if you "only" make armor per entity template, you'll still need small and large variants.
I don't know if you can pull it off, but I'd want an army to have a similar look, but at the same time allow me to distinguish between a dwarf and a goblin. One possible approach would be add some very simple insignia on the largest items, or tint the armor items (I guess it gets tricky given that I assume you'll also want to indicate the material). Based on the mockup, only the fully armored creatures would be hard to tell apart, as the medium ones show enough of the critter to make it apparent.
I'd definitely want to be able to tell the difference between my dorfs and enemy dorfs.
And, to complicate it even worse, imagine an adventurer encountering a battle between two armies of dorfs...
Post by: Meph on March 19, 2020, 05:12:36 pm
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 19, 2020, 05:24:05 pm
I don't really know how armor works in this game. Does the game already keep track of which race made some armor? If you put on armor made by another civ, will you look like that other civ when you put it on, or will it look like your own civ's armor?
I'm pretty sure that, yes, the race that constructed each item is recorded. In adventure mode, it's already recognized in-game that armor you can wear is different depending on which race made it, since armor can be too large or too small for you, so it's probably at least possible to implement different-looking armor for different races.
Hmm, no, I don’t think so. The armors are modelled after a certain race for size-reasons, and in fortress mode it keeps track of the items made in your fort, but afaik there shouldn’t be any data about what civ the armor was made in except that. This means e.g. dwarves serving a goblin (EVIL) civ will have to use the same iron armor graphics as your own dwarves, unless variables for tracking that is added.
If armor is to be specified for both race and civilization (and they have to be specified for race not to look strange) that means ~4 times as much armor graphics will need to be made. No idea how big the armor burden is though, perhaps that wouldn’t make much difference...
Actually, I checked df-structures and there is a maker_race member variable of item_crafted, which is a superclass of item_armorst and thus should be applicable.
And yes, I mean purely ornamental too.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 19, 2020, 06:40:25 pm
However, an elf and a dwarf are the same "size" (in DF's very abstract sense of the word). If an elf takes off a beautiful suit of elven armour and a dwarf puts it on (which it can) it will transform into typical lumpy dorf protection.
And that goes for animal people too, no matter how weird their heads, if it's the same "size" as a human, their helmets are interchangeable.
Post by: Rose on March 20, 2020, 01:34:42 am
(https://bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/walls_floors.png)
I feel those smoothed walls would look better as constructed walls.
Post by: clinodev on March 20, 2020, 01:35:04 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Maybe they got accidentally switched with boulder or block constructed walls?
Post by: Meph on March 20, 2020, 01:42:48 am
Post by: voliol on March 20, 2020, 01:52:42 am
Are the stairs/door material-based color-wise?
Post by: clinodev on March 20, 2020, 02:01:24 am
Any chance of a pic of a smoothed natural stone section? A nice 3 tile "L" shaped pillar, maybe, to show inside and outside corners?
He clearly intended to show the smoothed case, right? ;)
Post by: Toady One on March 20, 2020, 02:15:14 am
Post by: clinodev on March 20, 2020, 02:43:46 am
I don't like these walls for smooth walls of either variety, though. The general consensus for tileset artists has been that smoothed natural walls are marble tile in a bank smooth, which is a good look in a fortress when you've put the dwarfpower into it.
Here's a Phoebus screenshot with rough, soil, and smoothed for an example.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 20, 2020, 02:53:13 am
However, I won't complain if the decision goes in another direction, as the artists will do a good job with whatever direction is taken, and, to refer to clinodev's post, I'm quite comfortable with Phoebus' take on it as well.
Edit: If it's sufficiently quick to implement, a switch either in the game or a tileset manipulation order to use different or the same tile for constructed and built walls might allow multiple parties to be satisfied.
Post by: Warmist on March 20, 2020, 03:21:44 am
Post by: Vordak on March 20, 2020, 03:49:06 am
Post by: Uthimienure on March 20, 2020, 05:48:54 am
Personally I'd like smoothed walls to look smooth, built walls from blocks to look smooth and bricked, built walls from raw stone to look bricked and rough, and raw walls to look rough. This would allow me to see what is what, and not try to designate built walls for mining, for instance. It can be noted that I'm not the color etc. matching type of player who might have different priorities.
However, I won't complain if the decision goes in another direction, as the artists will do a good job with whatever direction is taken, and, to refer to clinodev's post, I'm quite comfortable with Phoebus' take on it as well.
Edit: If it's sufficiently quick to implement, a switch either in the game or a tileset manipulation order to use different or the same tile for constructed and built walls might allow multiple parties to be satisfied.
+1
... with my added thought for "built walls from raw stone to look bricked and rough" is this could use larger blocks rather than the usual brick look because they are built from squared-off or fitted boulder chunks rather than rectangular blocks, like a fieldstone wall in r/l.
Post by: Thîkut Däselturel on March 20, 2020, 08:32:34 am
Without going into too much colour theory, I might recommend laying off the white and black values. Contrary to what might seem intuitive, adding white and black does not necessarily create brighter or darker colours but instead reduces the saturation. This can result in your colour palette becoming washed out and give a milky, faded look.
On colours, highlights and shadows:
- It's not wrong to add black to shadows, however shadows are seldom solely black and adding too much black can dull your image and drain it of vividness(if this is the look you are going for though, it can be done better by preferentially using 'cool' colours on the colour wheel). To create a contrast and the illusion of dark and light, you must come to grasp with what are commonly referred to as 'cool' and 'warm' colours on the colour wheel.
(http://www.huevaluechroma.com/pics/7warmcool.jpg)
Above you can see several depictions of colour wheels divided between 'cool' and 'warm' colours. By separating highlights and shades between the two sections, we are able to create contrast without desaturating our colours. Depending on how you want the image to feel you can play around with what you want to be warm and cool. Usually the colour temperature of the light source determines the colour temperature of the shadows, e.g. cool light, warm shadows and vice versa.
Furthermore, I want to politely comment on the addition of white. In real life, white light does not change the saturation levels of the colour that it is hitting because of this, it is not necessary to add white in order to create a sense of brightness(though I could be wrong). To get something that really pops try to use as little white and black as possible, it should be no more than ten percent of the image. If you are looking to create a scene that looks moody, dark or realistic, you may be better off using either lots of cool browns or cool blues/purples/reds. White and black are good tools but are traps, and great adversaries to be tamed and used with vigilence, they can really make or break a colour palette!
Otherwise, fantastic work!
—Stux
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 20, 2020, 09:06:11 am
I'm wondering - are you talking about just the ramps (in which case there is a specific reason why they look like this and I'm going to discuss it) or are you saying all the sprites presented so far show this problem (in which case it appears I'm much worse about it than I thought)?
Post by: Thîkut Däselturel on March 20, 2020, 09:13:11 am
I hope my response wasn't too scathing. I studied at college for art and design/graphic design aswell but nobody took the time to tell me anything substantial about colour theory(I had to do some reading on it myself). It's reasonably complicated and the rabbit-hole goes deep so I wouldn't worry too much about it.
What I found to be most apparent was the grass tiles in particular, the highlights on it are perfect but I get the sense that the midtones are possibly suffering from too much desaturation perhaps due to adding too much white to the green.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 20, 2020, 09:28:05 am
The current desaturated look of the grass was intentional on my side, anything more saturated than that (the original grass tile I created was A LOT more saturated) I found personally tiring, distracting and too strong.
So I try to do exactly what you described when creating individual creature / object etc. sprites, but I try to keep it muted for sprites that cover large areas.
I'm very interested in talking about it more, perhaps I'm doing something wrong and there's a way to achieve both goals at the same time.
In any case, once I get my hands on the actual game to experiment on the fly, I'm definitely going to work on this subject a lot more.
Post by: voliol on March 20, 2020, 09:45:30 am
Spoiler: From page 15 of this thread (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 20, 2020, 09:54:11 am
No, it's just not been implemented, much like ramp graphics bleeding out to neighbouring tiles.
Please remember, we've only just begun the coding part! If you don't see something that was discussed, it's 90% because it wasn't tried yet.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 20, 2020, 10:01:39 am
Post by: Criperum on March 20, 2020, 10:22:28 am
Post by: Meph on March 20, 2020, 10:26:06 am
Philosophical discussion about personal preferences of a single individual is probably less helpful, because it's always a sample size of 1 out of a lot of players.
PS: gem sprites not added yet. ;)
Edit: Criperum: Just in general. Either one or both.
Post by: sybir on March 20, 2020, 10:26:24 am
I see! No, the response wasn't scathing at all to me, it was very valuable. I didn't study art (all I had was some basic drawing / painting / colour theory classes when studying architecture) but I'm very careful about paying attention to colour balance - to the best of my limited ability.
The current desaturated look of the grass was intentional on my side, anything more saturated than that (the original grass tile I created was A LOT more saturated) I found personally tiring, distracting and too strong.
So I try to do exactly what you described when creating individual creature / object etc. sprites, but I try to keep it muted for sprites that cover large areas.
I'm very interested in talking about it more, perhaps I'm doing something wrong and there's a way to achieve both goals at the same time.
In any case, once I get my hands on the actual game to experiment on the fly, I'm definitely going to work on this subject a lot more.
I think the grass is perfect color-wise. It's basically a background so it shouldn't be distracting player from more important tiles and sprites :)
Post by: Meph on March 20, 2020, 10:29:17 am
Post by: Vordak on March 20, 2020, 11:19:35 am
I would not like to give the tile colorization just to the will of ingame color algorithm - I would like to indicate through translucent layers where and how much to color.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 20, 2020, 11:46:58 am
Manveru:
No, it's ok to post all feedback. But maybe we can agree that we will only provide minimum response on matters that we know are not finalised.
Post by: Cruxador on March 20, 2020, 11:50:22 am
Just see above: one comment is about how amazing it is that grass is just grass and doesn't distract from the gameplay. The next is about how grass should be wild and full of colors and flowers. Two opposite perspectives. Neither is right or wrong by default.
Sybir: Thank you, and thank you again for showing how different opinions can be. :)To clarify, I wasn't saying the grass in general needed to be brighter, but specifically the spring flowers. As for the grass in general, I like what you posted some pages ago and all I said about it is that since it's already a highly constrained palette, it doesn't need to change to even less contrast.
Quote
So what do I idiot do? Talk about a compromise, then get attacked for it, then say "ok, let's politely say that those are just opposing views", get attacked for it some more. Thanks. Really helpful, constructive criticism on the actual pixelart.To be fair, "agree to disagree" is an offensively meaningless banality when it's about something with wide reaching impact that you're going to either do or not do. Obviously, the stakes are very different, but imagine a politician enacting measures that you find heinous, and telling protesters "agree to disagree".
If they are only posted on Steam Workshop, are edits of the official Mephday/premium graphics okay? If they are, people could alter the graphics to their own preferences and conflicting standpoints like this would be largely dealt with.This was specifically endorsed in one of the initial Q&A sessions, on either Discord, reddit, or both – I don't remember exactly. The Community Management person treated it as if it was an obvious thing actually, which is a perspective I kind of agree with, but said that people shouldn't use it as a basis for mods released in public (free, non-workshop) cases. In other words, the policy is pretty much what you would expect.
What you must consider is that you are all familiar with the game. I just saw ASCII being called beautiful here, which by the definition of most people is a bit of a stretch. Show Dwarf Fortress vanilla ASCII to 1000 random gamers, and I don't think you will hear that word a lot.The problem with the ASCII is that it is dense and hard to get into, not that it is incapable of rendering beauty. There are plenty of works of art out there rendered in ASCII, with typewriter characters, or similar. And Dwarf Fortress in particular is great at not only revealing but emphasizing the beauty of certain natural scenes, whether they're spring flowers, autumn leaves, or the crash of waves against the beach.
If units show the equipped armor, and all races share a similar setup of items, the units will end up looking very similar, since a large portion of the sprite would be made up of the helmet, armor, weapon and shield.Just to clarify, but these are meant to represent typical loadouts and not equivalent loadouts, right? Since elves in particular can quite commonly be in non-elf civs and have metal equipment.
So, why not a set for every civ? (Freshly made WIP mock-up, not final, not ingame. ;) )
(https://i.imgur.com/ebZahCQ.png)
Guys, I've been reading the discussion here and I wanted to give a word of assurance.Although I agree with this in principle, I would consider MVP for a graphics enhancement to be superior in all regards compared to the initial graphics, and given the free tilesets made by you and plenty of other folks, that bar is sort of higher even though technically that's not the fair comparison. Although you're already far beyond that point when it comes to creature graphics, and I understand the reason for it since you've said it, but I'm sure you can appreciate why people would be more concerned for the other things.
I appreciate the unique beauty and elegance that Tarn managed to achieve by playing with just symbols and colours. I appreciate the insane amount of detail, variety and changes in the game. If I didn't find it artistically inspiring, I wouldn't have agreed to join the project. I'm going to do my best to translate all that into graphics.
The reason why I was mostly working on creatures for now is that there is very little interdependence between them. You just make a sprite in the right style and that's it.
Civilised multi-layer folks, ramps, walls, floors and trees however are a huge effort to produce a coherent, clear and good looking overall product - and that effort is so much harder when you don't have a version of the game to test on, which has been the situation until now.
Another thing is that (for me at least) it is important to release an MVP (minimum valuable product) as soon as possible to receive feedback from actual players, rather than from viewing screenshots. This means we're making a conscious decision to limit the amount of "flair" for the initial release. Like in the example therahedwig posted, it's silly to base a lot of work on a concept that might itself be completely rejected after user review.
So yes, coloured clothing, seasonal changes, multiple grasses - I really hope we'll be able to do all that, but for now we've gotta focus on the basics!
I'm not 100% sure on what you're talking about; I hope this is meant to be conditional based on details of the individual. If it was purely aesthetic and random, please reconsider or at least make it easy to disable; it's hard enough for uniforms to be uniform just based on how dwarves are with their items.As part of the fight against clones - is it possible to make each type of armor have several alternative variations when displayed on a character?
I'm certainly hoping we can do that as well. Not possible yet, but Tarn has only just started the actual coding (and it's going fantastic).
This is a more complicated question. Back when I added constructed walls, the intent, and as I recollect, the prevailing sentiment, was allowing you to patch up holes in your walls without the fort looking like a patchwork. I agree the smoothed picture will look better, but as I currently understand it, we shouldn't make constructed walls look different. Unless opinions have changed. Obviously an option would be best, but that's fiddly, and keeping the default the same way may avoid an outcry.I think with the greatly increased resolution, it should be reasonable to have the best of both worlds, where block-constructed walls can resemble smooth walls with only faint lines different that don't stand out much. For things that are rough (unsmoothed walls and walls constructed of stone) if they look patchwork it's fine since that reflects what's actually happened, which is that speed has taken precedence over aesthetic.
Love the details. Though I was wondering if it was an artistic decision to make the colours have a washed-out/desaturated appearance?It seems to me that generally they've desaturated landscape and background stuff, while this is much less the case with creatures. Although I've argued for exceptions to that even in this very post, it's not a bad principle.
I fear like there is going to be a LOT of such questions and I'm wondering if it's productive to focus on them.In this case it's fair grounds for clarification since the gem wall was specifically showcased in the screenshot. I reckon I know more about this project than almost everyone who isn't directly involved, and I couldn't have answered that.
No, it's just not been implemented, much like ramp graphics bleeding out to neighbouring tiles.
Please remember, we've only just begun the coding part! If you don't see something that was discussed, it's 90% because it wasn't tried yet.
Are you planning to introduce something like TwbT layer system for each tile with -bg and-top files?They're doing that, but it hasn't been specified whether they'll use alpha or index transparency. I would imagine alpha since the way they've been talking about this emphasizes stuff that's easy for people without specialized programs or knowledge, and that's how .png normally works, and nobody really uses index anymore anyway. I've argued in the past for arbitrary numbers of channels (which would imply tiff support normally) since that can have a channels for material colors, and whatever number of them is preferred, and then there can be a channel for alpha if DF gets coded to do that but I think it's slightly more resource intensive. And my suggestions of that nature have been more or less ignored, which suggests to me that Meph and Mayday don't really know how to do it in the first place and just a simple .png implementation is more likely. Not sure if they can say more on this; seems like it's one of those things where since Toady hasn't got to it yet it's still just up in the air.
I would not like to give the tile colorization just to the will of ingame color algorithm - I would like to indicate through translucent layers where and how much to color.
Post by: jecowa on March 20, 2020, 11:56:45 am
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 20, 2020, 12:15:13 pm
...
Manveru:
No, it's ok to post all feedback. But maybe we can agree that we will only provide minimum response on matters that we know are not finalised.
Okidokie. It was more the whole not finalised bits that I was wondering about, like if it's useful to give ones impressions of say the ramps when there's more bits coming ^^
Post by: Quatch on March 20, 2020, 07:36:20 pm
(some details here https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/9/8/806/htm and quite a lot of detail here: https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/remotesensing/remotesensing-11-01806/article_deploy/remotesensing-11-01806-v3.pdf )
Post by: Pillbo on March 21, 2020, 01:01:28 am
I thought the grasses look good. I hope you manage to blend them into each other well, but I'm sure you want that too.
I think it would be nice if you could layer all the colorful flowers, dropped fruits, nuts and leaves on top of the grasses and make a nice visual of grassy fields of wildflowers or fall woodlands.
Just a reminder that you can set users to ignore (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore).
Post by: Schmaven on March 21, 2020, 05:02:34 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 21, 2020, 05:20:54 am
We're certainly going to have various sprinkles over the grass.
Schmaven: good idea, I'll bring it up.
Post by: Rekov on March 21, 2020, 10:17:21 am
So Toady posted an admittedly work in progress picture of ramps. I gather that they aren't unique tiles, but shaded overlays applied above normal ground tiles.
In any case, I believe the current regime requires more types of ramps in order to be complete. I am referring specifically to the scenarios highlighted here, where you have ramps "behind" ramps on the same z-level.
(https://i.imgur.com/kSbpMTl.png)
I will use 3D models to represent the current set-up, and then my proposed solution.
This is the exact set-up highlighted above. The current solution is on the right, with my proposal on the left. That new tile represents a unique geometry which transitions one of those inset hills into a corner. You would obviously need versions of this to represent the mirror image layout, as well as rotations thereupon.
(https://i.imgur.com/GIgBF57.png)
This scenario can also occur along a straight ramp. The presumed current solution is on the right, and my solution with another unique geometry is on the left.
(https://i.imgur.com/14SohTH.png)
I present these solutions as a means of creating shadows that represent actually possible geometry.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 21, 2020, 10:51:56 am
I've already made all the tiles you're talking about, they're just not implemented yet.
Post by: Meph on March 21, 2020, 11:34:14 am
Anyway, moving on. Working on walls at the moment. :)
Post by: ZayZe on March 21, 2020, 11:57:49 am
Post by: Rekov on March 21, 2020, 01:43:24 pm
Do you guys have a set policy in terms of what is top down vs. isometric angle, or are you just playing it by ear? So far it seems like terrain is portrayed top down, while sprite and so on are at an angle.
Terrain makes perfect sense to be top down because that allows you to extend it across multiple z-levels. But does that work for staircases? How about trees?
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 21, 2020, 01:47:40 pm
Post by: Meph on March 21, 2020, 01:52:10 pm
Creatures are side-view.
Items are at an angle.
Terrain is top-down.
That's the basic idea. We kinda wanted to do terrain at an angle at first, but the multilevel made that a bit difficult, as you noticed. So it had to be top-down. Unfortunately top-down doesn't allow much details on items or creatures, so we switched it up.
Edit: He, I was just using an old mock-up as a test for gem-highlights, and it still has isometric trunks. XD
(https://i.imgur.com/TbuaIxo.gif)
Post by: Bumber on March 21, 2020, 04:27:59 pm
Post by: LordBalkan on March 21, 2020, 06:18:17 pm
Maybe was a feature specific for more valuable ones? :P
No problem if it was just a mock up thou.
And yet its being really nice to see the progress even when it is just WIP.
Post by: Meph on March 21, 2020, 06:24:57 pm
Post by: Cruxador on March 22, 2020, 12:01:13 am
(https://i.imgur.com/TbuaIxo.gif)I know usually I'm more inclined to speak up when I think something isn't good than when I think it is, so I just wanted to make sure I say: This looks great. Aside from the tree trunk which is already changed, everything in this screenshot is well designed and aesthetically pleasing. The only thing that's potentially overpowering is the glimmer effect but it fundamentally looks good and I agree with Bumber's implicit statement that it's fine as long as they're just not constant. But if they can be made to do it relatively infrequently, then they're perfect.
There should probably be a bunch of frames where the gems aren't sparkling. Mock-up is a bit of an eyesore. Maybe you knew this already.From a technical perspective, lots of frames would require needlessly large filesize, it's better to just slap a delay on. That's one variable which ticks, rather than a variable which ticks AND something like 8 kilobytes before compression if the animation is the whole 32x32 tile. Plus, if you have delays you can make them dynamic and do things like making the animation happen a few times in unusually quick succession for all cases, when you jump to a new screen by choosing to go to event from the dialogue box saying your miners have struck a new mineral or cavern. That would allow the game to represent dazzling beauty without it detracting from the actual play/action of the game, as we discussed with the spring flower case. And this is something that isn't very beautiful in the base game, so it would be most definitely an enhancement in the graphical version, if Toady finds it viable.
The issue are gems with colors white, grey, black or brown. They aren't super visible with merged with the background rock. The red and cyan ones in the mock-up are very visible, but imagine a grey gem in grey rock.Cyan gems in microcline could also be a problem, if the microcline maintains its characteristic garishness going forward. One possible solution that could partially address this would be more dramatic highlights, even going as far as actual #FFFFFF white. But I like your glimmer solution better.
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 22, 2020, 12:09:06 am
Post by: mko on March 22, 2020, 03:38:52 am
And I really dislike this kind of animations, but I hope that it will be easy to remove it with mod.(https://i.imgur.com/TbuaIxo.gif)I know usually I'm more inclined to speak up when I think something isn't good than when I think it is, so I just wanted to make sure I say: This looks great. Aside from the tree trunk which is already changed, everything in this screenshot is well designed and aesthetically pleasing. The only thing that's potentially overpowering is the glimmer effect but it fundamentally looks good and I agree with Bumber's implicit statement that it's fine as long as they're just not constant. But if they can be made to do it relatively infrequently, then they're perfect.
Post by: Schmaven on March 22, 2020, 08:06:16 am
And I really dislike this kind of animations, but I hope that it will be easy to remove it with mod.
Just out of curiosity, what is it about the animation in particular? The color, the size of the sparkle, frame rate?
Post by: Oab on March 22, 2020, 09:26:24 am
Have you guys considered not using the entire 32 pixels for the ramps? If you scale them down to half the size it would solve the issues being mentioned throughout this thread.
Here is a quick and dirty edit of what I mean.
(https://i.imgur.com/O3zxWah.png)
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 22, 2020, 09:49:37 am
Post by: Cruxador on March 22, 2020, 10:00:02 am
And I really dislike this kind of animations, but I hope that it will be easy to remove it with mod.Well, one thing that I would expect to happen would be an options menu added to the game. They're not that hard (just pure UI work basically) and although it's easy, modern gamers aren't accustomed to going into an init file to change things. That being the case, I would think disabling any/all animations to recoup a frame or two would be second on the list for graphical options, after a tileset selector which has already been discussed.
Post by: Pillbo on March 22, 2020, 12:01:42 pm
And I really dislike this kind of animations, but I hope that it will be easy to remove it with mod.
Just out of curiosity, what is it about the animation in particular? The color, the size of the sparkle, frame rate?
I agree so I'll throw in my 2 cents. I am not a fan of constantly repeating animations like gifs. I'm not positive what it is that bothers me, but I can't stop them from grabbing my attention and have trouble focusing on anything else when they are on my screen. For example I have a gif stopping extension installed that I had to disable to be able to see what this image really looked like, I thought it was static. I use it because I can't even read a forum post if there is a gif playing next to it.
For this I think I'd like it more if the animation was slower and sparkles a little smaller. Ideally if just a tile or two sparkled randomly every 4 or 5 seconds, or if they could manage to make a single cluster sprakle every now and then but not all on the screen- that would be nice and get the job done IMO. I think it's the predictable rhythm that distracts me, so even if it was just slower it probably would be distracting to me if every gem on screen sparkled in the exact same pattern over and over.
In general I'm pro-animations, I really like the fire and water animations I've seen so far in Meph's tileset. I might just need to find a tileset mod that removes some of them.
Post by: Meph on March 22, 2020, 12:38:58 pm
Now imagine a fort with 100 dwarves, pets, some wildlife and vermin running around, flowing water...
Other places I'm considering animations for my own personal sett (and that's just me, not Tarn or Mike, animations are pretty much a stretch goal so far. I just think it's fun to do.):
- Liquids like water/magma.
- Fire/Smoke.
- Tree leaves/Grass tufts gently swaying in the wind.
- Flower buds opening. (2-3 frames, then stay get a still image. Better than grass that suddenly pops up fully grown flowers)
- Workshops currently in use.
- Glows, for example glowworms or the embers in a forge.
- Machinery currently in use. (It already does that)
- Creature Idle animation. (There is a reason most old-school RPGs have gently bobbing/breathing creatures, makes them stand apart from the static terrain)
- Rain drops.
- Hives with single pixel ants/bees buzzing around.
- Mining/Woodchopping/Engraving with single pixel particles of rock or wood chips flying around.
- Sparks/Blood pixels flying around when a unit gets hit in combat.
- Plants growing in farmplots in stages. (Guess that counts as a very slow animation?)
- Smell from rotting food/bodyparts.
I'm aware that it's not to everyones liking, but for my own personal adaption or future tilesets, I'd certainly love to include animations. With TWBT they are causing instability; the Steam update fixes that issue.
Post by: Wokko on March 22, 2020, 12:49:32 pm
They would be less in-your-face as in the example; I tried to test out all the little sparkle animations I made in one picture. But apparently it does do it's job: Get peoples attention to that specific sprite. On this picture it might be a bit much, especially considering that nothing else moves.Something like KeeperRL's animations would be nice: no additional sprite work, just moving&tilting the entire creature sprites to show they are walking/digging. Somebody already proposed KeeperRL style animations on the previous pages.
Now imagine a fort with 100 dwarves, pets, some wildlife and vermin running around, flowing water...
Other places I'm considering animations (and that's just me, not Tarn or Mike, animations are pretty much a stretch goal so far. I just think it's fun to do.):
- Liquids like water/magma.
- Fire/Smoke.
- Tree leaves/Grass tufts gently swaying in the wind.
- Flower buds opening. (2-3 frames, then stay get a still image. Better than grass that suddenly pops up fully grown flowers)
- Workshops currently in use.
- Glows, for example glowworms or the embers in a forge.
- Machinery currently in use. (It already does that)
- Creature Idle animation. (There is a reason most old-school RPGs have gently bobbing/breathing creatures, makes them stand apart from the static terrain)
- Rain drops.
- Hives with single pixel ants/bees buzzing around.
- Mining/Woodchopping/Engraving with single pixel particles of rock or wood chips flying around.
- Sparks/Blood pixels flying around when a unit gets hit in combat.
- Plants growing in farmplots in stages. (Guess that counts as a very slow animation?)
- Smell from rotting food/bodyparts.
I'm aware that it's not to everyones liking, but for my own personal adaption or future tilesets, I'd certainly love to include animations. With TWBT they are causing instability; the Steam update fixes that issue.
Post by: darkhog on March 22, 2020, 03:00:26 pm
And I really dislike this kind of animations, but I hope that it will be easy to remove it with mod.
Just out of curiosity, what is it about the animation in particular? The color, the size of the sparkle, frame rate?
I think it's both that glimmer is too bright and that it is too big regarding surrounding stone. Somewhat more subtle glimmer would work better IMO.
//edit: Example showing what I mean:
(https://i.imgur.com/FGNSC11.gif)
Post by: mko on March 22, 2020, 03:20:04 pm
1) not critically needed - OK gray gems in gray rock will be hard to see, but I do not really care about gray gems. Most of use for my gems is keeping them in walls as a decoration (in unsmoothed rock to have them visible in ASCII) and ugly animation would make me to mine them outAnd I really dislike this kind of animations, but I hope that it will be easy to remove it with mod.
Just out of curiosity, what is it about the animation in particular? The color, the size of the sparkle, frame rate?
2) permanent animation - animation for me is OK for something temporary (especially when it is important)
3) repeated extremely often what makes it even worse
I hate animations in general, I disabled interface animation in my OS, I disabled them on the phone.
---------
Though for example in Factorio, where there is plenty of moving objects I was OK with all that movement and with animated factories. Maybe the same will be here? But I hated this specific gif, and for example I expect that my practice of graves near gem clusters would either end or I would mod animations out.
Post by: Meph on March 22, 2020, 03:33:15 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/xVW36rK.png)
Darkhog: That's a cool idea, just making the actual gem glimmer, without extra pixel effects outside of the actual gemstone.
mko:
Quote
I do not really care about gray gems. I hate animations in general, I disabled interface animation in my OS, I disabled them on the phone.Which means it has nothing to do with the pixelart itself. That's good to know.
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 22, 2020, 03:39:09 pm
Also, as an alternative:
[/color](https://i.imgur.com/FGNSC11.gif)
I like the general idea of this (the gems sparkle by lighting up occasionally) but I feel like this specific mock-up doesn't... really seem like sparkling to me? Seems more like someone lit a candle in the corner of the room or something.
What I'd suggest is occasionally white light sweeping over the entire gem, giving it that reflective, brilliant quality. I generally lack the pixel art skills to make a mock up myself, so instead I just found this gif that illustrates what I mean.
(https://i.ibb.co/G9k3kCg/gem.gif)
Except that the gem is more saturated, and the light sweeping across the gem is way brighter (like white) and more pronounced. Also the animation is more occasional, not cyclic.
And no orbiting blue dots lol. That'd be annoying.
Post by: Meph on March 22, 2020, 04:01:57 pm
Quote
What I'd suggest is occasionally white light sweeping over the entire gem, giving it that reflective, brilliant quality.I like this. I'll make a mock-up.
Post by: MCipher on March 22, 2020, 07:42:56 pm
Oh, and can I just say that the previews thus far look fantastic?
Post by: Meph on March 22, 2020, 08:11:13 pm
Grass growths. (Ignore the one static grass, it slipped in by accident)
- Babytoe succulents
- Pebble plant
- Meadowsweet
- Rush
- Marsh Thistle
- Cottongrass
- Ignore, has no growths.
- Mountain avens
- Cloudberry
(https://i.imgur.com/J8Ff2VZ.gif)
In general it goes "plant => plant + bud => plant + flower". Ingame the transition is staggered, invidivual tiles are slower/faster than the neighbours.
Post by: Rekov on March 22, 2020, 08:53:17 pm
is this an animation you plan on playing over a few frame as the plant blooms, or do these represent the different stages of plant growth that occur mechanically?
Instead of
plant > plant+bud > plant+flower
Mechanically you would have something like
plant > plant+flower > plant+fruit.
Post by: Meph on March 22, 2020, 08:56:52 pm
They represent the plant growths as they are in the raws. This "animation" is nothing new and any tileset right now can do this with TWBT. It's a these things:
Quote
[PLANT:BABY TOES SUCCULENT]
Fenestraria
[NAME:baby toes succulent][NAME_PLURAL:baby toes succulents][ADJ:baby toes succulent]
[USE_MATERIAL_TEMPLATE:STRUCTURAL:STRUCTURAL_PLANT_TEMPLATE]
[BASIC_MAT:LOCAL_PLANT_MAT:STRUCTURAL]
[GRASS]
[GRASS_TILES:'.':',':'`':''']
[GRASS_COLORS:2:0:1:2:0:0:2:0:0:6:0:0]
[WET]
[DRY]
[BIOME:ANY_DESERT]
[GROWTH:BUD]
[GROWTH_NAME:baby toes succulent bud:STP]
[GROWTH_ITEM:PLANT_GROWTH:NONE:LOCAL_PLANT_MAT:STRUCTURAL]
[GROWTH_DENSITY:1]
[GROWTH_TIMING:240000:249999]
[GROWTH_PRINT:0:7:2:0:0:NONE]
[GROWTH:FLOWER]
[GROWTH_NAME:baby toes succulent flower:STP]
[GROWTH_ITEM:PLANT_GROWTH:NONE:LOCAL_PLANT_MAT:STRUCTURAL]
[GROWTH_DENSITY:1]
[GROWTH_TIMING:250000:260000]
[GROWTH_PRINT:5:5:7:0:1:250000:260000:1]
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 23, 2020, 01:47:29 am
And, my guess is that the level of visibility is about right. Not too striking to be distracting and hide "real" shrubs, but enough to give a nice sense of change (the pebble plant may be a bit into the "hiding" side, but on the other hand, having one kind of grass that stands out a little provides variation on a higher level).
Post by: Meph on March 23, 2020, 02:31:27 am
Pebble plants exclusively grow in deserts and bloom a rather short duration.
Post by: Cruxador on March 23, 2020, 11:21:21 am
They would be less in-your-face as in the example; I tried to test out all the little sparkle animations I made in one picture. But apparently it does do it's job: Get peoples attention to that specific sprite. On this picture it might be a bit much, especially considering that nothing else moves.I hope you get the time/funding to add all* of this. Creature idle animations are probably not too likely due to the sheer amount of extra frames, but something like fire would only take even one frame to change from the tremendously unsatisfying state of fire which doesn't move to that which does. And of course, additional frames would make it prettier.
Now imagine a fort with 100 dwarves, pets, some wildlife and vermin running around, flowing water...
Other places I'm considering animations for my own personal sett (and that's just me, not Tarn or Mike, animations are pretty much a stretch goal so far. I just think it's fun to do.):
- Liquids like water/magma.
- Fire/Smoke.
- Tree leaves/Grass tufts gently swaying in the wind.
- Flower buds opening. (2-3 frames, then stay get a still image. Better than grass that suddenly pops up fully grown flowers)
- Workshops currently in use.
- Glows, for example glowworms or the embers in a forge.
- Machinery currently in use. (It already does that)
- Creature Idle animation. (There is a reason most old-school RPGs have gently bobbing/breathing creatures, makes them stand apart from the static terrain)
- Rain drops.
- Hives with single pixel ants/bees buzzing around.
- Mining/Woodchopping/Engraving with single pixel particles of rock or wood chips flying around.
- Sparks/Blood pixels flying around when a unit gets hit in combat.
- Plants growing in farmplots in stages. (Guess that counts as a very slow animation?)
- Smell from rotting food/bodyparts.
I'm aware that it's not to everyones liking, but for my own personal adaption or future tilesets, I'd certainly love to include animations. With TWBT they are causing instability; the Steam update fixes that issue.
Bamboo to replace the placeholder that was in the grass list earlier.I won't beat around the bush, this is bad. Worse than the placeholder. It looks like someone cut a few short stalks of bamboo and stood them there. This is not what bamboo, which is a live plant and not a harvested item, looks like. I get that you probably live somewhere bamboo doesn't grow, but at least find some reference images. Here, I'll do it for you: https://imgur.com/gallery/iI5EEJa (https://imgur.com/gallery/iI5EEJa)
(https://i.imgur.com/xVW36rK.png)
I labeled appropriate species. Note that since this is not a multi-tile tree, Bambusa oldhamii isn't what we're looking for, and I reckon that if you did look for reference pictures, some old growth forest of that is probably what steered you wrong. At least, unless there was photos of that only showing the trunks and not canopy, I can't think what else would have. But it's very obviously not the species meant to be represented. I put some good grass-like candidates for reference at the top (three images) and the rest, I think, would count more as plants or impassible sapling-type tiles, but I included them since it seems you have no conception of what live bamboo looks like in general.
Also, I'm not sure what you were meaning to represent with the color differences there. Live bamboo is green, and a stand of bamboo will normally have a mixture of live green and dead yellow (shaded out) stalks, the former of which will have a lot more leaves than depicted (as well as having tops), and the latter of which has no leaves but retains the twigs and branches from when it did. I don't think I've ever seen stalks in that grey-brown color.
Mcipher: We discussed this. I'm not sure where we stand atm, but Mike is more of the opinion "lets use fewer pre-set colors that look good", while I lean towards the "lets use perfect representation of the raw values". We have to see and test everything ingame before we can see how horrid that would look or not.This stuff, on the other hand turned out a lot better. There's sort of an issue of density since plants don't just distribute themselves evenly over a field like this, but are either random (with heterogeneous spacing) or clumped. Only large woody things like trees have a strong enough murderous effect on their neighbors and live long enough for empty gaps to get filled in for the distribution seen in the meadowsweet, rush, marsh thistle, and cloudberry to be natural. Arguably the same is true of mountain avens but the different sizing achieves the same visual effect so it's fine. Other than that, the marsh thistle seems like it ought to be more magenta (their color isn't, overall, that dark) but honestly these flowers look great and I doubt most people would notice.
Grass growths. (Ignore the one static grass, it slipped in by accident)
- Babytoe succulents
- Pebble plant
- Meadowsweet
- Rush
- Marsh Thistle
- Cottongrass
- Ignore, has no growths.
- Mountain avens
- Cloudberry
(https://i.imgur.com/J8Ff2VZ.gif)
In general it goes "plant => plant + bud => plant + flower". Ingame the transition is staggered, invidivual tiles are slower/faster than the neighbours.
Oh, and the mountain aven flowers leave their shadows behind even when they're not there, but I assume that's just because these aren't finished.
* Maybe not sparks in battle since that's weird and doesn't happen outside of Hollywood
Post by: Rekov on March 23, 2020, 02:30:54 pm
We discussed this. I'm not sure where we stand atm, but Mike is more of the opinion "lets use fewer pre-set colors that look good", while I lean towards the "lets use perfect representation of the raw values". We have to see and test everything ingame before we can see how horrid that would look or not.
This is very interesting, and there are obvious drawbacks and advantages to each. If you use a limited pre-set, that makes it much easier for people to mod 'themed' presets along the lines of our existing color palettes. I think I lean toward your perfect representation of raw values approach, because those are also modifiable. It just makes it much harder to easily establish a very different mood by having a different color palette.
I'm not sure how tints work in DF either. You could theoretically have colored highlights on your sprite, and then the RGB value is multiplied over that. So for example imagine you have a mostly greyscale tree sprite, but you have yellow and blue highlights and shadows. Then you multiply the color of the wood from raw RGB over that, and you get a fairly complex, and not at all monochromatic result.
Post by: Cruxador on March 23, 2020, 03:20:26 pm
Post by: mko on March 23, 2020, 03:31:51 pm
Yeah, I know it's not a vote but I also agree that the graphics should represent the game as accurately as possible where the game actually models things; colors are free of those places where Toady put in the time/effort to make colors diverse so the official graphical representation should reflect that. A limited or alternate palette is more the province of mods, especially since strict palette control isn't apparently being employed anywhere else.And in case of tiles revealing that coloring is currently absurd/wrong/unwanted - then it may be tweaked. I see no reason to hide this.
Post by: Meph on March 25, 2020, 12:40:29 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/safOGKC.png)
Post by: Superdorf on March 25, 2020, 12:47:00 pm
Only thing is, maybe soften the edges on those deep corners a bit? It's very clear and all, but it doesn't quite flow the way grass should.
Post by: KickAssAndGiggle on March 25, 2020, 12:47:44 pm
But, what I can say is this: THIS IS ALL LOOKING FREAKIN' AWESOME!!! I am so stoked for this steam version. :D :D :D
Amazing job you two are doing in my opinion!
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 25, 2020, 12:52:22 pm
Just wanted to update you guys on the ramp situation. Weird corner/edge cases looking much better now. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/safOGKC.png)
Looks rather good! Still a bit confusing, in the center area particularly, but honestly if you've decided to dig ramps that way in your fortress you've brought it upon yourself.
Post by: SuperPluck on March 25, 2020, 12:54:22 pm
Just wanted to update you guys on the ramp situation. Weird corner/edge cases looking much better now. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/safOGKC.png)
Thse look AWESOME
Post by: Meph on March 25, 2020, 12:56:49 pm
Post by: mko on March 25, 2020, 01:06:12 pm
Left full rock tile looks flat (it is ramp, right?) and geometry on grass tile between rock tiles is a bit unclear.
But it is million times better than what was there before, and it is still WIP.
Post by: jecowa on March 25, 2020, 01:15:22 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/Q3vU6up.png)
I think the area marked in magenta here is supposed to be a single flat side, but the shading makes the 3 marked triangles look like they are all angled differently. The transition between the two tiles in the orange box don't transition seemlessly like the other tiles.
(https://i.imgur.com/N5kk8Gp.png)
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 25, 2020, 01:56:58 pm
The orange rectangle- there's an edge there, hence the lack of smooth transition.
Smooth corners / crevices are planned, I'll be testing it when we get multilayer view or when we decide we won't be having it...
I agree that the weird situations are still a bit confusing, but it's probably the best I can come up with. Once you see the full picture, I trust you will be happy with the general result (compared to the initial offering...).
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 25, 2020, 02:42:33 pm
Any thoughts on less rigid transitions between rocky and grassy ramps like you had with the rocky patches on flat ground? The stark contrast makes it harder to take in the 3D aspect of it imo (but not sure how much better it can get really).
Post by: Meph on March 25, 2020, 02:46:50 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 25, 2020, 02:49:59 pm
I have a mock-up with grass transition on ramps flying around, it looks a little bit better. :)
Nice!
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 25, 2020, 04:05:54 pm
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.
Ive always wished for something like this in DF, to see the busy hallways bustling with movement, actual movement, and Japa does it in his Armok Vision project.
- No animations or extra sprites needed, just the sprite 'sliding' from one tile to the next (with a speed based on how fast that creature actually moves from tile to tile), while "bobbing up and down" slightly. It would be such a slick way of representing movement (maybe without the 'bobbing' for creatures like snakes tho (and it of course shouldn't apply to eg. a wheelbarrow being pushed by a creature, only the creature itself should "bop"), without having to draw any new sprites.
- Directional facing (only left and right of course) by mirroring the sprite to face the direction its currently moving/attacking/looking/interacting etc., would also be such a nice visual feedback to have (even though it might not have any actual functionality in-game, and might mess up shadow directions, but all worth it i say!).
- Melee attacking (and maybe also interacting with certain objects like levers?) could be visually represented as the 'attacking/acting sprite' "bobbing into/towards" the target, as seen in Stoneshard for example.
I think it would actually work better than having animations for everything, as all the animations would muddy the screen (and be a huuuuge amount of work ofc).
The "bobbing" would instead just be a simple movement, easy on the eye, when a big melee battle is happening, and a simple way of showing that something is attacking something, without having to rely on blood spatter or the combat log to show combat actually happening. Smooth.
The 'tick' with a red overlay for creatures taking damage, would probably work well too, combined with the "sprite-displacement animations" (I don't know what to call it). If it's "subtle" enough (not using a 'too bright' red), I think it would go well with blood spatters on the ground.
I personally hope you also do the idle "animations". Any "movement" (teleportation from tile to tile doesn't count) will definitely help distinguishing living things from terrain.
All of this could also be used to give different creatures
a kind of "personality" to their movements.
The quickness of their walk, the frequency of their
attacks, it might indicate an undead creature if very
slow? Or big movements could imply a BIG or heavy
creature!
Cheers to wishful thinking ;)!
Quick question: Have you talked about grass
animations? Like grass waving in the wind.
Just curious.
I know all of these "animation" requests might not be in the spirit of DF, but it would be a welcome change to me. I stumbled upon DF when i was twelve , and have been loving it ever since! But alas, while the ASCII has its beauties, i could never help but to imagine Dwarf Fortress with some more visual representation. Nothing fancy, just seeing stuff happen on a more than complete basic level.
PS!: I also looked at the animal-people sprites (animal heads combined with humanoid bodies), and i must say it works pretty well for most, some could use more custom work (as you have probably already thought yourselves). But the tigerman!.. I hope his face gets reworked to have a more "Feline" look to it.
Right now, its mouth/pucker is too big,which makes it look like a lion or a great dane. Maybe not, but more importantly, it lacks the 'mane' of a tiger.
The "roundness" of the furry white mane with black stripes that looks so menacing!
Tigers are pretty "broad/round headed", if you include that bushy hair on their neck/jaw, which gives them that distinct tiger-look.
I can imagine a tiger-mans "mane/neck fur", bushing out from the hole in the armor where the head goes.
Right now, it looks a bit like a shaved lion.
I'm only mentioning this, because i would love to play as a tiger-man in the graphical release, and would love for it too look more tigerish (menacing with spikes of fur!)
Example image: https://imgur.com/a/k3gckbX
Lots of love for you guys, your'e doing awesome work, truly grateful for your efforts and obvious passion to deliver, its gonna be so sweeet, and i absolutely cannot wait ;) (sorry for the wall-of-text, but I'm invested at this point!)
Post by: Schmaven on March 25, 2020, 05:01:19 pm
Applying the bobbing would be to miners would be really cool too - having them shake around as they mine the tile. The graphics pack I currently use has the stone blocks go through a few different stages of being mined out which is also a really great way of showing something is happening. Wobbling around as they actively craft in workshops would also be nice.
Post by: CL3AR on March 25, 2020, 05:48:34 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 25, 2020, 05:51:59 pm
I agree, having the sprites just bobbing around in general would make it really cool. There is an incredible amount of combat happens all at once. In a matter of seconds, several pages of combat logs can be filled. And with dwarves dodging from tile to tile, I'm having a hard time visualizing how this would look. Already, the blood, limbs, and teeth being thrown around gives some nice action to be seen.
The dodging could be a quick jerk to a neighboring tile, as fast as need be. It might look a bit weird i agree, but it might not? I think i would have to see it in action, in order to judge. I think one could make it work.
I can imagine a big battle, with dorfs quickly jumping to another tile in order to dodge, while others are clearly seen attacking with lesser motions towards the goblin next tile. In any case, i think it would look less confusing than the good ol' one-two-teleport-sidestep. I'll have to think on that for a bit ;)! (as if i had any say in the "final" product)
(Also, when dorfs dodges off of a cliff, falling dorf sprites could be "laying down" horizontally (also for sum sleeping/dead dorfs hurr hurr))
A lot could be done with only one sprite and some disjointing from its tile.
Now thinking, it would be cool to see the sprite of a tooth being knocked out (or other body parts hehe), actually do a small curve from the tile where the creature it belongs too stands, and land on the tile it should.
"The severed part sails off in an arc!"
Just make the sprite of the tooth begin its arc at the top part of the tile where its arc starts, so it doesn't look like the tooth is being knocked out of his feet, if you can visualize what I'm trying to say.
Of course, if we're talking about a leg, the leg sprite should begin its arc at the bottom of the tile, where its arc should start, visually.
Maybe its starting position ON the actual tile of origin, is not that important.
Maybe none of this is, but i would love to look at it.
Purely brainstorming here :)
Applying the bobbing would be to miners would be really cool too - having them shake around as they mine the tile. The graphics pack I currently use has the stone blocks go through a few different stages of being mined out which is also a really great way of showing something is happening. Wobbling around as they actively craft in workshops would also be nice.
Yes, i played with a tileset like that myself, very nice feature indeed! Hope it gets implemented.
Maybe, just maybe, the wobbling action in all of the workshops might be too much? Might also totally work. I'm imagining a great hall filled with workshops with wobbling dwarves in them. It actually kinda works in my minds picture.
I think i also mentioned stuff like levers. It would be cool to have the sprite make that little "jerk motion" towards the tile with the lever being pulled. I cant think of other examples of objects being interacted with, that could have the little animation, but I'm sure there are some.
It would absolutely work for mining as well, with the miner sprite making a small motion towards the block being mined, every time the mining damage "ticks".
All of this "animation" talk should be taken with a grain of salt tho, as it could easily be overdone, I'm talking slight, SLIGHT motions here, or it just might not match the stillness of everything else, and just be plain disturbing to the immersion and imagery/aesthetic in general.
But oh boy, would it look good if done right!
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 25, 2020, 07:36:16 pm
So, the idle animation you showed us, is basically the unit "breathing" right? Just moving its chest and head up and down a bit.
Is that gonna be visible through armor?
Is the chest and head part of the sprite "disjointed" and simply moved up and down, or do you make several sprites? i think the ladder right?
Anyway, if all living creatures were making the idle "breathing" animation, and the chest amour moved up an down with the chest as it was breathing, how about if all the undead units were NOT making that idle breathing-looking animation? I know it might not be intended as breathing, and more of a "this unit moves a bit" kind of thing, but they could do something else, like small pixels dripping from wounds (even tho they're dead and their blood is not pumping) as they stand around, or something with their head or arms, just not breathing, like the plump helmet man you guys showed.
It could be a way to distinguish them even more from living creatures.
Take a zombie in a full, i mean FULL plate armor as an example. Fully masked, you couldn't possibly tell on a glance that its an undead, as it has no undeadish walking animation or any other visual clues, like purple skin showing. Unless, of course, everything else was breathing, and the undead wasn't. (Or it could have eyes glowing through the helmet visor, but id prefer the first, if we cant have both ;-P)
I think it could add a sense of immersion, actually a sense of dread IMO, to see everything (maybe not everything(but then again, maybe everything?)) breathing, except for the undead versions. They would just be still, until suddenly jerking in motion, slowly "bopping" towards their target. ugh!
Post by: Meph on March 25, 2020, 07:38:26 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 25, 2020, 08:12:59 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 25, 2020, 08:25:20 pm
No new animations are planned for now; those were all mock-ups showing Tarn how it would look ingame. We first have to do everything else; animations would be possible additions we might tack on at the end. That being said, if he adds a bit of code support for the community to create 2-3 frame animations using ALT_TILES for more objects/creatures, I'll be the first to make you guys a set with that. ;)
Ah, well, i sure hope dear Tarn will take it into consideration, I would love to see you and others do some pixel magic with something like that.. Now, it feels important for me to mention that I'm not talking about animations and redrawing of sprites, but more like, in the case of the zombie breathing example, taking the sprite, cutting it up by chest, legs and head, and disjointing them from each other, designating them as seperate parts, to be able to move them a bit around and create "animations" with one sprite. You could then generalize this method trough all sprites , to make a general idle animation, and this could make wonders with a procedural creature generation system.
In the case of the walking, just take the whole sprite in its wholeness, and bop it up an down a bit while its sliding from, to another tile, no legs moving or nothing. just a bopping slide.
I realize you probably know this is what i meant, and it might not be the time for all of this, but I just have to make it REALLY clear, that I'm not talking about new custom drawn 'animation sprites' for each creature and action, but simply the system I'm trying so hard to describe, in inferior non coding language.
BUT, of course, ALT-TILE sets would look AMAZING obviously. But a lot more work i presume? Hard to tell maybe, since my idea is all theoretical.
PS: i edited my former replies to better reflect all my ideas and their limitations. I hope i can inspire you in some way, as i firmly believe a simple animation system using only the single sprite, could be super effective at showing differences in states of being, in a simple manner, eg. laying horizontally for death/sleeping on the ground, and slide-bobbing around when walking, not to mention directional facing and jerking towards elements being interacted with or attacked, would liven up the picture, and bring a lot of visual options to the table, without too much work (as in TONNES of new sprites drawn kind of work), and without making things overly complex, visually, and workload wise. Both for modders, and in case of new vanilla creatures being added, in need of a quick idle animation, or even procedurally generated creatures.
As mentioned earlier, it could also bring some personality to different creatures, such as bop-moving elephants, making bigger more heavy bops, indicating that they're HEAVY, now that you wont be doing enormous size differences.
Or some undead creatures having long intervals between their attack bop, which indicates that theyre slow and dead.
You could essentially make different kinds of bop-movements for different kinds of creatures, making that distinction even clearer. Just a thought.
PSPS: That tiger mane is really important to me! <3
https://imgur.com/a/k3gckbX
(for the tiger sprite, the tigers "mane" is missing, and the iconic head shape isnt really there, at least when looking at the tiger-man sprite, IMHO)
Post by: Meph on March 25, 2020, 09:51:21 pm
BEWARE THE GIANT SPONGE!
(https://i.imgur.com/ihO6Jnu.png)
Quote
Now, it feels important for me to mention that I'm not talking about animations and redrawing of sprites, but more like, in the case of the zombie breathing example, taking the sprite, cutting it up by chest, legs and head, and disjointing them from each other, designating them as seperate parts, to be able to move them a bit around and create "animations" with one sprite. You could then generalize this method trough all sprites , to make a general idle animationThis is still an amazing amount of work. There are close to 3000 creatures sprites. Take them apart into pieces, lets say legs, arms, torso, head, means 6x3000.
Please don't get your hopes up on any fancy animations.
EDIT: Toady is really fast. I'm impressed.
Post by: Jiri Petru on March 26, 2020, 04:43:46 am
(https://bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/march_26_animals.png)
...is that the cat is absolutely monstrous. As big as a dog or a pig! I know you have limited options, having to show everything in a same-sized square, but the cats never stop bothering me.
Other potential scale issues (albeit not as strong ones): the goose and the muskox.
But overall, I'm amazed with the great work and can't wait to play this!
Post by: mko on March 26, 2020, 04:50:00 am
Post by: BLazerules on March 26, 2020, 05:15:54 am
One thing that has been bugging me since forever...
...is that the cat is absolutely monstrous. As big as a dog or a pig! I know you have limited options, having to show everything in a same-sized square, but the cats never stop bothering me.
Other potential scale issues (albeit not as strong ones): the goose and the muskox.
As someone who plays SS13, sprites are not exactly representative of the true size of something.
If you want everything scaled true to size it'd be hard to see (Somethings would be super tiny, others super large multi tile monstrosities), sizes would be all over the place and it'd no doubt be a massive pain to do that. Obviously the chicken and goose aren't as big as the horse for example.
Like... where would you draw the line? There's a guinea pig in that image. How small would that be? 1-5 pixels?
True to size chicken and horse.
(https://i.imgur.com/l7YVise.png)
So I personally think it's perfectly fine but I'm also used to all things being in 32x32 pixels as a max limit regardless of their real size. What matters most is that you can make out what the thing is, even just having a basic "small things are 10x10, medium are 32x32 large are..." type thing would still be a pain.
You'd have to scale things up to properly show things that are smaller and still be able to tell what the pixels are trying to represent I think?
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 26, 2020, 05:34:03 am
As someone who plays SS13, sprites are not exactly representative of the true size of something.
If you want everything scaled true to size it'd be hard to see (Somethings would be super tiny, others super large multi tile monstrosities), sizes would be all over the place and it'd no doubt be a massive pain to do that. Obviously the chicken and goose aren't as big as the horse for example.
I think (or hope) that everyone is well aware of that by now, but still, suspension of disbelief only works so far. And everyone has a different threshold for how far things can be scaled one direction or the other before their brain automatically rejects it. This is also very dependant on how familiar one is with the creature in question and their true size as well as whatever is displayed next to it (muskox are actually much smaller than they seem for instance and are probably okay like that, whereas I'd agree the cat could probably use being shrunken down a tad).
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 26, 2020, 05:39:24 am
For example, the big cat bothers you but the dog being over 3/4 the size of a cow is ok? Well - there's gonna be 100 people for whom the dog is the bigger problem. And then to satisfy everyone, we'd have to make all relative sizes accurate. And then we'd have elephants that take up about 12 tiles...
I won't be surprised if Meph prepares a mod that makes the relative sizes more accurate, but I chose clearer representation of the creature and more interesting details in favour of accurate sizes, because I believe the latter is a lost battle already, what with every possible creature occupying just one tile right now. If that ever changes? I'm all for it.
I'm open to a few small corrections, I'll try to do the cat somewhere down the line, but probably only after we have all other graphics ready.
Post by: mko on March 26, 2020, 06:03:05 am
If you want everything scaled true to size it'd be hard to see (Somethings would be super tiny, others super large multi tile monstrosities), sizes would be all over the place and it'd no doubt be a massive pain to do that. Obviously the chicken and goose aren't as big as the horse for example.I am pretty sure that noone wants this. See size of a dragon and what would happen with linear scaling (even if dragon can take a bit more than a single tile).
So I personally think it's perfectly fine but I'm also used to all things being in 32x32 pixels as a max limit regardless of their real size. What matters most is that you can make out what the thing is, even just having a basic "small things are 10x10, medium are 32x32 large are..." type thing would still be a pain.It is probably also hard, but cat, dog, goose are really weirdly sized in this example. Note that it may turn out that smaller animals are not much better - we see higher static images, in actual gameplay it will work differently.
But lion-sized housecat seems to be unfortunate.
And then to satisfy everyone, we'd have to make all relative sizes accurate. And then we'd have elephants that take up about 12 tiles...Accurate would not work. But ensuring that things drastically smaller than something else have at least a bit smaller image may cover nearly all real complaints.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 26, 2020, 06:19:29 am
Blazerules pretty much describes my approach to the problem.
For example, the big cat bothers you but the dog being over 3/4 the size of a cow is ok? Well - there's gonna be 100 people for whom the dog is the bigger problem. And then to satisfy everyone, we'd have to make all relative sizes accurate. And then we'd have elephants that take up about 12 tiles...
I won't be surprised if Meph prepares a mod that makes the relative sizes more accurate, but I chose clearer representation of the creature and more interesting details in favour of accurate sizes, because I believe the latter is a lost battle already, what with every possible creature occupying just one tile right now. If that ever changes? I'm all for it.
I'm open to a few small corrections, I'll try to do the cat somewhere down the line, but probably only after we have all other graphics ready.
While I agree overall, and think you've done a really good job with sizes so far despite my occasional nitpicking, I also think it's a good idea to (if possible without losing essential identifiers) slightly adjust those things that stand out the most as straying from the loose relative size spectrum everything is haphazardly crammed into by the game limitations. Like, the important bit I'd say is rather that things (where possible, as I know it's often harder in practice than theory) stay close to their relative size order than the actual relative size, so as long as the cat looks and feels smaller (even if just a tiny bit) than most of the the things it should be smaller than then it still feels okay, regardless of if the scales are way off still on the whole. It probably depends a lot on what animal it is too, dogs for instance have wildly varying sizes IRL so are probably easier to instinctively justify being off one way or the other (same with horses or even cows) unlike a cat which is generally pretty small, or something that's generally perceived as really big.
Post by: mko on March 26, 2020, 06:23:40 am
---
And for me cat vs pig issue was striking because I am familiar with this animals.
Goose size issue that someone notice was not so clear for me, probably because I had limited contact with this animals.
And I am unlikely to be bothered by gorlaks, even if their size will be wildly misrepresenting RAW value.
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 26, 2020, 07:59:35 am
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 26, 2020, 08:21:54 am
Well, I don't have a tiger mane atm, but I can give you the formerly mightiest of all creatures:
BEWARE THE GIANT SPONGE!
(https://i.imgur.com/ihO6Jnu.png)QuoteNow, it feels important for me to mention that I'm not talking about animations and redrawing of sprites, but more like, in the case of the zombie breathing example, taking the sprite, cutting it up by chest, legs and head, and disjointing them from each other, designating them as seperate parts, to be able to move them a bit around and create "animations" with one sprite. You could then generalize this method trough all sprites , to make a general idle animationThis is still an amazing amount of work. There are close to 3000 creatures sprites. Take them apart into pieces, lets say legs, arms, torso, head, means 6x3000.
Please don't get your hopes up on any fancy animations.
EDIT: Toady is really fast. I'm impressed.
With that edit, you kinda got my hopes up a bit, what does that mean ;)?
Never mind the cutting of sprites, but more regarding something like a simple system that could disjoint a sprite from JUST its tile, in order to be able to place it wherever on a tile you want, and make a smooth slide between tiles, for boppy-walking.
And Maybe even turning sprites to lay down? Or mirror them to face east and west according to walking/attacking/interaction direction, and bopping towards targetted "element"? You read all that. Im just trying to convey the concept as clearly as possible. I of course would Know Nothing about the time Even just that would take.
Feel free to school me :)
Never mind the cutting up of the sprite For the animations, Thats only dreaming on my part ;) if thats a Lot of work, dont bother wasting time thinking on it<3
The suggestion i made thats most important to me, is definitely the walking bopping up and down while sliding thingy. A Lot could be done with only that as a system.
Ill stop wasting more page space on this now ;)
Ps: Where are those sponges supposed to.. grow i guess?
Nicely done tho.
Post by: mko on March 26, 2020, 08:39:08 am
Ps: Where are those sponges supposed to.. grow i guess?
See DF Wiki - http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Giant_sponge - it has location info and gems such as
Quote
the combat mechanics of v0.40 have made it invulnerable no longer, due to the mechanics of pulping. Due to the sponge's weak material properties (even weaker than flesh), pulping sponge tissue with blunt weapons is surprisingly not too difficult. However, their large size means they can shatter bones, articulations, bruise organs or even kill a dwarf via headshot using their default push attack. They may also themselves pulp body parts beyond recognition, as the push attack is also a blunt attack.
(...)
If some hapless dwarf appears near their water, giant sponges may feel suddenly threatened and charge (!) the hapless dwarf and engage in combat - the only occasion when they move at all. They may also become enraged or unconscious or feel pain, as utterly improbable as that sounds.
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 26, 2020, 08:59:39 am
Ps: Where are those sponges supposed to.. grow i guess?
See DF Wiki - http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Giant_sponge - it has location info and gems such asQuotethe combat mechanics of v0.40 have made it invulnerable no longer, due to the mechanics of pulping. Due to the sponge's weak material properties (even weaker than flesh), pulping sponge tissue with blunt weapons is surprisingly not too difficult. However, their large size means they can shatter bones, articulations, bruise organs or even kill a dwarf via headshot using their default push attack. They may also themselves pulp body parts beyond recognition, as the push attack is also a blunt attack.
(...)
If some hapless dwarf appears near their water, giant sponges may feel suddenly threatened and charge (!) the hapless dwarf and engage in combat - the only occasion when they move at all. They may also become enraged or unconscious or feel pain, as utterly improbable as that sounds.
"Without a nervous system, the only thing it can feel is ANGER"
Hehe
Theres a picture at the bottom of the wikipage, Saying the smoke represents the ANGER. Are giant sponges gonna emmit smoke particles? Thqt would be cool, the more "animated/moving" tiles there are (like waves and flowers blooming), the better. (I mean, this is the graphical release, right ;P? (No pressure hehe))
And, this is not really that relevant, but I always wished for the civilized/lesser civilized races to be able to smoke stuff, and also adventurers, emitting smoke particles, maybe with a pipe in hand, it could look really good with the new graphical release, making the smoke particles translucent, different sizes, and be as an overlay on a tile, instead of only displaying smoke on a tile, where theres also a dwarf smoking.
Would Also be cool to grow sum Good ol pipeweed.
Post by: Cruxador on March 26, 2020, 10:49:09 am
Just wanted to update you guys on the ramp situation. Weird corner/edge cases looking much better now. :)This looks great, but now I'm imagining how much work it will be to make water look good flowing down all these crazy procedural angles.
(https://i.imgur.com/safOGKC.png)
No new animations are planned for now; those were all mock-ups showing Tarn how it would look ingame. We first have to do everything else; animations would be possible additions we might tack on at the end. That being said, if he adds a bit of code support for the community to create 2-3 frame animations using ALT_TILES for more objects/creatures, I'll be the first to make you guys a set with that. ;)Animations are a big effort relative to the payout, but making sprites slide from one tile to another should be pretty simple, it only requires sprites to be displaced dynamically from the center of the tile, and the only big requirement for that is that they be able to overlap the edges of the tile which it seems is already in the cards for big creatures. Then, it needs to be set up different for each action that uses it, but unlike proper animations with frames, it doesn't need to be done differently for each creature and equipment has no effect on it. Of course, it's Toady working on it and not you guys, so I know you can't definitively say anything, but I would expect that he can do it pretty easily, and would be willing to. Aside from stuff that's already all but confirmed, I think this would have by far the biggest impact on the look of the game relative to work put in. In fact, I think the only things more impactful are having different dimensions on the text and map tileset, seeing the background tiles behind creatures and items, and having sprites accurately represent equipment, wounds, and distinctive characteristics, the latter of which is a huge effort from everyone involved. Even the multi-level view is, I think, slightly less of a big deal aesthetically. It just feels bigger since we've already become accustomed to it in TWBT. And it will, of course, be handy to new players who aren't accustomed to z-levels.
Blazerules pretty much describes my approach to the problem.I think part of the problem is that the smaller end of the size range is spread a lot less carefully than the larger range. The coney is pretty much exactly the right size compares to the cavy, and the duck and chicken also have pretty much real life size, while the goose is only slightly smaller than it realistic is compared to them. And that puts the goose at a size comparable to somewhat bigger stuff. I'm not saying that you should go back and redo all those or anything, and I'm also not sure that's entirely a bad thing (might as well have more sprites use more pixels, and thus be more recognizable, compared to the alternate possibility) but I reckon that's the methodological thing which lead to it.
For example, the big cat bothers you but the dog being over 3/4 the size of a cow is ok? Well - there's gonna be 100 people for whom the dog is the bigger problem. And then to satisfy everyone, we'd have to make all relative sizes accurate. And then we'd have elephants that take up about 12 tiles...
I won't be surprised if Meph prepares a mod that makes the relative sizes more accurate, but I chose clearer representation of the creature and more interesting details in favour of accurate sizes, because I believe the latter is a lost battle already, what with every possible creature occupying just one tile right now. If that ever changes? I'm all for it.
I'm open to a few small corrections, I'll try to do the cat somewhere down the line, but probably only after we have all other graphics ready.
But yeah, no matter how you slice it, the cat is too big and that happy little piglet sprite should probably be accompanied by a full grown boar/sow sprite. Although it's weird, since even though it's drawn as a piglet, the size isn't wrong for an adult if compared to something like a horse.
Post by: Rekov on March 26, 2020, 11:54:52 am
I think the area marked in magenta here is supposed to be a single flat side, but the shading makes the 3 marked triangles look like they are all angled differently. The transition between the two tiles in the orange box don't transition seemlessly like the other tiles.
(https://i.imgur.com/N5kk8Gp.png)
Nope, all three magenta triangles are at a different angle (the top one is supposed to be floor). Due to my mistake, the sprite is missing some shadow indicating this (I forgot to enable a layer).
The orange rectangle- there's an edge there, hence the lack of smooth transition.
I'm not sure you have the best approach for that magenta tile. You currently seem to favour an approach where ramps take up the whole tile they occupy. This makes sense when you plan ahead to multi z-level view because it allows slopes to continue smoothly across z-levels. For lack of better terms, lets call these the sharp corner (left) and the beveled corner (right)
(https://i.imgur.com/Rmj7xyf.png)
In both the magenta and orange highlighted tiles, you have chosen a 'beveled' solution when a 'sharp' solution exists.
Here is my understanding of the magenta tile as you've described it. Forgive me if I misunderstood. The solution on the right, which is as jecowa describes it fits better into continuous slopes across z-levels, and is more consistent with the way you've chosen to do corners elsewhere.
(https://i.imgur.com/V3iqVDc.png)
In the case of the orange tile, I don't necessarily see any potential problems across z-levels. I think the current configuration actually helps to break up some of the regularity in the ramp system. However if you really wanted to be consistent, here would be the geometry.
(https://i.imgur.com/O1Lkex6.png)
EDIT:
Here is a potential third solution for the magenta tile. A 'best of both worlds' where the slope across z-levels doesn't have that flat platform, but it also slightly breaks up the regularity of the ramps:
(https://i.imgur.com/39jjy8O.png)
Post by: Meph on March 26, 2020, 11:58:32 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 26, 2020, 12:29:17 pm
Rekov: Vettlingr has indeed proposed a similar approach. I like it! Thanks for the input, I'm probably gonna implement it.
Post by: Rekov on March 26, 2020, 01:00:35 pm
Picture each tile as having a point in the center, and eight points around the edges, four at the corners and four at the midpoints. Triangles radiate out from the center.
(https://i.imgur.com/3j2JRc9.png)
Rules for creating ramps:
1. Each of these points only moves along the z axis.
2. The center point always ends up exactly halfway between z-levels.
3. Move remaining points up or down to connect with their equivalents on neighboring tiles.
To demonstrate this, here is the little scene with the magenta and orange markings recreated by this method
(https://i.imgur.com/DrhUwce.png)
Here is another demonstration. In this case, my procedure creates a significantly different geometry than the one implied in the example:
(https://i.imgur.com/05kPNwR.png)
Especially in the top left corner the solution is different.
(https://i.imgur.com/EjyodSq.png)
Each triangle has one of only four orientations. All that remains is to smooth the shading across transitions between these orientations and add shadows as desired.
All of that having been said, ya'll are artists, and certain tiles like the orange marked one differ from this solution and look much better because of it. However if you guys ever end up stuck, this is a sure way of arriving at a viable geometry.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 26, 2020, 01:51:09 pm
Post by: Rekov on March 26, 2020, 02:17:29 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/6mD768W.gif)
The potential visual complication of unique tiles like the orange tile is that they add planes at new orientations relative to everything else. I think part of the confusion with the current set-up is that some of those planes look too similar, when the geometry suggests that they shouldn't.
Post by: vettlingr on March 26, 2020, 02:25:35 pm
Here is my proposal I posted on discord, I guess it is very similar to what Rekov suggest.
Just so you all can see it on here as well
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 26, 2020, 03:02:15 pm
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 26, 2020, 03:47:22 pm
So you're suggesting to deepen those four-triangle tiles so that the center point is at ground level, rather than half a z-level above? Seems pretty reasonable, but I think the only change will be that the shadows get a bit darker, since it's an orthographic bird's-eye view.
Post by: CL3AR on March 26, 2020, 05:31:39 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 26, 2020, 07:21:30 pm
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 26, 2020, 07:24:32 pm
Can't remember if it's been brought up, but any particular reason to not just simply have ramps be a half-tile thing (that is starting at the top and ending in the middle of the tile), so they'll look the same no matter what configuration they are in? Some level of detail lost true, and might look worse than I imagine, but probably the most accurate depiction possible.
That idea has been rejected, Mayday said, because that would make the multilevel view less appealing.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 26, 2020, 07:28:28 pm
Can't remember if it's been brought up, but any particular reason to not just simply have ramps be a half-tile thing (that is starting at the top and ending in the middle of the tile), so they'll look the same no matter what configuration they are in? Some level of detail lost true, and might look worse than I imagine, but probably the most accurate depiction possible.
That idea has been rejected, Mayday said, because that would make the multilevel view less appealing.
Yeah, just remembered now after I posted it, dorp.
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 26, 2020, 08:34:06 pm
Animations are a big effort relative to the payout, but making sprites slide from one tile to another should be pretty simple, it only requires sprites to be displaced dynamically from the center of the tile, and the only big requirement for that is that they be able to overlap the edges of the tile which it seems is already in the cards for big creatures. Then, it needs to be set up different for each action that uses it, but unlike proper animations with frames, it doesn't need to be done differently for each creature and equipment has no effect on it. Of course, it's Toady working on it and not you guys, so I know you can't definitively say anything, but I would expect that he can do it pretty easily, and would be willing to. Aside from stuff that's already all but confirmed, I think this would have by far the biggest impact on the look of the game relative to work put in. In fact, I think the only things more impactful are having different dimensions on the text and map tileset, seeing the background tiles behind creatures and items, and having sprites accurately represent equipment, wounds, and distinctive characteristics, the latter of which is a huge effort from everyone involved. Even the multi-level view is, I think, slightly less of a big deal aesthetically. It just feels bigger since we've already become accustomed to it in TWBT. And it will, of course, be handy to new players who aren't accustomed to z-levels.
I agree, the payoff would be huge. I do think showing gear is more important though, and i think multiple z-levels are as well. But i reckon the kind of animations were talking about, shouldn't be to hard to manage, i would even go as far as calling it low-hanging fruit, considering the visual impact it would have on the game. But then again, I'm no coder, and have no idea how hard it would actually be to make. Hope it gets passed on.
But yeah, no matter how you slice it, the cat is too big
Its quite noticeable
(https://i.imgur.com/DqSCKLW.jpg)
Here is my proposal I posted on discord, I guess it is very similar to what Rekov suggest.
Just so you all can see it on here as well
Also, that's looking tight. Very simple pattern, easy to recognize. You have my sword.
PS: Is the discord something you can join, and what is the name if so?
Post by: Ziusudra on March 26, 2020, 08:52:05 pm
PS: Is the discord something you can join, and what is the name if so?vettlingr was referring to the Kitfox Games discord, a link can be found on the wiki main page.
Post by: Meph on March 26, 2020, 11:54:34 pm
Would you say this is reasonably clear as a track roller? Bottom shows one on tracks with a gear assembly next to it.
I couldn't find any RL references to rollers. ^^
Post by: Rose on March 27, 2020, 12:09:27 am
[EDIT]
(https://i.imgur.com/gtBRISx.png)
Here we go.
Post by: jecowa on March 27, 2020, 12:09:50 am
Rules for creating ramps:
1. Each of these points only moves along the z axis.
2. The center point always ends up exactly halfway between z-levels.
3. Move remaining points up or down to connect with their equivalents on neighboring tiles.
To demonstrate this, here is the little scene with the magenta and orange markings recreated by this methodSpoiler: demonstration (click to show/hide)
I'm not sure if this is an accurate representation. On the image below, the magenta tile goes down a full level, but the yellow tile only goes down a half level. I'm not a game mechanics expert, but I kind of thought objects on ramps counted as being on the bottom of the ramp, not halfway up.
(https://i.imgur.com/HpBNf2R.png)
Also, is there a way to make it apparent that ramps are not impassable? Consider this image showing the team of mining dwarves who had to walk through a ramp to mine this tunnel:
(https://i.imgur.com/PsT8a6P.png)
Post by: Rose on March 27, 2020, 12:18:17 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I think the first option is more likely though, especially with how they can be made longer, like a chain drive on a roller coaster.
Post by: jecowa on March 27, 2020, 12:30:06 am
(https://i.imgur.com/ZrlayXU.png)
Would you say this is reasonably clear as a track roller? Bottom shows one on tracks with a gear assembly next to it.
I couldn't find any RL references to rollers. ^^
I think that's good. It fits well with the Curses tiles that represent them.
I think with the word "roller", it would be something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/Hamh2w2.jpg)
These are rollers from a conveyor belt.
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 27, 2020, 12:51:13 am
Post by: jecowa on March 27, 2020, 01:23:11 am
... But where's da rope? You need a rope to build a set of rollers in-game.
Maybe something like this to show the rope:
(https://i.imgur.com/Wn7f202.png)
Post by: Rekov on March 27, 2020, 01:34:56 am
I'm not sure if this is an accurate representation. On the image below, the magenta tile goes down a full level, but the yellow tile only goes down a half level. I'm not a game mechanics expert, but I kind of thought objects on ramps counted as being on the bottom of the ramp, not halfway up.
You're basically correct, the solution I've proposed, and vettlingr's appears to be identical, only go to 'half-depth' in those narrow canyon sections. The reason to do this is that it lets you keep the same slope for all ramps, and it simplifies what you're looking at visually.
(https://i.imgur.com/28MjgOE.png)
Now that I've mocked up the 'full depth' version, the WIP's that Toady posted suddenly make a whole lot more sense to me. The two indicated slopes (red) have the exact same shading, so I assumed that they were supposed to be at the same angle. Similarly in the blue box. If that is supposed to be going to full depth, then the left hand ramp doesn't make sense, because it should be steeper in the narrow part.
But if you made the slopes in the narrow parts obviously steeper, then this geometry works fairly well.
(https://i.imgur.com/jn72M2n.png)
Fleshed out both approaches. I think the reason people are still talking about this isn't because it's particularly hard, but because there's just a ton of choices that have to be made, and at some point someone is simply going to have to make those choices. The two examples below I think have every possible ramp (EDIT: I don't. There are more possibilities with single-file constructed ramps), though not every possible rotation/mirror of them. The top one favours visual simplicity, while the bottom one more accurately represents how ramps function in game in terms of fluid mechanics. They both work and make sense. It's just a matter of choices now.
(https://i.imgur.com/2K9xiFS.png)
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 27, 2020, 03:16:05 am
Post by: SuperPluck on March 27, 2020, 04:00:59 am
That said, the picture is very clear.
Post by: BLazerules on March 27, 2020, 08:33:51 am
It is probably also hard, but cat, dog, goose are really weirdly sized in this example. Note that it may turn out that smaller animals are not much better - we see higher static images, in actual gameplay it will work differently.I'd like to think that people who are used to random single symbols representing creatures would be more ok with pictures representing creatures.
But lion-sized housecat seems to be unfortunate.
Maybe me seeing it just as a representation of what is there rather than as a literal thing helps? I don't see it as a lion-sized housecat. I just see it as a housecat. It's scaled up to make it easier to make out what it is, which is the most important thing, and its a nice looking bit of pixel art. Which is all I care about at least.
The same way I don't see the c symbol for cat as a literal representation of a cat. It doesn't seem like that far fetched of a thing? Most pixel art games do basically the same thing.
Post by: Meph on March 27, 2020, 09:54:40 am
Three rollers in a row, with the chain/rope visible.
Post by: Rose on March 27, 2020, 10:08:57 am
Post by: Cruxador on March 27, 2020, 10:29:39 am
I agree, the payoff would be huge. I do think showing gear is more important though, and i think multiple z-levels are as well.Although in retrospect my phrasing wasn't clear, I was still talking about relative to effort. Showing gear accurately needs at the very least a separate sprite for each type of gear and type of creature to wear it. It may also require a but of code support per thing, depending on how it's set up, although based on how he normally does things I would expect Toady can and will go for an easily expansible and moddable solution.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZrlayXU.png)I always assumed that they were equivalent to the "roller" portion of a rollercoaster. After all, a rollercoaster is basically a minecart track designed by the kind of person who might play DF, and the first rollercoasters were gravity railways anyway. In case you're not very familiar with rollercoasters, it's basically Mala's first mockup but with a chain on the gear because normally they're linked over multiple gears and the chain is linked to an engine below, next to, or otherwise out of the way of the track.
Would you say this is reasonably clear as a track roller? Bottom shows one on tracks with a gear assembly next to it.
I couldn't find any RL references to rollers. ^^
The kind of roller that you've depicted there isn't normally powered, and I'm having a hard time imagining how it would work with a minecart on top, since minecarts do, after all, have wheels. Seems like you'd basically need to take the cart off the track and turn it on its side or something? I don't know, I've only ever seen these used in packaging facilities and playgrounds.
Maybe me seeing it just as a representation of what is there rather than as a literal thing helps? I don't see it as a lion-sized housecat. I just see it as a housecat. It's scaled up to make it easier to make out what it is, which is the most important thing, and its a nice looking bit of pixel art. Which is all I care about at least.It's a representation, but the point of moving away from ASCII is to have a better (that is, more representative) representation. One where you don't have to learn to "read" DF to be able to tell what you're looking at; where new players can tell just by looking rather than always loo[k]ing. Obviously, perfection is not attainable. But that hardly means it's meaningless to identify things that ought to be improved, and in a game with lots of giant animals, an oversized cat does have a substantial potential to be misleading. Furthermore, the illusion of meaningful sizes in the graphics is important to provide context for the game's fictional creatures, and it relies in the known creatures being accurate. For this purpose, although it's not the situation "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link", still each imperfection weakens the overall illusion, and this error, besides being quite noticeable, is also in one of the most recognizable creatures.
The same way I don't see the c symbol for cat as a literal representation of a cat. It doesn't seem like that far fetched of a thing? Most pixel art games do basically the same thing.
I started this post before this was here, but:
(https://i.imgur.com/9XY5wfM.gif)Why is there two chains? And although this might be a nitpick, it seems like this mess would get in the way of the wheels as well.
Three rollers in a row, with the chain/rope visible.
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 27, 2020, 10:48:11 am
However, with the introduction of the chains the thick parts "hugging" the track aren't needed (and so would get out of potentially being in the way).
Post by: vettlingr on March 27, 2020, 11:02:40 am
(https://i.imgur.com/9XY5wfM.gif)I think this is good enough. Dwarves certainly don't have reference images when they construct theirs.
Three rollers in a row, with the chain/rope visible.
Would be interesting to compare with a one chain version and so on, also. Does the roller sprite include the tracks underneath or are they transposed above tracks thanks to transparency?
Post by: Cruxador on March 27, 2020, 11:42:47 am
This is a fallacious line of reasoning. Although the game doesn't fully represent this, the dwarf can be assumed to be working from schematics or to already know how the thing is supposed to work. It's intelligent design, and with the exception of strange moods, stuff in the game doesn't come to exist simply because a dwarf was dicking around and happened to stumble on something that basically got the job done.(https://i.imgur.com/9XY5wfM.gif)I think this is good enough. Dwarves certainly don't have reference images when they construct theirs.
Three rollers in a row, with the chain/rope visible.
Quote
Would be interesting to compare with a one chain version and so on, also. Does the roller sprite include the tracks underneath or are they transposed above tracks thanks to transparency?Seems to me there's no benefit at all to adding another layer for the sake of the latter.
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 27, 2020, 12:05:35 pm
Seems to me there's no benefit at all to adding another layer for the sake of the latter.
Well, I mean, what if we want the rollers and minecart tracks to change color per their materials? It seems more difficult and inelegant of a solution to create N^2 different roller tiles.
Or have we decided that different material colors for certain objects won't make it into the Steam version?
Post by: mko on March 27, 2020, 12:50:34 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/9XY5wfM.gif)Much better. It would probably not work in reality. But I cannot imagine any reality-adjacent mechanism that would explain how minecarts are powered and match ingame usage.
Three rollers in a row, with the chain/rope visible.
Post by: Meph on March 27, 2020, 01:02:33 pm
Post by: Vordak on March 27, 2020, 01:06:34 pm
Post by: Rafal99 on March 27, 2020, 01:41:44 pm
I'm not sure if this is an accurate representation. On the image below, the magenta tile goes down a full level, but the yellow tile only goes down a half level. I'm not a game mechanics expert, but I kind of thought objects on ramps counted as being on the bottom of the ramp, not halfway up.
You're basically correct, the solution I've proposed, and vettlingr's appears to be identical, only go to 'half-depth' in those narrow canyon sections. The reason to do this is that it lets you keep the same slope for all ramps, and it simplifies what you're looking at visually.
(https://i.imgur.com/28MjgOE.png)
(...)
Hi
I would like to add my two cents to considerations about half-depth vs full-depth ramps.
I am all for half-depth ramp, firstly because they are easier to parse visually, but also because they seem more physically-consistent, let me show some examples.
1. Consistent vertical position of creature or item standing on ramp.
For game physics, it is most logical to assume that a creature standing on a tile (and with position not determined more precisely), physically counts as standing at the very center of the tile rectangle.
So from the side view:
(https://i.imgur.com/TEB2xKC.png)
As you can see with half-height ramp creatures standing at the center of the tile are always at the same height.
While with full-height ramps creature's vertical position depends on the shape of the ramp, while imho it should not.
2. Physics of channel-digging and ramp-building.
Side view:
(https://i.imgur.com/bVQtMSz.png)
I don't think a dwarf who is digging a channel is supposed to fill a ground hole on the next tile, but with Full-height ramps apparently it does. :P
Post by: Meph on March 27, 2020, 02:12:40 pm
We do want to turn it to fit the track direction, but that hasn't been done yet.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 27, 2020, 02:19:35 pm
Hi
I would like to add my two cents to considerations about half-depth vs full-depth ramps.
I am all for half-depth ramp, firstly because they are easier to parse visually, but also because they seem more physically-consistent, let me show some examples.
1. Consistent vertical position of creature or item standing on ramp.
For game physics, it is most logical to assume that a creature standing on a tile (and with position not determined more precisely), physically counts as standing at the very center of the tile rectangle.
So from the side view:
(https://i.imgur.com/TEB2xKC.png)
As you can see with half-height ramp creatures standing at the center of the tile are always at the same height.
While with full-height ramps creature's vertical position depends on the shape of the ramp, while imho it should not.
2. Physics of channel-digging and ramp-building.
Side view:
(https://i.imgur.com/bVQtMSz.png)
I don't think a dwarf who is digging a channel is supposed to fill a ground hole on the next tile, but with Full-height ramps apparently it does. :P
Seems like a lot of assumptions that are contrary to what's actually happening in the game (creatures moving through tile with a ramp are still at ground level for instance, and can be anywhere inside the tile depending on what they are doing), and there's probably just as many weird cases that'll crop up with displaying them as half-ramps as with full ramps, as neither is a perfect replication of the underlying mechanics. For instance, if one digs into the wall from inside a half-ramp ditch and makes an entrance, door and all, I can't imagine that looking like it makes sense either.
Post by: Uthimienure on March 27, 2020, 02:28:23 pm
They completely obscure the underlying terrain as-is, and are distracting.
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 27, 2020, 02:38:16 pm
Is it possible to make the stockpile tiles partially transparent so they stand out less?Note that the "underlying terrain" consists of moss/grass, plants, saplings, and mud in addition to the floor itself (and I would assume you've got spatters of various substances, such as blood and vomit as well).
They completely obscure the underlying terrain as-is, and are distracting.
Post by: Meph on March 27, 2020, 02:40:19 pm
Post by: Uthimienure on March 27, 2020, 03:00:48 pm
After all, a stockpile is simply a "designated area" for storage, not a constructed platform or the like which would cover everything below. This is why I would prefer them partially transparent.
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 27, 2020, 03:25:51 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 27, 2020, 04:11:39 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/tCn0aLt.png)
Post by: Rekov on March 27, 2020, 04:12:45 pm
An alternative going in a completely different direction would be to do something like those construction marking stakes, or those grids of stakes and ropes that archeologists use to mark off their sites. Basically have a little flag in each corner of the stockpile, with the color indicating the type of stockpile.
(https://i.imgur.com/dwPIy0l.gif)
You would need to work out where to place the stakes, and how many to have along the sides of stockpiles, etc, but it seems easy enough to do. Basically offset the stake sprite to the sides/corner of a tile as needed.
Post by: Uthimienure on March 27, 2020, 04:20:33 pm
I'm sorry, but transparency results in something completely unreadable:I think that looks fine, but that's the beauty of the world... everyone has a different way of looking at things :)
(https://i.imgur.com/tCn0aLt.png)
What happens when it's placed over top of several different terrains, or is that what we're seeing? (It all looks like the same grass to me)
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 27, 2020, 04:20:54 pm
I'm sorry, but transparency results in something completely unreadable:
(https://i.imgur.com/tCn0aLt.png)
But... unreadable how? I like this a lot more, because it makes it clear a "stockpile" is an abstract thing, rather than a physical construction.
Post by: Uthimienure on March 27, 2020, 04:22:42 pm
You could make stockpiles like zones, where they are only visible when you are in the menu. This could even be made a setting. Always visible vs. Only in menus.I wasn't going to mention zones, because that requires coding changes, and I've read that future work by Toady is going to revamp zones and stockpiles anyway.
An alternative going in a completely different direction would be to do something like those construction marking stakes, or those grids of stakes and ropes that archeologists use to mark off their sites. Basically have a little flag in each corner of the stockpile, with the color indicating the type of stockpile.
(https://i.imgur.com/dwPIy0l.gif)
You would need to work out where to place the stakes, and how many to have along the sides of stockpiles, etc, but it seems easy enough to do. Basically offset the stake sprite to the sides/corner of a tile as needed.
With your flags, that's not bad at all... but what happens when you have irregularly shaped stockpiles that flow around stuff... LOTS of flags?
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 27, 2020, 04:25:20 pm
Post by: Meph on March 27, 2020, 04:27:32 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/sOuVrFS.png)
Post by: Schmaven on March 27, 2020, 04:27:40 pm
Having options to change the views of various things would be nice. But that seems more in the realm of modding. Having no options, just the 1 stockpile look for the official tileset seems reasonable.
Edit: that being said, no matter what the the end result ends up being, I'm sure I will figure it out. I generally don't go too crazy with stockpile shapes. And with familiarity, just about anything can become second nature.
Why do you want to see what is under your stockpiles? I've never heard of using them for sapling growth prevention before.
Post by: Uthimienure on March 27, 2020, 04:33:51 pm
If we do hide them, my idea would be using borders. Transparency makes both sprites (ground and stockpile) less readable.I love this idea! :)
(https://i.imgur.com/sOuVrFS.png)
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 27, 2020, 04:37:23 pm
Why do you want to see what is under your stockpiles?
I think the issue is more, like I said, that opaque stockpiles would look like constructed floors, or some other physical construction that was built to cover the ground. But this makes no sense, since in the game stockpiles are abstract immaterial things -- you don't "build" stockpiles, you simply abstractly designate them, and they exist only in your dwarves' minds. The =s in ASCII vanilla DF are just the most convenient way to express where a stockpile is located in an environment restricted to ASCII graphics. But we're not restricted to ASCII anymore.
I think bordered stockpiles are indeed better than opaque stockpiles, but they're sort of less noticeable and less immediately clear designations for stockpiles than transparent stockpiles.
Post by: Meph on March 27, 2020, 04:37:29 pm
Quote
Why do you want to see what is under your stockpiles? I've never heard of using them for sapling growth prevention before.I use them to prevent sapling growths a lot. ^^
No idea why you'd want to see what's underneath, I think it was more a matter of principle. Stockpiles are player-assigned zones, not dwarf-constructed buildings.
If you see what's underneath, you can color-code them by building different floors underneath.
Post by: Rekov on March 27, 2020, 04:41:00 pm
With your flags, that's not bad at all... but what happens when you have irregularly shaped stockpiles that flow around stuff... LOTS of flags?
Yeah, I played around with mocking up something with multiple stockpiles bordering against each other and it very quickly gets enormously complicated to keep flags from overlapping in unreadable ways. Especially once you start having irregularly shaped stockpiles. Unfortunate, because I also really liked the little flags.
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 27, 2020, 04:44:22 pm
having a dotted line run between flags, so the shape of the stockpile is more clear
?
It'd make the borders be even more abstract, which I'd prefer.
Post by: Uthimienure on March 27, 2020, 04:45:06 pm
Well, with floors under them, it's not a big deal... but I build stockpiles outdoors, and just about everywhere. I hate having to use "k" to see the underlying terrain. Either your borders or Mike's transparency would help with that, although the borders are my favorite. They could be a bit less like mini stone walls and even be partly transparent themselves, then I would be on cloud nine.QuoteWhy do you want to see what is under your stockpiles? I've never heard of using them for sapling growth prevention before.I use them to prevent sapling growths a lot. ^^
No idea why you'd want to see what's underneath, I think it was more a matter of principle. Stockpiles are player-assigned zones, not dwarf-constructed buildings.
If you see what's underneath, you can color-code them by building different floors underneath.
Post by: Rekov on March 27, 2020, 05:04:16 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/w0hpqmM.png)
Maybe someone could come up with something better? At this point I'm leaning toward Meph's border idea.
And Meph, I think the desire to see what's under stockpiles is purely an aesthetic thing. Zones, traffic designations, etc don't show up in game as overlays because they aren't meant to exist as physical things. Same with stockpiles I guess.
Post by: Uthimienure on March 27, 2020, 05:09:28 pm
If we do hide them, my idea would be using borders. Transparency makes both sprites (ground and stockpile) less readable.
(https://i.imgur.com/sOuVrFS.png)
A thought... is it easy or hard (or impossible) to make the borders different colors based on the type of stockpile chosen when designated?
This isn't super important, it would just be the icing on the cake. You could see at a quick glance which pile is food, finished goods, etc.
Again, no biggie and not worth much time away from more important graphics tasks.
Post by: Meph on March 27, 2020, 05:11:26 pm
Quote
A thought... is it easy or hard (or impossible) to make the borders different colors based on the type of stockpile chosen when designated?I thought about that, or adding a sign, icon or text to it. Made some mock-ups long ago. ^^
It's 18 types btw: 17 base + 1 for custom settings.
We haven't talked with Tarn about the stockpiles. So far they are just the normal stockpiles you now and love. :P
Post by: Superdorf on March 27, 2020, 05:54:37 pm
Post by: Schmaven on March 27, 2020, 05:55:17 pm
Post by: voliol on March 27, 2020, 06:14:56 pm
They look ok with items as well:
(https://i.imgur.com/aM1pBJ2.png)
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 27, 2020, 06:55:46 pm
I'm sorry, but transparency results in something completely unreadable:
(https://i.imgur.com/tCn0aLt.png)
But... unreadable how? I like this a lot more, because it makes it clear a "stockpile" is an abstract thing, rather than a physical construction.
Gotta agree, this works for me as well, for reasons you described here. And beyond that, i Think it looks absolutely better that way as well, not as protruding from the terrain.
I like the Idea with the Sticks placed as a border for the stockpile Even Better, tho this might work well.
Edit: I didnt realize the discussion had moved on.
The border only, seems like the better solution. Maybe it could be made less of a "full/complete" Square, and instead just be dots or short lines, except for the corners.
And Maybe Also transparent?
The current design kinda looks like a "cut out" block of terrain (or as previously mentioned, like a thin stone/metal wall), and stands out in a Weird way. It almost looks "elevated". Maybe not. Maybe you got it right.
Post by: Rekov on March 27, 2020, 07:17:04 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/0aJgays.png) (https://i.imgur.com/gouaQ6q.png)
Obviously having a unique color for each kind of stockpile isn't viable, but you could probably group stockpiles into a few colors, and then the objects in the stockpile should help clarify too.
EDIT: Added alternate with flags in a different corner.
Post by: Cruxador on March 27, 2020, 07:29:27 pm
You're right, that's definitely a reason. There don't need to be separate tiles for each material, though. I've been assuming that the sprites will be per general class of material and then will just inherit color from the raws dynamically, as now. And there isn't really any reason that a sprite can't inherit more than one color from raws.Seems to me there's no benefit at all to adding another layer for the sake of the latter.
Well, I mean, what if we want the rollers and minecart tracks to change color per their materials? It seems more difficult and inelegant of a solution to create N^2 different roller tiles.
I'm sorry, but transparency results in something completely unreadable:Well, a transparent stockpile wouldn't necessarily need to keep the checkered pattern, that's the kind of thing that can definitely be reimaginied in this kind of big graphical overhaul. But actually, that looks fine.
(https://i.imgur.com/tCn0aLt.png)
If we do hide them, my idea would be using borders. Transparency makes both sprites (ground and stockpile) less readable.This looks good, but I wonder about very big stockpiles. What about having this kind of small line on/around all stockpile tiles, and not just the ones at the edge? In other words, a stockpile design with a lot of transparency but not one with homogeneous transparency like Mayday's example.
(https://i.imgur.com/sOuVrFS.png)
That's basically an exploit, though. It can be said that there's no wrong way to play a single player game, but even so this kind of thing should probably not be considered too heavily in design. Same as things like quantum stockpiling or atom smashers.QuoteWhy do you want to see what is under your stockpiles? I've never heard of using them for sapling growth prevention before.I use them to prevent sapling growths a lot. ^^
What if you had the existing opaque griddy-thing, but made it blink between stockpile and ground tile, sorta like how items blink over stairways now? Best of both worlds, or distracting mess?Distracting mess.
Post by: Bumber on March 27, 2020, 08:07:06 pm
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/6OMW2.png)
The above image could represent either 2 or 8 tiles, depending on what looks good.
Post by: jecowa on March 27, 2020, 09:44:42 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 28, 2020, 02:13:06 am
I'd also recommend holding off on efforts to try to distinguish between stockpile types, at least beyond principles, until it's been decided how stockpiles will be reworked for the Premium release (or not, of course, if that's the outcome). As pointed out, though, stockpiles can be combined in various way, as well as be restricted according to various criteria.
And, as an aside, my current sapling control method is regular construction of dirt roads to kill off saplings, with floor building as a slow background activity for a permanent solution (gave up on constructed roads after a dragon set those on fire...).
Post by: Hommit on March 28, 2020, 04:36:23 am
I'm not sure how to represent the "north-south" running ropes, so I left them out.looks good imo
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 28, 2020, 04:46:20 am
Post by: Erendir on March 28, 2020, 05:23:10 am
Maybe it's possible to have different borders, a more visible for the outer stockpile border (like Meph's) and dashed lines (or something) for borders between tiles inside the stockpile.
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 28, 2020, 08:40:29 am
I'm not sure how to represent the "north-south" running ropes, so I left them out.
(https://i.imgur.com/0aJgays.png) (https://i.imgur.com/gouaQ6q.png)
Obviously having a unique color for each kind of stockpile isn't viable, but you could probably group stockpiles into a few colors, and then the objects in the stockpile should help clarify too.
EDIT: Added alternate with flags in a different corner.
This is a great idea. Now its a designated stockpile area.
Id much rather look at thiswhile playing, Even though it might be less "readable" in edgecases.
I actually think this is more easily "read" as being a stockpile. Mephs outlines are basically back to ASCII, with abstract but readable symbols for Everything (no offense, its crystal clear and readable, but might as well be an ASCII symbol).
It makes a Lot of sense, that a designated stockpile area would look like this, if it Shouldnt be fully abstract
If there could be a double rope where stockpile borders Meet (Maybe only for the north/south ropes), it might make things clearer. But maybe it would be more messy than the current mockup. Just a thought
You could make the north/south ropes just 1 pixel thick, without the black outline? (Maybe Also the east west ropes, for consistensy, Even tho they ARE pretty and could be left as are).
Also, i cant really tell how many pixels wide the sticks are, (4?) but you could place the north/south rope on the "innermost" pixels on the sticks (the pixels closer to the actual stockpile area), so the ropes dont overlap to much of the stick.
Maybe the outermost would make more sense, but placing them innermost could Maybe make room for double ropes Where the borders of stockpiles Meet?
I Think the flag situation you have makes most sense on the image to the right(but that might just be Because of the specific way these stockpiles are placed). If You could put flags in the diagonally opposite corner as well, so 2 flags per stockpile border, I think it would be perfect.
Maybe Some planks strewn about inside the outdoors stockpiles, for "leveling" the ground, giving stability, when placing, say a cabinet outside in the grass, you Wanna make sure theres Some level ground to place it on.
It could be Some planks (saturated in color, so they dont pop out to much), crossed over eachother/laying parallel to eachother, to make small "bridges" over small (abstract) holes and irregularities in the ground, on Some of the tiles, when the stockpile is outdoors.
(Could also be used for dirt paths, planks strewn over muddy spots on the path etc)
It might make it even clearer, that the area inside the ropes is for placing things.
(Again, might also mess things up visually)
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 28, 2020, 08:43:56 am
If we do hide them, my idea would be using borders. Transparency makes both sprites (ground and stockpile) less readable.
(https://i.imgur.com/sOuVrFS.png)
Maybe this would work really great for indoors stockpiles!
I mean, you might not be able to put sticks with flags on them, down in a raw stonefloor (unless ofcourse you make Some small holes)
Of course, theres also raw stone on the surface outside, but that could be an exeption.
But i generally like the ropes Idea the most.
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 28, 2020, 09:34:38 am
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 28, 2020, 10:14:18 am
I don't think it's a good idea to depict a lot of stockpile infrastructure (i.e. floors) where the game doesn't have any. Now, I wouldn't be opposed to the game having the current quick and dirty storage area stockpiles as well as organized "warehouse" stockpiles with floors, shelves, etc. but the graphics should try to follow the game where possible/reasonable (and, to make it clear: I think the artists are doing a very good job), so any such enhancements should come when/if the game has them.
I mean, Some loosely spread planks on 15% of the tiles wouldnt Really be much more inaccurate Than having sticks with ropes, as you dont currently use rope for designating a stockpile, or cloth for making flags for it.
To me it would just add to the immersion, in the exact same way as the ropes and sticks does. Its what a stockpile looks like, for functionality, Even though you dont spend any of those materials on building them.
But Youre right tho, planks are a ressource that has gone through several stages og processeing in order to become planks, so Maybe just use raw wood logs instead, as wood logs require less overall work in order to serve that function.
And I totally see your point, the less abstract a representation we can get, in terms of materials used/functionalit, etc., the better, in general.
Still, I think it might look good. Lil flavour.
Would like to See it mocked up, muddy spots in the grass with some logs loosely placed over them, and the like.
Of course, it could come by as a stockpiled item on a quick glance, unless it could be made to blend in/not stick out to much from the other floor tiles, shape/colour wise.
Post by: Meph on March 28, 2020, 10:41:11 am
Not sure how happy Tarn will be about printing a potential 5 layers. For example Grass + Bush + Stockpile + Bin + Item. But I think he will be open to suggestions.
I do like the idea of poles and ropes, but it might be a bit hard to read in busy forts, especially since it uses the tile above for the poles as well.
Edit: I tried testing it with TWBT, but sadly the stockpile doesn't count as a construction and doesn't support transparency. Would have been nice just to test it ingame ^^
Post by: mko on March 28, 2020, 10:47:06 am
(https://i.imgur.com/rzkmVuq.png)I really like this one.
Post by: Uthimienure on March 28, 2020, 10:55:52 am
Me too!(https://i.imgur.com/rzkmVuq.png)I really like this one.
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 28, 2020, 11:00:56 am
(https://i.imgur.com/rzkmVuq.png)
I do like the idea of poles and ropes, but it might be a bit hard to read in busy forts, especially since it uses the tile above for the poles as well.
Edit: I tried testing it with TWBT, but sadly the stockpile doesn't count as a construction and doesn't support transparency. Would have been nice just to test it ingame ^^
I promise, I dont mean to be annoying, but that just does not come of as stockpiles to me. It looks like steel edges on a concrete foundation of a building. Or a designation for something. Im not even sure the gridlines help me.
The poles though, i cannot possible see as anything but stockpile borders.
In regards to busy forts, it would only look bad/Weird in a busy, underground fort, the way i imagine it. IMO it would always look decent outdoors.
So you could use the borders underground.
(Also wooden poles is somehow less aesthetically pleasing indoors/underground, so I would actually almost prefer the borders, or something else indoors/underground)
Also, the ropes could be lowered a bit , to not overlap the above tile so much, even tho i honestly dont think it will ever be a problem as is.
IF you decide to use this instead of the poles, I think you should make the "pointy things on the inside of the stockpile-border" line up with the grid lines. That might help the whole thing have less of a contrast to the environment somehow.
Post by: Meph on March 28, 2020, 11:03:46 am
(https://i.imgur.com/7aEG2kD.png)
The arrow-like indicators are now aligned with the grid.
Edit: I swear I did this before seeing the post above. XD
You are not annoying, but just so you know why there is the solid border: It needs to be visible and stand out a bit, because stockpiles come in many weird shapes and sizes. It's also similar to the border we use around a workshop. It indicates that it's a place that dwarves use for jobs.
Edit: Rekovs design with grid.
(https://i.imgur.com/pHvFrMp.png)
Post by: LordBalkan on March 28, 2020, 11:25:20 am
Not sure how happy Tarn will be about printing a potential 5 layers. For example Grass + Bush + Stockpile + Bin + Item. But I think he will be open to suggestions.
Only after I read that that the problem to "make it transparent" took form for me.
Before anything else, I do like stockpiles the way they are now, completly opaque.
Im not interested to see what is bellow the items stored there since the item is occupying the tile in anyways.
If they can be used as an exploit to prevent saplings and bushes as it was an actual construction, well... I got to say that this is not the first exploit and will not be the last.
Either transparent or just borders are indeed good looking. However, as mentioned at the beginning of my post, it have a direct impact at the way the tile layers will be programmed by Tarn. If he does agree with that, well there will be a modification to something that endure for a long time without a touch!
Made some mock-ups long ago. ^^
It's 18 types btw: 17 base + 1 for custom settings.
And now im curious hehehe.
BTW
Those mockups are displaying some tree trunks that look interesting. Im Guessing right if I say that you are preparing bark variation to specify different trees?
Post by: Meph on March 28, 2020, 11:29:06 am
Maybe a sign for the stockpile content? (Super rough mock-up)
(https://i.imgur.com/EO5id56.png)
Post by: LordBalkan on March 28, 2020, 11:42:43 am
And also occured to me that if the flagged version, displaying different colors for diferent stockpiles, are applicable, then why not merge the flag colors with sign symbols?
The graphicset will improve a lot of this current obstacle of ascii since there will be a real representation for each item, but symbols do help a lot when it comes to know what stockpile was created. I do often build a quick stockpile and forget to change the category in the hurry, just to remember moments later when no one is carrying the stones to the food stockpile.
Post by: Vordak on March 28, 2020, 12:14:39 pm
Accordingly, need a separate .txt file where the modders will be able to register the path with new icons or banners.
p.s. Maybe someone's already suggested, I didn't read last posts, only saw pics.
You'll definitely have to send to Rekov a whiskey bottle.
Post by: Superdorf on March 28, 2020, 12:26:52 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 28, 2020, 12:48:37 pm
Really like the idea of marking the edges with either rope or some marking though. Personally prefer the non-ropey version or something more like it as it'd work better for a broader range of circumstances without looking weird imo (like walled off storage rooms or underground stockpiles on stone floors).
Post by: Schmaven on March 28, 2020, 01:49:30 pm
Post by: Meph on March 28, 2020, 01:54:45 pm
Probably most stockpiles will end up on stone floors given the ease at which dwarves can expand underground. Are you thinking of having different stockpile boundaries depending on whether it is on stone, grass, sand, etc?Absolutely not. They need to be easily identifiable.
Let's assume you get visited by a werebeast... would these be sufficiently werebeasty? :P
(https://i.imgur.com/qj1zWb3.png)
Post by: Uthimienure on March 28, 2020, 01:58:09 pm
Post by: vettlingr on March 28, 2020, 02:05:14 pm
I like the wood, though I find stone and metal rods with stone plaques a better fit.
Im wondering if the checked stockpile pattern isn't very ingrained in DF by now. Deviating from it is a little soul-crushing don't you think? :D
(https://i.imgur.com/fXg5MJo.jpg)
The above is not at all the steam tileset, it's me playing around.
Actually I forgot what my point was while making these. But I think it was something with showing off stockpiles inside rather than focusing how they look outside and using dwarfish materials rather than wood. :D
They lack that scary Night creature factor, maybe give the sprites a spooky light source and glowing eyes. Extreme hunch and long claws would also be a plus. What differes werebeasts from animal men otherwise?Probably most stockpiles will end up on stone floors given the ease at which dwarves can expand underground. Are you thinking of having different stockpile boundaries depending on whether it is on stone, grass, sand, etc?Absolutely not. They need to be easily identifiable.
Let's assume you get visited by a werebeast... would these be sufficiently werebeasty? :P
(https://i.imgur.com/qj1zWb3.png)
EDIT: I liked the Purple/dark ones you did, I think that still is the way to go
(https://i.imgur.com/iFQVO51.jpg)
Also shout out to Kruggsmashs great werebeast art.
Post by: Meph on March 28, 2020, 02:20:23 pm
Quote
Im wondering if the checked stockpile pattern isn't very ingrained in DF by now. Deviating from it is a little soul-crushing don't you think?Not if you look through those: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=175652.msg8091873#msg8091873 That's 49 images, with 3 sets using a chessboard design for stockpiles. Most go with a "=" sign. I don't mind the checkerboard personally.
I like your example, of course with a constructed floor and a pre-set red that contrasts well with the background, it's bound to look amazing. ;)
Werebeasts are much larger (Mock-up with rough animal-men variants):
(https://i.imgur.com/ZAGVirD.png)
Post by: Proudbucket on March 28, 2020, 02:23:35 pm
Let's assume you get visited by a werebeast... would these be sufficiently werebeasty? :PYes, those look identifiable and good.
They look much more dangerous than the animal people shown before.
Post by: Vordak on March 28, 2020, 02:43:48 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/lVttqCE.png)
Yea yea, I know that corrupting someone else's art is unacceptable, but I just couldn't get past.
Post by: vettlingr on March 28, 2020, 02:47:24 pm
- Rather than terrorizing the local village!
(https://i.imgur.com/exXIwqZ.png)
I did a slight modification, I don't urge you to follow my example at all, just to illustrate a bit what makes beasts scary without any scary light effects or dark colours.
The posture is asymmetrical. <- This is the most important
One shoulder is higher than the other
The head hangs on a slight hunchback
The chest, while muscular, is slouching
etc. etc.
Post by: Meph on March 28, 2020, 02:53:20 pm
Stockpiles: Why not everything at once? Ropes, Stakes, Signs, Checkerboard, Color-Coding, Transparency. Lets do it all:
(https://i.imgur.com/fH4En7y.png)
Quote
I did a slight modification, I don't urge you to follow my example at all, just to illustrate a bit what makes beasts scaryOh, that's cool. :) Really helpful, since I just started the first mock-ups for the werebeasts. The body is a copy of the Minotaur body we use, because we kinda want to limit the hand/body positions for possible equipment. Guess it will still work with your hunchback. :)
Without any scary light effects or dark colours
The posture is asymmetrical. <- This is the most important
One shoulder is higher than the other
The head hangs on a slight hunchback
The chest, while muscular, is slouching
etc. etc.
Quote
without any scary light effects or dark colours.He said, adding a glow to the eyes and darkening the sprite a lot. :P
The other topic is always work-time vs. payoff. It's 73 werebeasts, and their priority is pretty low atm.
Seems it was a good idea to post the mock-ups here.
Edit: Mh...
(https://i.imgur.com/v0h3EOt.png)
Post by: Cruxador on March 28, 2020, 03:12:33 pm
Not sure how happy Tarn will be about printing a potential 5 layers. For example Grass + Bush + Stockpile + Bin + Item. But I think he will be open to suggestions.Are these layers per tile? It should be rare enough not to be a big problem, I think, if that's the case. Otherwise it would be excessive but then, so would giving bins their own layer. A bin is an item that contains items, might as well just let it be closed if the cost is high.
We will do a few designs for trees, yes. Broadleaf, Conifer, Saguaro, Giant Mushrooms, Palms... not all trees for now, just the most different-looking ones.There's a lot of tradeoff in time and all that, but it would be good to do a bit more differentiation than that. Like, stone fruit look a lot like each other so honestly the only real difference sometimes is flower color, but then they all look different from like oaks or walnuts. Of course, different kinds of oaks have some variety in how they look, and the different sections of the walnut genus can look pretty different too. But most of the part of that which can be seen in this resolution can also be covered by color.
As I understand that in stockpile settings menu you will need an additional window where you can select an icon/banner/flag. As well as the required background color.You don't necessarily have to, it can also be procedurally chosen by the game according to what stuff the stockpile accepts. Either way, it'd be more work for Toady.
Maybe worth noting, those faintly colored segmented lines work don't work at all if one is color blind (or at least the mild red/green version which isn't all that uncommon), which yeah, minority concern and all but to me at least it's kind of straining on the eyes and doesn't help with identifying what kind of stockpile it's supposed to be at all (though I suppose it depends a lot with which colours are chosen as well).Yeah, but it's not like it's worse than the current situation even in that case.
Let's assume you get visited by a werebeast... would these be sufficiently werebeasty? :PIt doesn't look bad but together with the defined musculature, those red banana hammocks make it look like these guys are out of some kind of animal strip club.
(https://i.imgur.com/qj1zWb3.png)
I mean, I'm not saying that's a deal breaker. But if these go into the game, there'll be smut drawn of the werebeasts.
I did a little mock up just for fun with serious and ridiculous examples.The same could be said about ASCII.
I like the wood, though I find stone and metal rods with stone plaques a better fit.
Im wondering if the checked stockpile pattern isn't very ingrained in DF by now. Deviating from it is a little soul-crushing don't you think? :D
Edit: Mh...That looks very monstrous. Which is appropriate.
(https://i.imgur.com/v0h3EOt.png)
Post by: mko on March 28, 2020, 03:15:39 pm
They lack that scary Night creature factor, maybe give the sprites a spooky light source and glowing eyes.That is neither spooky nor interesting.
Post by: voliol on March 28, 2020, 03:16:31 pm
Overall, I'd rate these weregiraffe > werebull > weretortoise ~= wererhino, mostly because of the former looking more like "scary beasts" and less like bodybuilders. The weretortoise head also looks a bit doofy to me, perhaps because of the long snout?
Does a weretortoise need a thong (loincloth?) more than a were-giraffe does? Or at all even, considering the shell and all?
@vettlingr
Werebeasts have random skin/hair/scale and eye colors in-game, purple/dark colors would mean losing out on the opportunity of showing those.
@vordak
I believe it's mostly discouraged on this thread for legal reasons, in fear of accusations of meph/mikeday copying "the art of others" if they pick up on the edited graphics.
Post by: Meph on March 28, 2020, 03:22:52 pm
Quote
So that's why you posted the werebeast list, Meph! I suspected it, but now I've gotten it confirmed.Yeah, it's interesting just being able to ask Toady about all kinds of details in regards to procedurally generated content. ^^
The loincloth is a leftover from the Minotaur sprite Mike did. I think I'd rather go Bruce-Banner-Hulk-Shorts.
(https://i.imgur.com/I4Vw743.png)
I wouldn't discourage anyone here from altering the sprites to make mock-ups. Vordak just said that because I altered his sprites in the past. That was payback :P
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 28, 2020, 03:43:59 pm
Post by: Rekov on March 28, 2020, 03:58:29 pm
Stockpiles: Why not everything at once? Ropes, Stakes, Signs, Checkerboard, Color-Coding, Transparency. Lets do it all:
(https://i.imgur.com/fH4En7y.png)
Now that's a snazzy looking stockpile!
I think your grid of solid dashed lines reads a little better than the transparent checkerboard, although that might just be on the grass. Especially the yellow/orange/brown one just makes the grass look kind of bumpy, or like there's different sized tufts of grass.
Post by: mko on March 28, 2020, 04:09:42 pm
Vordak: Even the turtle is scared of itself. XDWorks surprisingly well, but ropes may look weird with dwarves walking through it.
Stockpiles: Why not everything at once? Ropes, Stakes, Signs, Checkerboard, Color-Coding, Transparency. Lets do it all:
(https://i.imgur.com/fH4En7y.png)
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 28, 2020, 04:11:13 pm
Now that's a snazzy looking stockpile!
I think your grid of solid dashed lines reads a little better than the transparent checkerboard, although that might just be on the grass. Especially the yellow/orange/brown one just makes the grass look kind of bumpy, or like there's different sized tufts of grass.
Heh, I'd say the opposite that this is much more readable, but yeah, red/green color blindness as mentioned (and mainly if anything an issue with small bits of color surrounded by green like that). And the ropes would probably suffice on its own for me at least (though I'm the kind of person who would prefer no stockpile graphics at all or as minimal as possible).
Works surprisingly well, but ropes may look weird with dwarves walking through it.
Also that.
Post by: Meph on March 28, 2020, 04:15:12 pm
The effect is much stronger on more neutral background.
(https://i.imgur.com/s83UdN2.png)
Post by: voliol on March 28, 2020, 04:30:01 pm
Dwarves walk through furniture all the time. ;)
The effect is much stronger on more neutral background.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Almost too snazzy, imho. If colored stockpiles end up being a thing, I would like an option to opt out of it and make them all grey.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 28, 2020, 04:34:50 pm
Dwarves walk through furniture all the time. ;)
...
Yeah, but they rarely unless placed weirdly seem like a complete obstacle the same way an area being fully roped off does (especially an area which will have frequent traffic back and forth while carrying goods or carting around wheelbarrows etc). Bit harder to uphold suspension of disbelief basically.
Post by: Superdorf on March 28, 2020, 04:43:36 pm
Post by: Meph on March 28, 2020, 04:53:18 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/eA4WWYN.png)
Post by: Ziusudra on March 28, 2020, 04:56:43 pm
Post by: Rekov on March 28, 2020, 05:09:37 pm
Yeah, but they rarely unless placed weirdly seem like a complete obstacle the same way an area being fully roped off does (especially an area which will have frequent traffic back and forth while carrying goods or carting around wheelbarrows etc). Bit harder to uphold suspension of disbelief basically.
What I was initially picturing as inspiration were these construction markings that you sometimes see, or an archeologist's grid. They're at most 30 cm off the ground and often much lower, so stepping over isn't a problem.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Pillbo on March 28, 2020, 05:53:59 pm
Slight change:
(https://i.imgur.com/7aEG2kD.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/tCn0aLt.png)
I'm not a fan of the ropes and flags option. Trying to make it look like a physical thing makes me think it should take labor and resources to make and that takes more changes.
Post by: Uthimienure on March 28, 2020, 06:25:53 pm
I like both of these options a lot more than the constructed-floor-look from mockups. I lean towards the meph one, if you could designate the border color I think that would make people happier too. Could you place this one in the inside neutral background image?To piggyback on Pillbo's post, how about removing the outside border and just making it a collection of dashed-line squares (but more visible)? It's simpler perhaps. This whole discussion started when I mentioned making the stockpile squares partially transparent. It has snowballed into elaborate (although nice looking) stuff that maybe has gone overboard? I'm not sure what to think, actually. Sleeping on this may help us all.Slight change:
(https://i.imgur.com/7aEG2kD.png)(https://i.imgur.com/tCn0aLt.png)
I'm not a fan of the ropes and flags option. Trying to make it look like a physical thing makes me think it should take labor and resources to make and that takes more changes.
Post by: Meph on March 28, 2020, 07:03:58 pm
Edit: haha! Fluid roller animation with a single chain. I'm finally happy with the result.
(https://i.imgur.com/YK3OJbq.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/9GAYomc.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/WpF94VB.png)
Post by: Bumber on March 29, 2020, 12:39:11 am
(https://i.imgur.com/WpF94VB.png)
I like the middle (slightly slack) ropes best.
Could we see the checkered tiles on grass? Need to know how they look over a more complex tile.
How would the signs work (assuming they make it in?) Would they be user-selected?
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 29, 2020, 03:06:27 am
I'd suggest one roller in each end rather than a single one in the middle (with power distribution from the center of the side), as that would tie in with the underlying conveyor belt logic, and also the possible misinterpretation of a giant cog in an axle.
The turning one is a challenge. I'd suggest an indication of something on the inside of the curve to make the chain follow a curve rather than a slanted line it would follow naturally (unless the chain is very stiff sideways), but that might be overdoing it.
Finally: I don't envy you artists, having to balance diametrically opposed comments from everyone and their dog. You're doing a great job.
Post by: Rinin_Rus on March 29, 2020, 04:59:26 am
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 29, 2020, 06:41:34 am
We will do a few designs for trees, yes. Broadleaf, Conifer, Saguaro, Giant Mushrooms, Palms... not all trees for now, just the most different-looking ones.
Maybe a sign for the stockpile content? (Super rough mock-up)
(https://i.imgur.com/EO5id56.png)
Ooooh! Super nice.
Still my favourite. Its just the bare nescessities, which, to me at least, represents the amount of effort put into designating a stockpile pretty well.
No more Than a basic stick in the dirt with some thread wrapped around it. The sign is a plus too, Even if it means a more 'resource intensive looking stockpile.
Post by: mko on March 29, 2020, 08:11:14 am
Finally: I don't envy you artists, having to balance diametrically opposed comments from everyone and their dog. You're doing a great job.And between their own plan, what their boss(es) want and time limitations.
And what worse commenters are not representative of people who will be buying. In such cases commenters are always extreme outliers.
(response to removed comment removed)
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 29, 2020, 08:20:26 am
Post by: Rinin_Rus on March 29, 2020, 09:37:21 am
Post by: Cruxador on March 29, 2020, 09:47:36 am
I added borders to stockpile mock-ups for SteamDF over a year ago. XDThe chain and mechanism looks good. There's still a bit that I consider short of perfect, though. This would require extra work from Toady, but it would look a lot better if adjacent cases didn't have those brown things. Perhaps not worth Toady's time just for this one case, but a more diverse and powerful system of conditional adjacency graphics would be very useful in general. Barring that, it might be good to reimagine that connection so it's at least not as obtrusive; they look a bit much (particularly with regards to implicit height) even when it's just one by itself.
Edit: haha! Fluid roller animation with a single chain. I'm finally happy with the result.
(https://i.imgur.com/YK3OJbq.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/9GAYomc.gif)
Almost happy with the chains ;)Is conveyer belt logic actually what underlies it? I'm pretty sure the rollercoaster-like design is still the most likely, so a single roller is appropriate. Plus, one at each end would tile poorly.
I'd suggest one roller in each end rather than a single one in the middle (with power distribution from the center of the side), as that would tie in with the underlying conveyor belt logic, and also the possible misinterpretation of a giant cog in an axle.
Quote
Finally: I don't envy you artists, having to balance diametrically opposed comments from everyone and their dog.That's a pretty rare case, though. Most of these have way more than two suggestions going on. And it's not like they have to listen to anybody, so it's only a resource to make the quality better. Fortunately, both of the people are long-time modders who very evidently care about the quality of the final product.
(response to removed comment removed)
Post by: mko on March 29, 2020, 10:01:18 am
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 29, 2020, 10:52:01 am
Post by: darkhog on March 29, 2020, 10:56:01 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 29, 2020, 10:58:01 am
Post by: voliol on March 29, 2020, 11:01:07 am
(https://i.imgur.com/WpF94VB.png)
I like the middle (slightly slack) ropes best.
Could we see the checkered tiles on grass? Need to know how they look over a more complex tile.
How would the signs work (assuming they make it in?) Would they be user-selected?
And over un-smoothed rock and dirt as well, I suspect those will be the most common floor types in addition to smoothed rock and grass.
I assume the signs are for the preset stockpile types that already exist?
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 29, 2020, 11:13:45 am
Post by: Meph on March 29, 2020, 11:20:27 am
Toady is very involved in the art design, posting reference images and talking about what he imagined the fantastic critters or plants. We sometimes make multiple sprites leaning different directions and let him pick. He seems happy with what has been done so far and is a pleasure to work with.
That's the only comment I'll make about the discussion earlier.
Roller-design is final. I know that two axles on each end would be more logical, but fact is that they are connected to a single axle that leads to a windmill or waterwheel somewhere. That's just how machines in df work.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 29, 2020, 11:47:12 am
Post by: jecowa on March 29, 2020, 01:44:45 pm
I like the signs. I hope we can select from a list icons for signs of custom stockpiles, since I mostly use custom stockpiles. Food ingredient stock pile on one side of the kitchen, and prepared meal stock piles on the other side. A giant general-purpose stockpile next to the trade depot. Custom seed stockpiles next to each farm plot. Custom stone stockpile with the stones I prefer to craft with next to the workshops. Drink and goblet stockpiles in the dining hall. Splints, crutches, buckets, and plaster stockpile in the hospital. The only pre-built stockpiles I can think of that I use are refuse and corpses, and maybe the animal stockpile.
Post by: Schmaven on March 29, 2020, 01:50:59 pm
Post by: Toady One on March 29, 2020, 04:53:26 pm
Post by: Meph on March 29, 2020, 05:40:32 pm
We had a few ideas we discussed, that aren't coded yet. I'm curious what you make of it:
1. Different floors/furniture for workshops based on material used; or transparent workshop ground so that you can see the constructed floor underneath. Examples show stone/stone, wood/stone, stone/wood, wood/wood. Pros are that it's more realistic and offer more variety and customization option by the player; cons are that it might look chaotic and less readable. (Hence why stone floors are dark and stone furniture is bright, to keep the contrast high. The wood example shows what happens if both have the same hue and brightness.)
2. Different sets of furniture and items for different materials. Again, more customization, but harder to build uniform forts. Sprite count spirals out of control fast considerin the amount of items to be made. I think glass had around 60-ish objects that can be made.
3. Items in containers. The biggest culprits of monotone copy+paste areas in the game are stockpiles. All the fancy new object sprites, all hidden inside the one bin or barrel sprite. What if we leave the bin open, showing one or a few of the items inside?
4. Item variations. Just like grasses and rock floors come in 1-4 options, the sprites for objects could have a small variety to them.
(https://i.imgur.com/sEDZVOU.png)
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 29, 2020, 06:35:31 pm
Though actually I'm not sure how much, until I see these in context inside some bedrooms for myself. I feel like if there's enough differentiation anyway, then differences in furniture construction might not be so bad.
Actually, I think an option would be best for it. Overall it still would be an interesting addition.
EDIT: Oh, and yes, I like the other suggestions very much.
Post by: voliol on March 29, 2020, 06:36:35 pm
2. I’d love to have this, even if it initially just means different hues for the different kinds of stone/metal/glass/wood/clay. I’d be disappointed if material-based colors didn’t make it in, as they are in ASCII. Or do you mean ”fungiwood tables should have another design than oak ones”?
3. This would make it possible to see the contents of a bin-stockpile at a glance, yes thank you. It would also make empty bins identifiable.
4. I think it’s a sound idea, but I’d personally turn it off (assuming a toggle); I’m much too fond of unity and too much of a scatterbrain to identify similar-but-not-identical objects as being the same.
Post by: LordBalkan on March 29, 2020, 06:45:51 pm
2. I recall seeing some of those furniture way early on this thread. And a still see the beds a bit off, since they look much more like a flat table and less like a comfy mattress.
3. Displaying the last deposited item? That would be fun! We would still need to use k to know what is inside but would be a really cool feature to see the last... That would be the first to be seen... and last deposited... :-X
4. YES! I do not know how the game would choose among the variations, but it would be nice to have different furnitures making every bedroom more personal.
Post by: Uthimienure on March 29, 2020, 06:55:32 pm
...snip...
1. Different floors/furniture for workshops based on material used; or transparent workshop ground so that you can see the constructed floor underneath.
transparent workshop ground would make it too hard to find workshops quickly when zoomed out. Semi-transparent might work, but otherwise I prefer Different floors/furniture for workshops based on material used
2. Different sets of furniture and items for different materials.
Yes, please
3. ...snip... What if we leave the bin open, showing one or a few of the items inside?
Yes, please
4. Item variations. Just like grasses and rock floors come in 1-4 options, the sprites for objects could have a small variety to them.
Yes, as long as the variation are small, so an item can't be confused with other types. But this low priority in my opinion!
Post by: Meph on March 29, 2020, 07:04:25 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/ahtoDHS.png)
Post by: Rekov on March 29, 2020, 07:07:57 pm
2. This sounds great! Don't we already have this when it comes to doors, as well?
3. An alternative would be to use the same kind of symbols you mocked up for stockpile signs. It might be easier at least?
4. This kind of thing seems like something modders would love to have as an option, even if there isn't much of it in the base game. As with #2, you could put a simple toggle in the Options/Preferences for graphics, whatever that ends up being, so that people who don't like this feature can turn it off.
Post by: LordBalkan on March 29, 2020, 07:08:21 pm
Also: Stockpiles signs. (Last one is for custom stockpiles). I won't spoil the rest, the intent is to see if any are very unclear. ;)
(https://i.imgur.com/ahtoDHS.png)
OOOOHHHH!!! The coloured version, obviously!!
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 29, 2020, 07:13:59 pm
more than a bit OCD with that stuff), which means yes on transparent workshop floors as well, nice to be able to customize the color on my own with different floor materials and such.
Post by: Fleeting Frames on March 29, 2020, 07:15:17 pm
As it is, the tileset is very orthogonal, with full-tile walls and the stockpile† checkerboards being parallel with those, and the diagonally-laid floorboards depart from that. Might be worth comparing with those same patterns rotated by 45°, at least.
† Might be worth putting in testing queue how do things such as these look:
A: ==>== (the common erase stockpile on stairs)
B: Diagonally-connected stockpiles
▒▒=▒=▒=▒
==▒=▒=▒
C: Disconnected nested stockpiles:
111222
121212
111222
E: Of those icons, the first, fifth, sixth, the one after gems and last two are not clear immediatelly (I guess one is wood, knowing the game).
Post by: Rekov on March 29, 2020, 07:20:03 pm
Post by: clinodev on March 29, 2020, 08:08:29 pm
Regarding those workshop floors, is that the idea for smoothed tiles?
Just throwing in my 2¢, I hope that isn't the smoothed stone floor.
Post by: Meph on March 29, 2020, 08:12:03 pm
Post by: Bumber on March 29, 2020, 08:14:01 pm
E: Of those icons, the first, fifth, sixth, the one after gems and last two are not clear immediatelly (I guess one is wood, knowing the game).
Had to use process of elimination to figure out ammo (looks more like a fork, mace, or chisel.) I quickly determined that five and six are cloth and coins. Leather is a bit confusing (maybe the limbs on the right side need to be bigger.) I could kind of guess wood, but needed to rule out all the others to be sure (a pile of just 3 bigger logs would probably be clearer.) Custom is an abstract concept, so there's not much you can do about that.
Post by: jecowa on March 29, 2020, 08:44:14 pm
Also: Stockpiles signs. (Last one is for custom stockpiles). I won't spoil the rest, the intent is to see if any are very unclear. ;)
(https://i.imgur.com/ahtoDHS.png)
My guesses without looking at the list of stockpile names:
tools?, traps?, armor?, bars, cloth/clothing?, coins, corpses, finished goods, food/drink, containers, gems, animals, refuse, furniture?, stone, weapons?, ammo?, custom
my guesses while looking at the list of stockpiles on the wiki:
wood?, animal, armor, bar/block, cloth, coins, corpses, finished goods, food, furniture storage, gem, leather, refuse, sheets?, stone, weapons, ammo, custom
note: i got animal wrong because i didn't realize that the animal stockpile was used for live, caged animals. i saw it was a cage and guessed "traps". I was under the mistaken impression that the animal stockpile was for butchered animal bits.
edit: oh, i think the green shovel is actually a bolt and i mixed up wood and ammo.
Post by: Meph on March 29, 2020, 08:46:36 pm
Post by: jecowa on March 29, 2020, 08:52:13 pm
Post by: jecowa on March 29, 2020, 08:59:15 pm
Post by: Meph on March 29, 2020, 09:11:31 pm
Post by: Rekov on March 29, 2020, 09:16:25 pm
Post by: LordBalkan on March 29, 2020, 09:23:07 pm
Post by: Rekov on March 29, 2020, 09:26:11 pm
Oh, wait... so what is the second from left-to-right? Looks like a grate or something.Cage/Animal stockpile
Post by: Superdorf on March 29, 2020, 09:32:16 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/sEDZVOU.png)
I would suggest some kind of cast shadow beneath the bench tiles and whatnot on those workshops, especially for wood-on-wood. The transparent floors oughta work just fine, but as you've said-- you'll have to work a bit to make the wood-on-wood pop. A few shadows should do the job nicely.
Post by: Meph on March 29, 2020, 10:37:59 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/fVkKOvY.png)
Post by: Uthimienure on March 29, 2020, 10:47:42 pm
Speaking of casting shadows... (Just testing workshops without floor. Quick mock-up, you can still see a bit of rock floor I failed to remove XD)Nice without floor!
(https://i.imgur.com/fVkKOvY.png)
The stockpile sign for leather had me stumped... maybe make the hide's legs a bit longer.
The sign for logs would be more intuitive with a stack of 3 logs.
How would an axe look on the weapon sign? Dwarfs are more axey than swordy.
Post by: jecowa on March 29, 2020, 11:01:59 pm
Speaking of casting shadows... (Just testing workshops without floor. Quick mock-up, you can still see a bit of rock floor I failed to remove XD)
(https://i.imgur.com/fVkKOvY.png)
I like this new border around the grassy floor better than the one from a few pages back (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173474.msg8114917#msg8114917):
(https://i.imgur.com/rzkmVuq.png)
I don't noticed the stone floor below the tables unless I zoom in. It just looks like it could be shadow.
Post by: Cruxador on March 29, 2020, 11:56:23 pm
Yeah, lets focus on sprites. :)1. I think let the furniture source its color from the material's raws, but there's no need for a special floor. It doesn't make sense that dwarves would want to do that, in the first place, and it also doesn't make sense that you can make a whole workshop AND nine tiles worth of floor for one stone, when normally it's nine stone to make nine floor tiles. Furthermore, it only limits the variety of appearance, prevents come customization, and requires many exceptions for magma furnaces &c which don't necessarily have floor everywhere.
We had a few ideas we discussed, that aren't coded yet. I'm curious what you make of it:
1. Different floors/furniture for workshops based on material used; or transparent workshop ground so that you can see the constructed floor underneath. Examples show stone/stone, wood/stone, stone/wood, wood/wood. Pros are that it's more realistic and offer more variety and customization option by the player; cons are that it might look chaotic and less readable. (Hence why stone floors are dark and stone furniture is bright, to keep the contrast high. The wood example shows what happens if both have the same hue and brightness.)
2. Different sets of furniture and items for different materials. Again, more customization, but harder to build uniform forts. Sprite count spirals out of control fast considerin the amount of items to be made. I think glass had around 60-ish objects that can be made.
3. Items in containers. The biggest culprits of monotone copy+paste areas in the game are stockpiles. All the fancy new object sprites, all hidden inside the one bin or barrel sprite. What if we leave the bin open, showing one or a few of the items inside?
4. Item variations. Just like grasses and rock floors come in 1-4 options, the sprites for objects could have a small variety to them.
(https://i.imgur.com/sEDZVOU.png)
2. I don't think different materials need their own sprites except very rarely where the sprite clearly wouldn't work for one potential material. Although there are exceptions, just inheriting the color correctly should be enough in most cases, and it wouldn't necessarily make sense for the item to be different in other ways. Although your examples do look nice. But I don't think it's worth exploding the sprite count.
3. I think this one depends entirely on the performance impact. If it's not a big deal for performance, might as well do this. Otherwise, bins can hold a bunch of items anyway, and you won't be able to see them all (hardly anything is worth making a sprite for "loads of this one item" in practice), so might as well let stockpiles look a bit tidier. In fact, I reckon there's plenty of people who want their stockpiles tidy anyway. Also, the example is confusing. I can only guess maybe it's piles of super giant coins? If so, maybe reconsider and make coins a glittery pile instead. There's a limit to how much the scale can be disregarded, and they look like a bunch of baozi/steamed buns. Or the plate piles like you see at a buffet, maybe.
4. Seems like too much work for too little benefit. There are loads of different types of items in the game anyway, and loads of different colors. This isn't an area where artificial variety is needed. In fact, nowhere is really, as long as the variety that's already reflected in the game is realized, there won't be an issue of excessive homogeneity in practice. Again, your furniture examples look nice, but I'm sure there will be plenty of people who want to disable it anyway, so it seems like a considerably low priority.
Also: Stockpiles signs. (Last one is for custom stockpiles). I won't spoil the rest, the intent is to see if any are very unclear. ;)I'm intentionally doing this without looking at anything anyone else has said about it. Tried to look at it as though I didn't already know the stockpile types, to varying success. From left to right:
(https://i.imgur.com/ahtoDHS.png)
1. Top looks like a fork, bottom like a nazi grenade. Or maybe a paint brush? Not really sure.
2. Cage, presumably animals. I can't say I'd recognize it without knowing what it was supposed to be.
3. Shield, presumably weapons.
4. Bars and blocks.
5. Cloth
6. Coins
7. Corpses, but if I was new to DF I might very well guess poison.
8. A ring. Finished goods?
9. A fan or mushroom and a perfume bottle or potion of some sort? Maybe a tear drop. I'm guessing the purple thing is meant to be a plump helmet, but I'm going on color for that, so based on that I guess food.
10. Furniture
11. Gems
12. Leather/hide
13. Not a fucking clue, from the image. I guess since there's no "powder" or "hill and cloud" stockpile and it kind of looks like a pile of some shit, must be refuse.
14. Paper/documents
15. Stone
16. Looks like ball bearings or cannon balls. Copper ones, on the bottom. So my best guess is siege equipment, but I wonder if a ballista wouldn't be more obvious for that.
17. Specified as custom. Looks like that star from the time Jesus was born, though, which seems like a weird choice to mean "non-specific stockpile" to me. Why not give it the jaggedy black lines that are universally recognized as "text but you can't read it from this vantage"? Bigger than on the paper, obviously.
I think it'll be easier to recognize in game though, since you'll only see them after designating, so you'll get used to it
And go with colored version, most people these days can afford the colored screen ink :)
Now, proceeding to the next page.
(https://i.imgur.com/iST1uld.png)So it was arrows, and wood. The feathers on the arrows are pretty huge, but maybe it can't be helped given size constraints. The wood still doesn't look like wood to me, but I think it should be fine in context.
Speaking of casting shadows... (Just testing workshops without floor. Quick mock-up, you can still see a bit of rock floor I failed to remove XD)As expected, the transparent looks great.
(https://i.imgur.com/fVkKOvY.png)
Although since we're talking about workshops, I'll mention a criticism I encountered which I agree with. The combination of top-down walls and not so top-down furniture is already a stress on people's perceptive abilities and there are a lot of potentials that something imperfect shatters the illusion that things make sense.* Specifically, the forge overlapping with the ostensibly taller wall to the north of it doesn't quite work. Not sure there's a good solution to this.
They're representing totally different things, though. The stockpile borders are the main visual component of it, so they need to be a bit more noticeable, while the workshop borders are just to make it clear which area you can't build other stuff on top of.Speaking of casting shadows... (Just testing workshops without floor. Quick mock-up, you can still see a bit of rock floor I failed to remove XD)
(https://i.imgur.com/fVkKOvY.png)
I like this new border around the grassy floor better than the one from a few pages back (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173474.msg8114917#msg8114917):
(https://i.imgur.com/rzkmVuq.png)
I don't noticed the stone floor below the tables unless I zoom in. It just looks like it could be shadow.
*With regards to the game's geometry, I mean. With regards to life in general, that's a different story.
Post by: jecowa on March 30, 2020, 12:24:47 am
Post by: Rose on March 30, 2020, 12:26:07 am
Rolls and rolls of toilet paper. Untold riches.
Post by: Hommit on March 30, 2020, 09:06:58 am
Shadow look very nice
On signs, 1st unrecognizable, cloth should maybe a "roll", money pile maybe a bit bigger, on food maybe bottle or cup instead of droplet?, leather also kinda unrecognizable, maybe larger sprite?, refuse probable shold pe purple :) and more "ewww", paper one maybe half-unfurled scroll?,
also, since "big" items like stone/wood/furniture/cages/... are all have sprites and easily identifiable, do we need signs for them at all?
Post by: Lomax on March 30, 2020, 09:47:06 am
- For stockpiles I like the rope & posts option best, but the doubled up posts look like an error. Ideally rope & post materials should be selectable, maybe on the same page as the icon selection?
- For workshops definitely transparent floor, but please remove the border too; it ruins the realism, and I don't really see the need for it? Would be nice if there was more sawdust/stone chippings on the floor and worktops too.
Edit: Oh and please make the stockpile icon selectable - most of my stockpiles are custom ones and it would be very useful to be able to differentiate between them.
Edit 2: Sorry, but I agree with those who think the cat is too big!
Post by: Cruxador on March 30, 2020, 10:27:22 am
Imo, workshops should be with floor, or options for transparency. Because really, unless in emergency, why would you want a building without a floor?Why would you want a building without walls or roof? A workshop isn't a building to begin with, and if you want an actual floor, you can build one the normal way. After all, adding the appearance of a floor to the sprite now won't change what's actually going on. But much of the time, it'll be indoors anyway since that's how dwarves live. I don't think the apparent silliness of grass all around your workshop is inaccurate to the situation and actually, if you look at relatively comparable things, for example in reconstruction medieval villages aimed at tourists, this is totally normal. There are never floors specially built for outdoor tasks. By the time you get beyond "medieval village" level of development, you can just build a building, floor and all, if you want to not be underground.
For workshops definitely transparent floor, but please remove the border too; it ruins the realism, and I don't really see the need for it? Would be nice if there was more sawdust/stone chippings on the floor and worktops too.The reason for the border is that the workshop in game is always a 3*3 square like that, and the border shows its real perimeter. Although I agree that it would look better without it, forgoing that border has the strong possibility to be confusing to new players. For that reason, I think borderless workshops are the sort of thing that should be in the steam workshop - it's a good idea, but because it's mostly and improvement for people who already have an ingrained conception of the real situation, it's best as a mod option.
Post by: Pillbo on March 30, 2020, 01:51:34 pm
Yeah, lets focus on sprites. :)
We had a few ideas we discussed, that aren't coded yet. I'm curious what you make of it:
1. Different floors/furniture for workshops based on material used; or transparent workshop ground so that you can see the constructed floor underneath. Examples show stone/stone, wood/stone, stone/wood, wood/wood. Pros are that it's more realistic and offer more variety and customization option by the player; cons are that it might look chaotic and less readable. (Hence why stone floors are dark and stone furniture is bright, to keep the contrast high. The wood example shows what happens if both have the same hue and brightness.)
2. Different sets of furniture and items for different materials. Again, more customization, but harder to build uniform forts. Sprite count spirals out of control fast considerin the amount of items to be made. I think glass had around 60-ish objects that can be made.
3. Items in containers. The biggest culprits of monotone copy+paste areas in the game are stockpiles. All the fancy new object sprites, all hidden inside the one bin or barrel sprite. What if we leave the bin open, showing one or a few of the items inside?
4. Item variations. Just like grasses and rock floors come in 1-4 options, the sprites for objects could have a small variety to them.
(https://i.imgur.com/sEDZVOU.png)
1. I like the idea, maybe just adding some shading to the floors underneath the workbench will be enough to distinguish them?
2. I like having the variety in your tileset for this though I occasionally absolutely hate an item that's make from fungiwood, or having a tavern with 30 different colored tables. It would be cool to have the option either way, but generally I'm for it. Maybe there can eventually be a mod to add Painting or Staining to furniture so I can still make them look uniform in the places where it matters to me.
3 & 4 . Looks really good IMO. The 4 item examples add a lot more interest to standard furniture.
Post by: Rekov on March 30, 2020, 02:23:19 pm
Although since we're talking about workshops, I'll mention a criticism I encountered which I agree with. The combination of top-down walls and not so top-down furniture is already a stress on people's perceptive abilities and there are a lot of potentials that something imperfect shatters the illusion that things make sense.* Specifically, the forge overlapping with the ostensibly taller wall to the north of it doesn't quite work. Not sure there's a good solution to this.I suppose you could visualize the walls as being cut-aways at floor level, but you're right that it doesn't make much sense. I suppose it's too late to push for a complete re-think and instead of top down, going for a Stonesense style isometric view?
If the aim is to limit the display to things that make sense in the game world, what about doing the kinds of borders that dwarves might actually make themselves. I'm picturing those little stone path-markers you sometimes see.For workshops definitely transparent floor, but please remove the border too; it ruins the realism, and I don't really see the need for it? Would be nice if there was more sawdust/stone chippings on the floor and worktops too.The reason for the border is that the workshop in game is always a 3*3 square like that, and the border shows its real perimeter. Although I agree that it would look better without it, forgoing that border has the strong possibility to be confusing to new players. For that reason, I think borderless workshops are the sort of thing that should be in the steam workshop - it's a good idea, but because it's mostly and improvement for people who already have an ingrained conception of the real situation, it's best as a mod option.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
You could use a similar approach if you wanted an alternative to ropes/stakes for stockpiles.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 30, 2020, 02:37:07 pm
My forge looks like this (just with the furnace made thicker):
(https://i.imgur.com/8gaLbNs.png)
Re: view - I was specifically proposing a 3/4 top-down view, but Tarn decided to go for 100% top-down for the initial release.
However, the only thing the game needs to support 3/4 top-down is giving an offset to the layers in multilevel view. So that's not totally off the plate (my personal opinion).
Re: workshop borders - the stone path makes sense above ground, not so much underground. It's purely a visual cue for new players that this is something special, not a bunch of constructed furniture. Since workshops as they are now are ultimately going to be replaced with a system much like the hospital one, I believe this is a good interim solution.
The problem here is that the diagonal floor tiles were used to reinforce that cue (to make the workshops stand out from other rooms). If we get rid of them and just leave normal grass underneath, the borders don't match the rest anymore.
Post by: jecowa on March 30, 2020, 02:47:03 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/XB9Y3Ek.png)
I think the built-in floors for workshops made more sense with the vanilla text-based glyphs to connect the components of the workshop together visually. In a graphical version, I think the thin workshop borders around the native floor are enough to connect the components together.
Since workshops as they are now are ultimately going to be replaced with a system much like the hospital one
That sounds interesting. Could have a metalsmith workshop without an anvil. I'd be curious to see the tech tree for this system.
Post by: Kobold6 on March 30, 2020, 02:56:54 pm
Post by: Meph on March 30, 2020, 03:07:07 pm
Quote
That sounds interesting. Could have a metalsmith workshop without an anvil. I'd be curious to see the tech tree for this systemThat's regular far-future dev log stuff, not related to the graphical release.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 30, 2020, 03:15:22 pm
Post by: Rekov on March 30, 2020, 03:42:14 pm
4. Yes to varied tiles, but have an option to turn it off somewhere like varied grass tiles. My opinion.Another possibility would be to let people cycle through variants each time they place a bed or a cabinet. So you do B - B, then you select the material or whatever, and then you select the visual variant. You could say it might get tedious, but if it always remembered your last choice, it would mostly end up just being one more Enter press.
Post by: Cruxador on March 30, 2020, 04:25:40 pm
Re: forge - I'm still heavily in opposition to Patrick's idea for it. To me it doesn't make sense visually or from a gameplay point of view.Yeah, this is way better.
My forge looks like this (just with the furnace made thicker):
(https://i.imgur.com/8gaLbNs.png)
Quote
Re: view - I was specifically proposing a 3/4 top-down view, but Tarn decided to go for 100% top-down for the initial release.It would be cool if there was something powerful like a customizable offset on both axes so people could make pseudo-isometric and other cool stuff.
However, the only thing the game needs to support 3/4 top-down is giving an offset to the layers in multilevel view. So that's not totally off the plate (my personal opinion).
Quote
Re: workshop borders - the stone path makes sense above ground, not so much underground. It's purely a visual cue for new players that this is something special, not a bunch of constructed furniture. Since workshops as they are now are ultimately going to be replaced with a system much like the hospital one, I believe this is a good interim solution.I mean, is that happening before the Steam release? If the interim solution is the one that's going to be at official launch, it shouldn't be treated as a placeholder. Therefore it's probably preferable by default to use a visual indicator which is less wrong and misleading, at least by default.
Quote
The problem here is that the diagonal floor tiles were used to reinforce that cue (to make the workshops stand out from other rooms). If we get rid of them and just leave normal grass underneath, the borders don't match the rest anymore.They don't really have to. The borders only represent a cordon indicating the workshop area. Coloring them according to material might be good but I don't think it's strictly necessary.
I don't have a problem with the size of the cat. It between the size of a bunny and a horse.It's also bigger than the duck, chicken, turkey, and even goose.
Post by: Schmaven on March 30, 2020, 05:28:55 pm
Post by: Pillbo on March 30, 2020, 05:38:17 pm
I still prefer the simple border idea for stockpiles, I think that having multiple small stockpiles bunched up will be come a big mess with the ropes and signs. I tend to do things like a stacked row of workshops with a couple spaces of stockpile next to them that all touch but are different. I'm sure how clear this is but I'll try..
T = Tannery
s = skin stockpile
L = Leatherworks
x = leather stockpile
C = Craftshop
b = bones & etc stockpile
Code: [Select]
TTTLLLCCC
TTTLLLCCC
TTTLLLCCC
sssxxxbbb
sssxxxbbb
Maybe it's ugly design but it gets the job done and works pretty well currently IMO. But small abutting stockpiles like that doesn't seem like they will work well visually with the ropes and signs. But a border would be clear to me and not get all visually cluttered (which seems to be a major concern for Mayday).
PS - the cat looks good, we know things aren't to scale I don't know why that one specifically is a problem.
Post by: Meph on March 30, 2020, 05:46:29 pm
Btw, ever done stockpile+workshop setups like this? They work great!
Code: [Select]
SSSSS
SwwwS
SwwwS
SwwwS
SSSSS
Post by: Rekov on March 30, 2020, 07:34:49 pm
I don't know your whole set. You have your ramp 4, but what about columns/rows of unsupported constructed ramps. Corners? Intersections with supported ramp walls, etc.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Oab on March 30, 2020, 07:49:41 pm
I prefer transparent floors for workshops. I think the primary question should be whether or not it will trigger OCD players? Allowing customization of the visual by the player should always be the goal.
Not sure if this was asked yet, but why can’t stockpiles be toggled to only be observable when accessing them in the menu? I personally dislike the fact you can’t toggle them off as they are distracting.
More options are always good even if it’s not necessary for the steam release. Modder’s are going to keep this game relevant over the long dev cycles, so catering to that in any way possible is the intelligent move here for Toady.
So many posts about the cat are border line derailing the more important feedback discussions here.
If Mike hasn’t already done so here is a fix for it. Feel free to use it if you want Mike.
(https://i.imgur.com/1PjEGrg.png)
@Rekov: That is amazing .
Post by: Meph on March 30, 2020, 08:06:52 pm
Quote
Not sure if this was asked yet, but why can’t stockpiles be toggled to only be observable when accessing them in the menu? I personally dislike the fact you can’t toggle them off as they are distracting.Ha, I'm so used to that dfhack option (dfhack can hide them), that I didn't consider that we could do an extra setting for that.
Quote
Modder’s are going to keep this game relevant over the long dev cycles, so catering to that in any way possible is the intelligent move here for Toady.Don't worry, I'll be doing my best to get as much mod-support as possible.
Post by: Uthimienure on March 30, 2020, 08:15:00 pm
Post by: Meph on March 30, 2020, 08:17:07 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 30, 2020, 08:52:22 pm
Imo, workshops should be with floor, or options for transparency. Because really, unless in emergency, why would you want a building without a floor?
Technically, the workshop is not a bulding, but more like a Collection of tools in a designated workspace. If you want floor, underneath your workspace, just build that first, as you would IRL
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on March 30, 2020, 09:13:01 pm
Quote from: Meph
Ha, I'm so used to that dfhack option (dfhack can hide them), that I didn't consider that we could do an extra setting for that.
Toggles for select stuff like that (things where extra fluff is mainly useful for new players) sounds like a great idea if not too big a hazzle.
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 30, 2020, 09:26:04 pm
QuoteRe: view - I was specifically proposing a 3/4 top-down view, but Tarn decided to go for 100% top-down for the initial release.It would be cool if there was something powerful like a customizable offset on both axes so people could make pseudo-isometric and other cool stuff.
However, the only thing the game needs to support 3/4 top-down is giving an offset to the layers in multilevel view. So that's not totally off the plate (my personal opinion).
Just like in Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead. I always play it like that, it looks brillant in a simple way, adds (litterally) so Much depth to the image, by giving walls a sense of height. It just makes the worls come alive visually, and immerses me so much more. To me, that would be AMAZING for DF. I would absolutely love this. It would fit the aesthetic, if it could be made easily readable, with no walls overlapping tiles you should be able to see, and all that jazz.
Also, im in love with stonesense. Like, completely. Please
take as many of the qualities it has, and bring it to vanilla DF.QuoteSince workshops as they are now are ultimately going to be replaced with a system much like the hospital one, I believe this is a good interim solution.I have waited for this. Does this mean that we'll soon have to make appropriate tools for the individual workshops? Cant wait! Oh lord the immersion!
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 30, 2020, 09:53:56 pm
Post by: Meph on March 30, 2020, 11:19:06 pm
Quote
Just like in Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead. I always play it like that, it looks brillant in a simple way, adds (litterally) so Much depth to the image, by giving walls a sense of height. It just makes the worls come alive visually, and immerses me so much more. To me, that would be AMAZING for DF. I would absolutely love this. It would fit the aesthetic, if it could be made easily readable, with no walls overlapping tiles you should be able to see, and all that jazz.Sure, we'll just redo everything. No biggie. :P
Also, im in love with stonesense. Like, completely. Please
take as many of the qualities it has, and bring it to vanilla DF.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on March 30, 2020, 11:56:05 pm
Is it something that a regular tileset maker would be able to do if they wanted (once the update is done)? Or something CDDA does that's just fundamentally different?QuoteJust like in Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead. I always play it like that, it looks brillant in a simple way, adds (litterally) so Much depth to the image, by giving walls a sense of height. It just makes the worls come alive visually, and immerses me so much more. To me, that would be AMAZING for DF. I would absolutely love this. It would fit the aesthetic, if it could be made easily readable, with no walls overlapping tiles you should be able to see, and all that jazz.Sure, we'll just redo everything. No biggie. :P
Also, im in love with stonesense. Like, completely. Please
take as many of the qualities it has, and bring it to vanilla DF.
Post by: Meph on March 31, 2020, 12:05:36 am
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 31, 2020, 12:37:59 am
Isometric isn't supported by the update we are making. I'm not familiar with CDDA, but I don't think it has multiple Z-levels (?)
Mechanically yes. Graphically no.
Post by: Mike Mayday on March 31, 2020, 04:19:19 am
3/4 top-down SHOULD be doable (it's just one step) but it's still a huge paradigm shift in the way tiles are drawn, so we might not end up getting that).
Post by: Bumber on March 31, 2020, 05:58:35 am
The stockpile sign for leather had me stumped... maybe make the hide's legs a bit longer.
They could probably be extended a bit diagonally and still fit on the sign.
Post by: Rose on March 31, 2020, 09:56:18 am
Then we re-use all the stonesense sprites.
Post by: Cruxador on March 31, 2020, 10:35:16 am
This is potential future stuff, neither of these features are currently slated for the next update, and even that will only be "soon" under quite a generous definition. Considering the amount of other stuff that's of higher immediacy and the general pace of Toady's work, it can still be considered quicker than expected if either of those things happens in this new decade.QuoteRe: view - I was specifically proposing a 3/4 top-down view, but Tarn decided to go for 100% top-down for the initial release.It would be cool if there was something powerful like a customizable offset on both axes so people could make pseudo-isometric and other cool stuff.
However, the only thing the game needs to support 3/4 top-down is giving an offset to the layers in multilevel view. So that's not totally off the plate (my personal opinion).
Just like in Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead. I always play it like that, it looks brillant in a simple way, adds (litterally) so Much depth to the image, by giving walls a sense of height. It just makes the worls come alive visually, and immerses me so much more. To me, that would be AMAZING for DF. I would absolutely love this. It would fit the aesthetic, if it could be made easily readable, with no walls overlapping tiles you should be able to see, and all that jazz.
Also, im in love with stonesense. Like, completely. Please
take as many of the qualities it has, and bring it to vanilla DF.QuoteSince workshops as they are now are ultimately going to be replaced with a system much like the hospital one, I believe this is a good interim solution.I have waited for this. Does this mean that we'll soon have to make appropriate tools for the individual workshops? Cant wait! Oh lord the immersion!
Post by: Rekov on March 31, 2020, 01:06:48 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Erendir on March 31, 2020, 01:16:21 pm
Because otherwise there is no need to smooth floors prior to construction!
Also, what happens after you deconstruct a workshop placed on grass? The sudden transformation of stone floor to grass may be confusing (assuming this is how it works, I actually don't recall).
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 31, 2020, 01:27:18 pm
Post by: Rekov on March 31, 2020, 01:55:10 pm
I think it might be best if the artists didn't manually create each and every ramp tile, but instead there were some script baked into the build system that automatically pre-generates those tiles, before the game is even run. Then you save some tedium for the artists without creating any performance hit in the graphics processing while the game is running.
There's very little reason to do this. By all means use whatever procedural/programmatic help when creating art. But if you only need to do something once, there's no reason to make the game do it every time you load. Why have the game generate these tiles every time, when you can generate them once, then have the artists fine tune them as desired, and you end up with a better result and less work for the game to do every time it loads?
Post by: Meph on March 31, 2020, 02:10:23 pm
All of which might have a track-tile on top, of any of the track directions, of which there are 14. Those need the correct shading of course.
Rekovs set has 72 ramps.
So you have 900*14*72 sprites. Just a meager 907.200 sprites.
Obviously I'm exaggerating a tiny bit, but yeah, automated shading by adding a brightness layer is the nicer solution in the end. Especially for modders/tileset authors adding their own content.
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 31, 2020, 02:12:37 pm
This means the game ships with the pre-generated files, and without the generation script. The script would reside only in Toady's development directory.
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 31, 2020, 02:39:58 pm
Post by: mko on March 31, 2020, 02:53:26 pm
Depends on the floor sprites. Each floor material would need a pre-made set of ramps. There are 40 grasses and 231 inorganics, plus some river/brook/magma/ice/(a few) mushroom-cap ramps. Let's make it 300 possible floor materials. Now those can mostly be rough, smoothed or engraved. Makes around 900.Ouch. And that is without transitions between various tile types.
All of which might have a track-tile on top, of any of the track directions, of which there are 14. Those need the correct shading of course.
Rekovs set has 72 ramps.
So you have 900*14*72 sprites. Just a meager 907.200 sprites.
Obviously I'm exaggerating a tiny bit, but yeah, automated shading by adding a brightness layer is the nicer solution in the end. Especially for modders/tileset authors adding their own content.
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 31, 2020, 03:06:24 pm
This might even give better time-performance than pre-generating each of the million tiles, since it increases data locality (because there are fewer tiles, even if you load only the tiles displaying on screen) and so helps with cache efficiency.
And not just cache efficiency, actually, since if you pre-generate all ~1 million tiles you either add some 2.8 GB to RAM usage during runtime or load tiles from disk on-demand. Both are slow.
EDIT: Of course, there could be compromises. You could pre-generate all track-ramp combination tiles and combine them dynamically with the floor tiles.
Post by: MoltenIdol on March 31, 2020, 03:18:44 pm
Isometric isn't supported by the update we are making. I'm not familiar with CDDA, but I don't think it has multiple Z-levels (?)
It does have it implemented, with basements and tall apartment blocks an such, but it doesnt Really show anything more than a colored dot as representation of the tile 1 z level below, unfortunately, even though some artist already made some tilesets work with isometric, using the tiles already present in the tileset. The whole isometric thing looks super neat.
And im not talking about redoing Everything (if by everything you mean all your sprite work so far?), the only thing that would need some work of course would be terrain, Some sides of wall showing, while keeping the current wallsprite on the topside (with a slight bend of the sprite, like you did on one the ramp mockups). But all the sprites, that are Not top down sprites, and are not part of terrain, are fine as is.
I dont Know the amount of code work that would be needed of course, and it Also ramps up to be a lot of new sprites, and ways they interact with each other + it doesnt really add any functionality other than immersion, imo.
But you could have the isometric view trees back, from the original mockup, they looked pretty :)
Of course, the base game is more functional as a topdown, so im just wishing.
Post by: Cruxador on March 31, 2020, 03:56:41 pm
Depends on the floor sprites. Each floor material would need a pre-made set of ramps. There are 40 grasses and 231 inorganics, plus some river/brook/magma/ice/(a few) mushroom-cap ramps. Let's make it 300 possible floor materials. Now those can mostly be rough, smoothed or engraved. Makes around 900.Although I don't know where 231 inorganic floors is coming from, surely they can mostly just be grouped as soil, sand, stone, smoothed stone, engraved stone, and like a dozen constructed types (even including blocks)? It's not like you'd have to apply it separately to dynamic stuff like material colors. Although representing different stones accurately is important for a game that spends so much player time underground, how many stone types really need their own texture? After all, their form is mostly determined by what's been done to them and things like grain size are gonna be
All of which might have a track-tile on top, of any of the track directions, of which there are 14. Those need the correct shading of course.
Rekovs set has 72 ramps.
So you have 900*14*72 sprites. Just a meager 907.200 sprites.
Obviously I'm exaggerating a tiny bit, but yeah, automated shading by adding a brightness layer is the nicer solution in the end. Especially for modders/tileset authors adding their own content.
Not every time it loads -- every time it's built.Since it's top down, there's no inherent need to use script for this. You can also just make ramps an overlay with either alpha transparency. Even though there's alpha, you only need one color channel so it'll still be smaller than normal images. (polychromatic images could be supported but I can't think why you would want to in this case, even in the context of modding.
This means the game ships with the pre-generated files, and without the generation script. The script would reside only in Toady's development directory.
You can also screen, which would allow for more vibrant colors in the sunlight, but it becomes more hassle for shadows.
If you wanted both, You could do a channel of screen and another of multiply for maximum freedom in what can be done, but that gets complicated both for the CPU (every pixel takes four operations on every rendered channel since screen requires inversion twice, so 12 total) as opposed to one per color (3) with a basic transparent blend, and also for modders who don't know that much about images. In that case, it might be easier to have a set of single-channel (aka monochrome) images, one for subtract and one for multiply, and then applying them is the only case where I think using a script might make sense. Then, assuming the graphics will still be duplicated per-save, it could make sense for the script to run automatically during worldgen. However, honestly, 907,200 sprites generated seems like a lot no matter what the circumstance, especially if that number goes up by 1008 every time a modder adds a grass or floor type. EDIT: Wrote this before your post where you realized that too.
Post by: Rekov on March 31, 2020, 04:52:25 pm
Here is the shading layer I've come up with. I use yellow for the highlights and blue for the shadows:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The shading layer is placed over the terrain layer, in my case using the Overlay blend mode:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Meph on March 31, 2020, 04:54:09 pm
Quote
I don't think the idea is to have a set of ramp tiles for every conceivable type of terrain. Instead you render terrain as two layers. You have your base layer, which is used to determine the color/pattern of the terrain. Then you overlay a shading layer over it to create the illusion of hills/ramps/etc.Correct.
Post by: Cruxador on March 31, 2020, 05:26:13 pm
I don't think the idea is to have a set of ramp tiles for every conceivable type of terrain. Instead you render terrain as two layers. You have your base layer, which is used to determine the color/pattern of the terrain. Then you overlay a shading layer over it to create the illusion of hills/ramps/etc.That's significantly more expensive than the way I described. I don't think it's that much harder for people to make two single channel images than one four channel image, is it? Even if it is, it would probably be better to have the game generate those two images from the four channel image rather than use it directly.
Here is the shading layer I've come up with. I use yellow for the highlights and blue for the shadows:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The shading layer is placed over the terrain layer, in my case using the Overlay blend mode:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rekov on March 31, 2020, 05:29:42 pm
Post by: jecowa on March 31, 2020, 08:36:57 pm
And maybe there could be separate overlays for indoor and outdoor slopes so you can have more contrast in outdoor areas than indoor areas.
Post by: CL3AR on April 04, 2020, 06:09:05 pm
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/555404726817259580/696129784849235998/unknown.png?width=807&height=616)
Also, how are stairs going to be handled in the premium tileset?
Post by: bloop_bleep on April 04, 2020, 06:30:42 pm
I think the main problem with using a tileset that I've seen, is that there is so much visual noise from abrupt material color changes that it breaks immersion and makes it confusing for me what is what and to what I should pay attention. Take the area in the top right corner in the screenshot above. That's pretty noisy. The purple stuff and the yellow stuff stands out a lot, and makes the whole thing feel incohesive. I can't easily tell what is part of the wall, or what is part of the floor, or what is just an item, or whatever, at a glance. It all sort of melds together. I think this is partly because of contrast and partly because of the abrupt color changes that up to now have been mostly out of the tileset makers' hands. So, can I suggest perhaps making walls or floors more cohesive by making the material transitions less abrupt, or otherwise less breaking and distracting? This might have to be a question for Toady.
Post by: Bumber on April 04, 2020, 07:16:28 pm
I saw this on the discord so I thought I would post it here. Would it be possible to make 3d looking walls instead of the straight top-down walls?They said it would look weird with multi-level view.
Quote
Also, how are stairs going to be handled in the premium tileset?There's an image here: https://bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/walls_floors.png
Post by: Rekov on April 04, 2020, 07:23:03 pm
Anyways, I was wonder if it might not make sense to do the walls as a series of 16x16, 16x32, and 32x16 sprites, so that you can render each 'side' of a double wall separately.
(https://i.imgur.com/QomrMUv.png)
This potentially allows for additional mechanics in terms of smoothing walls from specific sides, as opposed to whole blocks at once. And in fact that is already how engraving walls works.
From the wiki: (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Engraving#Process)
Quote
Engravings are directional--only the side the engraving dwarf stood on will receive the engraving value bonus. There is no way to engrave more than one side of a single wall tile.
It's a natural time to unify the graphics and the mechanics. Let people smooth/engrave walls from specific sides, and show the status of walls from multiple sides.
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 05, 2020, 02:48:14 am
:Provided the 'natural time' wasn't subjected to rather tight time constraints. Sure, I'd like the added ability to work different sides separately, but I'd rather have less confusing/more precise stockpile settings, for instance, if only one of the two could be implemented. Also, coding for enhanced wall manipulation is most likely wasted in the longer perspective, as the map rewrite probably will toss the current system away, so it would have to be implemented from scratch in the new system (which would be another 'natural time' for its implementation, again with fierce competition for the implementation of other worthy contenders).
It's a natural time to unify the graphics and the mechanics. Let people smooth/engrave walls from specific sides, and show the status of walls from multiple sides.
Post by: Rekov on April 05, 2020, 06:56:11 am
And now that I think about it, if Toady ever decided to switch to rendering walls in partial tiles, he could always just target parts of full tiles on existing sprite-sheets, without the artists having to revisit anything. So there isn't actually much to be saved in hitting it in the 'art pass' after all.
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 05, 2020, 07:46:35 am
Post by: vettlingr on April 05, 2020, 12:48:46 pm
I made this, just as a proof of concept that 3D walls are fully possible witth the new system. Also it's up to you to decide wether filling in the black with a texture is a good thiing or not.
Post by: Meph on April 05, 2020, 08:31:05 pm
I made this, just as a proof of concept that 3D walls are fully possible witth the new system. Also it's up to you to decide wether filling in the black with a texture is a good thiing or not.Not with multilevel view.
Post by: CL3AR on April 05, 2020, 08:33:21 pm
Post by: vettlingr on April 05, 2020, 09:35:03 pm
Why wouldn't it work with multilevel? If multiple of these 3d wall tiles are on top of each other, only the topmost one should show, right?This is also my impression. I used the same method as all the other walls were made, seen below:
(https://i.imgur.com/E8Yug8T.png)
The only issue I can see is not multilevel, since that works fine even with TWBT, but rather the ramps.
I think Meph is referring to the 2D and 1/3 dimensions or what it was called where the north wall is extended, creating pseudo depth that doesn't translate well with multilevel view.
Post by: Meph on April 06, 2020, 01:20:24 am
(https://i.imgur.com/OK85OJ5.png)
Post by: clinodev on April 06, 2020, 02:00:15 am
With that in mind, there probably will be people who don't like whatever multiple level view concept you settle on, and it would probably be wise to allow it to be turned off.
Post by: jecowa on April 06, 2020, 02:22:10 am
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 06, 2020, 02:36:49 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/uRFpQuT.png)
I made this, just as a proof of concept that 3D walls are fully possible witth the new system. Also it's up to you to decide wether filling in the black with a texture is a good thiing or not.
I just have to say, I love the colors a LOT. It reminds me of old games with colorful pixelart, and really livens up the picture. The colorfulness, and the contrast between dark and light colors, is key! But alas, it overshines everything else from the spritesheet. I Think for this to match up, the colors need to be more saturated, even tho that is a shame, and i would love for the colors in the steam spritesheet to be revisited, for less saturation, tho that would be a Lot more work.
Maybe the shadows could be made more dark Blue Than grey, just as an example (for the steam sprites) to just deepen the colours, and create that real depth and colorfulness there is in Everything.
I Know its a Weird exapmle, but manhunt (the sick rockstar game) has a generally very, very vibrant colorpalette, Even though the setting is Very dark and "grey", with concrete walls everywhere, and the places are general not very bright. But, The colors theyve used, makes it so Beautiful. Even a brick wall is beautiful in that game. And all the textures are like that, vibrating with color, shadows containing different shades of purple, red and blue, Even tho the object itself couldve just been made grey, like a rock, but they choose to go with colors. Black doesnt Really create darkness, more than some colors do. And colors are Beautiful and memmorable, Where high saturation makes Nothing really stand out. I know its the point for some things, to not make a chaotic mess of colours, but i think it would be Beautiful with a bit more color. It makes it more of a "painting", in a sense.
Another good examples is Heroes of might and magic III, where the fog of war, consists of beautiful shades of dark blue, almost black looking. Everything is vibrating with color. Light is anything but white, and darkness is anything but black, (except for darkness with a complete lack of light ofcourse, like at the bottom of the ocean).
But in general, i Think using too much black, and shades of grey, Should be avoided.
I would love to See you make a tileset with colors like this, after the graphics coding has been done.
I do also think, that what is unexplored, should stay black, or some other fog of war texture (homm3?).
The exposed walls could have your textures (since youve revealed the material type) and fade out into the unexplored tiles with fog of war. I would really love that. And i like the way youve done it, with the fading material types.
Also, the walls "rock border" sprite, i dont think it Should be there, when the solid material meets Another solid block, like a ramp (like in the top right of the image). It Should only have the rock border, when the wall is exposed, to simulate support made of stacked rocks, if it is Indeed a soil layer. Hope you understand my wording.
Post by: CL3AR on April 06, 2020, 03:12:17 pm
For me, the problem with most current DF tilesets is that they are way too noisy, which means that nothing stands out.
(https://www.klei.com/sites/default/files/games/oxygen-not-included/gallery/base.jpg)
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 06, 2020, 03:38:34 pm
Unexplored should be hidden (which is a conscious design decision in DF). The fact that it's unknown can be conveyed in various ways, with and without variation (vanilla DF has some variation, for instance).
Post by: CL3AR on April 06, 2020, 03:44:58 pm
(https://cdn.player.one/sites/player.one/files/styles/full_large/public/2020/02/24/rimworld-review-10-rock-paper-shotgun.jpg)
Or maybe make the unknown areas have colors depending on the usual rocks in that area or biome.
Post by: Meph on April 06, 2020, 04:00:09 pm
Post by: bloop_bleep on April 06, 2020, 04:26:47 pm
However, in DF, you don't know what the color of stone is until it's been revealed. It makes no sense to make all the hidden stone a shade of brown or something like that when it's hidden, because there is large variety in DF with stone colors, and in the game world all that stone that looks brown would actually be white and blue and green and yellow.
Thus I think it's best to use black or dark gray or some other dark, neutral, "default"-looking color to represent hidden stone.
Post by: Rekov on April 06, 2020, 04:44:07 pm
Looking at their 'tiling' textures like the different kinds of ground and the wooden floors, they aren't using tiles that DF does. They're using larger tiling texture that are simply revealed on the appropriate tiles. The tiles effectively act as masks for larger tiling textures, with the transitions blurred slightly.
I think that single tile thick walls with open spaces on either side look much better when they're solidly filled in, like in traditional dwarf fortress.
In this example from Vettlingr's set, the difference between smoothed and engraved walls shows up within or on top of the wall, which obviously doesn't make sense, but it reads very well which is probably more important.
(https://i.imgur.com/PGi4XwP.png)
This is just me playing around in Photoshop again with one of the WIP images. It's obviously not very consistent, since in some places I'm blurring colors together, and in other places I've got sharp boundaries. I know I like having single tile thick walls completely filled in. I'm not sure about two tile thick walls or anything else.
(https://i.imgur.com/DbzlguJ.png)
What if you guys made the detailed rim you draw around walls roughly 16px thick, and then diffuse the color from there? That would mean single tile thick walls are fully 'drawn' and solid without needing an infill.
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 06, 2020, 05:33:25 pm
The problem with vettlingr's background is that it looks like it contains information, when there should be none. It's unexplored rock (and doesn't look like rock). Sure, it's possible to exploit how DF builds its biomes and geo biomes to show the boundaries you know are there because you know the rules (assuming you do), but I don't think those "arbitrary" design decisions should be made visible, as they're more unfortunate side effects than intended functionality.
I Think its supposed to be a soil layer.
Quote
Unexplored should be hidden (which is a conscious design decision in DF). The fact that it's unknown can be conveyed in various ways, with and without variation (vanilla DF has some variation, for instance).
I agree, unexplored Should Indeed be hidden. Showing the texture of the "revealed tiles/walls", and then letting them blend into the fog of war/unexplored tiles would be the way to go.
Post by: Uthimienure on April 06, 2020, 05:36:10 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 06, 2020, 05:39:27 pm
The problem with the examples you gave with Oxygen Not Included, Rimworld, etc. is that those games don't have different types of rock, so it all might as well be brown or whatever, even if hidden.
However, in DF, you don't know what the color of stone is until it's been revealed. It makes no sense to make all the hidden stone a shade of brown or something like that when it's hidden, because there is large variety in DF with stone colors, and in the game world all that stone that looks brown would actually be white and blue and green and yellow.
Thus I think it's best to use black or dark gray or some other dark, neutral, "default"-looking color to represent hidden stone.
Use this to make something Nice to look at. Its abstract. It could be like, dark blue shades, very dark but not black, with Maybe Some small details in it, and glimmers of white. Like in heroes of might and magic 3, but revisioned somehow. It could Really add to that 'exploring a fantastic and mysterious world' vibe, in a suddle way.
All black doesnt sit well with me. It doesnt look good next to the bright, saturated colors of the tileset.
A dark gray would be better.
Maybe with small details and twirls in the unknown, like ascii represents it.
But take that last part, and make it Even more Beautiful and mysterious.
Post by: voliol on April 06, 2020, 05:46:20 pm
Post by: CL3AR on April 06, 2020, 05:48:38 pm
Maybe make it so that the deeper you go the more sparkles and tendrils you see. To emphasize that you might be digging too deep and too greedily.
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 06, 2020, 05:53:49 pm
This is just me playing around in Photoshop again.
(https://i.imgur.com/DbzlguJ.png)
This is it though. Just take that fog of war, and Exchange it with a suddle version of homm 3 fog of war but darker, and make it fade into the colors of the soil/rock. Or something equally beautifull, but more fitting the saturation of the other colors.
While pure black/dark gray does look fine, I think having some kind of subtle texture/adding details would be a positive. The little stars and crosses in ASCII don't only make for prettier mountains, they also make "flipping" through layers visible, which is very usable for a stairwell-user like me. It should also prevent some new players from accidentally shifting down a few levels, and then getting lost because they are not getting any visual response when trying to shift back up.
This. Very important quality.
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 06, 2020, 05:58:02 pm
Maybe have unexplored rock be solid or have a super slight texture with occasional animated sparkles or something. Just to fill in the emptiness with something mysterious. Like voliol says, if everything is all grey, moving in z-layers won't have feedback. Maybe have some shadowy tendrils that shift through the darkness. Just anything to make different layers stand apart.
Maybe make it so that the deeper you go the more sparkles and tendrils you see. Just to emphasize that you might be digging too deep and too greedily.
+1!.. if by tendrils you mean like, twirls and other details, thats CLEARLY not supposed to actually represent anything, but the possibilities of the unrevealed.
I would refrain from any actual animation, unless its very infrequent and rare. The less patterns, the better (when it comes to the unknown).
But overall, more art and mysticallity in the fog of war. Its something we have to look at a Lot, so Pretty, but Nothing too distracting. It Shouldnt stand in too big of a contrast to the explored areas, or in and way be visually disturbing. But it should be simple and pretty/mystical, to get the fantasy World imagination going.
I would personally prefer something dark blue, different shades and 'strokes' like on a painting almost, but pixels ofc. It might stand in contrast to Everything else looking so mundane, but it would Really add something if done right.
Post by: CL3AR on April 06, 2020, 06:03:20 pm
Post by: jecowa on April 06, 2020, 06:09:46 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 06, 2020, 06:18:42 pm
Grey background is more confusing than black. It looks like it's floor tiles.
They grey in the image is too bright. If it was made darker it would work.
Post by: Rekov on April 06, 2020, 06:19:11 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/c0BXhjK.png)
Obviously you could come up with a pattern that's less regular than a series of elongated blocks, but the idea is that single-tile-thick walls get filled in completely.
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 06, 2020, 06:22:45 pm
Post by: CL3AR on April 06, 2020, 06:25:38 pm
Players spend so much time underground. I hope the unknown feels a bit mysterious, like the depths of a vast sea. Like if you make a grave mistake a bit of the FUN might spill in and overtake your fortress.
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 06, 2020, 06:28:50 pm
Can't it feel both tempting and a bit dangerous? Some sparkles to show that there's some riches hidding but also some swirls in the darkness to mean that there's unknown dangers too.
Definitely, dangerous too. The unknown often seems dangerous. And in df it Very well might be.
And the different details would be super heplful too, both aesthetically and mechanically. But im unsure if i want the details to actually look like they represent something, like riches, actual spakrles and such.
It might feel like clues, and animations might be disturbing in the Very long run, Maybe.
I dont Know if tying the details to any actual depth mechanic would be worth it, Maybe.
But details would be Beautiful. Mystical twirls and vortexes here and there, shades of dark blue and very dark purple colors, cloudy, smoky strokes of a brush, and the occasional brighter spots, instead of animated sparkles. Maybe thats the possibility of riches in a Very abstract sense? And to give Some contrast to the darkness. Like you dipped a brush in White Paint, and waved it in front of a dark blue painting, to make smal spatters of white, Maybe like a starry night sky.
Like this, but Maybe darker, with less dots, more twirls and more dark blue-ish:
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/5582/lab1ym.jpg
Post by: Meph on April 06, 2020, 10:25:54 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Mike isn't a big fan of this, which is why we made both versions for now, thin and thick walls.
We also have little pebble-sprites to fill in a few random unrevealed tiles in the fog of war, just like the occasional # , . ' that you see in ASCII, but a variation of slight rock-like texture is a nice idea. Giving information about the unrevealed walls, like color or material is a no-go.
Simple test with a slight texture on the unrevealed tiles:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rose on April 06, 2020, 11:01:27 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 07, 2020, 01:35:04 am
When it comes to animation, I'm against overuse* of it fort two reasons:
- Performance. I assume there's an FPS cost for eye candy, in which case the FPS bucks should only be spent when you actually get bang for it.
- Dizzying overload: If there's change everywhere and every time, it's not only tiring, but also makes it hard to find the "actual" movements. Thus, I'm not sure miners jittering in place etc. is good. There's a huge difference between having 3 critters on a screen in a game and they jitter to let you see them, and having 50 dorfs jittering in place and 50 others that are actually moving.
Post by: Mike Mayday on April 07, 2020, 02:17:40 am
Here is part of what I was talking about, mocked up with what I believe are constructed walls made from blocks, not sure:
(https://i.imgur.com/c0BXhjK.png)
Obviously you could come up with a pattern that's less regular than a series of elongated blocks, but the idea is that single-tile-thick walls get filled in completely.
While I'm working on making walls thicker right now, this look is very much in contrary to what the community apparently works.
Rough carved walls are supposed to look very similar to walls constructed from rough blocks.
Smooth carved walls are supposed to look very similar to walls constructed from smooth blocks.
Engraved carved walls are supposed to be almost the same as engraved walls constructed from smooth blocks.
So I'm basically working on some very different designs right now to support that.
Post by: Bumber on April 07, 2020, 03:04:56 am
Simple test with a slight texture on the unrevealed tiles:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I think this runs the risk of looking like asphalt floors with ramps on the level below. Maybe something more abstract is needed, like Perlin noise (cloud effect):
(http://i.postimg.cc/K8H1kZrN/perlin.png)
While I'm working on making walls thicker right now, this look is very much in contrary to what the community apparently works.
Rough carved walls are supposed to look very similar to walls constructed from rough blocks.
Smooth carved walls are supposed to look very similar to walls constructed from smooth blocks.
Engraved carved walls are supposed to be almost the same as engraved walls constructed from smooth blocks.
So I'm basically working on some very different designs right now to support that.
It should be noted that the poll on walls is from before Toady announced he's going to allow us to smooth and engrave constructed walls. Not sure how much that changes the community's opinions, but they probably don't need to look too similar anymore.
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 07, 2020, 04:11:09 am
Simple test with a slight texture on the unrevealed tiles:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Nice, it makes so much sense.
Post by: clinodev on April 07, 2020, 04:23:08 am
This is a more complicated question. Back when I added constructed walls, the intent, and as I recollect, the prevailing sentiment, was allowing you to patch up holes in your walls without the fort looking like a patchwork. I agree the smoothed picture will look better, but as I currently understand it, we shouldn't make constructed walls look different. Unless opinions have changed. Obviously an option would be best, but that's fiddly, and keeping the default the same way may avoid an outcry.
Speaking for myself, I love the idea of rough constructed walls matching rough natural walls, and block walls matching smoothed stone walls (after all, mere humans manage it pretty well.)
I don't like these walls for smooth walls of either variety, though. The general consensus for tileset artists has been that smoothed natural walls are marble tile in a bank smooth, which is a good look in a fortress when you've put the dwarfpower into it.
[snipped Phoebus pic]
What I had in mind, at least, was smoothed natural stone walls like these in India: https://hiddenincatours.com/enigmatic-barabar-caves-india-lost-ancient-high-technology/
http://www.pragyata.com/mag/the-ancient-barabar-caves-near-gaya-808
all a beautiful high gloss, and that block walls, through superior craftdwarfship, would match them in their mirror polish, definitely not that dwarves would carve natural walls to look like blocks.
I don't dare speak for Toady beyond quoting, but we appear to agree that the two smoothed cases should match, so I can mine some ugly malachite vein out of my beautiful marble dining room, and then fill in the gaps with a marble block wall that only a master mason could tell from the natural smoothed stone? (It would be nice if they matched as far as climbing goes as well, but that's not in your hands, I know.)
I'll admit I'm less concerned with rough mined walls and boulder walls, but I wonder if it would bother anyone for them to match as well. It would certainly reduce the number of unique tiles needed if the cases were reduced to "smooth," as above, and "rough" as below:
https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/straight-adit-medieval-mine-banska-600w-1456725656.jpg (dug mine)
https://as2.ftcdn.net/jpg/01/19/13/45/500_F_119134596_3qvL4si0ieZNJTZ4jnbYuKIaiRxnplBj.jpg (boulder wall)
Post by: mko on April 07, 2020, 04:53:52 am
Rekov: I have pretty much the same opinion as you, my wall sprites take up about 16px, so that they fill a square entirely.I really like themSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Simple test with a slight texture on the unrevealed tiles:Looks good though more variation would be nice (especially to give feedback that z level changed when entire level is black)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rekov on April 07, 2020, 11:48:45 am
While I'm working on making walls thicker right now, this look is very much in contrary to what the community apparently works.I just grabbed an example that seemed relatively easy to widen, I didn't mean anything else by it. As Bumber mentioned, didn't Toady talk about being able to smooth/engrave constructed walls so that they would resemble smooth walls?
Rough carved walls are supposed to look very similar to walls constructed from rough blocks.
Smooth carved walls are supposed to look very similar to walls constructed from smooth blocks.
Engraved carved walls are supposed to be almost the same as engraved walls constructed from smooth blocks.
So I'm basically working on some very different designs right now to support that.
Quote from: Toady One
Since many people like to patch up their forts perfectly, and others want constructions to be distinct, the current thinking is to go ahead and allow constructed walls to be smoothed and engraved like regular walls. Engraving constructions is a long-standing request, so even better.So then you would need constructed walls from logs/boulders, constructed walls from blocks, and smoothed constructed walls (or these would just resemble normal smoothed walls)? Who knows if constructed walls out of non-stone materials will be smoothable/engravable, and what that ought to look like.
Everything I've seen looks pretty awesome in any case, both the thin and the thick walls. As usual it's hard not to see advantages for both. It almost makes me wonder if there should be separate cases, for example single-tile-thick walls fill in completely, but walls up against the vast unexplored don't? That's probably over-complicating it
Post by: Cruxador on April 07, 2020, 12:36:29 pm
Rekov: I have pretty much the same opinion as you, my wall sprites take up about 16px, so that they fill a square entirely.I'm definitely with you on this one. There's enough empty blackness in this game, no need to force more I to a situation where it can only serve to misleading people into thinking there might be something different in between two walls. Plus, a completed fortress area should appear solid and not full of the unknown anyway, just on general thematic principle. Empty void between wall edges just doesn't make sense, and limiting your walls to thin lines doesn't convey the physical gravity that the inside of a mountain very well ought to have. However, the idea implied by earlier in this thread is also viable; you can have a general stone texture in between the walls which is colored to match the stone type when that's known. Then other things can be done with different textures and the way they fade into each other and into the unknown area texture. This has the disadvantage that, being different from how anything in DF currently works, it would probably be a hassle for Toady. It has the advantage that it doesn't prevent him from adding stuff to reveal non-visible tiles in future releases. Although that could be done other ways too.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Mike isn't a big fan of this, which is why we made both versions for now, thin and thick walls.
A pretty straightforward and simple way to do this, as I Rekov's mockup, would still be considered a good thing although I find that gradient to be too steep for visual appeal.
Quote
We also have little pebble-sprites to fill in a few random unrevealed tiles in the fog of war, just like the occasional # , . ' that you see in ASCII, but a variation of slight rock-like texture is a nice idea. Giving information about the unrevealed walls, like color or material is a no-go.The pebbles and the bad texture aren't incompatible.
Quote
Simple test with a slight texture on the unrevealed tiles:I think the way this is implemented is not a distraction or misleading, so it's a success in that regard, however the actual texture used is kind of gross. Looks like silty dead mud (as in, small particles without healthy organic matter) that dried out in the sun. If this gets implemented, please do something not gross. Also, keep in mind that it doesn't have to be drawn out on the same scale as everything else.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Pretty sure ain't nobody voted on what you just described, and I haven't seen it said either. People voted that block-constructed walls should be able to look similar to smoothed walls so that your fort can look nice and tidy. Nobody voted on thin or thick walls, which I'm can't tell if you're trying to imply or if this is brought up as an incidental. I definitely don't think you can correctly infer from the poll that people want block-built walls to look like your current implementation of stone walls of any particular sort. But also, nobody voted on different kinds of block walls. Since the goal from everyone who described their votes and who said similar things in previous discussions over the years (including, at times, with regard to Stonesense) is to be able to patch up holes in places that look nice, I don't think raw stone and rough blocks, therefore, need to look totally similar to respect the intent of the public.Here is part of what I was talking about, mocked up with what I believe are constructed walls made from blocks, not sure:
(https://i.imgur.com/c0BXhjK.png)
Obviously you could come up with a pattern that's less regular than a series of elongated blocks, but the idea is that single-tile-thick walls get filled in completely.
While I'm working on making walls thicker right now, this look is very much in contrary to what the community apparently works.
Rough carved walls are supposed to look very similar to walls constructed from rough blocks.
Smooth carved walls are supposed to look very similar to walls constructed from smooth blocks.
Engraved carved walls are supposed to be almost the same as engraved walls constructed from smooth blocks.
So I'm basically working on some very different designs right now to support that.
It should be noted that the poll on walls is from before Toady announced he's going to allow us to smooth and engrave constructed walls. Not sure how much that changes the community's opinions, but they probably don't need to look too similar anymore.Did Toady actually announce this? I checked the devlog, the Steam announcements, and FotF and didn't see anything of the sort. Mind linking where it was mentioned, or at least pointing me in the right direction?
NINJA: I guess what rekov posted is what's called an announcement, though I wouldn't have taken "current thought" to mean "confirmed for next release". I'd still like the link for context if it's handy.
Also, although I know mentioning it to you guys isn't necessarily meaningful, I reckon it would make sense for block-constructed walls to be smoothed from the get-go.
Post by: Mike Mayday on April 07, 2020, 12:42:40 pm
Post by: Bumber on April 07, 2020, 01:03:50 pm
Did Toady actually announce this? I checked the devlog, the Steam announcements, and FotF and didn't see anything of the sort. Mind linking where it was mentioned, or at least pointing me in the right direction?
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/
03/25/2020 entry, near the end of the second to last paragraph.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 07, 2020, 01:39:49 pm
While I'm working on making walls thicker right now, this look is very much in contrary to what the community apparently works.
Rough carved walls are supposed to look very similar to walls constructed from rough blocks.
Smooth carved walls are supposed to look very similar to walls constructed from smooth blocks.
Engraved carved walls are supposed to be almost the same as engraved walls constructed from smooth blocks.
So I'm basically working on some very different designs right now to support that.
While I'm not entirely sure everyone is talking about the same things in any of the recent posts, I wanted to chime in with my take as far as the poll and everything goes. While I can't remember the exact wording of the poll and while I voted for very close representations of smoothed/block walls, I didn't think that included the marked bit above. Those I'd definitely want to be different, but I imagine people might have different opinions on that bit too.
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 07, 2020, 01:52:06 pm
Simple test with a slight texture on the unrevealed tiles:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I think this runs the risk of looking like asphalt floors with ramps on the level below. Maybe something more abstract is needed.
I agree. It doesnt Really look unexplored, more like soil.
I would like some more abstract approach. This exactly an area that would be better abstracted, since you, as a Player looking at the screen, technically CAN See the unexplored tiles from the top down perspective, but your dwarves can't. How do you visualize something looking unexplored when you are in fact litterally directly looking at it. You hide it from the player with an abstract fog or something. It can look beautiful, and add so Much charm. Just look at older games. You WANT to explore the mists of the unknown, expand your horizon.
Honestly, the blackness did it better in terms of feeling unexplored, but the dirt pattern obviously fits the saturated colorscheme better. If it could be just darkness, that isnt just complete blackness, but an acutal carefully picked palette of colors, and all that Stuff, little details, it would totally do the trick of looking unexplored and mystical, while Also mixing well with the general colorscheme of things.
Post by: Cruxador on April 07, 2020, 02:11:30 pm
Ah, thanks. I guess I must have been distracted by the pretty pictures.Did Toady actually announce this? I checked the devlog, the Steam announcements, and FotF and didn't see anything of the sort. Mind linking where it was mentioned, or at least pointing me in the right direction?
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/
03/25/2020 entry, near the end of the second to last paragraph.
Post by: bloop_bleep on April 07, 2020, 02:23:17 pm
Maybe have unexplored rock be solid or have a super slight texture with occasional animated sparkles or something. Just to fill in the emptiness with something mysterious. Like voliol says, if everything is all grey, moving in z-layers won't have feedback. Maybe have some shadowy tendrils that shift through the darkness. Just anything to make different layers stand apart.
Maybe make it so that the deeper you go the more sparkles and tendrils you see. To emphasize that you might be digging too deep and too greedily.
I like this idea.
However, I have to say, I don't really like the look of those walls very much.
Here is part of what I was talking about, mocked up with what I believe are constructed walls made from blocks, not sure:
(https://i.imgur.com/c0BXhjK.png)
Obviously you could come up with a pattern that's less regular than a series of elongated blocks, but the idea is that single-tile-thick walls get filled in completely.
(Either type.)
These walls, I guess, look too messy. All those little blocks make it seem irregular and cobbled together, and broken, instead of one cohesive smooth wall, and sort of reminds me of human teeth.
I think the main problem is the outlines of the blocks within the tile stand out too much and distract me from the actual shape of the wall, and its overall outline. Maybe make the inner gaps light grey, as if filled with mortar, decreasing the contrast they create? Alternatively, you could try making the blocks thicker, like twice as thick. That'll really help.
And yes, I would prefer one-tile-thick walls to be filled in completely.
Post by: Pillbo on April 07, 2020, 06:38:00 pm
I have to say, I don't really like the look of those walls very much.Here is part of what I was talking about, mocked up with what I believe are constructed walls made from blocks, not sure:Obviously you could come up with a pattern that's less regular than a series of elongated blocks, but the idea is that single-tile-thick walls get filled in completely.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
(Either type.)
These walls, I guess, look too messy. All those little blocks make it seem irregular and cobbled together, and broken, instead of one cohesive smooth wall, and sort of reminds me of human teeth.
I'm not a fan of the first one, like we saw in sample images, it feels more haphazard than a finely build wall.
What I had in mind, at least, was smoothed natural stone walls like these in India: https://hiddenincatours.com/enigmatic-barabar-caves-india-lost-ancient-high-technology/
http://www.pragyata.com/mag/the-ancient-barabar-caves-near-gaya-808
all a beautiful high gloss, and that block walls, through superior craftdwarfship, would match them in their mirror polish, definitely not that dwarves would carve natural walls to look like blocks.
I don't dare speak for Toady beyond quoting, but we appear to agree that the two smoothed cases should match, so I can mine some ugly malachite vein out of my beautiful marble dining room, and then fill in the gaps with a marble block wall that only a master mason could tell from the natural smoothed stone? (It would be nice if they matched as far as climbing goes as well, but that's not in your hands, I know.)
I'll admit I'm less concerned with rough mined walls and boulder walls, but I wonder if it would bother anyone for them to match as well. It would certainly reduce the number of unique tiles needed if the cases were reduced to "smooth," as above, and "rough" as below:
https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/straight-adit-medieval-mine-banska-600w-1456725656.jpg (dug mine)
https://as2.ftcdn.net/jpg/01/19/13/45/500_F_119134596_3qvL4si0ieZNJTZ4jnbYuKIaiRxnplBj.jpg (boulder wall)
I totally agree. I've always imaged smoothed stone to be just that, perfectly smoothed natural rock, no seems or textures like it was built. I voted for constructed & smooth natural stone to look similar but not the same. That was before Toady said he's allow smoothing and engraving of constructed walls, with that change I'm for constructed smoothed walls to be identical to natural stone.
Post by: Kiloku on April 08, 2020, 04:46:02 pm
Post by: voliol on April 08, 2020, 06:06:46 pm
Just as an aside, does it make sense for this thread to be in a subforum of "DF Modding"? I think it'd have more visibility somewhere else, and it's not modding if it's official :P+1
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 08, 2020, 06:30:46 pm
Agree. At first it was fine here, but it's very...well, very Dwarf Fortress, for new people to have to dig two layers into the mods forum to find somewhere to comment on the game graphics.Just as an aside, does it make sense for this thread to be in a subforum of "DF Modding"? I think it'd have more visibility somewhere else, and it's not modding if it's official :P+1
Post by: voliol on April 08, 2020, 08:10:25 pm
This thread is also getting even more focus now that Toady has shifted over to work on the graphics. As for its destination, DF general seems apt, no? All the other ”official development threads” are over there.Agree. At first it was fine here, but it's very...well, very Dwarf Fortress, for new people to have to dig two layers into the mods forum to find somewhere to comment on the game graphics.Just as an aside, does it make sense for this thread to be in a subforum of "DF Modding"? I think it'd have more visibility somewhere else, and it's not modding if it's official :P+1
Post by: Meph on April 09, 2020, 05:39:47 am
What would you guys think about unique corpse and remains sprites? Now that vermin all get a unique sprite, it's a bit odd to have a single sprite for all remains.
(https://i.imgur.com/0WUMp7u.png)
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 09, 2020, 07:21:50 am
Post by: Meph on April 09, 2020, 07:30:27 am
It makes corpses visually more appealing. (Yep, that's a sentence I just wrote. That happened.), but at the same time it might add some confusion. A single corpse/remain sprite is much easier to identify than a mix of several hundred. "What's the pixel-heap supposed to be? 'k', have a look, oh, ok, it's a dead tick, got it".
Post by: jecowa on April 09, 2020, 08:17:05 am
I'm not the judge of that. ^^
What would you guys think about unique corpse and remains sprites? Now that vermin all get a unique sprite, it's a bit odd to have a single sprite for all remains.
(https://i.imgur.com/0WUMp7u.png)
Yes! The more the merrier. Maybe there could be multiple dead forms of the civilized races. Maybe cut in half, or impaled, or drowned, or disease.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 09, 2020, 08:38:47 am
Post by: Starver on April 09, 2020, 09:45:18 am
The top one favours visual simplicity, while the bottom one more accurately represents how ramps function in game in terms of fluid mechanics. They both work and make sense. It's just a matter of choices now.(Nearly caught up on this thread after a long lag. Plenty of room to have been Ninjaed, though.)
(https://i.imgur.com/2K9xiFS.png)
In general I agree with the need for fluid movement to be accommodated (1-3/7th of a liquid in a full-depth dip should not be seen wetting up and over a half-height ridge in a one-tile ramped-channel between that sunken area and any adjacent area it could spread into) but if the double-steepness ramps needed to drag the groove down to the same floor-level as the sideways-adjacent are as traversable as the standard type (for walking or wagoneering passage) then it might lead one to believe that it is practicle to connect a 2z difference of height with two double-steep ramps (one reaching down to the tile-centre, the other reaching up to there from an opposite or adjacent side, or something more complicated involving the corners).
I would also be happier with the flatter version of isolated ramp-spires (flat on all sides, centre at +½Z) and ramp-holes (..., centre at -½Z), as they do not functionally impede movement even as much as the implied lump in the ground or pothole, though the creature that routes over such a pothole (or into, to perhaps dig down/drift-mine further from that spot) does switch Zs. (Not so for a ramp.) Ditto, respectively, with ramp-trench/ridge across a path, including with the extraordinary behaviour of a wagon (extending into the trench wall, with some subsequent effects that produces henceforth suffered or exploited). Half-depth(/height) movement of the ground down(/up) in one tile when moving between two same-height floors that connect through (in all kinds of combinations[1]) would seem to work better for that.
And not all sides of all ramps must smoothly connect to sides. If you set a miner to stand in a ramp-pothole (centre at -½Z) and channel straight down another level then you have a 'ramp' 2Z down, but it could be as much centre @-2Z with edges/corners all at -1½Z rather than -1½ and -1Z respectively (original pothole with -1Z shift). If you go to the edge of a cliff-edged plateau (or down the wall of a cavern) digging a 'wellshaft' down the edge to send a new miner down (not trivially reversibly) to the base of the rock wall you want the open edge(s) or corner(s) that arrive at the base level to markedly align with (or slope) that bottom, and the rest are irrelevent.
Consider various other junction plans (mid-rock, but could be at least partially open-air in rough outside ground)...
▓▓▓ ▓▓▓ █▓▓ ▓█▓ ▓▓▓ ▓█▓ █▓█
█▼█ █▼▓ ▓▼▓ ▓▼▓ █▼▓ █▼█ ▓▼▓ Upper Z
▓▓▓ ▓█▓ ▓▓█ █▓█ ██▓ ▓█▓ █▓█
▓█▓ ▓█▓ █▓▓ █▓█ ▓▓▓ █▓█ ▓█▓
▓▲▓ ▓▲█ ▓▲▓ ▓▲▓ ▓▲█ ▓▲▓ █▲█ Lower Z
▓█▓ ▓▓▓ ▓█▓ ▓█▓ ▓██ █▓█ ▓█▓
(█ intended as passably dug/open, ▓ as unpassably undug/wall, but I think you could switch the two and still have at least some valid passages.)
The ramps you need lead between level, without even the complications of adjacent ramps, can be crazy or otherwise challenging (especially the +/x transitionals to the right).
IIRC, you can also 'lean' a ramp up a level against something with dynamic blocking behaviour, as well as fixed wall. So something like a floodgate would allow ramp-upping when closed but make it a nullified ramp otherwise. (If not switchable, building/removing a wall on a given spot like that could change the visible and practical ramp profile.)
And that's before you start to think about letting the below-half-depth water flow 'naturally'.
If I was starting from scratch on this problem I'd suggest not allowing one-tile ramp-gaps (iteratively propogate the digging-out, manual or in initial landscaping proc-gen, so that it is two or more), or else make the liquids respect the 3½ liquid levels of dam-depth (4+ depth flows over with 1..3 effective depth over the ½Z channel point(s), lower than that and it doesn't flow onto that ground at all).
Or fudge it. Pretend it seeps through anyway. Or assume a 'gutter' (too narrow to bother feet/wagonwheels) in the central dip.
Ditto, water behaviour across a 'ramp ridge' (when constructed, you can have a whole area left with ramps, where digging out from native full rock/soil/sand would 'evaporate' all but a select few lone spires, depending on dig-order) acts as if there's no obstruction so instead of a broad 'pillow' of raised ground it would be more like a small herd of terrapins hunkered down. Water would flow between their shells (ostensibly, if not yet graphically).
Like everyone else, I've thought alot about this. Even did some rendering (a bit in Blender, most in POV-Ray) where I needed to decide how to handle some of the odder edge-conditions. Given that, all I can be definite about is that there is no easy solution that works entirely well for me. Which is why I'm probably happy to accept any half-way decent solution that someone else makes into some kind of solid reality. Won't mean I'm not going to grumble at all, of course. ;)
[1] I don't envy Mephday's problems with this. There are far too many combinations of each edge(-centre?) or corner-point possibly needing to be tied-high, tied-low or else allowed to float wherever seems best - at the very least considerations about not even being passable on that vertex, a choice of which adjacent level to tie passage to or variously co-dependent with adjacent ramp(s).
Post by: Starver on April 09, 2020, 10:19:52 am
The kind of roller that you've depicted there isn't normally powered, and I'm having a hard time imagining how it would work with a minecart on top, since minecarts do, after all, have wheels. Seems like you'd basically need to take the cart off the track and turn it on its side or something? I don't know, I've only ever seen these used in packaging facilities and playgrounds.My impression was that the power-rollers were much as I think you alude to in packaging facilities (here (https://www.amber-industries.ltd.uk/power-gravity-roller-conveyors.html), on the first random site I found with a nice set of puctures) but instead of alternating with unpowered gravity/momentum rollers they are raised up and between the tracks such that they act on the underside of the cart bucket somewhat like a vertical friction wheel (https://coasterpedia.net/wiki/Friction_wheel) (the gear-version of the imagery would work exactly like that but might be less forgiving with under-/over-speed conjuctions with the payload).
The rope component of course, would be the power-transfer up to the wheel from the track-side mechanics (an underside picture on the conveyor company site indicates one possibility, but could be looped out from under the track as well) so that whatever power/direction of power you end up configuring can apply to any resting/passing truck.
IRL, it would be not impossible to imagine a mechanical leaf-switch that trips the PTO appropriately upon detecting the cart's arrival. Maybe even a mechanical speed detector such as a seperate unpowered friction-wheel, leading the powered one with governer-like mechanism to establish a magnitude useful to the pre-drive gearbox. But as a Dorf I'd just rely on the usual Mechanical Magycks to sort that out.
((Not sure I've ever seen such rollers in use in a playground situation. The versions in my mind's eye look too much like an H&S nightmare if intended to be used by children.))
Post by: mko on April 09, 2020, 11:23:28 am
I'm not the judge of that. ^^
What would you guys think about unique corpse and remains sprites? Now that vermin all get a unique sprite, it's a bit odd to have a single sprite for all remains.
(https://i.imgur.com/0WUMp7u.png)
+1 for unique sprites but I would make them more dead/crushed/flattened/gray. To make immediately clear what is rubbish and what is a living object.
This corpses are not clearly corpseish.
I think that "this is a corpse" should be 100% immediately clear "of foobar" is less important.
Post by: Starver on April 09, 2020, 11:25:14 am
Spoiler: First, Rollers Redux (click to show/hide)
New new subject comment on the next thing talked about recently: I often set up ore/metal/alloy/flux/carbon stockpiles, especially, in checkerboard+ configurations, near the magma workshops they feed/feed-upon.
In each (typically) 11x11 room (my standard largest footprint, between my corridor gridding and intersticial walls) I'd assign a full stockpile for item-type-1, then deselct every other {or every nth) spot and over-stockpile for item-type-2, to reuse the gaps. Repeat as necesary. (The whole point being a snazzy way to have a visual track of the comparative filling of each type, next to each other. The size is unimportant, that's just the tyoical largest thing with 61 slots for A and 60 slots for B or 41+40+40 for A+B+C, etc being quite handy.) It leaves heavily non-contiguous areas (maybe just corners touching) of each type.
So... Liking a lot of the rope/border mockups of the stockpiles, I can only imagine how they'd look in this situation. Very busy.
Less busy, but might need thought, are my square stockpiles around a stairwell or even a workshop (sometimes seen elsewhere in my designs) typically 5x5 with a 1x1 or 3x3 centre removed for (as mentioned by someone else) non-blinking on the stairway tile, which probably won't happen in a Steam GUI or in order to go around the workshop site.
Not quite as extreme an enclave/exclave situation as my first, but still suggests the need for an inner (convexly defining) rope or border to look like it's such a *clave-boundary to reflect the outer one.
Not that my peculiar play-style has any bearing on the end solution. Just interested.
(My thoughts, which I can't illustrate with a mock-up just this moment, were a kind of edge-boundry static 'glow', hard edged outwards, fading to transparency in a handful of pixels inwards, like a smudged-inwards version of the 'bar boundry' suggestion, almost. Adjoining tockpile boundaries, especially of different hues, would delineate quite well and it could be ethereal enough not to look too artificial nor physical and still not changing the original floor. And could be followed across diverse underlying floor-types, as often happens to exist in dug-out stores that used to be busy with mineral veins beforehand. Similar, if perhaps with differing edge-scalloping, zoning (pastures)/etc could be given this treatment, though zones yet can and do overlap in whole or part so maybe that needs yet another idea. Again, I can see this is by far not the only answer.)
Post by: Bumber on April 09, 2020, 11:55:37 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 09, 2020, 11:59:46 am
Bumber typed faster than I did...
Post by: Pillbo on April 09, 2020, 12:06:05 pm
What would you guys think about unique corpse and remains sprites? Now that vermin all get a unique sprite, it's a bit odd to have a single sprite for all remains.
Yes please
Post by: CL3AR on April 09, 2020, 12:30:23 pm
There needs to be a linear gradient on the ramps, but Mayday says that it has a higher performance impact.
Post by: Uthimienure on April 09, 2020, 12:36:32 pm
Absolutely!
What would you guys think about unique corpse and remains sprites? Now that vermin all get a unique sprite, it's a bit odd to have a single sprite for all remains.
(https://i.imgur.com/0WUMp7u.png)
Post by: CL3AR on April 09, 2020, 12:37:29 pm
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/555404726817259580/697859321534480432/b5725ad4a8abb6e791b0d9a9eb27eec5f0d085e1.png)
Might make it look less like the creatures are just pasted over the tiles if their feet stood closer to the middle.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 09, 2020, 12:38:46 pm
Also, on the ramps, the half-rampy bits feel really jarring, but maybe that's just me. The darker shadows in the bottom of them do a good job of making them seem deeper but the edges kinda ruins the illusion now, maybe adding a thin line down to ground level would help? (not all rounded like before but just some faint edge kind of to hint that the bottom is at ground level).
Edit: Kinda like this, so one could imagine there's a slight crack running down the bottom of it where fluids etc could flow.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Schmaven on April 09, 2020, 01:08:31 pm
Post by: Starver on April 09, 2020, 01:45:25 pm
I kind of like the idea of blue grey with sparkles tbh.I think, when I very first started out (vanilla codepage graphics) I imagined the filler-chars were something real. Older and wiser these days (still stuck on vanilla, personally, though enjoying these graphics mightly, nontheless) but I'd warn about making any "sparkles" or swirls too much like something to immediately dig for, for the expected novice user.
Or maybe you should. It's a low-risk issue to tempt someone to mine the latest equivalent of a dither-placed % in undue excitemen, a handful of times.
Animation-wise, they should be on cycles (or, if not strictly cycled in regularity but scintilating each time individually at some point onwards since the last sparkling) maybe on the order of minutes. Some tens of seconds at minimum, across the whole window of visibility. The animated wall-gems could maybe be anything up to 0.1Hz (per local cluster, not tile?) to attract the eye to be more obvious and encourage either mining or admiration without too much pestering or becoming annoyingly distracting.
In my mind, anyway. YMMV on those details, and as I envisage its implementation, it'd be code (or global/MAT configuration) that drives that so is ultimately Toady's call.
Post by: Starver on April 09, 2020, 02:06:13 pm
Edit: Kinda like this, so one could imagine there's a slight crack running down the bottom of it where fluids etc could flow.In the one place in that image (edit: two places! Didn't realise how wide the image was...) where it counts (place where a bunch of water might initially sit and yet flow out through a ramped pinch-point) that's pretty much as I imagined avoiding double-steep ramping but not setting up an area that looks less drainable than it is. And looks like it would 'work' physically (if not actually be inevitable, the first time it rained...). And in the places without a distinct feed-pool it still looks ok and like the result of an eroding rivulet from Z+1Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I thought I should say, as you obviously had that in mind some time before my own comment about it got published.
Post by: ror6ax on April 09, 2020, 03:17:57 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 09, 2020, 03:23:30 pm
Is there a separate thread for menu UX redesign or can one start rambling in here :D ?
That'd be something for the suggestions forum. Afaik Threetoe was compiling info from various UI suggestion threads there for whatever the changes would be.
Post by: CL3AR on April 09, 2020, 03:25:20 pm
The wall spite isn't displaying the sides when there's a door. It looks like the wall just cuts off.
Post by: bloop_bleep on April 09, 2020, 03:26:26 pm
(https://bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/planned_room.png)
The wall spite isn't displaying the sides when there's a door. It looks like the wall just cuts off.
I would prefer that, actually.
Post by: CL3AR on April 09, 2020, 03:28:04 pm
I prefer if the walls were to act the same as in the door on the right, the planned door. In the door on the left, the wall spite just looks like it stops suddenly instead of closing. In fact, some of the rocks in the walls are cut right in half.(https://bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/planned_room.png)
The wall spite isn't displaying the sides when there's a door. It looks like the wall just cuts off.
I would prefer that, actually.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 09, 2020, 04:37:04 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 09, 2020, 04:51:53 pm
Is there a separate thread for menu UX redesign or can one start rambling in here :D ?Already answered by Manveru Taurënér, but this thread is specifically about the graphics, with Meph and Mike Mayday being the lieutenants in charge of the thread under the villainous boss of Toady the One. Unless the artists are recruited to create icons, they won't have any involvement with the UI work.
Post by: jecowa on April 09, 2020, 04:58:19 pm
Post by: Starver on April 09, 2020, 06:00:58 pm
If non-vanilla graphics can provide a wall-end graphic for all four cases (plus isolated column) that's the obvious thing to use in the same circumstance. Without adding further configurstion to ignore this helpfulness, I think that's how mods or protoSteam will probably look. Maybe partition to have that config?
(Though I thought a proposed-built door acted as a door-in-place in decolumnising the wall-end, whether straight double-line or ╚ if led into from an angle, but I might be wrong. Or graphics packs have already half-tapped into the exception you're looking for.)
I must check when I get on DF next, though.
Post by: Pillbo on April 09, 2020, 07:28:24 pm
I love this. I keep thinking about suggesting this while playing and never remember by the time I'm on the forums. This would go great with a build in Planning Mode. 🤞
Post by: Cruxador on April 09, 2020, 08:54:03 pm
I'm not the judge of that. ^^I would consider this a stretch goal at best. Worth doing if there was no opportunity cost, but there are so many things that are more worth doing.
What would you guys think about unique corpse and remains sprites? Now that vermin all get a unique sprite, it's a bit odd to have a single sprite for all remains.
(https://i.imgur.com/0WUMp7u.png)
((Not sure I've ever seen such rollers in use in a playground situation. The versions in my mind's eye look too much like an H&S nightmare if intended to be used by children.))The ones in playgrounds aren't powered. They might be considered unsafe these days for all I know, I haven't seen them recently a lot of stuff that was in playgrounds when I was a kid is now considered dangerous by enough people to not be around much any more.
Post by: Starver on April 09, 2020, 11:31:34 pm
I suppose like the "Witch's Hat" thing[1] was supposedly banned, even tbough I've seen more modern versions[2] recently. But when I was young the height of playground fashion, if you wanted a place with more than swings and maybe a roundabout, was an old unwanted (post usabilty, pre-restoration era) steam roller or traction engine[3] left to rust in situ.((Not sure I've ever seen such rollers in use in a playground situation. The versions in my mind's eye look too much like an H&S nightmare if intended to be used by children.))The ones in playgrounds aren't powered. They might be considered unsafe these days for all I know, I haven't seen them recently a lot of stuff that was in playgrounds when I was a kid is now considered dangerous by enough people to not be around much any more.
But since I wrote the above quoted text, I now recall perhaps seeing playground rollers on the continent (maybe Denmark, close to 40 years ago), but then Europe was always more sophisticated that way. I have half a memory that it was just wide enough to send buckets of sand around, in a kind of 'chute' housing, not enough room for kids to ride or even practical to try to get one's foot trapped in.
To make the intended on-topic point about rollers: here's a largish image (https://www.citconveyors.com/img-oferte/20140212/8830266022_1_huge.jpg) (that I therefore won't embed) of a curved-path friction roller unit. Imagine that placed in a slightly elevated position between the rails (and straight, if the rail section is actually straight) pushing or pulling on the underside of any cart that rolls over it.
'Nough said for now about that, I suppose. Carry on!
Spoiler: Off-topic Feetnete (click to show/hide)
Post by: clinodev on April 10, 2020, 01:10:20 am
Continuing with the thread derail, though, Project Gutenberg has a decent English translation of Agricola's mid-16th century classic, De re metallica, which would be the standard mining treatise for the next 150+ years, for those interested. LINK (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38015/38015-h/38015-h.htm#BOOK_VI)
There's no mention of mechanically powering the minecarts, which were pushed by hand or pulled by animals, but there are some great pics of mine carts and pumps!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: jecowa on April 10, 2020, 01:33:17 am
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 10, 2020, 01:36:34 am
The basic issue with powered rollers is that nothing resembling them exist in the technological era DF generally follows, so we're left with imagining them from the information the game itself gives us, that they're 1-10 tiles long and made from 1-4 mechanisms and a rope, and can climb ramps. If ever there was a case to be made for ignoring the community and asking the Brothers Adams for a sketch of what they intend, this is probably it.You'll find there's no equivalent for our wifi "mechanisms" either which somehow connect levers to drawbridges from 50 z-levels down. Rollers exist on conveyor belts, that's presumably what they're meant to be regardless of Earth history (if Dwarves actually existed they might have invented them early is always the best explanation for such weird anomalies).
Continuing with the thread derail, though, Project Gutenberg has a decent English translation of Agricola's mid-16th century classic, De re metallica, which would be the standard mining treatise for the next 150+ years, for those interested. LINK (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38015/38015-h/38015-h.htm#BOOK_VI)
There's no mention of mechanically powering the minecarts, which were pushed by hand or pulled by animals, but there are some great pics of mine carts and pumps!Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Fortunately the artists are working with Toady so can ask him stuff like this just to be sure though. :)
Post by: jecowa on April 10, 2020, 02:15:41 am
Post by: Jiri Petru on April 10, 2020, 02:45:40 am
Is there a separate thread for menu UX redesign or can one start rambling in here :D ?
Ages ago I created this thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=34949.msg534385#msg534385) for that. Feel free to necro it... or create your own.
Post by: Erendir on April 10, 2020, 03:20:46 am
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 10, 2020, 03:36:20 am
I think the question was about discussion of the official UI update (which doesn't have a thread yet - probably because it hasn't started). No point starting one of those yourself unless you've been hired by Kitfox to improve the UI.Is there a separate thread for menu UX redesign or can one start rambling in here :D ?
Ages ago I created this thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=34949.msg534385#msg534385) for that. Feel free to necro it... or create your own.
Post by: Fleeting Frames on April 10, 2020, 06:11:19 am
Was watching a video on rollers, and learned that in addition to speeding up minecarts to the proper speed, they will also slow them down to the proper speed. I'm having trouble imagining something that would do that.Not exactly; rollers don't slow down faster carts traveling in same direction, but will slow down ones traveling in opposite direction by 100k per tick (until they reach roller speed), and can give sideways velocity that then immediatelly results in a turn that resets cart speed.
So you need a system that would massively brace the carts (twice as heavily as track stops) going opposite way, be independent sideways and have either certain or no effect opposite way.
On a side note, these corner track rollers seem rather a misnomer tbh; it's more like the roller pushes a cart towards a direction that just happens to hit corner; here's a select watergun thread snip:
Spoiler: "seems like context-sensitive animation would be needed" (click to show/hide)
Post by: Maltavius on April 10, 2020, 06:54:05 am
I think the left looks better, but the right might be closer to how rough walls usually look. The door on the left is interacting with the walls as if they were smooth walls.
Maybe the door on the left needs a doorpost on the right side and not just on the left side where the hinges are.
That would also make it obvious that there is a door there if it is open.
Just remove the "door" and have the two posts there.
Post by: Uthimienure on April 10, 2020, 03:56:54 pm
Post by: Schmaven on April 10, 2020, 04:22:35 pm
And another direction... how about doors that look like real doors (viewed from mostly top-down) rather than how they are now, looking as if they're laying flat on the floor. Could that work?
Like an architectural blueprint door? It could be shown swung open or closed easily enough. It would have to be shown as double doors to be in the middle of the tile. And a single door would have to look like it's flush with 1 wall but with a little cove on the other side. That might make it look pathable. I like to imagine that the stone doors slide down into the floor as they open, like in Indiana Jones.
Post by: Uthimienure on April 10, 2020, 04:30:57 pm
Yes, basically like an architectural blueprint door. Of course then we would need variations for which orientation that would need to be chosen when built. This is why I asked if it could work. This is not a big deal to have because we're all used to what we have now and it works. And many other cans of worms might be opened by this, so maybe it should be ignored ;)And another direction... how about doors that look like real doors (viewed from mostly top-down) rather than how they are now, looking as if they're laying flat on the floor. Could that work?
Like an architectural blueprint door? It could be shown swung open or closed easily enough. It would have to be shown as double doors to be in the middle of the tile. And a single door would have to look like it's flush with 1 wall but with a little cove on the other side. That might make it look pathable. I like to imagine that the stone doors slide down into the floor as they open, like in Indiana Jones.
Post by: jecowa on April 10, 2020, 05:51:59 pm
Here's an example of doors on north-south walls from another tileset:
Spoiler: screenshot (click to show/hide)
Yeah, I think our styles and natural choices differ quite a lot, but we're trying to put the differences to good use. Meph is always there to point out when I've gone too far (or not far enough).
Anyway, dragon, cyclops (repurposed from the small colossus), plus small colossus fixes:
(https://i.imgur.com/95jzlMH.png)
Dragons may grow to be even larger than colossi so I was tempted to make the sprite larger as well, but wide sprites will look reaaally dumb when next to walls:
(https://i.imgur.com/REHpXuE.png)
This is what the dragon looks like in a 1-tile corridor. Do you think I should squash it to have both left legs visible in the tile?
It might be fun to have 2 forms for large creatures. 1 big sprite and 1 cramped-into-1-tile sprite. Maybe a dragon would lower her head and wrap her tail around herself. And maybe the bronze colossus would need to kneel down when there's a roof a tile above him.
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 10, 2020, 05:57:17 pm
Post by: Starver on April 10, 2020, 07:11:40 pm
Not sure what any of that would look like. Could be a turnstyle-type thing to be omnidirectionally usable/blockable, but I'm not sure that fits expectations as well as practicality.
Post by: Schmaven on April 10, 2020, 07:37:05 pm
Edit: Having the walls change in some way when adjacent a constructed door would help differentiate between actual doors and stray unbuilt doors, or doors in a stockpile. I think this differentiation is shown to some degree in the above picture with the 2 doors.
Post by: Starver on April 10, 2020, 08:04:27 pm
Jams might satisfy the termination of the wall (E&W, lintel for the N, not sure what could be done for S except with a sill/threshold bar at the bottom as well) that is considered lacking in the image last posted by Pillbo (with its undrawn centre-of-wall left black).
And the jams/etc would remain bounding the wall-ends equally at all times if there's a version of the graphic with the door element currently open, which is when I'm sure an undrawn centre is most incongruous.
Post by: Schmaven on April 12, 2020, 09:24:25 am
Post by: Uthimienure on April 12, 2020, 10:08:55 am
Sort of on the subject of showing when a door is open or closed: Do you have plans to show a difference in 1 tile wide raising draw bridges for the raised and lowered states? ...snip...+1
Oh, and also floodgates when open should show something to mark their position.
Post by: bloop_bleep on April 12, 2020, 11:49:23 am
Post by: vettlingr on April 12, 2020, 12:15:49 pm
Why not just superimpose the dragon upon the wall tiles? Why would the creature layer be above the terrain layer on the tile it's on, but below the terrain layers on adjacent tiles? I think it would be best to just keep the dragon tile on top of all terrain.My opinion is that it is better to try to extend the creature sprite in the y direction as much as possible, then maybe add a little bit of overlap to the extra x dimensions. Use the tools you have to the best extent. Use the serpentine dragon body to Convey size in y rather than let it occupy a wide X dimension. IT works better with effects such as fire breath and fireball.
When restrained to a single square, rather than going for a uniform perspective, you can conpartmentalize the perspective to isomeric at the base, legs etc. with a side perspective extending upwards to convey size, while small animals are fully isometric. I donðt know if that makes sense, but I think it is way better than having small animals have a realistic size compared to a larger one - rather let the perspective components convey the size difference.
TLDR: Head centered in X, extending to y, while tail can slither around in x.
Post by: Fleeting Frames on April 12, 2020, 12:49:10 pm
Sort of on the subject of showing when a door is open or closed: Do you have plans to show a difference in 1 tile wide raising draw bridges for the raised and lowered states? If a lever wasn't named well enough, I don't know of any other way to tell them apart without using DFHack right now.JSYK, I use building track stops on tile - building present is lowered, blocked is raised.
However, good idea.
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 16, 2020, 07:19:41 pm
Why not just superimpose the dragon upon the wall tiles? Why would the creature layer be above the terrain layer on the tile it's on, but below the terrain layers on adjacent tiles? I think it would be best to just keep the dragon tile on top of all terrain.My opinion is that it is better to try to extend the creature sprite in the y direction as much as possible, then maybe add a little bit of overlap to the extra x dimensions. Use the tools you have to the best extent. Use the serpentine dragon body to Convey size in y rather than let it occupy a wide X dimension. IT works better with effects such as fire breath and fireball.
When restrained to a single square, rather than going for a uniform perspective, you can conpartmentalize the perspective to isomeric at the base, legs etc. with a side perspective extending upwards to convey size, while small animals are fully isometric. I donðt know if that makes sense, but I think it is way better than having small animals have a realistic size compared to a larger one - rather let the perspective components convey the size difference.
TLDR: Head centered in X, extending to y, while tail can slither around in x.
+1
Your own tileset is a good example of this, but now it can be done slightly less crammed.
Post by: voliol on April 17, 2020, 04:44:12 am
Procedural creatures! Praise be! I assume the backwards joints aren't implemented, though, because I don't see any difference between the two.
Post by: Meph on April 17, 2020, 05:09:23 am
Post by: voliol on April 17, 2020, 07:32:20 am
Nah, I didn't do the backwards joints, because that would change the positions too much. The hands, arms, legs and feet are always in one location for a purpose: Equipment.
I think it is too bad, backward joints sound like they’d be visually interesting, but I do get your point.
...Now that I think of it, what does ”backwards joints” entail - which joints would be backwards? If you do just hip and ankle (which is equivalent to just the knee), you would only be burdoned with making extra pants. And that only if these parts be used for larger experiments as well, because IIRC night trolls never wear pants.
Post by: Starver on April 17, 2020, 09:29:36 am
They look backwards if you don't notice the humerus/femur element of their limb and extrapolate downward without realising the offset of joints you think they are from actuality.
There's also "overextension" of the knee (or other hinged joints), which can be a result of deformity or just well-trained contortionism (probably easier if you're already prone to lax ligaments), and enables (or maybe forces) humans to 'bird walk' (bird legs are similarly arranged to ungulates in their digitigrade manner, most easily noticed in long-legged birds like waders or specialist runners).
I think there have been case of true reverse-knees in a particularly severe form of birth defect, but often that comes with other issues (e.g. paths of veins and arteries through the legs).
In mythical creatures, though probably inspired by ungulates (the god Pan) or overextensive/contortionist abilities (Japanese mythologies seen a lot in anime and film) I suppose it would 'just' be "legs backwards on the bodyplan" (but feet, if plantigrade, still pointing forward). It's not like they need any explanation why they're so different from the base quadraped/biped theme only rarely seen changed (e.g. some arboreal swingers having more shoulder-like wrist joints, for better twistability of their gripping hands).
In imagining how to fit armour to 'reverse jointed' limbs, you probably have to consider whether there'd be a poleyn ('knee cap' element of full armour, a couter being the elbow equivalent) on the front-but-inside of the reverse knee, or would that interfere with movement? It's a tricky point to protect, the inside of a joint (knee, elbow, armpit, groin, neck) without creating loss of flexibility in the process, like some shin/foot overlapping armours that all but imobilise the natural flexibility of the ankle.
Then you have to draw it. As said, with a thought of portability. Perhaps easier with vectorised/skinned 3d art (already able to deal with arbitrary rotation my linking the limb mesh backwards?) but not so easier in this case. No easy one-solution-fits-all. At best, double up with separate overlay rasters to cater for the unarmoured (or otherwise 'not clothed') limbs they overlay/replace with armoured(/clothed) versions. Lot of work, just for an edge case. Might not be top priority for a while, certainly.
some various typos corrected
Post by: Cruxador on April 17, 2020, 10:14:34 am
Nah, I didn't do the backwards joints, because that would change the positions too much. The hands, arms, legs and feet are always in one location for a purpose: Equipment.Do these guys even use equipment? Or I guess these are the trolls. Definitely a shame, almost makes me wonder if it wouldn't be worth making the one with that trait always be pantsless.
Post by: jecowa on April 17, 2020, 11:11:43 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 17, 2020, 11:27:12 am
The one with four horns kind of looks like he had a headcrab on his shoulder. I wonder if it wouldn't be more readable to go with straight thin horns.Trolls, ogres, and humanoid experiments can definitely use equipment. I've seen humanoid experiments with 3 tails, but I haven't checked equipment specifically to see which monster are "animals" and which are "sapients".Nah, I didn't do the backwards joints, because that would change the positions too much. The hands, arms, legs and feet are always in one location for a purpose: Equipment.Do these guys even use equipment? Or I guess these are the trolls. Definitely a shame, almost makes me wonder if it wouldn't be worth making the one with that trait always be pantsless.
Post by: Kiloku on April 17, 2020, 02:38:13 pm
Is there still a lot to do for the graphical update? It seems like it's coming along pretty quickly.
There probably is a lot to do. Many of the screenshots we've been shown were mock-ups. Work on Overworld maps seems to only have reached the concept stage. There's still the UI Overhaul. I bet Adventurer Mode will need some graphical work that we haven't seen in the thread yet (visual range, glowing eyes, eyesight indicators, "last known position" indicators, tracks, noise indicators, fog of war, etc.)
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 17, 2020, 03:40:24 pm
The one with four horns kind of looks like he had a headcrab on his shoulder. I wonder if it wouldn't be more readable to go with straight thin horns.
The creatures description says curved, but I get your point. They look like medusa hair. The first two big horns looks nice tho.
Nah, I didn't do the backwards joints, because that would change the positions too much. The hands, arms, legs and feet are always in one location for a purpose: Equipment.Do these guys even use equipment? Or I guess these are the trolls. Definitely a shame, almost makes me wonder if it wouldn't be worth making the one with that trait always be pantsless.
[/quote]
Maybe for backwards jointed legs, only show the thigh part of the pants? Just cut away the pants sprite below the knee joint.
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 17, 2020, 04:04:42 pm
The one with four horns kind of looks like he had a headcrab on his shoulder. I wonder if it wouldn't be more readable to go with straight thin horns.
The creatures description says curved, but I get your point. They look like medusa hair. The first two big horns looks nice tho.Nah, I didn't do the backwards joints, because that would change the positions too much. The hands, arms, legs and feet are always in one location for a purpose: Equipment.Do these guys even use equipment? Or I guess these are the trolls. Definitely a shame, almost makes me wonder if it wouldn't be worth making the one with that trait always be pantsless.
Maybe for backwards jointed legs, only show the thigh part of the pants? Just cut away the pants sprite below the knee joint.
[/quote]
Still won't do it. The "thighs" (see the biology lesson above) would be angled backwards, while the pants sprite would be angled forwards. On top of that, "just cutting off the sprite" would still mean a duplication of all pant sprites, even though the erasing might be performed using some kind of automation.
Post by: Starver on April 17, 2020, 05:16:24 pm
(Just piping back up to interupt the stribg of imbalanced quote-tagging. Absolutely not going to suggest bitplanes added to all garment graphics to define 'reverse-joint skew factor' to optionally apply to the visible layer of pixels. :P}
Post by: Cruxador on April 17, 2020, 09:00:03 pm
Yeah, I was thinking about things from the troll update in general, really, though I guess my terminology was too limited. I don't think any of them would be too jarring if they're pantsless due to satyr legs, but I suppose it's a tradeoff as long as they continue to wear pants (or skirts or whatever) in-game. Either way it's wrong.The one with four horns kind of looks like he had a headcrab on his shoulder. I wonder if it wouldn't be more readable to go with straight thin horns.Trolls, ogres, and humanoid experiments can definitely use equipment. I've seen humanoid experiments with 3 tails, but I haven't checked equipment specifically to see which monster are "animals" and which are "sapients".Nah, I didn't do the backwards joints, because that would change the positions too much. The hands, arms, legs and feet are always in one location for a purpose: Equipment.Do these guys even use equipment? Or I guess these are the trolls. Definitely a shame, almost makes me wonder if it wouldn't be worth making the one with that trait always be pantsless.
Of course, there's another question: Are we sure they're digitigrade? Toady usually uses the correct terminology where available, even when it doesn't have a traditionally fantasy feel. Maybe reverse joints is supposed to be like the backwards-handed rakshasas.
Is there still a lot to do for the graphical update? It seems like it's coming along pretty quickly.The pace is lively but it's a huge job. And the stuff we're seeing now is only half of the update, the UI work is bound to be the bigger portion when it comes to code, since it's slated for a thorough overhaul and both Fortress and Adventure need as much UI as any game, and then there'll probably be stuff done for Legends, Arena, and Worldgen as well.
Plus, the more gets done, the more graphical functionality that's just over the horizon for us to hope for. They're planning on a minimum viable product for initial release, but since the graphics are the main thing people are paying for, that's still not a trivial threshold, and the UI especially needs to be polished enough that new players aren't turned away in confusion as has often been the case for the last fifteen years.
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 18, 2020, 01:57:35 am
:There are at least 3 different parts to the graphics:Is there still a lot to do for the graphical update? It seems like it's coming along pretty quickly.The pace is lively but it's a huge job. And the stuff we're seeing now is only half of the update, the UI work is bound to be the bigger portion when it comes to code, since it's slated for a thorough overhaul and both Fortress and Adventure need as much UI as any game, and then there'll probably be stuff done for Legends, Arena, and Worldgen as well.
Plus, the more gets done, the more graphical functionality that's just over the horizon for us to hope for. They're planning on a minimum viable product for initial release, but since the graphics are the main thing people are paying for, that's still not a trivial threshold, and the UI especially needs to be polished enough that new players aren't turned away in confusion as has often been the case for the last fifteen years.
1. Define and test out what to do and what will work (will probably be revisited several times). That's the current part.
2. Implement the functionality decided on properly, beyond quick hacks for testing out some concepts and to cover all the fiddly cases. Would obviously have to be revisited if changes result from revisits of part 1.
3. Fill the big functionality cavern dug out with actual images. The artists will continue with that work long after Toady has joined Threetoe with the "UI" work (quotes since it's not only presentation, but some underlying functionality as well). This will probably be continuing up to the finish line for the Premium release, and may well be continued afterwards with refinements and additions, if I've understood the comments on this forum correctly.
Post by: Bumber on April 18, 2020, 08:10:00 am
So you're going with a simple darker shading for the stockpiles instead of the checkered WIP (https://i.imgur.com/WpF94VB.png)?
Both examples are in different environments, so I can't really say if one works better than the other. I would expect the simple shading to be less noticeable on something like an obsidian or gabbro floor. I suppose it doesn't really matter for the usual case of reasonably sized stockpiles, where you have the stockpile borders.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 18, 2020, 08:17:21 am
Post by: Superdorf on April 18, 2020, 11:38:38 am
(https://i.imgur.com/eZsTJOM.png)
where the whole floor is covered in stockpile.
Post by: jecowa on April 18, 2020, 01:02:43 pm
I'd wonder how those piles look for something like this
(https://i.imgur.com/eZsTJOM.png)
where the whole floor is covered in stockpile.
And where there's staircases in the middle of the stockpile.
Post by: Pillbo on April 18, 2020, 02:26:10 pm
It's really hard to tell if you don't zoom in a bunch, but I moved the right leg on the top creature in a couple pixels. I think it looks a little better that way.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZRIBLeC.png)
Post by: Dishmab on April 19, 2020, 02:18:31 am
Post by: Inarius on April 19, 2020, 04:56:52 pm
Post by: vettlingr on April 23, 2020, 06:57:26 am
Okay, I'll bite. First of all, this looks great. I get you are just using 2 frames, which is why I think you did a very good job on these.
Seems to me you used the right key frames for the mechanisms, though the windmill needs more frames to be more readable.
I suppose it is a weatherquern you were going for? The sprite does some justice showing it, though I think they have sail cloth applied to them when they are in use, otherwise the blades don't catch the wind. Also, horizontal transfer of power for windmills are a gameplay change right?
(https://bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/april_22_stockpiles_and_trees.png)
Tree shadows are a great addition. Im wondering if they are supposed to overlap. keeping it in would somehow make thick forests much darker, I'm pretty sure I like that. Really cool to see all of this coming together. As for stockpiles, I played around with it some more by myself, and I like the flat ground borders better than the rods and strings. It looks better when inside, though the poles and ropes looks way better outside. It is of no big matter to me since I will mostly port and play with my own tileset exclusively haha.
Edit: I also like dwarven things being made mostly out of stone, though the game doesn't really use any way do discern what stockpile tiles are made of
"There are a ton of tiles to reference, and the edges and layering are a little tricky."
I'm guessing the tiles are referenced the same way the trees and minetracks are referenced in d_init right now? not sure though, The system is probably way expandedd upon.
Other than that, I'm not going to give any further suggestions, this seems to be running along nicely.
I'll stand by if you guys need a geologist consultant when making the minerals and walls.
Post by: Starver on April 23, 2020, 08:00:35 am
(https://bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/april_22_windmill.gif)Two frames is a direct take-off from vanilla (IIRC, it's been yonks since I've built a mill, what with windlessness often being apparent only after my carefully planned windfarm powertrain gets topped off by the first set of sails). I understand as not some weird bireciprocal iston arrangement. But perhaps I agree that three frames (from overhead: straight out with 1 tile extension both ways; ~0.8 + 0.5 (overlaid on a further shaded 0.3ish) extensions; 0.5(+0.3) + ~0.8 extensions the other way) could give a (four-blade, in this case) mill a better 'rotation' animation.
Okay, I'll bite. First of all, this looks great. I get you are just using 2 frames, which is why I think you did a very good job on these.
Seems to me you used the right key frames for the mechanisms, though the windmill needs more frames to be more readable.
Quote
I suppose it is a weatherquern you were going for? The sprite does some justice showing it, though I think they have sail cloth applied to them when they are in use, otherwise the blades don't catch the wind. Also, horizontal transfer of power for windmills are a gameplay change right?Even unclothed, a mill can catch enough wind from bare woodwork to turn (unrestrained) if it's any good. I think I'd have suggested more 'feathering' that is visibly different on up-stroke from downward, but that doubles the image resources we need (above my above 12th-turn interval ideas) when cycling outward sprites, unless you can suggest it with a /-orientated mid-tile representation of the overtopping blade.
(The 'horizontal transfer' I take to be from the mill being atop a hole-centred floor astride a 9x9 set of gears, the way they peep out in all cardinal directions, though I've never tried that. Usually I set my mills atop 8 border walls with power down at least two verticals from the centre, in the days before climbing was an issue, to make them unattractive/impermeable to building destroyers and feed energy underground. If it's a monolothic windmill structure, the power transfer is done in a way I never even tried.)
Post by: Fleeting Frames on April 23, 2020, 08:31:15 am
Also 9 gear assemblies would cost more power than windmill would produce, so good reason to not see them
Post by: Proudbucket on April 23, 2020, 08:42:31 am
When I first saw the image I was first wondering at what was I looking at.
Post by: Starver on April 23, 2020, 09:15:38 am
Nah, you can see how the gears have wood ends hanging off into air, while windmill doesn't have those ends.You're right (x2). Should have zoomed in. I was more worried about the support issue[1] which I wasn't sure 3x3 gears would do properly.
Also 9 gear assemblies would cost more power than windmill would produce, so good reason to not see them
@Proudbucket: Maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_axis_wind_turbine sort of thing. Not so much a 1400s-era possibility, of course, which might mean executive veto on that visualisation.
[1] Actually, I forgot a detail about my old windmill design. Walls built 3x4 edging, on ground, a corner left until last for access. In the 1x2 inner one lever-switched gear above a channel down into the place I needed powered below, atop the prebuilt v-axle or maybe pump, the second gear below the hole in the floor above the mill transmits through. Temporary ramp up against that wall for Z+1 construction, then taken away afterwards.
Post by: sanchezman on April 23, 2020, 10:07:27 am
Quote
Not so much a 1400s-era possibility, of course, which might mean executive veto on that visualisation.
Actually, 8th century CE Persia had horizontal windmills.
(https://www.allaboutlean.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Persian-Windmill.jpg)
They're called Panemone windmills: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panemone_windmill
Given that windmills in the game transfer power downward through the central tile, this design would make a lot of sense visually.
Post by: Starver on April 23, 2020, 11:44:03 am
The Wiki page top diagram needs work (depicting a flexing/backstopped vane movement that's omnidirectional). Maybe I'll have a punt at that myself later. The clattering version is going to be so noisy (I'm now imagining Kill Bill's snow-garden background sounds on steroids and amphetamines!) so I'd favour the "flapping sail" version that uses the billowing of the cloth on atangential/aradial frames to effect the loss of symmetry, except for the building materials mismatch (not that this is so strict in DF lore, at the best of times).
It would be really nice to imagine wing-profile blades (formed from shaping the supplied logs - ignoring the unshaping seemingly undertaken every time any construction is dissasembled) for aesthetics, though that's definitely an anachronism (or not, given quantum-entangled levers/pressure-plates spookily acting at a distance).
Yes, I do like the verticality of axle, even if historically we seem to have managed to work with the other type in various designs (postmill, capmill, etc) without too many issues (https://i0.wp.com/i.giphy.com/l46CtyAtJWBxpYnMQ.gif). But that's above my paygrade. ;)
Post by: Proudbucket on April 23, 2020, 12:01:36 pm
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/i/1b98a52f-197d-4a3b-9881-5a48eefd9867/d13pg3m-add99a6a-2e96-4863-894c-6bbd39f62be3.gif)
Post by: Starver on April 23, 2020, 12:09:46 pm
;)
Post by: Schmaven on April 23, 2020, 01:27:26 pm
It looks like a fine windmill. Since windmills have to first be designated to be built, the player should know it is a windmill once it has been constructed and generating power like this, and I imagine their first encounter with it would be something like, "Cool, the windmill moves in the wind" Considering the top down view, it might make it more clear would be an extra frame or 2 of animation like has already been mentioned, but otherwise it certainly looks like a windmill.
Post by: Bumber on April 23, 2020, 03:16:50 pm
I don't know if these designs actually function.
Post by: Cruxador on April 23, 2020, 03:43:24 pm
(http://i.postimg.cc/y8GGdsGz/windmill.jpg)Well not as depicted there, certainly.
I don't know if these designs actually function.
Post by: Starver on April 23, 2020, 04:01:16 pm
I don't know if these designs actually function.(IANAExpert but...) Probably. In both designs there are struts across one or other side of each panel that seems to give sufficient freedom for the 'sail' to behave slightly different on each side of the rotation (and perhaps catch the wind sufficiently differently as they pass across the windward arc), so you'd probably get some torque. Maybe enough to overcome the output and transfer frictions.
Doesn't look as offset in this as it could be (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Panemone_bladed_rotor_WECS_%28Turks%26Caicos%29.JPG/651px-Panemone_bladed_rotor_WECS_%28Turks%26Caicos%29.JPG), but it's not totally impractical, and obviously balances against the need to (hand-?)render the graphics in a number of key-frames.
And even though the game-artists have access to CAD, and CFD modelling, they're depicting a world that doesn't and so it's probably better that it looks like it's been speculatively lashed together from staves, ropes and sailcloth in a 'good enough' manner than being too over-designed.
(Apart from any 'skill tree ladders' for upgrading resource buildings, and across playable civ variations, your very first windmill in a resource game will probably look identical to your hundredth. No finessing by your builder-class when you click to place a new resource building, based on lessons learnt from the prior one. Well, not in a game that isn't soecifically addressing that socio-innovative mechanic.)
I should shut up now. Sorry. Too much pondering on my part, recently. Carry on, everyone else!
(Being not artistic, myself, nor being asked to evaluate optical functionality, I of course ignored the issue just pointed out about the illumination patterns. ;))
Post by: Uthimienure on April 23, 2020, 06:50:34 pm
(http://i.postimg.cc/y8GGdsGz/windmill.jpg)They don't look very viable because like Starver posted, there is too much symmetry (only mitigated by the diagonal braces) so the wind would push nearly equally on two vanes at the same time, mostly cancelling out the rotation. If they work, they would be very inefficient as shown. No, I'm not a wind generator expert, but have been a mech. engineer for years.
I don't know if these designs actually function.
Post by: voliol on April 24, 2020, 02:52:00 am
As for the windmills I'm kind of unpartial about the designs, as none seem to work from a real-life-physics standpoint, and the player personally constructing windmills means that kind of confusion should largely be avoided, but you should avoid adding cloth to the sails as only logs are needed for the construction in-game.
A return to world maps is exciting!
Post by: Meph on April 24, 2020, 06:02:18 am
Tree shadows are just a representation. Maybe they will take into account the top layers at some point, but trees are difficult. Mike is working wonders while getting a headache.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 24, 2020, 06:19:46 am
Post by: Cruxador on April 24, 2020, 09:25:20 am
Post by: Hommit on April 24, 2020, 04:39:34 pm
Tree shadows are just a representation. Maybe they will take into account the top layers at some point, but trees are difficult. Mike is working wonders while getting a headache.how hard would be to take rendered "leaves layer", turn it into mask and render it as shadow?
Post by: Rose on April 24, 2020, 05:35:59 pm
Post by: Starver on April 24, 2020, 06:09:43 pm
Though I'd suggest that shadow should only exist on the ground if, for every Z above the ground that an obstruction is, it has an equal X and Y spreading. A simple search up the Z stack and then out in ±X and ±Y should reveal what (if anything) might justify occultation. A narrow line of aerial flooring passing several Z over won't because the shadow diffuses/the sky illuminates round.
(Hard shadows that move according to the movements of the sun would be interesting, especially giving the opportunity to create a sundial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_sundial), but it wouldn't work well in fortress mode, and you'd only see the effects when adventuring. So probably not worth troubling over.)
For trees, this would mean very little (if any) leaf-shadow for slender trees (thinking of Minecraft firs,vas a visual aid), but anything billowy and lower would at least have a tile or two of shodow surrounding the trunk base.
For my part, though, I don't see it as necessary for trees alone, just "anything up there" rendering, a continuation of what even vanilla uses when you're (for example) Z-scrolling up and down a dug-out pit of great depth with bridges traversing across various levels within it, some "sky" tiles in the middle (X, Y and Z) rendering differently according to what might be several Zs away. Just apply the same flavouring to ground graphics as well.
'Just'. SMOP.
Post by: Rekov on April 24, 2020, 07:04:14 pm
Based on how windmills look, it seems like the wind would be coming from the right. But because of how drag works, it would have to be coming from the left unless there were a fin to drag it toward the wind.
(https://bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/april_22_windmill.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/9Ojtp1N.png)
Post by: Starver on April 24, 2020, 08:17:41 pm
A trailing vane (or fantail) would make sense if the wind direction varies, in game. But does it? If so, it must have started since I stopped seriously using them. I always assumed they were set up, solid, to the prevaing-and-eternal westerly/whatever.
Post by: Uthimienure on April 24, 2020, 08:55:07 pm
... but the windmill in the game atm turns to face the wind direction. Toady clearly had the traditional windmill in mind, and that's why it follows that design.
Post by: Starver on April 24, 2020, 09:05:30 pm
Yep, noted. Was just sayin' that that was news to me. It's either recent (i.e. five years or so, maybe, maybe longer) or I just never even paid attention at the time I actually bothered to use my overengineered windfarms.... but the windmill in the game atm turns to face the wind direction. Toady clearly had the traditional windmill in mind, and that's why it follows that design.
Post by: Libash_Thunderhead on April 24, 2020, 09:42:41 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
How about do something to make the tree trunks look less like cut trunks?
Post by: Fleeting Frames on April 24, 2020, 09:48:13 pm
Post by: Bumber on April 24, 2020, 11:27:38 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
How about do something to make the tree trunks look less like cut trunks?
Doesn't look like a tree anymore.
Post by: Sver on April 25, 2020, 11:19:47 am
Post by: Cruxador on April 25, 2020, 02:09:15 pm
Post by: Ziusudra on April 25, 2020, 04:08:44 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/Y4I8vcb.png)
Kinda vaguely matches how the walls fade into darkness.
Post by: bloop_bleep on April 25, 2020, 04:14:43 pm
Spoiler: tree trunk with gradient (click to show/hide)
I like that not necessarily because it tries to obscure the interior of the tree trunk but because it makes the tree more visually interesting.
Post by: Meph on April 25, 2020, 06:20:05 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 25, 2020, 06:54:42 pm
Shading in the center of the trunk works completely fine.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 25, 2020, 07:34:10 pm
I agree, the current trees look exactly like a cut tree from above. So a bit misleading. I get that a cut tree trunk wont have the shaded circle from the leafs and the treetop, but still.It would be misleading if cut tree stumps were a thing in Dwarf Fortress, but since they're not...
Shading in the center of the trunk works completely fine.
Post by: Ziusudra on April 25, 2020, 08:09:24 pm
Of course, as amazing as this is already looking, there's still gonna be some learning curve as to what the graphics represent.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 25, 2020, 08:26:01 pm
True, but the hopefully many new people playing, once this Steam version is released, won't know that.About...3 seconds to work out that a tree is a tree and not something which doesn't exist. Less if they follow the tutorial and understand that the "look" command and z-levels exists. If there were stumps and constant confusion over which is which you'd have a point.
Of course, as amazing as this is already looking, there's still gonna be some learning curve as to what the graphics represent.
Without reprogramming procedural trees from scratch, it's only ever going to look like a stump or a stump with shading (which looks like a stump to me). And nothing that complex is going to happen before the all-important Steam release (probably).
Post by: Superdorf on April 25, 2020, 09:57:36 pm
Post by: Starver on April 25, 2020, 11:32:12 pm
About...3 seconds to work out that a tree is a tree and not something which doesn't exist. Less if they follow the tutorial and understand that the "look" command and z-levels exists. If there were stumps and constant confusion over which is which you'd have a point.As I've said before, I'm a big Vanilla person myself, but the Steam/etc launch is supposed to be visually intuitive (and also we don't know if the Look command will raise or lower in prominence in the UI bit of the revamp - though I would hope it would not be subsumed somewhat, games with nice graphics tend to only need cursor-looking for details of tiles, not a full explanation, so...) and in other top-down all-way-scrolly adventures or area management games they tend to leave "stumps" when trees are felled (by efforts of player or pre-supplied 3rd-parties) that may or may not fade away/fail to refresh after leaving the locale but generally don't just have trees vanish without remains. (One or more versions of the Settlers franchise, IIRC, felled a tree sideways and then would leave the outline of removed side-branches as the Log resource was hauled off by the woodcutter minion.)
The only other game I can recall such behaviour is Minecraft, and (without a mod, at least in the old Beta version I last played it) that has antigrav wood that means you can slice off its bottom and/or middle trunk and you still have higher trunk visible (and leaves only vanish when deprived of their progenitor trunks or trunk-sized branches) and even then what looks like a cut-off stump is in so me meaningful way an actual cut-off stump. Even if the tree crown is also still hovering a few Zs above it.
Yes, it's a trivial point that the stump section (and roots, not normally an issue in more surface-bound games) just vanish, and so stump-parts are still connected to at least some more tree at higher Zs, but let us not more realistically depict things that aren't actually what the thing technically is.
And though the radially(-inward) shaded version of the "stump" is slightly less stumplike, I'm not sure whether it yet looks unstumplike enough for my liking (on behalf of those newcomers I'm pleading o behalf of). Not sure what I'd do, though.
TL;DR;... it may be no more than a moment's confusion, hopefully, but I think it should be mitigated further, and ideally avoided. Good luck with that!
Post by: Rekov on April 26, 2020, 12:02:29 am
(https://i.imgur.com/6Bm9p16.png)
Post by: Starver on April 26, 2020, 12:20:55 am
Post by: Superdorf on April 26, 2020, 01:26:52 am
I've thought about this some and I've come up with something that's just a little less ambiguous than the shading or void looks:
(https://i.imgur.com/6Bm9p16.png)
I spent a good twenty seconds trying to look around the labels to see what you'd done to the trunks... and now I feel stupid.
Post by: voliol on April 26, 2020, 01:51:51 am
Tigers and Reindeer and Elephants (and 'Uman and Narwhal and Kangaroo), oh my!
Wait, are there new pictures or are you just browsing the thread?
Post by: Moeteru on April 26, 2020, 04:45:27 am
I prefer this over the more stump-like versions.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
How about do something to make the tree trunks look less like cut trunks?
If you're a new player, which of these is a better scenario?:
- Carrying on playing, confident in your assumption that it is a tree stump which has already been cut down.
- Getting confused and asking what the weird eerie rabbit hole thing is.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 26, 2020, 04:50:21 am
As opposed to dark holes, there are no tree stumps in Dwarf Fortress. Sorry but the whole "noobs are so, so dumb there's no possible way they could undersrand the woodcutting tutorial without going into meltdown and screaming "all I see is stumps!" at their screens", is a myth.I prefer this over the more stump-like versions.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
How about do something to make the tree trunks look less like cut trunks?
If you're a new player, which of these is a better scenario?:Personally I think that the second option is less likely to lead to people getting frustrated and quitting.
- Carrying on playing, confident in your assumption that it is a tree stump which has already been cut down.
- Getting confused and asking what the weird eerie rabbit hole thing is.
They bought a game with a reputation for complexity. A pixel-art, indie game. "Cut this stump, it's a tree." Says the tutorial. Noooooo. Give me my money back, it's a stump!! just isn't a thing.
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 26, 2020, 05:01:02 am
True, but the hopefully many new people playing, once this Steam version is released, won't know that.About...3 seconds to work out that a tree is a tree and not something which doesn't exist. Less if they follow the tutorial and understand that the "look" command and z-levels exists. If there were stumps and constant confusion over which is which you'd have a point.
Of course, as amazing as this is already looking, there's still gonna be some learning curve as to what the graphics represent.
Without reprogramming procedural trees from scratch, it's only ever going to look like a stump or a stump with shading (which looks like a stump to me). And nothing that complex is going to happen before the all-important Steam release (probably).
Dude, it just looks like a cut tree. It bears no visual indication whatsoever, of being anything more than a stump. So, I have to COMPLETELY diasagree. Right now it seems like theres ONLY tree stumps in DF.
And you Know, I bet that we might, just MIGHT See treestumps at Some point.
Graphics are supposed to lessen the learning curve.
Supposed to be an accurate representation of what Youre actually looking at, without the 'k' command.
That there, is a stump. Theres NO doubt.
With the shading, at least there can be a little doubt.
Post by: Schmaven on April 26, 2020, 09:03:04 am
Spoiler: A World Map (click to show/hide)
Since most forts end up digging down for stone and metals, the ability to change Z-levels will probably be one of the first things a new player learns. And if their embark is on a slope, they will see the mid-sections and maybe some tops of other trees. But if their embark is 100% all at a single elevation, they may never have a need to look up a Z or 2 and see the rest of their trees. In that case, the only conclusion to draw would be that they embarked upon the Lorax's worst nightmare: tree stumps of recently felled trees as far as the eye can see. But tree stumps are still made of wood, and you can still send wood cutters after them to produce logs, so I think it would still functionally work for new players even if they only saw stumps at first. Then when they realize they can look up above ground level, and finally see that the trees in DF are actually 3-Dimensional entities, they can post in the Face Palm moments you had in Dwarf Fortress (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=34430.0) thread about it.
Post by: Rekov on April 26, 2020, 11:17:57 am
Post by: bloop_bleep on April 26, 2020, 11:29:21 am
Post by: Starver on April 26, 2020, 11:45:55 am
Tigers and Reindeer and Elephants (and 'Uman and Narwhal and Kangaroo), oh my!
Wait, are there new pictures or are you just browsing the thread?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Schmaven on April 26, 2020, 12:06:07 pm
Post by: Meph on April 26, 2020, 12:16:44 pm
I've been using stump-like tree trunk graphics in my tileset since the start and not one person has ever mentioned it in a negative way.
Post by: vettlingr on April 26, 2020, 01:27:33 pm
DF Dad Joke award ContenderTigers and Reindeer and Elephants (and 'Uman and Narwhal and Kangaroo), oh my!
Wait, are there new pictures or are you just browsing the thread?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Meph on April 26, 2020, 06:46:43 pm
(Some edges are missing, like the glacier or tundra. The 6 red [ ] in the ocean are cursors, it's 6 screenshots put together. ;) )
(https://i.imgur.com/bi325u8.png)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 26, 2020, 06:50:02 pm
Yes. Looks terrific so far. A bit....cheerful perhaps? At least compared to vanilla. Well, that's just a personal taste thing I guess.
What are the black dotty blob things? Dark pits?
Post by: Sver on April 26, 2020, 06:54:29 pm
Edit: another thing is maybe making wetlands more foresty, as most of them have a good amount of trees in action - they are more like rainforests than The Dead Marshes.
Post by: mko on April 26, 2020, 06:57:06 pm
good: far more readable than ASCII
opinion: too cartoony for me, ASCII styling has some seriousness/deepness (??)
poor: hills should be smaller than mountains (The Cat Problem, edition II)
bad: yellow inland is unclear, looks like a beach. Is it supposed to be a desert? Maybe more desaturated would be better?
great: desaturated deserts visible in some parts of the world. Even hills look good there.
bad: volcano seems poorly readable, I would not color entire mountain in pink, it makes it more noticeable but less readable
great: forest
great: mountainhomes (I hope that different civs will have own flag colors)
poor: marsh? this with small tress - awfully busy and unclear meaning
noIdeaHowToImprove: pink for evil works poorly here. Maybe dark=evil would work better? Pink works great in ASCII, here - quite poorly. Maybe Mordor style dark clouds would work well? Especially pinkish mountains are looking like a pile of rotting meat.
WIP: mountains clearly need far more variations, some tiles are blatantly square, ridiculous traffic crossing shapes on some river tiles, rivers floating over lakes
bad: this teal hills are ugly and unclear ("good" hill area?)
Toady: some road and river patterns are ridiculous
suggestion: saline and drinkable water areas should be differentiated
request: we need palm tree tile
Post by: CL3AR on April 26, 2020, 07:00:36 pm
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 26, 2020, 07:19:20 pm
If I had to mention anything, I'd say the hills feel a bit too lined up on the x axis, and also as others mentioned that the yellow savannah biomes strand out a bit too much colourwise, doesn't feel like it fits into the whole as well as the rest.
Post by: Meph on April 26, 2020, 07:20:34 pm
EDIT: New: Offset for hills and less saturated savannah.
(https://i.imgur.com/eginD5B.png)
Post by: Rekov on April 26, 2020, 07:40:40 pm
Some of these castles kind of look the top half of a huge robot sticking up out of the trees, like the iron giant or something.
Post by: bloop_bleep on April 26, 2020, 08:29:17 pm
And yes, I think it's a bit too cartoony. In ASCII, there is stark contrast between the colorful tiles and te black background everywhere. I think that's what gives it that gravity. Imagine if the background were light gray or something; it'd lose that tone. The dark barkground means the average color over the whole screen is actually rather dark. I think everything here should be desaturated and darkened.
Post by: Starver on April 26, 2020, 09:54:18 pm
But whatever you do with the firs (in particular) definitely needs applying to the mountains. The hills look vertically dithered but stand in otherwise orderly columns. There's a trend towards columns in the firs but it's broken up by conspicuous offsets, whatever the cause.
I'd be cautious about taking 2x2 cells (alike in nature) and putting a 4-cell image in there, at least not compulsively, as it'd just make a bigger pattern obvious with "foothills" in all the unreplacable edge/tweeny gaps. Unless you are willing to go further than 2x2 in size and thus allow for some of the better Apollonian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_gasket) packing or Crazy Paving effects. i.e. the RHS of this (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Order_and_Chaos.tif/lossy-page1-800px-Order_and_Chaos.tif.jpg) instead of the LHS. Or approximate it by a Penrose tiling (yes, I know you've got a checkerboard grid to work around, not saying it'll be easy!) avoiding the "still looks regular even though it actually has no symmetries" pitfall.
No, that's just going beyond your brief. Pseudorandomly dithered displacements or a large(ish) selection of alternate-but-equivalent images (like vanilla non-uniform grass from a subset of simple punctuation marks) is probably your best bet.
And that's my "you wanted a critique, and that's my critique" bit over. I like it in most other aspects and no other problem arises that hasn't already been mentioned (maybe more adamantly than I would have personally committed to, in some cases) so that just leaves me wanting to say I like the general look. Perhaps a tad less saturation might work well across the whole thing, but just like Tolkien's line-drawn maps aren't intended to have 1:1 definition of the actual land, you can only do so much with the platform you're working with. And even then it looks like you're eking out more than you might have been left with.
Post by: darkhog on April 26, 2020, 10:04:24 pm
//edit: Regarding the procedural creatures and no backwards joints because of equipment - seems like non-issue to me because it looks like all procgen creatures can't use equipment anyway.
Post by: clinodev on April 26, 2020, 10:43:55 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on April 27, 2020, 01:12:05 am
:The humanoid experiments attacking my fortesses (and an coming to them [posing as] visitors) sure use equipment. I've yet to see any with backward joints, though.
//edit: Regarding the procedural creatures and no backwards joints because of equipment - seems like non-issue to me because it looks like all procgen creatures can't use equipment anyway.
Regarding the map: I'd prefer the map to show as much actual information as possible, rather than trying to emulate parchment maps (which it will fail at doing anyway, as long as the resolution of the underlaying data is at the world tile level). That is, I'd like to be able to seen what the biomes are with savagery levels and evilness levels. It would be a bonus to be able to see evil effects (reanimation, vegetation death, evil weather kinds) as well. However, I think it might be useful to consider several display modes (like old time school map books, with elevation on one map, built up areas on another, etc) to allow the player to flip through them (like the current tab for a prospective embark world tile).
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 27, 2020, 01:39:30 am
Not to mention the fact that experiments are regular adventurer choices, like animal people. So can potentially be equipped with anything.:The humanoid experiments attacking my fortesses (and an coming to them [posing as] visitors) sure use equipment. I've yet to see any with backward joints, though.
//edit: Regarding the procedural creatures and no backwards joints because of equipment - seems like non-issue to me because it looks like all procgen creatures can't use equipment anyway.
Post by: Libash_Thunderhead on April 27, 2020, 03:42:37 am
Seriously guys, the tree trunk is fine. Yes, it looks like a stump, but thats because visually that's exactly what it is: A tree trunk cut off after 1 z-lvl. It follows the same design setup as walls. As several people have mentioned: The lack of actual stumps in the game makes this a trivial issue.
I've been using stump-like tree trunk graphics in my tileset since the start and not one person has ever mentioned it in a negative way.
How about upper level tiles casting shadows over lower tiles?
Maybe it reminds the player there is a forest instead of an open field.
Post by: KickAssAndGiggle on April 27, 2020, 04:38:26 am
I'm in awe of your talents and the speed your moving at. I can't remember looking forward to a release of any game as much as this.
Post by: Starver on April 27, 2020, 05:00:47 am
TL;DR; - I have remembered some method that's a lot more work to set up to then make an infinite number of procgen maps look somewhat more hand-tuned. And it probably won't delay every other feature by more than a few months, right? ;)
((* The bites angle into the corners, meeting other bites only at multi-tile meeting zones at the corner so are designed to transition point 'stellated' own-tile-only next to two-tile-dependent back to next-tile-only and so on, though a more complex version also added corner-biting options that required a far more massive library of transitions to cover every possible 'circuit' around a corner, not just tiletypes² number of edges, and that could be tuned and exhaustively tested in every possible combination to produce an array of not-obviously-a-corner-joint corners.))
Post by: therahedwig on April 27, 2020, 05:15:48 am
(https://i.imgur.com/ROAQOHr.png)
So topleft is DF, topright is dragon quest 6, bottomleft lufia, bottomright breath of fire 2. You can clearly tell the forests from the mountains from the plains even in the simplest (lufia) map through sheer brightness.
Most importantly, even when greyscaled, the sites in the other games' maps are still pretty easy to pick out, especially compared to those forest retreats in the DF map.
From an accessibility standpoint you should proly desaturate your images from time to time to see if they're still readable, as the perceptual brightness is the most important color contrast. You should prefer a gray filled layer blended with the color blending mode over the desaturate filter in most graphics programs. (as you want a luma/luminosity style calculation instead of a flat brightness calculation, as the luma calculation recognises that yellow is perceptually brighter than red, and the color blending mode as per pdf standards uses a luma calculation, hey, can you guess my dayjob)
Like, I know it's not entirely fair to compare DF maps with old snes maps, as those had far less detail than the DF ones do, but I think because DF has much more detail of it's own, it's pretty important to have the most important features highlighted more?
Do you guys plan to have seperate tiles for the adventure mode travel map (as in, there's more zoomed in variations when you travel in adventure mode, a mid-tile one, and an even more zoomed in one for the sites, like the cities). Also, what is that yellow thing above the hamlets? A keep?
Post by: FrankVill on April 27, 2020, 05:54:46 am
However, all the mountains seem the same to me when they are not, there are high mountains that end in a peak and medium mountains whose summit is rounded, but you have to get close and look closely to notice it. Possibly not a priority, but I think it would be nice to be able to distinguish them a little better. It occurs to me that instead of adding more detail to distinguish them you could alter the color slightly (for example, light gray for medium mountains and a little darker for high mountains).
On the other hand, what I will say next should not necessarily be considered a criticism, it is only about my impressions due to my personal tastes. The colors seem too bright to me and some shade is missing in some figures. For the devilish areas I would have chosen a darker purple color or one that feels more threatening. Altogether, everything transmits to me the feeling of a very happy world, when the truth is that DF is full of depressive dwarfs, haha.
But even with all that, it seems like a great job. The whole set feels well integrated and single-bodied.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 27, 2020, 06:07:04 am
Post by: mko on April 27, 2020, 06:12:39 am
Also, what are the yellow-whitish little things on top of the hamlet(?) sites supposed to be?Fields?
Post by: Starver on April 27, 2020, 06:16:38 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Yes, different speeds[1]/directions (and updating frequencies, to lessen the number of 'frames' involved[2]) and the occlusion of the lower blades (marked darker on the two side-plans where they are so marked) makes things messy even though I adjusted the imagery dark for lower vanes (maybe should have been a different adjustment, or completely mask the transparent gaps?).
What I learnt from this is that "it's not easy to do". Not without going for something different, perhaps needing entirely new art to work with instead of what I ripped from that original X/+ two-cycle-per-quarter-turn model.
Windmills finished with, from my perspective. Definitely. Until next time!
[1] Original animation used 0.7s per quarter, with a small timing error at the start, and I fudged it again a bit to match different 10ths of seconds cycles for 3- and 4-blade cycles converging at 4.8s rather than 4.9s, in the four blade and three-blade versions. in my head, there was always a log 'support' and then either two crossed long-logs and a power-log parallel to support, or a brace-log at a back-angle, or it's one support log with three blade-logs, so I was playing around with that, but of course have no skill of artistry I just took what was there. And with a vertical post to get the vanes past I had to shift the 'arms' forward.
[2] For demonstration purposes, I could have done it smoother, but ultimately if the game were to go far beyond a 3-cycle of animation it'd be putting a load on both engine and artist to provide that. However good it looks, it wouldn't be worth it. Though I think I've proven to myself that a 3-cycle (of however many blades, not including 2-blade which would likely be worse) doesn't cut it although a 4-cycle of three blades might work if it doesn't seem to shimmy even worse.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 27, 2020, 06:21:19 am
Fields?
Oh, that'd make sense I guess, not that I'd have guessed it. Looks like a weird building of some sort, doors and windows and all (how it partially obscures trees behind them doesn't help either if so).
Post by: jecowa on April 27, 2020, 06:41:19 am
I'm trying to figure out how this works. Even though a map tile is 16x16, it looks like some of them are larger. For the parts of the tiles outside the tile's normal boundaries, it looks like large mountains have priority over small mountains, small mountains have priority over trees. It looks like large mountains always cover the small mountain, and the small mountain always covers the surrounding terrain. For tiles that cover surrounding tiles, it looks like they use 3 layers to determine what is drawn on top of what.
It looks like there's multiple tree tiles it can randomly pick from, but it's difficult to determine how many tree tiles it can pick from because adjacent trees tiles are drawing more trees on top of each other and it looks like there's more tree tile variations than there actually are. Maybe there are 4 tree tiles?
Post by: Meph on April 27, 2020, 06:57:51 am
I'll go over it today and see if I can improve the map some more. It's only the first iteration, so be patient. It's work in progress. ;)
Jecowa, it's 5 forest sprites, but sometimes multiples are copied into each other, offset a bit if the neighbouring tile is also the same forest.
Post by: Bumber on April 27, 2020, 02:52:50 pm
-snip-
How about 4 blades, 4 frames?
Post by: Starver on April 27, 2020, 03:47:43 pm
And redrawing as William Cubbit-style shutter-sails (with or without self-regulating, or 'spider'-controlled shuttering controlled from behind the spindle) is a bit off-era, even if I could do it.
Windmills finished with, from my perspective. Definitely. Until next time!Until next next time... ;)
Darn, deleted my footnotes, prior to preview, so what I had tapped in was...
[1] ...something about the rake angle as it passes over the top. (Reverse rake at the bottom is hidden, of course, though could stick out.)
[2] ...something about the outstretched spar having 3px of strut, 2px of gap. Like a line of fenceposts seen from a highly oblique angle the gaps disappear into and the struts overlap, to the tune of 1¼px where there were 5 of already pixel-width detailing. Beyond my skills to redraw, and doesn't work well with digital rescaling in lieu of any such skill.
Post by: Meph on April 27, 2020, 04:01:29 pm
0(+90+180+270), 22.5(+...), 45(+...), 67.5(+..) leading back to 90(+180+270+0) might work per blade, but in an early test I was very unhappy with the ±22.5° from straight up phase hidden in the 67.5° clutter behind it that had to be drawn. The vertical blade in the existing + format of the 2-cycle is wide[1] at about 14px (IIRC) around centre-zero and the 'face' of the next frame (uncomplicated by rake) was from something like 2 to 12 offset pixels, thus narrower, and yet must look feasibly like the 38ish pixel length of a completely outstretched blade of the ur-example I was pinching from[2].By this point you are just stringing up made up words. XD
And redrawing as William Cubbit-style shutter-sails (with or without self-regulating, or 'spider'-controlled shuttering controlled from behind the spindle) is a bit off-era, even if I could do it.Windmills finished with, from my perspective. Definitely. Until next time!Until next next time... ;)
Darn, deleted my footnotes, prior to preview, so what I had tapped in was...
[1] ...something about the rake angle as it passes over the top. (Reverse rake at the bottom is hidden, of course, though could stick out.)
[2] ...something about the outstretched spar having 3px of strut, 2px of gap. Like a line of fenceposts seen from a highly oblique angle the gaps disappear into and the struts overlap, to the tune of 1¼px where there were 5 of already pixel-width detailing. Beyond my skills to redraw, and doesn't work well with digital rescaling in lieu of any such skill.
Post by: Starver on April 27, 2020, 04:07:43 pm
Post by: jecowa on April 27, 2020, 05:08:36 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/tdBpfWh.png)
Not a screw design, though, but something that would spin in this manner.
Edit: something more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/u1NSIHn.png)
Post by: bloop_bleep on April 27, 2020, 05:22:25 pm
In fact the screw might actually work a lot better.
Post by: Cruxador on April 27, 2020, 05:27:47 pm
I've been using stump-like tree trunk graphics in my tileset since the start and not one person has ever mentioned it in a negative way.The people who care about or play with the tilesets of a modder on the forum are a very small subset of the people who play the game now, and is an even smaller group compared to all of those who will play the Steam version. What's more, the method by which these players select themselves is very different. I don't think the assumption that fans of your modding are a representative sample of the market for the Steam/itch version is valid.
Toady just went through all the trouble of adding over 1000 identifiers, so that Mike and me can play around with the worldmap. Lots of variaty sprites, edges, etc. So, without further ado, here it is, please let me know what's good, what's bad. ;)overall it looks good and very readable. There are aesthetic quibbles though. The way the grass is rendered under the mountains really emphasizes that it's actually just pre-made sprites slapped down on a background and is misleading since the game doesn't typically have grassy valleys like that in most mountain areas. The hills all in neat lines like a giant has been planting his garden could be touched up. And I have no idea what's gong on at the poles; it seems there's a transition from open ocean to ocean with jagged hills or mountains. Is it meant to be a ton of icebergs floating around? It doesn't really look right with them being the same color as the water. The permafrost area also looks unlike that kind of terrain in reality.
(Some edges are missing, like the glacier or tundra. The 6 red [ ] in the ocean are cursors, it's 6 screenshots put together. ;) )
(image removed because it's big)
The evil zones are also definitely not intuitive with regard to what they actually represent.
great: mountainhomes (I hope that different civs will have own flag colors)It would be cool to have a generalized way to recognize civs at a glance, and colored flags aren't a bad choice.
I'd prefer if the maps had a sepia tone, like the old maps (https://img5.goodfon.com/wallpaper/nbig/7/22/old-maps-starye-karty-map-of-europe-karta-evropy-1700-parchm.jpg) (a link because I couldn't find any reasonably small image that wouldn't break the forum). But that's just my personal opinion.Maps of this sort will generally have been well colored initially, and just faded over time.
//edit: Regarding the procedural creatures and no backwards joints because of equipment - seems like non-issue to me because it looks like all procgen creatures can't use equipment anyway.
Post by: mko on April 27, 2020, 06:16:31 pm
I've been using stump-like tree trunk graphics in my tileset since the start and not one person has ever mentioned it in a negative way.The people who care about or play with the tilesets of a modder on the forum are a very small subset of the people who play the game now, and is an even smaller group compared to all of those who will play the Steam version. What's more, the method by which these players select themselves is very different. I don't think the assumption that fans of your modding are a representative sample of the market for the Steam/itch version is valid.
Also:
- it is understood that tilesets are operating with limited API so hacks are to be expected
- tilesets players are already familiar with how trees in DF work
- complaining about free mods made by volunteers is far less likely than complaining about a commercial game
- people deeply disliking tileset decisions will typically not use it rather than complain about it
I would be confused by tree trunk on seeing it. Even as DF player with some experience I was confused.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 27, 2020, 06:38:06 pm
(updated image posted on reddit)
Dunno if there's another way to fill in gaps in the mountains that people complained about, but I don't think this approach is worth it. The mountains just feel really out of place and blurry now, looked waaay better before even with the green bits, imo.
Post by: Pillbo on April 27, 2020, 06:42:08 pm
I am curious what the fungus trees will look like. Are they all spotty and colorful like the logs in the Meph pack mod?
Map looks really impressive, what's the resolution of the map tileset? It would be cool if it could look nicer when you zoomed in but it looks like your pretty limited in pixels.
Post by: mko on April 27, 2020, 08:12:04 pm
Post by: Rekov on April 27, 2020, 08:41:25 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 27, 2020, 09:01:38 pm
Treestumps are possible, if you cut a tree one z level above the ground upon which it grows. You already have those sprites done i guess.
I vote for shaded sprites for uncut trees ;)
After all, the shading represents the inside of an object, exactly like the shades in the walls.
Who would take the time to complain about usermade tileset graphics for trees, when everyone playing df knows how limited dwarf fortress is in terms of actual graphics support.
Also, people are complaining now, because they know its becoming more possible to do something About it.
Post by: bloop_bleep on April 27, 2020, 09:22:56 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 27, 2020, 09:30:24 pm
TREESTUMPS discussion:I've yet to see anyone post an alternative to a stump which somehow replaces Toady's procedural ascii trees with a sprite which doesn't look like a stump (since, even the ascii version is basically a stump). Besides "stump with a hole" which seems like the same amount of hypothetical "confusion".
Treestumps are possible, if you cut a tree one z level above the ground upon which it grows. You already have those sprites done i guess.
I vote for shaded sprites for uncut trees ;)
After all, the shading represents the inside of an object, exactly like the shades in the walls.
Who would take the time to complain about usermade tileset graphics for trees, when everyone playing df knows how limited dwarf fortress is in terms of actual graphics support.
Also, people are complaining now, because they know its becoming more possible to do something About it.
Something could be done, but putting aside what little time there is to reprogram a complex tree growing algorithm and hoping nothing goes wrong on release seems to fall into the "not messing too much with the mechanics before Steam" category.
I like the stump with gradient posted earlier for what it's worth.
On the map:
Dwarf Fortresses look like tents. Especially ones away from mountain areas. I get why they have a silly flag, but it just screams 'circus' to me (and not in a Fun way). What does a player fortress in a swamp look like? Same mountain/tent?
It's a hard one. Maybe just chimneys and smoke can convey it (I imagine they have them, even if the actual mechanics aren't in the game). Or go with vanilla, a giant dwarf statue.
Post by: bloop_bleep on April 27, 2020, 09:44:15 pm
(https://i.ibb.co/6RY6ZF8/trunk.png)
Eh? Eh?
Small hole with fading from outside? Eh?
Doesn't look like a stump, and is still recognizably a tree!
Also, take a look at darkened mountains:
(https://i.ibb.co/7CPkBhD/worldmap-edited.png)
Look more stony and less metallic, right?
Previous mountains for comparison:
(https://i.imgur.com/rNEdEXW.png)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 27, 2020, 11:20:32 pm
That's not something the artists can add by themselves though.
Too confusing?
Post by: Bumber on April 27, 2020, 11:35:56 pm
Treestumps are possible, if you cut a tree one z level above the ground upon which it grows. You already have those sprites done i guess.
Is that true? Wiki says otherwise: (https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Tree#Chopping_down_trees)
Quote
It is enough to designate only one trunk tile for cutting to chop down the whole tree it belongs to. Any trunk tile will do, even those that are above ground, or even a single tile of a multi-tile trunk. As a result, it's impossible to "prune" trees by chopping down only parts of them.
Post by: Fleeting Frames on April 28, 2020, 02:15:53 am
Post by: mko on April 28, 2020, 02:52:22 am
(top left)This is much, much better.
(https://i.ibb.co/6RY6ZF8/trunk.png)
Eh? Eh?
Small hole with fading from outside? Eh?
Doesn't look like a stump, and is still recognizably a tree!
Post by: SuperPluck on April 28, 2020, 04:31:53 am
I agree with Shonai_Dweller here. A tree stump is a perfect representation of the ASCII tile on the original game and it's what is currently used in most graphics too (well, in some it's only an "O" as well, but that's a stump).
I also don't see a better way to represent part of a multi-level tree than a stump with shading.
Post by: jecowa on April 28, 2020, 06:14:15 am
(https://i.imgur.com/Pt9gtl4.png)
in-game animation:
(https://dwarffortresswiki.org/images/0/06/Windmill_animation.gif)
Post by: ror6ax on April 28, 2020, 08:32:22 am
Some more test maps. (https://imgur.com/a/1vQEwHI)
EDIT: New: Offset for hills and less saturated savannah.
(https://i.imgur.com/eginD5B.png)
My 5p:
It's too cartoonish, especially trees and "houses". Hills/mountains are forming an incoherent noise.
Making them darker and introducing some degree of variance in contrast/brightness should give a more lifelike feeling to it.
I do like slightly randomised positions of the pine trees. Looks natural.
Post by: therahedwig on April 28, 2020, 08:39:39 am
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 28, 2020, 09:09:01 am
Wait, how are you supossed to indicate there's a hamlet somewhere if not with a teensy house? The houses are so simple, I am very curious how you cannot make them look cartoony. (And, the 'Æ' is supossed to be a teensy ascii house with an inclined roof)Add stripes maybe? They look like teensy concrete houses rather than teensy medieval wooden/brick/wattle and daub houses. Tough for something so small though.
And again, biome based buildings would be a great addition here. The house just looks daft in the desert and swamp. Just as the Dwarf Fortress doesn't fit properly outside of mountain ranges (only an issue when the player starts embarking).
Post by: voliol on April 28, 2020, 09:31:07 am
I have a hard time seeing the fields next to hamlets as fields, they look more like banners or hay bales on top of the rooves. The houses themselves are cute though, they make sense for a hamlet.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on April 28, 2020, 09:34:11 am
(https://i.imgur.com/rNEdEXW.png)
Post by: ror6ax on April 28, 2020, 09:41:59 am
(top left)
Also, take a look at darkened mountains:
Darkened mountains FTW!
Post by: MoltenIdol on April 28, 2020, 02:02:38 pm
Treestumps are possible, if you cut a tree one z level above the ground upon which it grows. You already have those sprites done i guess.
Is that true? Wiki says otherwise: (https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Tree#Chopping_down_trees)QuoteIt is enough to designate only one trunk tile for cutting to chop down the whole tree it belongs to. Any trunk tile will do, even those that are above ground, or even a single tile of a multi-tile trunk. As a result, it's impossible to "prune" trees by chopping down only parts of them.
Hmm, i could have sworn it happened to me in One of my forts.. Anyway, stumps Will probably be In the game at Some point.
All that aside, i Really think the shaded stumps look good, both for consistensy in the way aspects of the game are being vizualised, and Also very aesthetically pleasing.
The trees looks way more "impassable" with the shade inside. Which they are.
I can also imagine what a Really wooded area would look like with shaded stumps: really good.
Because of how bright the sorroundings are in general, darkness is a good way make a contrast between passable and impassable terrain. Just like the case with dark walls and bright floors. It kind of organizes it quickly to the eye.
They darker color makes them pop out as impassable terrain in an instant, and Even adds a false sense of shadows on the tree.
As in, theres generally a Lot of shades and shadows cast in a forrest. The tree shades do a good job, but the stump shading only makes it better.
MOUNTAINS:
Yes please to darkened mountains.
It makes the actual "triangular mountain peaks" look taller.
And yes, less like metal.
Also, Maybe do Some more varied mountains, and Some offset stuff like with the Hills?
Post by: Pillbo on April 28, 2020, 02:23:38 pm
I am curious what the fungus trees will look like. Are they all spotty and colorful like the logs in the Meph pack mod?
I would also like to see what a multi-tile tree would look like if you have any that you could share.
I have no strong feelings about the tree trunk shading, but it looks as much like a stump to me with it the shading as it does without. Maybe it would be more obvious on multi-tile trees though.
Post by: Proudbucket on April 29, 2020, 02:13:39 pm
As it is the windmill is displayed topdown, the length of the blades do change but the perceived shape does not. This gives the impression that the blades of the windmill suddenly get chopped and enlarged on cycles instead of conveying a rotating effect.
Check for example pictures of windmills in which the blades have different shape, not only different length.
(https://www.holland.com/upload_mm/5/e/0/52938_fullimage_windmills-kinderdijk_560x350.gif)
Admittedly in that image the point of view is not perfectly aligned with the rotors but a small angle might help to display the blades.
As an example, the very small angle seen here helps to display the rotor blades and help to convey the rotating effect.
(http://www.carlswebgraphics.com/aircraft/animated-helicopter.gif)
Post by: Starver on April 29, 2020, 04:01:38 pm
I did enough work with the raw basic image frames to confirm that they don't get chopped, but they neatly scale. In a hand-crafted manner. Yes, it still looks like an extending thing, but it is proportional somewhat like a pantograph/scissor, not like the visible part of a piston-rod. And the upward blade appears above the centre to hint at the true context, though I've mentioned the inherent deficiency in a two-frame animation already.
Spoiler: Talking (photo)shop. Or, in my case, GIMP. (click to show/hide)
(Ho hum, do I post this? If you're reading this then I did.)
Post by: Cruxador on April 29, 2020, 07:22:08 pm
(updated image posted on reddit)Is that image supposed to have the gaps filled in? Because they're still clearly visible.
Dunno if there's another way to fill in gaps in the mountains that people complained about, but I don't think this approach is worth it. The mountains just feel really out of place and blurry now, looked waaay better before even with the green bits, imo.
I think the trees look fine. Leaving stumps when you cut a tree down makes more sense than a hole into your fortress does, but it seems more like a suggestion forum post than a tileset issue. You can't really fix game weirdness with the art.This is only tangentially related to what people are actually talking about there.
Post by: Inarius on April 30, 2020, 03:36:00 am
Maybe some ideas from other people like here dragons abound could be used ?
All in all, it's some good job. Nothing to be ashamed of.
Maybe a bit more contrast overall ?
Post by: FrankVill on April 30, 2020, 06:26:40 am
Post by: vettlingr on April 30, 2020, 12:14:44 pm
This was the latest mockup version posted on reddit btw:
(https://i.imgur.com/rNEdEXW.png)
Nonononono! Revert the blur! Revert the blur!
I'm wondering if the mountains should rather look like plateaus, with the peaks looking as they do now or something similar.
Though by now I think it is best to follow the original design. The white highlight/snow? on the peaks is a simple and good addition.
Make the green gaps dark gray or what ever shader colour (greyish cyan, magenta?) you are using to make most of the grumpy old ladies happy. :D
Either that or change the basic shape of the mountains to be more of a half-spherical shape to cover as much of the gap as possible
Are the caves with a flag supposed to be fortresses? I always imagined them more like the warhammeresque Iron gates flanked with two huge Dwarven Statues.
They don't really stand out or break up the mountain regions they are in as of now.
Also... convince toady that different settlement sprites for different biomes is a good idea, even if you end up not using it, the Mod potential is great..
A few other pointers:
Tundras are not really seamless.
Rocky wasteland?, steppe? uses outlines with too much contrast. (the sand dunes with the white spikey bits sticking up from them.)
Dark pits as well, use a less violent black outline. It is very unclear to me what they are supposed to resemble.
All the forests are spruce. Yet there are NO SPRUCES INGAME :D :D
Some Obvious ones, I assume are WIP:
Savanna borders don't match, volcanoe is too red, Ice and tundra lackborders etc.
Just a few kinks, most can be fixed if added support for tile variation
The stump looks fine as is, though with the new walls and how they work, in addition to which direction you end up going with the thick tree branches, the shader makes sense.
Directional walls may not translate very well to bendy and round treebranchs though.
A good thing with the internal shader is, that you can use it in a alpha layer, to better show if tree is designated to be cut down or not. i.e. it will turn from black to dark yellow/brown when designated. ;)
Post by: Fleeting Frames on April 30, 2020, 01:03:18 pm
Post by: Uthimienure on April 30, 2020, 04:38:36 pm
Nonononono! Revert the blur! Revert the blur!
+1 It hurts the eyes!
Post by: KassaK on May 01, 2020, 10:55:11 pm
+1 It hurts the eyes!
[/quote]
Less than ASCII
Post by: MoltenIdol on May 02, 2020, 04:32:05 am
+1 It hurts the eyes!
Less than ASCII
[/quote]
Not really.
Post by: Meph on May 03, 2020, 10:09:59 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/xr7rgm7.png)
Post by: Uthimienure on May 03, 2020, 10:19:10 pm
The branches and leaves are nice too, good job!
By the way, what kind of tree is it?
Post by: Meph on May 03, 2020, 10:23:28 pm
Post by: clinodev on May 03, 2020, 10:40:25 pm
Post by: Rekov on May 03, 2020, 10:41:55 pm
What is the smaller trunk above the large trunk? Is that a 1x1 trunk, or is that something thinner than a normal tree trunk?
Post by: Uthimienure on May 03, 2020, 10:53:24 pm
It's just a vertical large branch of the same tree.
Post by: Superdorf on May 03, 2020, 11:03:14 pm
Post by: Rose on May 03, 2020, 11:32:01 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/z3nApnS.png)
Post by: bloop_bleep on May 04, 2020, 01:16:22 am
whistles
(https://i.imgur.com/z3nApnS.png)
I am mostly in support of this idea, except maybe more gradual shading, a smaller hole, and please center it lol.
Also, remove block plz. In ASCII you have 1/4 tiles, which break up the jagged outline of the tree tiles by not being completely filled in. I think something like that would do well here too.
Post by: vettlingr on May 04, 2020, 02:29:16 am
whistlesno >:C
(https://i.imgur.com/z3nApnS.png)
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 04, 2020, 02:48:01 am
:More rounded edges of the leaf outline would look better, but it would also require knowing what's adjacent to have seamless joints with other leaf tile of the same tree, but rounded vs air/the next tree, resulting in the need for multiple variants and code support for it.
Also, remove block plz. In ASCII you have 1/4 tiles, which break up the jagged outline of the tree tiles by not being completely filled in. I think something like that would do well here too.
Post by: ror6ax on May 04, 2020, 03:17:44 am
Tree mock-up. Just wanting to get an impression of what you think. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/xr7rgm7.png)
Sweet baby Jesus I want this so much. Maybe with less 90 degree branches tho
Post by: Starver on May 04, 2020, 05:11:19 am
Also, remove block plz. In ASCII you have 1/4 tiles, which break up the jagged outline of the tree tiles by not being completely filled in. I think something like that would do well here too.After monentarily misidentifying it as a tree(stump[1]) with a multitile tree(stump[1]) to the SSW, without context[2], I realised (or am now mistaken about?) it is a 1x1 tree trunk (slice) surrounded by leaves-and-branches artwork that includes a mini-riser to its NNE and clearly has quarter-unit/etc elements on the fringe that are breaking up the fringes.
And if it's not, well, I return to the excuse of it being in isolation. Can't complain too much about the pixels as put, darned fine art even if we all seem to have differing limits to our at-a-glance understanding.
[2] And agreeing the plan-spread branches need more contrast, they sort of looked like floor-flavour 'roots slughtly exposed out of the ground-cover'. But I feel confident that this is mostly the hacked-out nature of the image that wouldn't be so bad in-game, so...
[1] :p - though, seriously, once I worked out it was a tree-slice I was happier with it as it is, as my brain adjusted to mid-air slices where it couldn't handle ground-level (+ ground height atop) stuff.
Post by: Meph on May 04, 2020, 05:12:40 am
The leaves hide the branches on purpose, since a tree seen from above is probably mostly green. Once winter hits and the leaves are gone you can see all of the wood. ;)
The smaller trunk is a thick branch that also connects to the zlvl above.
I can mock-up a somewhat darkened trunk center, but probably not as much as the example by Putnam.
Technically I could do 45° angles on the corners for branches. But it's hard to get right of straight lines if working on a grid that repeats and has to line up with the next tile.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 04, 2020, 05:24:34 am
Post by: ror6ax on May 04, 2020, 05:34:48 am
Post by: voliol on May 04, 2020, 07:03:04 am
I guess what I dislike the most is not the angle but the symmetry of it. A big branch is going three ways - left, straight, right. More natural look would be something where two out of three go into one direction and third in another one. Nature is chaos, order is quite rare.
That's an issue with the tree generation already present in "classic" DF, not the graphics ;)
I would also argue that order (https://s3.amazonaws.com/www.mathnasium.com/upload/630/images/flower.jpg) and (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/60/81/3c/60813cb9f171fd7babbe7b6ba6f5c52c.jpg) geometry (https://theoryoforder.com/files/9812/6198/4207/14-10CYRBNWP00.jpeg) are (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/45/8a/ab/458aabdc6e0e82c3c72d81c97ba3702b.jpg), on (https://cdn.britannica.com/s:800x450,c:crop/30/73130-138-917E422E/Ferns-systems-tracheophytes-leaves-water.jpg) the (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/sprout-oak-tree-27563429.jpg) contrary (https://res.cloudinary.com/hh7ya2nn2/image/upload/c_scale/productGroup/romanesco), really (https://live.staticflickr.com/105/252462355_a76511a2c3_z.jpg) common (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Frost_patterns_2.jpg/1024px-Frost_patterns_2.jpg) in (https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_crop,h_2450,w_4368,x_0,y_165/v1562080363/shape/mentalfloss/29942-gettyimages-155302141.jpg?itok=45ARGbzy) nature (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eLvl0BSs_bs/Vx-c5A6qQ7I/AAAAAAAAVyI/6VgSC-iwvpED3eNtR7UIJ9KW9gz8CMOGQCLcB/s1600/diatom.jpg), but I digress.
But these are very nice! Are there any plans of varying the leaves according to tree species, such as different tints or even different leaf textures? Having alders with the same color leaves as birches would irk me.
Post by: ror6ax on May 04, 2020, 07:30:29 am
I guess what I dislike the most is not the angle but the symmetry of it. A big branch is going three ways - left, straight, right. More natural look would be something where two out of three go into one direction and third in another one. Nature is chaos, order is quite rare.
That's an issue with the tree generation already present in "classic" DF, not the graphics ;)
I would also argue that order (https://s3.amazonaws.com/www.mathnasium.com/upload/630/images/flower.jpg) and (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/60/81/3c/60813cb9f171fd7babbe7b6ba6f5c52c.jpg) geometry (https://theoryoforder.com/files/9812/6198/4207/14-10CYRBNWP00.jpeg) are (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/45/8a/ab/458aabdc6e0e82c3c72d81c97ba3702b.jpg), on (https://cdn.britannica.com/s:800x450,c:crop/30/73130-138-917E422E/Ferns-systems-tracheophytes-leaves-water.jpg) the (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/sprout-oak-tree-27563429.jpg) contrary (https://res.cloudinary.com/hh7ya2nn2/image/upload/c_scale/productGroup/romanesco), really (https://live.staticflickr.com/105/252462355_a76511a2c3_z.jpg) common (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Frost_patterns_2.jpg/1024px-Frost_patterns_2.jpg) in (https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_crop,h_2450,w_4368,x_0,y_165/v1562080363/shape/mentalfloss/29942-gettyimages-155302141.jpg?itok=45ARGbzy) nature (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eLvl0BSs_bs/Vx-c5A6qQ7I/AAAAAAAAVyI/6VgSC-iwvpED3eNtR7UIJ9KW9gz8CMOGQCLcB/s1600/diatom.jpg), but I digress.
But these are very nice! Are there any plans of varying the leaves according to tree species, such as different tints or even different leaf textures? Having alders with the same color leaves as birches would irk me.
I knew someone would get back at me with counter-examples :) I probably should have worded it better but this Monday is brutal.
+1 for the different tree species. In terms of gameplay mechanics I would want to see birches from the fruit trees fast.
Post by: Meph on May 04, 2020, 08:09:18 am
Quote
Are there any plans of varying the leaves according to tree species, such as different tints or even different leaf textures?From my side: Hell yes! Though I'd base it on RL photography of the bark/leaves, which means that they will come out non-pixelartsy enough for this tileset, just like the walls I did. Probably end up in a private set.
Like this (Looks much better with leaves):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I think for the Steam Df set, we do broadleaf, conifer, mushroom, and a few unique ones, like feather, glumprong, palm, saguaro... trees that look very different in RL.
Post by: Cruxador on May 04, 2020, 08:26:50 am
I'm going to strongly contest what seems to be the underlying premise here; it is most definitely possible to do a good enough job on individual tree species for them to be in the main tileset without basing directly on photos. Trees, like animals, plants, and grasses, are part of what adds color and variety to the game. I'm not saying it definitely needs to be top priority if there's a hurry to get out the minimum functional product (it seems like that's Toady's intent for the initial Steam/itch release, with some further enhancement over whatever period of time fits with however his and Kitfox's contract works) but by no means should representing each species correctly, regardless of the mechanical category of the species, be considered optional for a complete implementation.QuoteAre there any plans of varying the leaves according to tree species, such as different tints or even different leaf textures?From my side: Hell yes! Though I'd base it on RL photography of the bark/leaves, which means that they will come out non-pixelartsy enough for this tileset, just like the walls I did. Probably end up in a private set.
Like this (Looks much better with leaves):Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I think for the Steam Df set, we do broadleaf, conifer, mushroom, and a few unique ones, like feather, glumprong, palm, saguaro... trees that look very different in RL.
I would also argue that order (https://s3.amazonaws.com/www.mathnasium.com/upload/630/images/flower.jpg) and (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/60/81/3c/60813cb9f171fd7babbe7b6ba6f5c52c.jpg) geometry (https://theoryoforder.com/files/9812/6198/4207/14-10CYRBNWP00.jpeg) are (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/45/8a/ab/458aabdc6e0e82c3c72d81c97ba3702b.jpg), on (https://cdn.britannica.com/s:800x450,c:crop/30/73130-138-917E422E/Ferns-systems-tracheophytes-leaves-water.jpg) the (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/sprout-oak-tree-27563429.jpg) contrary (https://res.cloudinary.com/hh7ya2nn2/image/upload/c_scale/productGroup/romanesco), really (https://live.staticflickr.com/105/252462355_a76511a2c3_z.jpg) common (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Frost_patterns_2.jpg/1024px-Frost_patterns_2.jpg) in (https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_crop,h_2450,w_4368,x_0,y_165/v1562080363/shape/mentalfloss/29942-gettyimages-155302141.jpg?itok=45ARGbzy) nature (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eLvl0BSs_bs/Vx-c5A6qQ7I/AAAAAAAAVyI/6VgSC-iwvpED3eNtR7UIJ9KW9gz8CMOGQCLcB/s1600/diatom.jpg), but I digress.None of these are in any way representative of tree branching. Meph's version already has symmetry in the shapes of the leaves and the trunks, perhaps even slightly excessively so in the latter case. No doubt when he implements the spring flowering version of the leaf sprites, for those where it's relevant, those flowers will be symmetrical as well. I don't remember any trees having shells or crystals on them but I'm sure if I'm misremembering something (It must be many years since I last played in a Good zone, which sounds like where that would apply) he'll presumably do so there as well.
Post by: Rose on May 04, 2020, 09:18:40 am
Post by: Cruxador on May 04, 2020, 10:08:11 am
Trees when viewed from the top don't have a lot of branches visible, but these aren't trees from the top, they're a cross section of a tree, and trees don't have a lot of leaves inside the outer shell.This is an issue with tree generation, not the graphical representation thereof. Trees in DF have their foliage distributed homogeneously throughout the area. It also can happen in real life, but usually in orchard trees that have been specifically pruned and trained with this in mind. I wouldn't be surprised if this were to be added when/if Toady adds orchard management in general, instead of just foraging existing trees, but in general Toady doesn't seem that agriculturally oriented (which is consistent both with his background and with general fantasy stereotypes about dwarves) so this kind of thing shouldn't be expected in the foreseeable future. It certainly shouldn't be expected from the graphical update, although the graphics may shine more of a light on imperfections like this.
Post by: Rose on May 04, 2020, 10:15:34 am
Trees when viewed from the top don't have a lot of branches visible, but these aren't trees from the top, they're a cross section of a tree, and trees don't have a lot of leaves inside the outer shell.This is an issue with tree generation, not the graphical representation thereof. Trees in DF have their foliage distributed homogeneously throughout the area. It also can happen in real life, but usually in orchard trees that have been specifically pruned and trained with this in mind. I wouldn't be surprised if this were to be added when/if Toady adds orchard management in general, instead of just foraging existing trees, but in general Toady doesn't seem that agriculturally oriented (which is consistent both with his background and with general fantasy stereotypes about dwarves) so this kind of thing shouldn't be expected in the foreseeable future. It certainly shouldn't be expected from the graphical update, although the graphics may shine more of a light on imperfections like this.
Nope. Trees in DF don't have leaves on the larger inner branches, actually.
Post by: Pillbo on May 04, 2020, 11:55:56 am
Just a suggestion as far as rounding off the square leaf tiles- Leaves may be a good candidate for spreading beyond their designated tiles a few pixels. If they could overlap each other without looking weird it may be a good way to make trees feel fuller, less on a grid, and more natural. I think the effect a few z-levels up in a forest might be really nice.
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 04, 2020, 11:57:42 am
Well, if I recall correctly, Toady has said his parents were some version of gardeners, and that he'll get back to a proper implementation of soil nutrients, proper seasons, weather effects, fertilization, blights, etc. eventually. It's possible with a starting scenarios tangent on this, but otherwise it's likely in the grey mist of "much later". The map rewrite may change the tree structure as well, depending on how well the current trees will fit with the new map structure, but it's more likely the map structure is made to allow for later adjustments of its parts.Trees when viewed from the top don't have a lot of branches visible, but these aren't trees from the top, they're a cross section of a tree, and trees don't have a lot of leaves inside the outer shell.This is an issue with tree generation, not the graphical representation thereof. Trees in DF have their foliage distributed homogeneously throughout the area. It also can happen in real life, but usually in orchard trees that have been specifically pruned and trained with this in mind. I wouldn't be surprised if this were to be added when/if Toady adds orchard management in general, instead of just foraging existing trees, but in general Toady doesn't seem that agriculturally oriented (which is consistent both with his background and with general fantasy stereotypes about dwarves) so this kind of thing shouldn't be expected in the foreseeable future. It certainly shouldn't be expected from the graphical update, although the graphics may shine more of a light on imperfections like this.
My understanding of the graphics strategy in general is to firstly ensure all parts reach a minimum acceptable level for the Premium release (which makes a lot of sense), but it would be odd if the artists were put on hold from then on until after the release (as it has been said work is intended to continue), so I'd expect the time after the minimum level has been reached to be spent on gradual refinement, possibly with the last of these not making it into the initial Premium release because they're still uneven at that point.
Post by: Meph on May 04, 2020, 08:53:52 pm
Quote
Just a suggestion as far as rounding off the square leaf tiles- Leaves may be a good candidate for spreading beyond their designated tiles a few pixels. If they could overlap each other without looking weird it may be a good way to make trees feel fuller, less on a grid, and more natural. I think the effect a few z-levels up in a forest might be really nice.We are going the opposite way, with crown shyness.
Good point Rose, though I'd still like to use some greenery to cover some of the branches. They are quite overwhelming in large forests, it's a big wall of brown.
Cruxador, yeah, sure we can do barks in pixelart, it just takes longer. Not high priority enough to actually do it atm.
Post by: Cruxador on May 05, 2020, 12:36:28 am
Crown shyness isn't necessarily a thing in all or most species. Also, this isn't even necessarily applying to leaves from different trees.QuoteJust a suggestion as far as rounding off the square leaf tiles- Leaves may be a good candidate for spreading beyond their designated tiles a few pixels. If they could overlap each other without looking weird it may be a good way to make trees feel fuller, less on a grid, and more natural. I think the effect a few z-levels up in a forest might be really nice.We are going the opposite way, with crown shyness.
Quote
Cruxador, yeah, sure we can do barks in pixelart, it just takes longer. Not high priority enough to actually do it atm.Well yeah, aside from color, the leaves are probably more visually recognizable than bark on most species. I was thinking about different trees in not just bark spriting.
Post by: Bumber on May 05, 2020, 03:25:39 am
Having alders with the same color leaves as birches would irk me.
Can't tell if that's is a joke or not:
http://www.tree-guide.com/alder-leaves
http://www.tree-guide.com/birch-leaves
Which species are we comparing here?
Post by: voliol on May 05, 2020, 05:01:42 am
Having alders with the same color leaves as birches would irk me.
Can't tell if that's is a joke or not:
http://www.tree-guide.com/alder-leaves
http://www.tree-guide.com/birch-leaves
Which species are we comparing here?
B. pendula (European/warty birch) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Betula_pendula_Finland.jpg) and A. glutinosa (black/European alder) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/20120904Schwarzerle_Reilingen01.jpg). That website doesn't give a good picture of the leaves, the gloss and transparancy is mostly left out.
Considering Tarn and Zach are not European, though, perhaps those are not the species in Dwarf Fortress. I hope my point gets through none-the-less.
Post by: Rekov on May 07, 2020, 01:12:45 pm
I'm just going to point out for now how odd it is that lakes are darker and more saturated than the ocean on the current release.
Large image in spoilers
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 07, 2020, 02:47:41 pm
Comparison of today's world map with saturation +10, lightness -20.
I'm just going to point out for now how odd it is that lakes are darker and more saturated than the ocean on the current release.
Large image in spoilersSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Brighter one looks a lot more readable to me. Might be a tad bright, hard to say, but the darker one is definitely too dark.
Also, how would lakes being darker be odd? With how much it varies IRL through a multitude of factors it swining either way could be justified really.
Post by: Starver on May 07, 2020, 04:06:41 pm
Yes, there's all kinds of lake and river colourations IRL that may meet seawater or each other[1], but I'm sure we're not yet at that level of imagery on a world-map level.
(In a topgraphical map of global elevations, I found it worked best with water areas ranging Deepest<=depth<MSL transitioning smoothly from #008 to #00F colour, MSL<height<=Heighest being #0F0 through to #FFF and anything (effectively) at MSL got pixels of #FF0. It wasn't strictly accurate, and did not in any way colour lakes with bottoms above sea-level, or indeed depressions such as the land around the Dead Sea, or represent deserts differently from rainforests, etc, but that wasn't part of the data I used. It just looked more 'natural' in that particular rendering with the deep parts of the ocean the deepest blue, continental shelving lighter and all the rest being initially green until it rises up to the snowiest of snowy peaks.)
[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/nancygoodenough/5560345574
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qRClKxzJX9A/hqdefault.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/51dEWmX4MzU/maxresdefault.jpg
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4d31dd51d6c7b354d1b285fa420b6bd7
https://i.redd.it/7kl9d0ey28u01.jpg
...and also interesting reading: https://www.adn.com/science/article/mythbusting-place-where-two-oceans-meet-gulf-alaska/2013/02/05/
Post by: CL3AR on May 07, 2020, 04:31:40 pm
Post by: CL3AR on May 07, 2020, 05:10:27 pm
On the same note, it would be neat if the water got lighter near the shores.
Post by: Doorkeeper on May 07, 2020, 11:03:39 pm
After observing the most recent map, I noticed an issue that currently exists on classic too. Could the lair and cave symbols on the map be more distinguished in both ASCII and tileset? Right now, both sites are represented as a gray dot (•) in ASCII, and both presumably share the same sprite in tileset (mossy rock mound with bones(?) strewn at the entrance, and red glowing eyes in the dark). Only the roc lairs in ASCII, which are green dots, are unambiguous.
My suggestion is that the sites could be distinguished by color; lairs are changed to a brown (soil) mound, while caves remain rocky. For ASCII, lairs would become •, and caves would remain •. Roc lairs in ASCII would be unaffected, but for tiles, perhaps a large nest could represent them instead?
In-game, most lairs are either mounds on the surface or burrows that go down one z-lvl beneath the surface. There's more info w/ screenshots on the wiki article (https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/cv:Lair). Caves are larger rock formations that extend down to the underground caverns.
Sorry for the Classic graphics suggestion, I know this isn't the place but it's intertwined with my suggestion for the tileset version.
edit: PoC, just saturated & hued the rocky bits, and smoothed down the top
(https://i.imgur.com/GefYEpF.png) (https://i.imgur.com/dQqnJq6.png)
Post by: Meph on May 08, 2020, 12:37:47 am
Maybe make the lakes brighter to match with the rivers.It will. Sprites are all ready for that, just needs to be coded. :)
On the same note, it would be neat if the water got lighter near the shores.
Doorkeeper: There are no caves on the screenshot, it's all lairs. Caves do have a different sprite. :)
Post by: Doorkeeper on May 08, 2020, 04:28:54 pm
Doorkeeper: There are no caves on the screenshot, it's all lairs. Caves do have a different sprite. :)
That's great to hear. Sorry for the mistake, I shouldn't have assumed.
Post by: voliol on May 11, 2020, 06:23:41 am
I see that the good desert gets its own color. Can we expect the same for red/black/white deserts or are they all yellowish pale for the sake of visual clutter? (would be a shame, I think, but might be necessary)
Post by: KassaK on May 11, 2020, 08:36:08 am
What about modding for the future steam version ?
Will it be the same as now ? What about DfHack for example ?
Do we have any information ?
Post by: Cruxador on May 11, 2020, 09:39:54 am
Hi,Using the full graphical capabilities will necessarily be more complicated, since the new graphical system will be more complicated. Otherwise, this shouldn't affect modding differently than other updates.
What about modding for the future steam version ?
Will it be the same as now ? What about DfHack for example ?
Do we have any information ?
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 11, 2020, 11:35:40 am
Hi,This thread is for the graphics explicitly, and as far as I know DFHack isn't involved in tile sets beyond TwbT. Most or all of TwbT's capabilities are intended to be provided by DF itself, although not exactly in the same form. Tile sets are to be separated from the saves and the raw files, so the format will change in some way (the tile set has to be separated to allow saves to be transferred between Commercial and Classic versions to allow for e.g. generation fortresses). The exact capabilities provided by DF will be determined as things are tried out and, I would assume, the available time allows.
What about modding for the future steam version ?
Will it be the same as now ? What about DfHack for example ?
Do we have any information ?
Post by: QDDeerGirl on May 12, 2020, 09:23:13 am
I'm loving all the new stuff, especially the environment and creature tiles, and the world map has made a lot of progress, but it does ultimately feel like it's missing something. Most of it's good, but the colours seem too bright and happy for a pretty serious and sort of moody game. I'd prefer if the colours were more muted and realistic, maybe the bright green and blue can be saved for good and benign areas?
More importantly for a game about mountain people, the mountains look very little like real mountains, more like strange chainmail of some sort. I did a couple mockups as suggestions! Sorry if that's too forward, whatever the art team goes with I'm sure will be great!
Please keep in mind I'm a 3D artist first and foremost, with only a bit of experience in pixel art, and practically 0 working with dwarf fortress' engine. That said:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Meph on May 12, 2020, 10:08:05 am
I'll do some tests with something similar.
Btw, I started learning Zbrush two days ago, lots of respect for 3D artists now that I see how that works.
Post by: Starver on May 12, 2020, 10:16:37 am
The heightmap (real (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypsometric_tints) or 'tile-art simulated') might work if consistent with hills (green to grey-green?) and the recently discussed water-depth shading. Even if it's not embark-tile accurate, is there a (maybe progressively HSV filtered, rather than RGB+A) overlaying method to splash "mountain height" across slightly more than a tile to "foothill"ise the non-mountainous neighbour-tiles, increase the 'mountainicity' of tiles deeper in the range (if not dealt with by multitile base graphics) and, most of all, blending the edges of the tiles.
(I think blending would benefit in the 'ridge profile' form of wide-multitile graphic too, even/especially with randomised tile and purturbation of placement. I'd consider a mock-up, but it'd have to be a rip and rejig of prior art, as I've said before.)
((Ninjaed by Meph. And I'll therefore repeat that I have great respect for the 2D artists too. ;) ))
Post by: Meph on May 12, 2020, 10:21:08 am
(https://i.imgur.com/3iYzC9a.png)
Post by: Starver on May 12, 2020, 10:45:29 am
Could you arrange (if not also designing a method to do peak-to-peak ridging) using the lower-heights dark-grey palette as the 'base' to the mid-height peak art and the mid-height's light-grey as selfsame beneath the snowy-peak? Either in the tile or as the bit that peers through the transparency mask? In my head, that would look good (tree-lines and the like largely peter out before reaching higher elevated valleys, IRL, although hintier-hints of green could still exist to depict the hardier plants clinging to the slightly less tenuous slopes and stream-sides anywhere below the actual snowline).
Ideas only. Feel free to ignore. If I'm even making sense.
Post by: bloop_bleep on May 12, 2020, 11:32:33 am
Post by: SuperPluck on May 12, 2020, 11:45:20 am
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(https://i.imgur.com/3iYzC9a.png)
This looks awesome!
The mountains reminded me of leaves, i think it's the dark part in the middle and the general shape of them. But the lower moutains (hills?) are absolutely beautiful!
Post by: Starver on May 12, 2020, 12:05:01 pm
(edit, probably too late to be seen by those who matter without scanning back upwards: I'm gonna call the hills "drumlins", until they get improved in a sim8lar way to how these mountainous foothills are...)
Post by: CL3AR on May 12, 2020, 12:57:52 pm
Post by: Gorobay on May 12, 2020, 01:09:51 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on May 12, 2020, 01:48:20 pm
The current sprites were just placeholders as I was planning to work on the sprites a lot more (I really love mountains) but this will help a lot!
Post by: QDDeerGirl on May 12, 2020, 03:07:54 pm
I agree that the new mountains look better! Glad I could help. It's already looking a lot more cohesive!
Post by: Meph on May 12, 2020, 03:34:48 pm
I really like this approach to mountains. Thanks for the feedback!Wait a moment. I'm the mountaineer! :P
The current sprites were just placeholders as I was planning to work on the sprites a lot more (I really love mountains) but this will help a lot!
Post by: Rekov on May 12, 2020, 03:50:00 pm
Anyways, the first impression I get from the green here is much more "toxic chemical spill" than "good."
(https://i.imgur.com/u7O7WBz.png)
But maybe that's just me.
Post by: Rose on May 12, 2020, 03:51:17 pm
Oh gosh I expected to get downvoted to hell, haha
I agree that the new mountains look better! Glad I could help. It's already looking a lot more cohesive!
You're in luck! we don't have voting on the forums!
Post by: Bumber on May 12, 2020, 04:06:21 pm
Oh gosh I expected to get downvoted to hell, haha
I agree that the new mountains look better! Glad I could help. It's already looking a lot more cohesive!
You're in luck! we don't have voting on the forums!
-1 :P
Post by: Meph on May 12, 2020, 04:08:23 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on May 12, 2020, 04:45:16 pm
I really like this approach to mountains. Thanks for the feedback!Wait a moment. I'm the mountaineer! :P
The current sprites were just placeholders as I was planning to work on the sprites a lot more (I really love mountains) but this will help a lot!
Well, while I really love mountains, you REALIEST love mountains!
Post by: QDDeerGirl on May 13, 2020, 04:54:17 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Meph on May 13, 2020, 05:04:03 am
Compass rose... Not if you use clouds. Clouds = real world. A compass rose = Drawn map. We can't have both, that sends a mixed message.
Post by: neobit on May 13, 2020, 06:09:30 am
Also serpents and crashed ships would look cool but they should not be at the map if they do not exist in the world.
The clouds are charming.
Post by: Wokko on May 13, 2020, 06:20:24 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 13, 2020, 07:50:47 am
Post by: Meph on May 13, 2020, 08:11:43 am
Post by: voliol on May 13, 2020, 08:43:31 am
Post by: Nelia Hawk on May 13, 2020, 02:14:12 pm
Yeah, good/evil isn't done yet.
not sure if ya can do particles... but maybe add some particles going up from the ground at them areas on the worldmap or such...some colorfull ones for good (white, yellow, green, blue) and maybe darker evil ones (red/black/purple?) or maybe ravens or bats flying over the evil area or such... colorfull parrots flying over good areas? like such worldmap deco stuff.
(one thing that comes to my mind is the particles the game "rise to ruins" does with their corruption areas) (that game does pretty good pixel rain too, with puddles and dripping down roofs and such)
https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steam/apps/256721713/movie480.webm?t=1588368685
at 0.40 in the video.
Post by: Cruxador on May 13, 2020, 02:29:22 pm
I don't think the compass rose is necessary; besides the issue Meph mentioned, it obscures part of the map (clouds with transparency don't) and since the map can't be rotated anyway, it doesn't carry any meaning.
We already talked about clouds internally. :)Although this applies to a rose, what she drew can also represent an ornamental compass, and something like that does exist in reality so can be incorporated into the UI. Putting it directly on the map might be awkward but having it at all isn't strictly ruled out if there's blank space to fill with something ornamental, and currently both worldgen and embark screens do have something like that. As far as I'm aware, UI design isn't underway yet, but things like that with muted color choice (to avoid distraction) but more to them than just a tiling background texture would be a value-added contribution to the overall appearance of the game. Since it's not functional, it need not be a priority, but after all the game is already functional before adding any graphics. Not sure whether it's a task that plays to the strengths of either you or Mike though; I haven't seen either of you do something along those lines before.
Compass rose... Not if you use clouds. Clouds = real world. A compass rose = Drawn map. We can't have both, that sends a mixed message.
Post by: Starver on May 13, 2020, 03:04:40 pm
(Only half serious. As flavour alone.)
[1] If using C, avoid G; if Q, don't use O; if H, N might be too close.
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 13, 2020, 04:16:33 pm
It would be very hard to draw recognizable parrots/raven/bats on top of a 16*16 pixel background without completely dominating the tile: The artists don't have much wriggling room. Particle effects might be possible, though, using the time domain to help indicate good/evil/savage, and possibly even the general flavor(s) of evil (death/reanimation/blood rain/syndrome rain/husking clouds).Yeah, good/evil isn't done yet.
not sure if ya can do particles... but maybe add some particles going up from the ground at them areas on the worldmap or such...some colorfull ones for good (white, yellow, green, blue) and maybe darker evil ones (red/black/purple?) or maybe ravens or bats flying over the evil area or such... colorfull parrots flying over good areas? like such worldmap deco stuff.
(one thing that comes to my mind is the particles the game "rise to ruins" does with their corruption areas) (that game does pretty good pixel rain too, with puddles and dripping down roofs and such)
https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steam/apps/256721713/movie480.webm?t=1588368685
at 0.40 in the video.
Post by: bloop_bleep on May 13, 2020, 05:08:59 pm
Post by: Sasquatch on May 13, 2020, 07:22:22 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on May 13, 2020, 07:32:28 pm
For what it's worth, I'd like to backup Deergirl's opinion that the colors are too bright/cheery. I realize that's a popular look based on the tilesets/color schemes I see people using on YouTube. Will there be a way to do custom colors in steam version like we can on classic? I prefer a more muted look too.Customization won't be taken out of the game, it will always be moddable. Only difference is that all of the new stuff being added to make this tileset possible will be available for other tileset makers without having to resort to TWBT and such.
This thread is mainly for discussions on that:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173473.0
Post by: Sasquatch on May 13, 2020, 07:46:13 pm
For what it's worth, I'd like to backup Deergirl's opinion that the colors are too bright/cheery. I realize that's a popular look based on the tilesets/color schemes I see people using on YouTube. Will there be a way to do custom colors in steam version like we can on classic? I prefer a more muted look too.Customization won't be taken out of the game, it will always be moddable. Only difference is that all of the new stuff being added to make this tileset possible will be available for other tileset makers without having to resort to TWBT and such.
This thread is mainly for discussions on that:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173473.0
That will be awesome! Will be nice, not having to switch out tileset and display mode, to play Adv. mode.
Post by: Bumber on May 13, 2020, 08:02:08 pm
not sure if ya can do particles... but maybe add some particles going up from the ground at them areas on the worldmap or such...some colorfull ones for good (white, yellow, green, blue) and maybe darker evil ones (red/black/purple?) or maybe ravens or bats flying over the evil area or such... colorfull parrots flying over good areas? like such worldmap deco stuff.
There could be music notes and such for the various sphere biomes once the magic arc happens.
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 14, 2020, 03:50:53 am
There's still the size problem of 16*16. I guess transparent stuff on top might work, though. A possible alternative would be a zoom function where you'd have larger tiles (and thus saw a smaller area), but that doubles the number of world tile images, so I'd consider that to be a possible future expansion.not sure if ya can do particles... but maybe add some particles going up from the ground at them areas on the worldmap or such...some colorfull ones for good (white, yellow, green, blue) and maybe darker evil ones (red/black/purple?) or maybe ravens or bats flying over the evil area or such... colorfull parrots flying over good areas? like such worldmap deco stuff.
There could be music notes and such for the various sphere biomes once the magic arc happens.
Post by: Cruxador on May 14, 2020, 09:33:58 am
When you're assigning meanings like good and evil, real life moral concerns ought to be considered. For one thing, colors don't have the same meaning everywhere, but for another, assigning direct moral meaning to real life animals demonizes them unfairly. Ravens are associated with battlefields because they scavenge, but this doesn't make them evil creatures; they are not any more likely to be assholes than a parrot is, and yet you deem the parrot a good creature. Bats are most definitely good creatures, in the sense that they are beneficial, because they kill huge numbers of pests, including mosquitos which kill more people per year than any other animal (depending on how you do your numbers, possibly even more than humans). Having ravens around, which like to play and do all kinds of things, if anything increases the whimsy and fun of the area. A high population of bats is a good and beneficial thing, reducing deaths under normal conditions (coronavirus demonization aside – it's not like they meant for humans to trap them, take them to market, and catch it off of them, and unlike the humans who spread it, they can't be expected to have known better) so both of these animals basically convey the opposite of what goes down in an evil zone.Yeah, good/evil isn't done yet.
not sure if ya can do particles... but maybe add some particles going up from the ground at them areas on the worldmap or such...some colorfull ones for good (white, yellow, green, blue) and maybe darker evil ones (red/black/purple?) or maybe ravens or bats flying over the evil area or such... colorfull parrots flying over good areas? like such worldmap deco stuff.
(one thing that comes to my mind is the particles the game "rise to ruins" does with their corruption areas) (that game does pretty good pixel rain too, with puddles and dripping down roofs and such)
https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steam/apps/256721713/movie480.webm?t=1588368685
at 0.40 in the video.
Although this is true, it's also not true. ASCII will work exactly as it did, but the new sprites will have only part of them dynamically recolorable. In fact, to the best of my knowledge no specifically recolorable content has been shown thus far; they seem to be using a workflow where they do it "wrong" first and then wait to make it recolorable until after. Naturally, Meph and Mike can correct me if this is a false deduction, but it's consistent with what they've shown so far and isn't contradicted by anything they've said while discussing the sprites.For what it's worth, I'd like to backup Deergirl's opinion that the colors are too bright/cheery. I realize that's a popular look based on the tilesets/color schemes I see people using on YouTube. Will there be a way to do custom colors in steam version like we can on classic? I prefer a more muted look too.Customization won't be taken out of the game, it will always be moddable. Only difference is that all of the new stuff being added to make this tileset possible will be available for other tileset makers without having to resort to TWBT and such.
This thread is mainly for discussions on that:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173473.0
This means that to update colors across the board, you'll have to do a not insignificant process of going through all sprite images, applying a darkening or other layer, making touchups as needed, or possibly even recoloring tons of stuff manually if you can't figure out the math to make all of them do what you want.
I imagine the first person to do this and make a good quality darker version of the base tileset will have the most subscribed mod on the Steam workshop for at least a few years.
Post by: voliol on May 14, 2020, 11:22:39 am
Would be cool if instead of the game's current "there's mountains here" field of tiles, there was something that represented mountains according to their contour and elevation, which can be quite dramatic. (https://i.redd.it/eueu0u9eq6y41.jpg)
Preeetty sure that model has been meddled with to make the mountains pop more/had its z-axis stretched. Having walked over a few mountains in-game, their slopes are generally pretty gentle. That said, it would be cool to have proceedually generated tiles for memorable peaks, but I think we can both agree it is outside of the scope of this project.
Post by: bloop_bleep on May 14, 2020, 11:32:50 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 14, 2020, 12:18:10 pm
If it's animated and moves fast enough, I don't think it would have to fit within a 16x16 tile, or be transparent. I mean, those clouds are pretty big, spanning several tiles. They move slowly, so don't get out of the way quickly, but they are partially transparent so you can see what's underneath them. If a sprite moves quickly and doesn't have too many instances of it on screen at a time, it would be okay too, I think.If you're referring to the parrot etc. (disregarding their ecological niches), the clouds mocked up probably wouldn't respect biomes/parameters (they'd probably pass over rain forest as often as over desert, which is fine for a decoration), while evilness/savagery [type] indicators (only ones until Myth & Magic, when spheres are opened up) should do so, and a corrupting tower initially corrupts only its own tile, so I think it actually has to fit.
Post by: Uthimienure on May 14, 2020, 07:41:16 pm
- Having different graphics for the top of a constructed wall and a constructed floor. It would make building above ground a bit less troublesome.
Post by: Cruxador on May 14, 2020, 07:50:14 pm
I'm guessing this would already be planned because it's pretty obvious, but haven't seen it mentioned yet.For aesthetic reasons, I would want this difference to be either negligible or nonexistent.
- Having different graphics for the top of a constructed wall and a constructed floor. It would make building above ground a bit less troublesome.
Post by: bloop_bleep on May 14, 2020, 09:27:11 pm
Post by: Uthimienure on May 14, 2020, 09:54:29 pm
Post by: Starver on May 15, 2020, 12:22:58 am
(Would depend on graphic used anyway, but I could see a "cobblestone" design, for constructed-stone/whatever, edging with 1px hard edge colour, fingering into the edge-cobble gaps where not effectively kerning into adjacent cobbles/etc. Such a floor-edge and an equivalent wall-top edge could be subtly different. Though this all needs to be re-examined for each and every actual graphic that might be used for each purpose, so not a small task to create such distinct edge-masks for each and every one.)
Post by: Schmaven on May 15, 2020, 04:45:23 am
For my surface constructions, I make a 10 x 10 wall or floor designation and scroll that around to show which tiles already have floor and which do not. It is a bit of a hassle, but I do like having the tops of walls (essentially treated as floors) and the floor tiles to look the same. Although I could easily build a floor on top of the wall if it looked different, so it wouldn't create an impossible situation if they did have different looks.
Post by: Uthimienure on May 15, 2020, 05:56:44 am
Yeah, let's not do that. Otherwise all the pillars and room dividers on the level below would be showing up in the floor above, and possibly not aligning with the pillars and room dividers on the level above. Bleh.
I was thinking about this over night, and if your pillars and room dividers show up above isn't it because you didn't put floors on top of them? And doesn't this mean there are actually gaps in your floor above? It may look bleh, but the "bleh-ness" would serve a good purpose... telling you that floors still need to be built to cover the room dividers.
I'm going to stick by my original post, because this is the same problem we get when trying to make the top floor of a tower secure against intrusion by flooring over the tops of the outer walls.
A good refresher:
http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Tile
Post by: Uthimienure on May 15, 2020, 06:36:41 am
Post by: voliol on May 15, 2020, 07:41:48 am
Yeah, let's not do that. Otherwise all the pillars and room dividers on the level below would be showing up in the floor above, and possibly not aligning with the pillars and room dividers on the level above. Bleh.
I was thinking about this over night, and if your pillars and room dividers show up above isn't it because you didn't put floors on top of them? And doesn't this mean there are actually gaps in your floor above? It may look bleh, but the "bleh-ness" would serve a good purpose... telling you that floors still need to be built to cover the room dividers.
I'm going to stick by my original post, because this is the same problem we get when trying to make the top floor of a tower secure against intrusion by flooring over the tops of the outer walls.
A good refresher:
http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Tile
(https://i.imgur.com/tHvehcp.png)
You suppose creatures path like this?^
The wiki is either lacking information in this topic, or I've lost by ability to read properly.
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 15, 2020, 07:43:48 am
As far as I'm concerned, it's a bug that you'd need to build a floor on top of a floor to block diagonal access (and I don't know if you still do: Toady fixed the bug with diagonal access into stairs from below, but I don't know if that addressed the flier access from above [and I've never had that case happen to me, even before the bug fix, but many a critter from below]).
@voliol: The direction is the opposite to the one you describe, i.e. from above to below.
Post by: Uthimienure on May 15, 2020, 08:20:59 am
Yeah, let's not do that. Otherwise all the pillars and room dividers on the level below would be showing up in the floor above, and possibly not aligning with the pillars and room dividers on the level above. Bleh.
I was thinking about this over night, and if your pillars and room dividers show up above isn't it because you didn't put floors on top of them? And doesn't this mean there are actually gaps in your floor above? It may look bleh, but the "bleh-ness" would serve a good purpose... telling you that floors still need to be built to cover the room dividers.
I'm going to stick by my original post, because this is the same problem we get when trying to make the top floor of a tower secure against intrusion by flooring over the tops of the outer walls.
A good refresher:
http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Tile
(https://i.imgur.com/tHvehcp.png)
You suppose creatures path like this?^
The wiki is either lacking information in this topic, or I've lost by ability to read properly.
I don't know if creatures can path like that from my experience, but maybe I should stop believing so many people that post about making the top floor secure by building floors around the perimeter walls. They say that creatures can enter from the top down through the diagonal. I've not seen it happen myself, so I can't really say if it's true. My forts need more violence so I can see for myself, I guess.
@PatrikLundell Yes, I know it's walkable on top of the walls. Is my drawing correct? If it's not correct, then how can we build floors on top of walls?
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 15, 2020, 08:26:27 am
I was thinking about this over night, and if your pillars and room dividers show up above isn't it because you didn't put floors on top of them? And doesn't this mean there are actually gaps in your floor above? It may look bleh, but the "bleh-ness" would serve a good purpose... telling you that floors still need to be built to cover the room dividers.
I'm going to stick by my original post, because this is the same problem we get when trying to make the top floor of a tower secure against intrusion by flooring over the tops of the outer walls.
A good refresher:
http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Tile
(https://i.imgur.com/tHvehcp.png)
You suppose creatures path like this?^
The wiki is either lacking information in this topic, or I've lost by ability to read properly.
I don't know if creatures can path like that from my experience, but maybe I should stop believing so many people that post about making the top floor secure by building floors around the perimeter walls. They say that creatures can enter from the top down through the diagonal. I've not seen it happen myself, so I can't really say if it's true. My forts need more violence so I can see for myself, I guess.
@PatrikLundell Yes, I know it's walkable on top of the walls. Is my drawing correct? If it's not correct, then how can we build floors on top of walls?
A wall cannot exist like that, they always come with a floor included at the top of it. When building a floor construction on top you're basically just changing the material of the top layer rather than adding anything. Adding floors around the edges are more to prevent climbing than to fill in any kind of inherent gap.
Post by: Starver on May 15, 2020, 08:27:05 am
Carved fortifications are embrasures/arrow-slits of one kind or other, retaining most of the material of the original wall, thus does not deprecate the nature of the walltop (whatever is atop it at the time of carving).
Though we approximate by other methods, it would have been nice to have had carve-into-floor fortifications, i.e. "murder-holes" or possibly machicolations in certain circumstances.
- But this is now getting into gameplay rather than graphics territory. Beyond suggesting a viable graphical distinction on the type of fortification produced, maybe Ghibelline-styled constructed ones, etc. Unless the same sort of argument re: built-floor and walltop blending can be suggested (infilling gaps later in an overbuilt circumstance?).
Post by: bloop_bleep on May 15, 2020, 12:25:40 pm
Post by: Nelia Hawk on May 15, 2020, 02:01:38 pm
somebody probably knows what i mean XD
Post by: bloop_bleep on May 15, 2020, 02:05:54 pm
Post by: Uthimienure on May 15, 2020, 02:13:48 pm
You can not build walls on top of constructed floors, which encourages making each floor the same as the one below unless you like more hassle ;).
You're right about having to remove the floors to build walls. This conflicts with claims that floors are automatically added to the tops of constructed walls.
By the way, the last picture you see above isn't how I drew it, the "AIR" part was modified by voliol to illustrate something else.
If I could find my kids legos (drat), it would make it a lot easier to visualize... bricks being walls and flats being floors.
Post by: Nelia Hawk on May 15, 2020, 02:28:39 pm
Right, you can build walls on top of walls.
This conflicts with claims that floors are automatically added to the tops of constructed walls.
i think this is true though. the z level above a build wall counts as floor... so i.e. you can build a chair on it or another wall.
maybe they should change how this wall/floor stuff work... and either make walls not count as floors the next z level (but guess gets a mess with pathing with how walls/floors work like in that picture) so you have to build ALL floors yourself.
or make it so you can construct stuff on self build floors (that probably less a hassle to "allow" in the game. i think df hack has something that "ignores constructions" or such... so you can build walls on buidl floros(i think). pretty sure i seen that in some pack)
Post by: bloop_bleep on May 15, 2020, 02:32:28 pm
Post by: Uthimienure on May 15, 2020, 02:40:12 pm
My mind is now open to whatever the truth of it all is. It would be cool if Tarn or Armok would crash the party here and set it straight!
bloop_bleep, could you help me find in the game data where the floor object is because that would clear things up for me. I'm too much of a novice with the data to know where to even begin looking.
{EDIT} The more I look into this, the more I think I've been wrong. But there is still confusion. Sorry for taking this thread on a tangent.
Post by: Starver on May 15, 2020, 04:33:58 pm
If you're adding to a lower level before blanket-flooring it, then changing the floorplan is trivial. I sometimes reverse the rotational direction of a design, or even "inverse ziggurat" bits of it in the process, to increase usable space eith overhangs.
You really only need to know what you're doing in advance (ideally), in both cases, or if you're making it up as you go along there are plenty of clues along the way. It's no more complicated than trying to plan a fully congruent repeat. Which is difficult, in itself, but only to normal "until you understand the game's little quirks" DF difficulty[3]. IMO.
How to make this better with the new tileset, I leave open to answering by those in the core UI redesign team. I'm not sure anyone else has enough knowledge to narrow down the options to what is caterable-for.
[1] The argument that this is necessary[2] is, I expect, more Toady/ThreeToe country as an annexe to the UI reorganisation project.
[2] Prime alternatives being 1) to allow wall-building on built floors, 2) "conversion" of the floor material into wall-form or 3) "recovery" of the floor material at the same time as; all of them with pluses and minuses to their operation, if enabled as an option atop the current working, or maybe how the current thing is totally retooled to become.
[3] Like it being best to place all corner-pillars first, then (planned) door-to-door flooring, then expand the floor and the corners in. At least the way I tend to do it. With a close eye on the natural LIFO job ordering when it comes to 'servicing' such construction jobs. In fact, I'll block-designate walls and/or floors then cancel some and block designate those spaces in again (repeating to further sub-selections as necessary) to force the jobs into the order I require. But that's a discussiin for another thread, on another sub-board, even if the rest of this post is not.
Post by: Cruxador on May 16, 2020, 09:30:32 am
maybe they should change how this wall/floor stuff work... and either make walls not count as floors the next z level (but guess gets a mess with pathing with how walls/floors work like in that picture) so you have to build ALL floors yourself.If this was implemented you'd have walls without tops, and dwarves would fall into the walls. I hardly think having to deconstruct your walls to get the dwarves out because they fell in can be considered an improvement over the current system.
Quote
or make it so you can construct stuff on self build floors (that probably less a hassle to "allow" in the game. i think df hack has something that "ignores constructions" or such... so you can build walls on buidl floros(i think). pretty sure i seen that in some pack)Unless I'm mistaken, this would annihilate the material used for the floor since walls occupy the same spot in the tile. Making this not occur would increase the data that DF stores per tile.
Post by: Meph on May 16, 2020, 10:28:01 am
Post by: Starver on May 16, 2020, 11:45:44 am
Post by: FrankieSmileShow on May 16, 2020, 05:13:55 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/Mqnt7B9.gif)
The graphical elements on the back wall of the forge workshop here, to the right - looking at the screenshot, I was wondering if the hearth, bellows and tools are intended to only appear if the tiles above the workshop are impassable? Like, a contextual sprite to add a bit more detail if there is room for it. Is that the plan? I thought it might be, since the other workshops visible in that screenshots had no such "wall elements" and also had no walls around them.
If that is the plan, I think its a great idea! If this isn't the plan, well, consider that a suggestion!
You could even add more of these contextual assets to the side walls if you give them a steeper perspective, made a quick mockup below.
(https://i.imgur.com/MzQnEWW.gif)
There could be some drawbacks to that, it could give players the false impression that surrounding a workshop with walls makes it "better", because of the visual feedback for it? I think that would be a pretty minor issue though.
Post by: Rekov on May 17, 2020, 02:14:02 pm
Whatever you guys end up going with though, I sure hope that we end up with an orange that is distinct from red and yellow, and a purple that is distinct from magenta.
Post by: MoltenIdol on May 23, 2020, 08:20:52 am
Hello! So I just saw the new assets for the first time, and I think it looks great! One thing I brought up in the discord chat is about the workshop assets, which somebody said were a bit contentious?
(https://i.imgur.com/Mqnt7B9.gif)
The graphical elements on the back wall of the forge workshop here, to the right - looking at the screenshot, I was wondering if the hearth, bellows and tools are intended to only appear if the tiles above the workshop are impassable? Like, a contextual sprite to add a bit more detail if there is room for it. Is that the plan? I thought it might be, since the other workshops visible in that screenshots had no such "wall elements" and also had no walls around them.
If that is the plan, I think its a great idea! If this isn't the plan, well, consider that a suggestion!
You could even add more of these contextual assets to the side walls if you give them a steeper perspective, made a quick mockup below.
(https://i.imgur.com/MzQnEWW.gif)
There could be some drawbacks to that, it could give players the false impression that surrounding a workshop with walls makes it "better", because of the visual feedback for it? I think that would be a pretty minor issue though.
They answered this on a page way back :)
They are not going with the wall elements.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on May 27, 2020, 08:06:31 pm
(I have no idea if that works practically, but if not, what are they "carving"? Maybe they're lowering the whole corridor leaving just the shape of minecart tracks...).
Post by: clinodev on May 27, 2020, 08:29:27 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on May 27, 2020, 10:15:26 pm
Post by: Rekov on May 28, 2020, 03:12:29 pm
I don't think medieval mine-cart "tracks" are going to work just because 99% of people won't get what they are.
Mechanically, carved vs. constructed tracks have to be able to connect seamlessly. But logically, if you're carving some tracks into the floor, and building some tracks above the floor, they're going to be at slightly different elevations.
I think what the artists have done looks fine. The art represents the mechanics (seamless tracks), not the real world logic, and that's actually more important in this case.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on May 28, 2020, 04:08:45 pm
I think the difficulty here is making the art match functional mechanics, and also be sufficiently recognizable.Tiny ramps between carved and placed tracks? It's not a great leap is it?
I don't think medieval mine-cart "tracks" are going to work just because 99% of people won't get what they are.
Mechanically, carved vs. constructed tracks have to be able to connect seamlessly. But logically, if you're carving some tracks into the floor, and building some tracks above the floor, they're going to be at slightly different elevations.
I think what the artists have done looks fine. The art represents the mechanics (seamless tracks), not the real world logic, and that's actually more important in this case.
Of all the complex problems graphical Dwarf Fortress presents such as procedurally generated beasts and weird trees, to fail at "carved track" is surprising.
Post by: Starver on May 28, 2020, 04:31:28 pm
(Those may have formed through habituation, such as Sunken Lanes may be for a whole horse/cart-width, being perpetuated once established by the sum total of the initial choices of unconfined travel across the landscape. Natural weathering over the centuries may then have significantly exagerated the features beyond the usable tramways of yore, by rainwater being also encouraged to travel the self-same paths, or just edge-erosion by scouring and eddies being disproprtionate to the 'untouched' rock.)
Carved ones obviously differ from constructed ones (https://www.abandonedspaces.com/industry/haytor-granite-tramway-unique-granite-railway-tracks.html) in several ways, but I see no reason for them not to blend well (or just skim over the differences).
How does any if this help our artists? Not sure.
Post by: bloop_bleep on May 28, 2020, 05:08:40 pm
Post by: Enemy post on May 28, 2020, 05:30:00 pm
I know castes can vary, but do animals typically have dead, war/hunting trained, and/or undead tile variants?
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on May 28, 2020, 07:41:22 pm
When dwarves build a minecart track, they first carve out the floor and then build the track on top? Problem solved.It's not a problem at all. To accept this art, yes, is to say the dwarves carved the entire floor leaving tracks sticking upwards. Which is kind of dorfy so works OK, even if the floor level looks a little too perfect. All I wondered is if that's what Tarn actually thinks of them as being.
(They wouldn't build anything on top though of course, that's a constructed minecart track.)
Post by: evthestrike on May 29, 2020, 12:32:24 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on May 29, 2020, 05:30:35 pm
The carved minecart tracks showed are just groves that the minecart rides between. Am I missing something? The ones on the top are carved and the others are constructed.This looks nothing at all like a groove to me. I mean, just look at where it meets the rail, it's exactly the same. A groove is a cut in the floor, a rail is a piece of wood/metal/rock placed on top of the floor.
Post by: Starver on May 29, 2020, 05:37:21 pm
Noting that the track is 'constructed' in both forms, but in-game would be differently fudged by material/raw-tile needs.
Post by: voliol on May 29, 2020, 05:41:24 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/eEe4kt7.png)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on May 29, 2020, 05:47:34 pm
I think the current solution works well enough, like evthestrike I didn't note anything being odd before it being pointed out by shonai et al, and even after aquiring the knowledge I must say it is the clearest solution visually. If the question of how to carve them out is extremely important, consider this:Yep. That's how I see them. It's cool. Just seems a lot of work for dorfs to shape all their corridors like that rather than carve grooves. But, they are dorfs after all.
(https://i.imgur.com/eEe4kt7.png)
So just to be sure, we're saying technically that an actual groove just wouldn't be possible to show graphically at this scale?
Post by: GrayAx on May 29, 2020, 06:38:25 pm
I was just wondering, would it be possible to add height/depth to the back walls?
Here's a quick thing I threw together to illustrate:
(https://i.imgur.com/8HbF1M7.gif)
I very much like the style and depth of objects in the room (like stairs, or the various devices belonging to the workshops.
But I have to admit that I'm having some trouble parsing rooms as rooms. The various tweaks like shadows in the corners, and 'deeper' walls has helped a lot.
I just find it that there's a strange dissonance between objects having a sense of perspective, but walls seem more like they're completely flat, much like on a blueprint.
I apologize if this has been asked before, but it's a really huge thread to scan over to see if this has been talked about before.
Personally, the moment there's a bit of depth to the back wall (after all, the 'front' and 'side' walls are straight on to the camera, and don't really need to be changed to fit.), the rooms parse as actual rooms to me a lot easier.
Especially since there is a bit of depth to some elements, like the hills, and as mentioned, furniture.
Though it's entirely possible I'm alone in this sentiment, and that others prefer the current style.
Post by: Starver on May 29, 2020, 07:15:23 pm
Wall-heights should be near the beginning, though, alongside the (initial) arguments about slopes. Then there's the apparent Steam Artist Crew policy on overhead vs angle-view, which I won't try to recall precisely, but I think boils down to not attempting an angle where multi-Z spans are possible/likely (tree trunks, famously, but walls can apply) because of the problems doing anything meaningful with an angle-view there without displacing everything in a column of Zs to be consistent in all placements. Which changes many things, including 'hiding' stuff that goes on behind such a sloping wall.
I could be wrong. Maybe I'll recheck back in this thread when I have a spare moment, to get exact references. But it would be helpful to get official word or someone else with significantly more stake in the conversation(s) than me to cut out the need to search.
(The whole thread was (re)illuminating when I started to look for creature-state references, I know it's a lot of work, especially without easy way of storing "backlog progress" other than keeping a browser tab open/rebookmarked 'pointer' reference just for that purpose, but you'll see a lot of cool stuff in among things you maybe don't want to read (more) about.)
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 30, 2020, 03:24:53 am
Post by: Cruxador on May 30, 2020, 09:37:55 am
The degree is different, but under this logic we should have reddish brown copper ore, black or grey iron ore, and gold should be good for weapons because it's expensive and what if someone is coming to this game from Minecraft? It's nonsense.
Post by: PatrikLundell on May 30, 2020, 11:19:23 am
Post by: MoltenIdol on May 30, 2020, 06:41:31 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on May 30, 2020, 06:58:24 pm
I don't think people are stupid enough to be confused by two parallel lines appearing when they select to build tracks, regardless of how they look. If they are, then there are other aspects of the game that will be a far bigger problem for them. If the people don't know that tracks can be dug out instead of built, then they'll have an opportunity to learn something. That is not such an undesirable experience that we should make the game lie to everyone in order to avoid it.
The degree is different, but under this logic we should have reddish brown copper ore, black or grey iron ore, and gold should be good for weapons because it's expensive and what if someone is coming to this game from Minecraft? It's nonsense.
All of this is true.
If you dont have the mental capability to understand what two lines in the floor means when you select carve track, or if youre not naturally curious enough to even go find out what it might be, then Youre probably never even gonna stumble upon dwarf fortress to begin with, and Much less play it when you find out what its all about.
Two parralel lines in the floor. What else do you imagine people would Think it was, other than tracks?
Chalk lines? Spaghetti? Random string?
Im not trying to be rude, but i really cant see how this could be misconcieved, unless said person trying to fathom it, would also fail at comprehending Minecraft.
About the seamless connection between carved and constructed, I believe in smol ramps. Logically (a word rarely taken into account when talking about dwarf fortess), this makes the most sense.
Its the easier way to do it, with minimal energy invested.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on May 30, 2020, 10:33:46 pm
I don't really care how history did it, medieval dwarves not being a thing. But basic English tells me that "carve track" resulting in a 3d track appearing out of the ground that matches exactly with a built track (involving placing materials on top of the ground) is strange (explainable as the above diagram shows, but still pretty strange).
Post by: Marcus Aseth on May 31, 2020, 02:06:43 am
this is the image from the workshop, but if I place it on a marble floor then I have a random gray brick from the workshop in that room, ruining the looks.
Would it be possible to go for workshop with transparent floor so that it blends in with wathever floor the room has? This would allow me to place this same gray brick under the workshop only if I deemed it cool looking for that specific context, leading overall to more freedom of creativity, consistent yet varied looks for the fortresses
The current floor is imposing a "uniform" look to wathever we might come up with, so not very good in my opinion (aside for the floor being fixed, it looks awesome ;))
my 2 cents
Post by: Marcus Aseth on May 31, 2020, 02:50:55 am
(https://i.imgur.com/1ygQfuU.png)
Sure, now you might think it looks more underwhelming than before, but consider it is built on a rough cave floor so that might be exactly the poor aesthetics one is going for.
Now imagine if someone where to build a cool floor underneath, it could be anything, it if was a sand floor and there was the option to drop in a carpet floor, maybe you could go for a desert bazaar look, the possibilities are infinite and a fixed floor is a limitation not suited for this game imo.
Also still trough transparency a tad bit of shadowing could be added under the element on contact with the surface, some sort of ambient occlusion, to better separate the elements from the floor and having them look less "floaty", but that is a personal preference that has nothing to do with my point above
Post by: CL3AR on May 31, 2020, 02:55:15 am
Post by: Marcus Aseth on May 31, 2020, 02:57:46 am
Actually is not even needed, the framing could appear when you select the building, showing which one is, is really not a thing that should be "baked" into the sprite to begin with
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 31, 2020, 03:19:09 am
Post by: Marcus Aseth on May 31, 2020, 03:23:44 am
Think I maybe said it before, but think workshop/stockpile floors/outlines would be the perfect case if anything for an in-game setting to choose whether they want the more user-friendly clearly marked option or transparency for those that want to customise their fortress aesthetic.you did? There was a reply to it from the people working on it? I would be curious to know what they think about this.
To me personally fortress aesthetics matters a lot, today I've abandoned the game (temporarily) because playing with Meph tileset, after acidentally digging a piece of smoothed marble I couldn't fix it anymore, even building a marble wall the tileset would mismatch so I had this glaring imperfection in my marble palace which is enough to drive me crazy and short circuit my brain, the architect/designer part of it xD
I hope they will take into consideration this things, for some of us the aesthetics of the fortress come before anything, even before playing the game itself ;)
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 31, 2020, 03:48:05 am
you did? There was a reply to it from the people working on it? I would be curious to know what they think about this.
To me personally fortress aesthetics matters a lot, today I've abandoned the game (temporarily) because playing with Meph tileset, after acidentally digging a piece of smoothed marble I couldn't fix it anymore, even building a marble wall the tileset would mismatch so I had this glaring imperfection in my marble palace which is enough to drive me crazy and short circuit my brain, the architect/designer part of it xD
I hope they will take into consideration this things, for some of us the aesthetics of the fortress come before anything, even before playing the game itself ;)
Not sure, hence why I wrote "think" (I frequently write answers to something but delete them rather than posting, so hard to keep track of what I've actually written out or just thought).
DFhack is great for saving oneself from such disasters though, it's the only thing I use it for myself, filling in accidentally dug holes and whatnot (until we can actually do it in-game, I only use it for stuff where I feel dwarves would reasonably be able to to it if not for game mechanics).
Post by: Starver on May 31, 2020, 06:48:43 am
However, the reason for the patchworking is often obvious (if not current). Heat-based craftsmanship may he performed best above a ceramic surface, rather than the cheaper wooden floor beyond the nominal bound, or something more resistant to dropped items that are heavy (that would dent some things, crack others - maybe replacing a single tile that is badly cracked is easier than other possible damage) or small (gaps between floorboards 'eat' screws) or otherwise can cause problems (embers, liquids like acids or blood (or acid-blood?), shavings of recoverable precious metals, etc - recently I heard of a silversmith who has a 'dustbuster' for their workshop, who every month pops the dust-bag into a furnace/melter to recover a significant quantity of their working material).
Obviously more useful to do in the corner of the packed-earth barn used for blacksmithery, the areas of the warehouse needing non-slip walkways rather than harder-wearing runs for forklifts or whatever. Could also be a remnant of previous partitioning where a 'room' (whether full-height in its walls, open-topped to the 'virtual' height of one storey within a cavernous space or more akin to modern cubicle partition or even counter-height boundaries such as a food-stall 'unit' in a market space) was effectively given wall-to-wall surfacing (stuck-down lino?) but in reality is just a 'temporary' enclave that might outlast its prior utility if it doesn't create more problems keeping it than removing/re-resurfacing later might.
TL;DR; - I can imagine that, via the mysterious magic amorphism of building materials needed for construction, a form of paved(/tiled/boarded/sawdusted/whatevered) flooring appears under the assorted work-benches, tool-tables, material-racks and/or kennelling-cages. Naturally, being work-proud, a deconstructing dwarf will revert the floor to (best guess) original surface texture, whether that be raw, smoothed, built-floor, etc.
Post by: Marcus Aseth on May 31, 2020, 01:23:39 pm
Basically you can justify wathever you want/feel to justify in a world that already filled with mytical creatures and so different from ours and not to mention the correlation between "identical to reality == better" never existed in games (otherwise DF wouldn't have magic or mythical creatures, don't you think?), that correlation is only useful for elements in which a gamer starts the game with some preconceptions, for instance we all start with the preconceptions that water solidify lava and that lava kills living and that a killed creature could be eaten (as opposed to a rock), but noone of us or maybe an insignificant minority would start with a preconception about workshop and "brick flooring requirements" VS "wathever flooring is ok", so to try and justify it with real world example serves no purpose from a gamer and game design perspective - the only sure thing at the end of the day is that after all the workshops are placed down, we will all end up with the same gray looking place, so if someone wanted to go for creativity and decoration, has better sticking to Terraria and Minecraft.
This game really has a big chance to compete with those 2, and I would hate to see it wasted.
Consider that (and correct me if I'm wrong here) wathever material you use for building the workshop you'll end up with the same appearance because it would be insane to expect they do a work of that quality within timelines for each individual construction material, so a lot of the creative component that you can imagine while playing the Ascii version is already washed away...
Post by: Marcus Aseth on May 31, 2020, 02:13:53 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/42wfJFm.png)
And this already kind of shows what I'm saying, the only reason this is not glaring right now is because the gray brick is blending reasonably well with the gray rock of the cave, but as soon as you place this on a smoothed marble floor of your marble fortress, I believe this would be much more noticeable.
The same could be said for stockpiles btw, personally I think the visibility of the checkered pattern should be optional or clearly visible only when you select it
Nothing wrong with a bunch of wood and crates in a room with a rocky surface
Post by: Starver on May 31, 2020, 03:13:21 pm
Basically you can justify wathever you want/feel to justify in a world that already filled with mytical creatures and so different from ours[...]Yes, that is true. I'm just justifying something that doesn't need magical thinking[1] to imagine. Well, except for a more scrupulously precise kind of dwarf than any human, in both construction and deconstruction.
(Sorry, loads of words there, and here. A lot of thoughts. It might have been shorter if I had more time. ;))
[1] Well, except for how the same block/log/bar of material can be used to make space-filling wall, space-sparing floor, a body of a well, a staircase or the entirety of most workshops, etc, and yet however it serves the required purpose of construction it is recovered back to similar omnipotency again upon deconstruction, ready to become a different wall/floor/well/stairway/workshop... So there's something distinctly plastic about materials. See also the fate of logs in windmills, especially, each component supposedly shaped to catch the wind perfectly capable of rebecoming a single regular axle, or of being carved down into very small items of jewellry without obvious surfeit of wood shavings.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on May 31, 2020, 03:45:56 pm
Yes, that is true. I'm just justifying something that doesn't need magical thinking[1] to imagine. Well, except for a more scrupulously precise kind of dwarf than any human, in both construction and deconstruction.
(Sorry, loads of words there, and here. A lot of thoughts. It might have been shorter if I had more time. ;))
[1] Well, except for how the same block/log/bar of material can be used to make space-filling wall, space-sparing floor, a body of a well, a staircase or the entirety of most workshops, etc, and yet however it serves the required purpose of construction it is recovered back to similar omnipotency again upon deconstruction, ready to become a different wall/floor/well/stairway/workshop... So there's something distinctly plastic about materials. See also the fate of logs in windmills, especially, each component supposedly shaped to catch the wind perfectly capable of rebecoming a single regular axle, or of being carved down into very small items of jewellry without obvious surfeit of wood shavings.
It's not really a realism thing at all anyhow, so justified or not doesn't matter much. It's simply a gameplay thing, either giving creative control to the player to customise as they wish, or hardcoding set designs to make things easier and more obvious for those who are new to the game or don't care as much about the esthetics of things ^^
Post by: MoltenIdol on June 01, 2020, 05:44:39 am
I thought we already clarified this?
Why on eeeeeearth would a butchers table come with prebuilt floor? It dont make any sense. And it looks... weird to put it mildly. And yes, just put some slight shading underneath tables and chairs.
And yes, i want to be able to make carpet under my workshops for that bazar look.
Yes i want wooden floor underneath the carpenters tools.
Yes yes yes. Transparency yes.
Prebuilt brickfloor everywhere?.. nnnnno thank you.
Doesnt really fit the design pilosophies of the game now does it?
Please consider this: this graphical release has a purpose. But! I Hope that purpose isnt only to make the game appeal to all those people out there who wont understand workshops if they dont have a fat Square line around them.
Post by: Dishmab on June 01, 2020, 06:13:18 am
Post by: Starver on June 01, 2020, 07:55:23 am
(e.g. whatever else you do, a butchering slab/tressle aint going to set up directly on 'carpet', in any sensible situation. Maybe allow original floor to be seen in areas not beneath/immediately around the key worksurfaces, but have an appropriate treatment where blood'n'guts could be spilt. Hey, if the artists want to get Toady to add the appropriate flag so they can draw the extra graphics, have "blood'n'gutted" overlay available for any non-virgin/not-yet-idle[1] butchers, scraps of cloth where a tailor has just worked, whisps of smoke from an active furnace, etc.)
Generic 'brick' floor makes more sense than no attempt at all to floor/pave/line the area. And I already mentioned the suspension of disbelief of forming avworkshop out of a unit building material (which in vanilla dictates the colour of most constructions it can make, so I imagine that's going to continue at least with hint-/tint-highlighting of the however-otherwise-generic graphics. Not that I know, of course (haven't noted yet any proto-Artwork specificallt meant to depict two or more (e.g.) Masonry shops, one marble, one olivine, one nethercap, etc...) but I'm sure it's been discussed, even if it's shelved for the time-bein?).
For future expansion, at least, the more complex constructions can be mutli-partite in build. A paved road can be represented as first selected material at the (long/non-adjacent-to-prior-paved-road) edges through to the last material in the centre, or reversed, for the player to create proper roads, or else something like the Adam7 interlacing (see PNG image specification) from the queued-up materials provided, so the clever player can draw their road-art just how they want. The bucket in the well will be hued seperately (and approoriately) to the basic block-derived element, the mechanism 'winder' and the approoriate rope/chain upon it. Dyers' dedicated bucket-tubs will reflect the actual pails provided (and maybe, inside, hints of what is - or most recently was - the dye being processed). Your Depot will clearly be formed of three materials, the perimeter features, the trading floor and whatever internal features (equiv to vanilla-layout of corner pillars, field and centre pillar?).
Those of us already OCD enough to try to colour-match everything, plus material-match (my permanent walls are always stone blocks, of the identical stone, no cheating on this point, even if only I would know if I substituted a similar grey/white/cyan for the intended one, occasionalky) will be finally justified. Those who were never bothered need continue to be never bothered. Half-arsedely picky people will be forced to get off the fence on this issue, for once and for all. ;)
Of course, this is a lot of potential work for the Mephday team (and Tarn, but he's not going to ask to renegotiate the contract over this issue) and I imagine it'll stay simple or at least fairly unexpanded in the initial Steam releases due to other things (but a handy project to then tie to a "Feature Drive" poll of what to update for Steam Release v1.1?).
In the meantime, I vote for generic-floor where it makes sense, transparency where it doesn't necessarily.
And/or a feature under (perhaps) the Workshop Manager section or original build-designation that allows player-choice as to full-floor, transparent-floor or the suggested centre-ground. :P
[1] While process-output items still remain? Additional version (for foodie locations) justifying/reinforcing the miasma cloudbby showing rotten versions of the indicative signs of use?
Post by: Marcus Aseth on June 01, 2020, 01:50:32 pm
e.g. whatever else you do, a butchering slab/tressle aint going to set up directly on 'carpet', in any sensible situation.
Sorry your arguments make little sense to me, but since you want to argue on the realism plane, let's do it your way:
imagine if in my fortress with marble floors I would order "I don't want any of your butchery gore to soil the pavements, and do not dare to dig or alter the marble pavement", then he better place some damn extra layers of carpets under his shop or I would have his head removed from his body.
Or what about the fact not all dorfs are created equal? Some are really dumb, or marked as "Not a Butcher" so they wouldn't even know the optimal setup for butchering (which seems to be a constant in your arguments, this "elusive" optimal working setup), it is perfectly reasonable if they where to attempt a carpet under their shop, and maybe get rid of it when they get a bit wiser, after some experimentation.
What about the fact you need a mason or someone with a minimum of skills to make the gray bricks under the current workshops?! If I today make a random unskilled person a butcher, how many of them would you think have the skill to make bricks for the floor given tools only available to dwarves, and would go to that lenght? Your all argument is based on the 0.00000001% of people that would go as far as to crafting bricks in order to get to butchering since each dwarf is responsible to setting up its own workshop, so why are you arguing for the realistically EXTREMELY less likely scenario? People do stuff comparable to their skill. An unskilled dwarf cannot be expected to know how to setup a nice paving and shop.
What about a player that starts in a biome with only ice and ice blocks? He would be magically turning the ice into stone material for the fixed gray stone floor?
Is funny how in your push for realism and optimal shop setup you're proposing something completely detached from reality itself...
And this are only some of the inconsistencies in your argument that come to mind on the fly.
Also I'm sorry but I didn't quite understood for what purpose you are arguing with those opinions...
In my case, I am arguing for leaving the player the creative freedom on the fortress look.
What is your motivation?
You don't like people doubting on the team's work?
You simply like gray bricks better and try to justify your preference trough realism?
I really don't understand your motivations, can you explain them? To help me make sense of your opinions :)
Post by: Starver on June 01, 2020, 03:34:35 pm
Dwarves who build a butcher's shop are deemed to be butchers. They can be no-skilled ones, but the shop never turns out not to have a cutting block (shall we assume, or else we'd have effective job-cancellation as soon as any dwarf of experience arrived and discovered this) so why would it be improperly set up in another important aspect of "being a butcher's shop"?
Except for Architects, in certain circumstances, there tends to be no secondary skill needed. Carpentry, masonry, metalworking, etc, is not relevent to the workshop material used, if not already relevent for other reasons.
I did actually suggest that, down the line, if ice (taking your example) is the building material then ice worktables, ice chopping blocks, etc, should be shown. For the present, I'm not entirely sure if there's any concession to this in the graphics (such that a gold block used to create the carpentry workshop makes it look at least a different colour than if it's created from microcline or willow log or... soap..? - with different fundemental differences between metal, stone, wood or whatever secondary but also should be considered) so why should your ire be aimed at a genericly illustrative brick/tile/cobble floor that serves just as much purpose to suggest purposeful construction as the furniture atop of it?
Also I'm sorry but I didn't quite understood for what purpose you are arguing with those opinions... No, I obviously did not make kyself clear in many ways.
In my case, I am arguing for leaving the player the creative freedom on the fortress look. As did I, you'll note if you read again.
What is your motivation? "Something is wrong on the internet (https://xkcd.com/386/)"? No, not really, but I find this issue interesting and I thought I had some valid interpretations, even if they are too complex to be incorporated this time round.
You don't like people doubting on the team's work? I just thought it was worth discussing the premise.
You simply like gray bricks better and try to justify your preference trough realism? I have real-world examples to give, so I gave them. And I never outright specified grey bricks, that'd be up to what works artistically.
I really don't understand your motivations, can you explain them? To help me make sense of your opinions :) Does this help?
If I seem overly adamant, I apologise, but it would probably be a reflection of any steadfastness of your own. I'm sure we're both aware how much influence we have on the end-product - i.e. minor and suggestive amounts at best. Probably ebbing the more we waffle on about our own individual fancies and bore the People Who Matter to death when they've just been so good as to show the current version of mock-ups. That said, I could not begrudge the carpet idea being implemented. It would not be the most strange thing to go in-game.
Post by: Uthimienure on June 01, 2020, 04:50:25 pm
because then I could make it smooth, engraved, rough, dirt, stone, wood, or wtf-ever I pleased.
:D
But I'm just going to wait and see what the graphics gurus come up with and not stress over it.
It should all be moddable in the steam release, eh? Not long after release, there will be several graphics mods, I'm guessing.
Post by: Erendir on June 02, 2020, 09:22:41 am
My preference is workshops with a thin border to define their area, but no floor; I would prefer to see the floor underneaththis.
because then I could make it smooth, engraved, rough, dirt, stone, wood, or wtf-ever I pleased.
:D
But I'm just going to wait and see what the graphics gurus come up with and not stress over it.
It should all be moddable in the steam release, eh? Not long after release, there will be several graphics mods, I'm guessing.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on June 02, 2020, 06:21:33 pm
Post by: Uthimienure on June 02, 2020, 06:42:55 pm
Will full mouse control be a game changer? Once you can flick the cursor quickly across the map and have the workshops and stockpiles highlight as you pass over them, maybe the need for defined floor area isn't so important any more?Not for me. I play with 2 hands on the keyboard and don't prefer to use the mouse. A game breaker for me would be if the mouse ever becomes required to control the game in any way. Optional mouse is fine, "required" is not.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on June 02, 2020, 09:23:46 pm
Not sure how a natural workshop floor design would somehow make a game unplayable regardless of your choice of controller? Might make them hard to spot for complete noobs, but then, they'd likely be using the mouse anyway.Will full mouse control be a game changer? Once you can flick the cursor quickly across the map and have the workshops and stockpiles highlight as you pass over them, maybe the need for defined floor area isn't so important any more?Not for me. I play with 2 hands on the keyboard and don't prefer to use the mouse. A game breaker for me would be if the mouse ever becomes required to control the game in any way. Optional mouse is fine, "required" is not.
Post by: Uthimienure on June 02, 2020, 09:33:57 pm
So I'm not sure why mouse control is being discussed (aside from the "flick the cursor" thing).
I certainly didn't intend to infer that a natural workshop floor would make anything unplayable, for me
it's only an aesthetic issue. Having an integral floor just looks worse imo.
The border really helps me to pick out the workshops amid a cluttered area, especially when zoomed out.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on June 02, 2020, 09:57:44 pm
Not likely to use a mouse either, certainly not demanding it be "required". Was just asking if it makes a difference to tileset design philosophy.
Post by: Starver on June 03, 2020, 10:02:55 am
You have two potential focii, though, as pointed out, mouse-cursor and text-cursor. It needs to work for either (mouse-hover is pixel and/or mickey resolution, text is tile-per-tap). And both. If I'm using the text-cursor to shuffle along the viewport scroll, by nudging the edges, while applying mouse-touches (fine-tuning a non-trivial long feature) then that'd be an interesting challenge to correctly mark without being potentially annoying.
But that's GUI design, applicable regardless of tile design.
Post by: Rose on June 04, 2020, 01:26:13 pm
This is great, I love it.
(https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/34693670/9d0847937c3187afd057c52a95b27f158066c5c7.gif)
This is not. The light colored water just looks like a puddle, rather than a deeper pool.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on June 04, 2020, 01:42:05 pm
(https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/34693670/3a541b918d3ad1f4f23835298f3dc7d6bc6b60f7.gif)
This is great, I love it.
(https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/34693670/9d0847937c3187afd057c52a95b27f158066c5c7.gif)
This is not. The light colored water just looks like a puddle, rather than a deeper pool.
Was just about to say, that brook is a 10/10, just exquisite, and while the regular pool isn't necessarily bad it just pales in comparison. Not sure how to match it to the quality of the brook tho.
Post by: Starver on June 04, 2020, 01:45:30 pm
The top (image) is obviously shallow because you can see the bottom (of the ?stream?/?brook?), the bottom (image) shows no obvious bottom, but could just be "blue lagoon atoll sand" maybe, psychologically. Can we easily get a version with lightness+rocks and darkness=depths to compare? Or is "darker-blue lagoon" already reserved for greater Zs of depth than 1Z streams/etc (and maybe the rocky version just doesn't look right as a bright-blue brook).
Post by: ror6ax on June 04, 2020, 01:47:50 pm
Brook water is nice but it has exact same big oval rock in a good dozen of adjacent tiles. It does not look naturally random. Also a dark line separating water tiles is very pronounced. A bit of a gradient would probably solve it.
Lake looks like teal coloured TV noise. Very not naturally looking + now that a repeated pattern moves, repeatedly = water uncanny valley.
Post by: Rose on June 04, 2020, 01:50:36 pm
Post by: NotEvenBatman on June 04, 2020, 01:57:45 pm
(https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/34693670/3a541b918d3ad1f4f23835298f3dc7d6bc6b60f7.gif)
This is great, I love it.
(https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/34693670/9d0847937c3187afd057c52a95b27f158066c5c7.gif)
This is not. The light colored water just looks like a puddle, rather than a deeper pool.
Can I ask where did u get those 2 images from?
I only follow this thread for the updates on graphic stuff.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on June 04, 2020, 02:09:21 pm
Can I ask where did u get those 2 images from?
I only follow this thread for the updates on graphic stuff.
From an announcement on the DF steam page:
https://steamcommunity.com/games/975370/announcements/detail/2226414325782852009
Post by: Starver on June 04, 2020, 02:16:51 pm
I think people have mentioned Reddit before now, though I stay away from there (mainly on the basis that I would waste even more time/bandwidth than I do now). The images themselves are hosted on Steam Community, so that might be another clue (I used to read the Steam boards, but not yet paying for anything on there makes it impossible for my registered self to post, or sensibly keep abreast of conversations, in the DF subsection).
@Rose: You could confirm for NEB, and maybe me if I'm way off-piste, right?
((Ah, ninjaed. But the maybe I still said something else useful.))
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on June 04, 2020, 04:03:56 pm
Nice to see Toady confirm a carved minetrack is meant to be a groove. Looks nothing like a groove.
Post by: Rekov on June 04, 2020, 04:31:22 pm
Fantastic looking water. How will it look with water levels displayed? Might spoil it a bit.That's the kind of thing that could be done as a toggleable overlay. We aren't limited to the strict binary numbers of waves that ascii required.
Post by: Mike Mayday on June 05, 2020, 04:07:58 pm
Right now I'm mostly interested in feedback on the brook . There's currently 2 tile variants, I'm planning to have 4 on total, I was just wondering if my idea for it works.
Post by: CL3AR on June 05, 2020, 04:14:21 pm
Post by: Inarius on June 05, 2020, 04:54:22 pm
Post by: Starver on June 05, 2020, 05:05:46 pm
The pool water is just a placeholder. It took me about 5% of the time that I've spent on the brook.Well, if I didn't say so already, inbetween the pool chattering-away, I think it does.
Right now I'm mostly interested in feedback on the brook . There's currently 2 tile variants, I'm planning to have 4 on total, I was just wondering if my idea for it works.
I spotted the two tile-types, or four if you count the edging/middle differences. Is that just edge/middle layer differences over them all ('runtime', as it were, or at least intended to be) or the two templates hand-crafted into four sub- (and not so sub!) tile masters?
Either way, the method you used for how much of (particularly) the large rock breaks into the air is interesting, and I'm wondering if additional depth (darkened, no protusion at all, similar (or slightly increased?) ripple-wobble waveletting) is therefore on the cards without greatly increasing the work.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on June 05, 2020, 05:21:13 pm
Edit: Would also help give it more of a natural appearance. While it's been common practice for ages to clear out rocks from small streams for various reason they're generally not that "clean" if untouched. But that's mostly a flavor thing, either aesthetic works.
Post by: Starver on June 05, 2020, 05:38:32 pm
Post by: voliol on June 06, 2020, 05:16:29 am
Post by: Cruxador on June 06, 2020, 11:01:09 am
The pool water is just a placeholder. It took me about 5% of the time that I've spent on the brook.I think the idea works, the lack of variants is the main problem now. I feel like six would be better than four, but then, when wouldn't more be better?
Right now I'm mostly interested in feedback on the brook . There's currently 2 tile variants, I'm planning to have 4 on total, I was just wondering if my idea for it works.
For pools, it would be cool if the pool could define a graphical zone and a wave pattern (picked from like three according to wind speed) could move constantly in a direction corresponding to wind direction.
I don't expect that to be in this initial version since it's complicated, but just thinking about an ideal case and the kinds of options that are opened up by more graphical support. For now, I think the pool graphics will be fine if they're just darkened a bit, ideally enough to be in-line with brooks.
I look forward to seeing how you do seas as well, and in particular, how the wave animation is able to transfer while ideally improving on, rather than forfeiting, its original beauty.
Post by: Rekov on June 06, 2020, 02:43:15 pm
Post by: Cruxador on June 06, 2020, 10:42:03 pm
Things like lily pads would be a good way to identify standing bodies of water, at least in appropriate biomes.Plants are significant in Dwarf Fortress. They shouldn't be represented when they're not there. Especially a plant like that, where people are likely to see it as a potentially edible lotus.
Post by: Zesty on June 07, 2020, 06:13:39 am
The pool water is just a placeholder. It took me about 5% of the time that I've spent on the brook.
Right now I'm mostly interested in feedback on the brook . There's currently 2 tile variants, I'm planning to have 4 on total, I was just wondering if my idea for it works.
First impression, a little concerned it will look kind of busy. But I guess water does that?
How do the variations where you can see the direction of water look?
Post by: Zesty on June 07, 2020, 06:14:11 am
Post by: Starver on June 07, 2020, 04:18:03 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/V0TSBan.gif)
There are errors in there. I don't do anything about the amount of rock that breaks the surface (because it'd be virtually impossible for me to establish the positional-dither/wavelet pattern properly atop of that) and part of one of the frames seems to be partially untreated (you may notice the flicker, a slightly brighter 'flash', which is not intended) but it'd take too long to go back and fix that properly and it'd be quicker to start from scratch. I think I only 'depthed' the water, but if you notice any bordering vegetation pixels that are wrong then I didn't spot that while working zoomed in and the other problems were then more obvious to me.
Probably not practical as an in-game filtering effect (it works solely on hue, leaves everything else the same - on top of all the other effects that went into creating the source graphic that I obviously don't have access to the components for) and even if it is it perhaps ought to be tuned differently, or even applied in a different position in the graphics-queue, in advance of the waveletting probably (and underneath the overhanging vegetation layer, which I manually excluded for each of the 16 frames for each of the 7 or 8 hue-shifts I applied...)
Other than that, thought I might share it. Then move on.
Post by: Rekov on June 10, 2020, 07:43:06 pm
Here are the three scenarios I've come up with:
- Stick with what we have. Players will just have to know that diagonal movement is possible.
- Shave off all 'convex' corners of solid tiles where diagonal movement is possible.
- Shave off 'convex' tile corners, but only in the narrow case, where movement isn't otherwise visually possible.
EDIT: I've modified my examples to include a few more likely scenarios where this makes a difference.
Post by: [HYBRID BEING] on June 10, 2020, 08:17:23 pm
How would ramps behave near walls with shaved off corners, though?
Btw, were 90° vs diagonal minecart track pieces discussed already?
Post by: Superdorf on June 10, 2020, 08:23:41 pm
Post by: Starver on June 10, 2020, 08:53:03 pm
I always thought that with round pillars depicting walls without orthagonal neighbours, a diagonal (single 'thickness') row of these has obvious gaps between. Hemispherical wall-ends (opposite the one orthagonal neighbour it has) and semihemispherical corners (opposite the two adjacently orthagonal connecting walls) would give similar gaps as this octagonal-based shaving. Combine with a 'phantom' inner-corner deshaving into the empty tile would improve a "solid diagonal edge" (two or more connected diagonal rows), or just realign the wall to the "antialias mean" diagonal. But would need more 'special case' code sending feelers out further than the single tile being currently being considered, to send out suggested changes to its near-neighboours too.
(TL;DR; I think it's a complex question, no ideal solution. I could live with any, but would personally consider the no-fuss Option 1 to be the absolute least bother so long as the player can imagine diagonality as taken for granted. And so many other gridded games already prime people to expect this, so that any that forbids it is considered peculiar)
Post by: Rekov on June 10, 2020, 09:13:49 pm
I'd prefer option 2, but maybe shave off a bit less? Columns look really small like this.
Here I've reduced the amount I've shaved off of the corners so that a single-tile column will look like an octagon. Obviously this makes that narrow passage quite tight, but that actually makes some sense considering how fluid mechanics work along diagonals.
(https://i.imgur.com/tgluGnN.png)
There are of course increasingly more potential variants which I'm not going to mock up:
5) Smaller cut-off corners for narrow parts, but regular square corners elsewhere.
6) Large cut-off corners for narrow parts, but small cut-off corners elsewhere.
etc, etc,
Post by: Cruxador on June 10, 2020, 09:26:44 pm
I think 2 would be good if the amount cut from the corners was smaller. Maybe half that amount, per tile.
Ninja: I think option 4 looks pretty good even though I sort of hate the round-looking bits, aesthetically. But presumably they'd look better once actually sprited, rather than cobbled together for demonstrative purposes.
Post by: JesterHell696 on June 10, 2020, 09:29:46 pm
Post by: Ziusudra on June 10, 2020, 09:43:39 pm
Post by: Rekov on June 11, 2020, 01:00:34 am
(https://i.imgur.com/YwlCxjl.png)
Post by: PatrikLundell on June 11, 2020, 02:13:11 am
@[HYBRID BEING]: There are no diagonal minecart tracks in DF. Introducing such tracks would require a fair bit of changes to the code and memory structures, and I believe a crucial structure is already out of bits. Thus, that's a technical game change, not a display issue.
Post by: Starver on June 11, 2020, 03:19:52 am
Nice artwork, every-which-way, BTW. If there's nothing else to take away from my equivocation... ;)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on June 11, 2020, 03:21:16 am
#1. All the other versions mess with the layout morphing the rock, and makes it harder to distinguish the tiles properly (and results in a lot of additional work for both Toady and the artists).Why should paid artists not due to deliver a product for at least a year worry about the "extra work" of drawing diagonal tracks and corridors? Is there some upcoming deadline only you know about?
@[HYBRID BEING]: There are no diagonal minecart tracks in DF. Introducing such tracks would require a fair bit of changes to the code and memory structures, and I believe a crucial structure is already out of bits. Thus, that's a technical game change, not a display issue.
Everything else is being modified by Toady and the artists as they put these sets together, why not minecart tracks? Isn't the point to make a fine looking game for the premium release (within the limits of flexible procedurally generated imagery)?
Also, could you post a picture showing how it makes it hard to distinguish the tiles, not sure I understand the logic (apologies if it's obvious, not all us are pixel artists).
Post by: voliol on June 11, 2020, 04:22:44 am
#1. All the other versions mess with the layout morphing the rock, and makes it harder to distinguish the tiles properly (and results in a lot of additional work for both Toady and the artists).Why should paid artists not due to deliver a product for at least a year worry about the "extra work" of drawing diagonal tracks and corridors? Is there some upcoming deadline only you know about?
@[HYBRID BEING]: There are no diagonal minecart tracks in DF. Introducing such tracks would require a fair bit of changes to the code and memory structures, and I believe a crucial structure is already out of bits. Thus, that's a technical game change, not a display issue.
There is the imagined deadline of ”soon”. Also, the estimation of ”hopefully within this year” Toady put forth (with uncertainty) doesn’t put the release ”at least a year” into the future, but as of the start of June, half a year.
Post by: PatrikLundell on June 11, 2020, 05:53:47 am
I'm about as far away from an artist as you can get... Maybe you find the posted examples completely clear, but I do not.#1. All the other versions mess with the layout morphing the rock, and makes it harder to distinguish the tiles properly (and results in a lot of additional work for both Toady and the artists).Why should paid artists not due to deliver a product for at least a year worry about the "extra work" of drawing diagonal tracks and corridors? Is there some upcoming deadline only you know about?
@[HYBRID BEING]: There are no diagonal minecart tracks in DF. Introducing such tracks would require a fair bit of changes to the code and memory structures, and I believe a crucial structure is already out of bits. Thus, that's a technical game change, not a display issue.
Everything else is being modified by Toady and the artists as they put these sets together, why not minecart tracks? Isn't the point to make a fine looking game for the premium release (within the limits of flexible procedurally generated imagery)?
Also, could you post a picture showing how it makes it hard to distinguish the tiles, not sure I understand the logic (apologies if it's obvious, not all us are pixel artists).
The artists should (and do, as far as I've seen) care about delivering an acceptable level of quality for the full range of assets that are to be included at release, and ought to advice Toady on where to best spend their time from an artistic perspective. Toady obviously has the final say, but it should be part of the artist role to provide advice within their areas of expertise.
The deadlines "only I know about" are, as voliol mentioned, Toady's stated intention, and what (only I, apparently) believe is a contractual obligation to deliver before a two year deadline from the commercial version contract (landing the time somewhere in the vicinity of mid January to end of February). At time of delivery, all contents obviously has to reach a minimal acceptable level of quality (which has been mentioned before in this thread, I believe), although that does not mean work will stop at the first release: there are indications, I believe, that work will continue for an unspecified time after release during which nice additions (as well as pure improvements) could be introduced. But yes, I believe there's a lot of work and less than half a year in which to do it (assuming there will be some closed beta testing to avoid some of the usual crash bugs at release, but testing is the first thing cut when deadlines are not met...).
Any work Toady spends on adding new game play functionality for nicer graphics has to be weighed against time spent on stress balancing, UI overhaul, logic overhaul (an extension of the UI work, such as e.g. the military UI which probably requires functionality changes underneath as well, stockpile refinement [quality/wear/size] and re-partitioning, etc.), the rest of the graphics, and crash bug fixes (and I'd disable Villains by default in the Premium release rather than release that unbalanced mess as a standard feature, or it will hurt the commercial game reception badly). Is diagonal track support more important than some of these things (many of which will probably have to be cut down in scope due to a lack of time)? Not in my opinion.
Post by: Rose on June 11, 2020, 10:27:58 am
I personally use 4 in Armok Vision, and it works pretty well.
Post by: JesterHell696 on June 11, 2020, 06:55:19 pm
(and I'd disable Villains by default in the Premium release rather than release that unbalanced mess as a standard feature, or it will hurt the commercial game reception badly).
I'm going to have to disagree with this hard, I'm really looking forward to DF Steam and I want ma Villains included, I'd rather release be delayed then a feature be disabled and prefer it to simply be released with the standard "It's Early Access" warnings then either delayed or disabled.
Post by: PatrikLundell on June 12, 2020, 01:23:58 am
Edit: Back on topic: The main problem with the brook image is that it might raise the expectations for everything else to unrealistically high levels ;)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on June 12, 2020, 02:44:52 am
Unfortunately, I believe DF is not going to be released as a permanent (or even temporary) Early Access title. You've got your villains now in the shape they're going to be in the Premium release. Trying to fix it is going to happen after the initial release and crash bug fix releases.Not much point in releasing a game that's never (in the attention span of most Steam users) going to be finished as "early access". That implies a full version is coming soon. Better off just saying what the project is and letting people decide if they want to buy a tileset or not.
Edit: Back on topic: The main problem with the brook image is that it might raise the expectations for everything else to unrealistically high levels ;)
The main problem is if Kitfox or someone in control of marketing try to lie about what the game is. Or if Steam insist they do for whatever reason (they're already insisting/requesting removal of the "0." from the version number which doesn't bode well).
(Crash bug fixes then Steam release, but I know you knew that).
Post by: PatrikLundell on June 12, 2020, 07:25:39 am
I don't expect the Premium release to differ dramatically from major releases in the past (and that's very worrying), and so I expect a number of crash bugs to be found when the release get into the hands of a significant number of users (a closed beta might detect an occasional case, but probably not all). I know there is an ambition to try to deal with game play crashes known now before release, and I also know that the second thing that gets tossed out when running out of time (after testing) is fixing of known issues with unidentified causes, because that's time consuming. However, I was referring primarily to the new bugs that weren't known at the release.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on June 12, 2020, 07:34:19 am
--edit
Yeah, still there.
"A lifetime “living” project - created/updated since 2003, with no end in sight".
I suppose it's easily missed. Just think, people might accidentally pay money for a free indie game with ancient pixel-art graphics that they know nothing about.
Not sure that's a thing that actually happens though...
Post by: Pillbo on June 12, 2020, 05:39:05 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/ynQjgfr.png)
Post by: Starver on June 12, 2020, 05:55:36 pm
Doable, but is the work needed a good investment? Arguable either way.
Post by: Criperum on June 14, 2020, 06:35:31 am
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on June 14, 2020, 06:50:25 am
Post by: evthestrike on June 14, 2020, 12:38:55 pm
I wonder what ramps look like without walls around them.
Post by: Rekov on June 18, 2020, 11:16:20 am
(https://i.imgur.com/eO7zYNm.png)
* Obviously we don't have a example here for comparison, but without the text description I would have guessed the blue part was the top of a frozen lake, possibly a smoothed one. Or constructed ice floors. Something ice.
* It's a little strange that the border between constructed floors and natural materials isn't a uniform straight line. Sure grass could grow over constructed floors, eventually. Maybe mud could get over them too? I don't see why the boundary between constructed floors and rough stone floors should be uneven though. It might look best if all constructed floor tiles were regular.
* Maybe add some rivets or something to the metal floor? It doesn't really look distinct from what a stone floor might look like, except for the shape of the bars. The specular highlight is more intense, which is something of a hint that it's metal, but it isn't immediately obvious.
Post by: ror6ax on June 18, 2020, 02:21:04 pm
Wooden floor looks like a brick wall texture to me - it lacks imperfections and patterns wood floors have. Like these https://woodenflooringdelhi.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/21.jpg (https://woodenflooringdelhi.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/21.jpg).
While on topic of wooden floors - would there be textural difference based on what wood is it made of? At least 3 or 4 would be nice.
Metal floor looks... weird somehow. It's off but I can't tell why.
Post by: Schmaven on June 18, 2020, 02:37:01 pm
Edit: It may in fact not be a spear now that I look at the other image with more weapon types, but rather a non-dwarf made weapon.
Post by: Rose on June 18, 2020, 06:47:52 pm
The colorings show colors lighter than the material color. Is this done using overlay blending, or using layers?
Post by: Starver on June 18, 2020, 07:08:47 pm
I think, therefore, it's modelled after a boar-spear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear#Types), or other hunting variation. Which might not be a bad decision for many of the enemies you need to equip spears for, even if a competent opponent with reach and reactions (vs a lesser competency wielder) could perhaps take advantage of the bars to grab-parry any thrust.
A long, long time ago (easily 10 years ago, so not going to dredge it up), I'm sure I waffled on about procedurally-generated weapons. Based on grip (handle, pole, hilt (with or without crossbars/etc)), head (pokey, slashy, bashy, spiky, in all kinds of packages) and what goes between (shaft, chain, tether, etc, in anything from direct to hyper-extended length). This indeed looks like a weird exotic tridential spear using the procedural system... But we don't really have that, so it won't be. ;)
Post by: Bumber on June 19, 2020, 12:05:20 am
Post by: Criperum on June 19, 2020, 06:27:30 am
Post by: ror6ax on June 19, 2020, 06:51:08 am
Could we have a very subtle animation of trees rocking in the wind? I'm a big fan of +3 z level view of blossoming plum orchards. With animation that would be a serious meditation material.
*damn I sound like those filthy treehuggers*
Post by: Rekov on June 20, 2020, 11:42:25 am
Wooden floor looks like a brick wall texture to meI think part of it is just the color. Compare the color of the wood floor to that of the stockpile signs or the tree trunks. It's redder and more saturated. It looks more like terracotta.
Post by: ror6ax on June 20, 2020, 01:25:20 pm
Yep, colour change would be the least work intensive fix for this problemWooden floor looks like a brick wall texture to meI think part of it is just the color. Compare the color of the wood floor to that of the stockpile signs or the tree trunks. It's redder and more saturated. It looks more like terracotta.
Post by: Nelia Hawk on June 20, 2020, 01:43:47 pm
(https://bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/june_18_swords.png)
Post by: Rekov on June 20, 2020, 02:07:23 pm
And who knows. They're already playing around with material colors, so maybe it will eventually end up being that the wood floor just actually reflects the color of the material. Which could mean mostly brown, or a whole bunch of subtly different browns for different kinds of woods, with a few odd colors like glumps.Yep, colour change would be the least work intensive fix for this problemWooden floor looks like a brick wall texture to meI think part of it is just the color. Compare the color of the wood floor to that of the stockpile signs or the tree trunks. It's redder and more saturated. It looks more like terracotta.
Post by: Cruxador on June 20, 2020, 09:17:19 pm
(@Schmaven) If not a spear, the next thought I had was it's also not quite a halberd. That tends to be "double-headed axe with spear point atop", or axe plus hammer side-heads plus the pointy bit for cleave+bash+poke capabilities (and also +hook by overextending over your target and pulling back in) in one handy head - that looks a bit more like three spikes, perhaps mini-pick or ice-axey, but not quite.I parsed it as a ranseur, albeit a particularly non-curvy one. There's also a chinese weapon that I don't know the proper name for, but I think ranseur is closest. It doesn't really resemble a boar spear meaningfully. The "crossguard" is far too huge for that, even within the limits of how much variation the sprites can show.
I think, therefore, it's modelled after a boar-spear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear#Types), or other hunting variation. Which might not be a bad decision for many of the enemies you need to equip spears for, even if a competent opponent with reach and reactions (vs a lesser competency wielder) could perhaps take advantage of the bars to grab-parry any thrust.
Post by: ror6ax on June 21, 2020, 03:28:14 am
I feel like allowing items to be rotated would be handy; they could be any 0º/90º/180º/270º rotation, which would encourage a hectic look where appropriate. Even when placed nicely, I reckon rotating all of them (90º clockwise) would make them look more discarded/inactive, as opposed to being in a "readied" position. Although a small thing and it would be excessive to say that the current orientation is wrong, I think that would help readability.(@Schmaven) If not a spear, the next thought I had was it's also not quite a halberd. That tends to be "double-headed axe with spear point atop", or axe plus hammer side-heads plus the pointy bit for cleave+bash+poke capabilities (and also +hook by overextending over your target and pulling back in) in one handy head - that looks a bit more like three spikes, perhaps mini-pick or ice-axey, but not quite.I parsed it as a ranseur, albeit a particularly non-curvy one. There's also a chinese weapon that I don't know the proper name for, but I think ranseur is closest. It doesn't really resemble a boar spear meaningfully. The "crossguard" is far too huge for that, even within the limits of how much variation the sprites can show.
I think, therefore, it's modelled after a boar-spear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear#Types), or other hunting variation. Which might not be a bad decision for many of the enemies you need to equip spears for, even if a competent opponent with reach and reactions (vs a lesser competency wielder) could perhaps take advantage of the bars to grab-parry any thrust.
You mean that swords on the weapon pile would be pointing in different directions?
Post by: Starver on June 21, 2020, 07:12:12 am
If taken with a more Nethack spin, originally, "/”-placed items would have been wands, with items likely to be posed in 'graphics' format to best befit their ")" and "(" origins for (classic) weapons and tools respectively. The pickaxe here being a debatable either/or, though demonstrating one posdible reason for consistency, making the "\"-orientated pick stand out as a special case at a quick glance.
Ranseur: Maybe. Later I mentioned the 'tridential' (trident-like, i.e.) spear. This is probably what I was refering to, but neither that name nor that of the related Partisan look like the name I still fail to remember (and it also isn't the Sai dagger). As for this maybe-crossguard being too large.. it's on the very edge of useful pixilation without looking like a plain line. With the slight curved extremities it could even be a fully rounded thing ("bell-guard"-like, as in épées and foils, but shallower and inverted - making it look more like a wooden-bladed, metal-gripped training 'sword' in reverse) or because of the diagonal jaggardness forced upon it by pixelation have the qualities (also mentioned) of ice-axe blades with vicious serations (could be a 'can-opener' design, used to trouble an armoured foe (natural scales/etc or manufactured stuff) by piercing straight into any plate it can pierce and then with a levering action each way do significant additional damage to the armour, and not do much good to its inhabitant either as the tip waggles, and potentially 'whisks', around in the squishy interior).
Not that I think any of these depictions are 'wrong'. Fantasy weaponry often comes in far more fantastically impractical (https://abstract.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/1155805/) forms that defy pretty much all logic, so excuse me if I barely twitch reality as I voice my own head-canon (https://xkcd.com/1401/). In the world of DF, it's not inconceivable that this is an offshoot from a slightly different original set of farm-tools where a different kind of bale-spiking tool was used than our very own multi-tined pitchforks/etc, and from that arose the crossbarred-spear we (perhaps) see before us. Very feasible, even if still entirely incorrect. ;)
Post by: Cruxador on June 22, 2020, 01:39:26 am
I was thinking of the swords strewn about your threshold because your soldiers lost their grip while succumbing to the pain or got an arm chopped off or something. Not necessary, of course, just an Idea that I thought would be neat.I feel like allowing items to be rotated would be handy; they could be any 0º/90º/180º/270º rotation, which would encourage a hectic look where appropriate. Even when placed nicely, I reckon rotating all of them (90º clockwise) would make them look more discarded/inactive, as opposed to being in a "readied" position. Although a small thing and it would be excessive to say that the current orientation is wrong, I think that would help readability.(@Schmaven) If not a spear, the next thought I had was it's also not quite a halberd. That tends to be "double-headed axe with spear point atop", or axe plus hammer side-heads plus the pointy bit for cleave+bash+poke capabilities (and also +hook by overextending over your target and pulling back in) in one handy head - that looks a bit more like three spikes, perhaps mini-pick or ice-axey, but not quite.I parsed it as a ranseur, albeit a particularly non-curvy one. There's also a chinese weapon that I don't know the proper name for, but I think ranseur is closest. It doesn't really resemble a boar spear meaningfully. The "crossguard" is far too huge for that, even within the limits of how much variation the sprites can show.
I think, therefore, it's modelled after a boar-spear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear#Types), or other hunting variation. Which might not be a bad decision for many of the enemies you need to equip spears for, even if a competent opponent with reach and reactions (vs a lesser competency wielder) could perhaps take advantage of the bars to grab-parry any thrust.
You mean that swords on the weapon pile would be pointing in different directions?
As for this maybe-crossguard being too large.. it's on the very edge of useful pixilation without looking like a plain line.A plain line would be about right for a boar spear.
Quote
Not that I think any of these depictions are 'wrong'. Fantasy weaponry often comes in far more fantastically impractical (https://abstract.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/1155805/) forms that defy pretty much all logicDwarf Fortress ain't never been that kind of fantasy.
Post by: Starver on June 22, 2020, 07:58:21 am
I don't think a single (diagonal) line of pixels fits the art style, however thin the boarspear crossguard.
Spoiler: Pretentious art analysis... (click to show/hide)
TL;DR; I stand to be corrected, but I'm going with the flow with that mock-up. If that was supposed to be a crossbow, I'd voice serious concerns about its artistic merit, but I'm willing to believe it's a spear-like weapon (if not the true specimine). If it persists past the point where I get to see the finished graphics in use and have to reclassify it as more like a spontoon, so be it.
Post by: Hiul on June 26, 2020, 06:56:40 am
Post by: Starver on June 26, 2020, 11:13:53 am
If a player wants to make the Spirit Of The Fortress a bit more picky (like whether tending towards, or against, baby-shielding militia, according to personal taste or lack thereof) then they can probably differentiate the sprites by some othe feature under their control ('dress' uniform vs a pants one?).
Otherwise, might be better to request a togglable-on ♀/♂/× symbol over their right shoulder. Maybe an extended version, or a counterpart symbol over the left shoulder, to depict the kind of thing Dwarf Therapist does (https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/3bwzlj/so_i_just_realized_theres_a_third_gender_symbol/). Might be easier than making convincingly different masculine/feminine faces, and/or "lump(s) in just the right places" alternative cuts for every single clothing/armour variation so far planned, given the LOD capable in even a Steam-size tile.
Post by: Nelia Hawk on June 26, 2020, 01:14:31 pm
so they "less militia shields"
Post by: Starver on June 26, 2020, 01:46:18 pm
Not that I've got a say, just mentioning.
Post by: Hiul on June 26, 2020, 08:59:22 pm
besides base of my knowledge regarding armor, they are more specifically the unisex one female can wear male armor just fine, so i hope no plate boob or plate bra for them.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on June 26, 2020, 09:38:10 pm
its possible for us to modify the graphic ourselves right? or will it be hard code? since if it possible, then at least i can just make the feminine version for my own, especially for my modified creature.Everything will be moddable (or at least that's the intention). All the new features added to make this set possible are supposed to be available to modders to make their own sets.
This thread was made for discussions on that:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173473.0
Post by: PatrikLundell on June 27, 2020, 03:02:41 am
Note, though, that you can only provide tiles that the underlying code allows for. Given that it clearly allows for the distinction between male and female peacocks, I'd expect the framework to allow for a distinction between different castes of sapient races as well.
Post by: Starver on June 27, 2020, 04:46:22 am
The icon for them is "male" body shape (plump and hearty) but placed on the default female body-shape (more svelt) then it barely changeds in basic design[2] but conforms to the body it applies to. (No armour or worker-uniform gives the "peasant clothes" default, IIRC, rather than underthings. Apart from the cartoonish sexual dimorphism of their cartoon imagery, you can't say they haven't tried to be inclusive. They even feature mutiple skin-colours and hair-styles (and facial hair for males) on a pretty random basis[3].
But that's mostly done with vector-graphics (and vector components that are anchored on a vector wireframe 'skeleton' to walk around the castle, deal with "room problems" and rush into battle, if I'm any judge) where the final result, according to pinch-zoomed level, is quite a lot higher-res than the Steam sprites. And a lot less varying in the minutiae of mix'n'match equipable items (as sets). Being vectorised, the flood-filled skin-tones are trivial, and a female with long pigtails (e.g.) just doesn't render them when the headgear is incompatible (see "Leah" as represented as both Archer and Mage on that link, and if given the platemail from James, her equivalent visor - in the same pointy-bascinet style but of a shape rescaled to fit a female head - leaves no part of her 'normal' imagery unreplaced).
Compared with the ragdoll "Bill"s (including the female ones) in Hill Climb Racing 2, where legs, torso, head, hat and any "equippable item" (the latter two optional) can be mix'n'matched at whim, but no attempt is made to 'blend' the components, drawn to be used as a set of three to five 'theme' items[4], such that you can have a dark-skinned female head on a 'naked' male torso (the "Naked" set actually gives him legs with boxer-shorts) that further clashes with zombie-flesh legs (if that can be seen beneath the ripped trousers that I'm sure are part of the legs). If the head has pigtails/punk-mohican or is a "giant squidhead" and you also equip a hat (which might be a pair of glasses or other headware) then there's also no designed-in adjustment to head or 'hat' to make them not technically look wierd where they mis-mesh and the hat-overlay doesn't fit the head it 'covers'. (Quiff emerging from backward baseball cap's forward end is ok-ish, any hair/headstyle protuding from the space-helmet in various places just looks wrong.) Don't worry about that, though, as the "hat" often comes off in a race (sometimes I did it deliberately, scraping it away by a careful mid-flight rotation on a chosen bit of track, being careful not to hit the head and DNF the race).
...ANYway, neither of these two examples really apply to DF (this side of a vectorised rewrite, which I've never seen mentioned as being on the cards) and the pixel-restraints these 32x32 tiles gives (give or take the odd over-tile exception) gives little scope for fine-tuning and requires hand-finished art (e.g. of greaves of various materials and core racial bodyplans) to cover each eventuality rather than 'mere' procedural adjustment (development time or in-game) to cater for the variety of options involved.
I'm not sure I'd consider further doubling(ish) the workload to genderise every element that might be genderised a good use of my time, if for some strange reason I was drafted to the Mephday team to work on the base sprites and add-ons. I'd rather go with a male/female(/neutered/intersex/whatever-as-required) symbol as ephemeral tile-decoration. I know some character-traits (dead, undead, etc) are being put into 'versions of a character' graphics as distinct resources, and am unsure if I've ever known how they planned to indicate hunger/thirst/etc as applying to them, so I don't know if 'floating tags' is the way they intend to go (next thing: health status bar, eh? ;) ) and so these are just my rambling musings. As usual.
[1] It being one of those Reward Chest games, though up until the point I quit it due to crashing and unplayability on my old tablet I did quite well without ever buying chests/etc, albeit spending far too much time grinding in-game tasks.
[2] Ok, so the female "Tank" armours tended to go to for "Madonna bra" cones, in platemail versions, but it wasn't the "Shield Maiden who is barely wearing more than a plate-mail bikini" trope, or even pasties and g-string, where the comfort and protection can only be minimal to the extreme. Mostly it was tastefully done, if you accept that all the males have beerguts and all the females are models.
[3] I never did notice if children, begat through pairing dwellers and unequipable by anything in their basic child-form until suddenly attaining adult status and size broke or maintained racial modifiers... game limits to population (and throttles to "retry" a child even if the option to "exile" a cast-member was taken, to make room for one prior to the next castle-upgrade) meant that I never bothered to make note of this game-play irrelevent feature.
[4] Purely aesthetic, or otherwise, with as little effect on a race as the paintjob/wheels chsen for a given vehicle, the performance of which just depends upon the vehicle chosen, 'invisible' performance upgrades and up to three 'add on' items (with their own invisible upgrade system, beyond their presence as bolt-ons).
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on June 27, 2020, 04:59:13 am
As Shonai_Dweller said, you'll be able to make your own tile sets, but if you base tiles on the Commercial Mephday tiles you should check what the copyright issues are before spreading it, as that set is tied to the Commercial version only. I don't believe there's any issue with modifying those tiles for your private use (assuming, of course, that you've paid for the right to use them).Should be OK so long as you stick to Steam Workshop and don't post it on the forum.
Of course, that begs the question, how does one (officially) share the tileset with Itch.io users who have paid for the tileset and are therefore entitled to use derivatives of it?
Post by: Hiul on June 27, 2020, 02:28:59 pm
Post by: clinodev on June 27, 2020, 06:36:13 pm
As Shonai_Dweller said, you'll be able to make your own tile sets, but if you base tiles on the Commercial Mephday tiles you should check what the copyright issues are before spreading it, as that set is tied to the Commercial version only. I don't believe there's any issue with modifying those tiles for your private use (assuming, of course, that you've paid for the right to use them).Should be OK so long as you stick to Steam Workshop and don't post it on the forum.
Of course, that begs the question, how does one (officially) share the tileset with Itch.io users who have paid for the tileset and are therefore entitled to use derivatives of it?
The current plan is that itch.io users get Steam keys, specifically for that reason.
Post by: MiguelT on June 29, 2020, 09:32:02 pm
Post by: voliol on June 30, 2020, 07:40:52 pm
You have been less active on this thread as of lately, how come? The work doesn't seem to have stopped judging by the devlogs, and the comments here haven't ceased either. Whether to reply is up to your discretion, of course, but it would be nice with an update on the situation if anything has changed.
Post by: Mike Mayday on July 01, 2020, 03:24:45 am
Currently I'm just doing lots and lots of creatures, hoping to finish the basic set of 272 within the next couple of days. Patrick is waiting for some more of my sprites to base his further work on, so we're in a bit of a lull.
I'm not participating in the forum discussions because I have a limited amount of time that I'd rather spend actually making sprites - as long as I have no doubts about what I'm doing, which is the case with creatures. When we get back to more complex problems I'll be sure to post for feedback again.
(https://i.imgur.com/mFyr1Hk.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/GyQetbu.png)
Post by: Dishmab on July 02, 2020, 03:00:59 am
Post by: voliol on July 02, 2020, 07:04:27 am
Spoiler: My guesses (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mike Mayday on July 02, 2020, 12:16:31 pm
The last one is supposed to be an otter, all the other ones were spot on!
EDIT: Oh no, wait, that's a porcupine, not an echidna, as those have a much longer nose.
*or you, depending on how you look at it, but the point here is to make sure they're readable rather than checking your ability to discern them ;)
Post by: Uthimienure on July 02, 2020, 01:01:41 pm
And a beaver's flat tail would give it away, which is probably why voliol had a (?) in his guess, I'm guessing.
Post by: voliol on July 02, 2020, 06:52:47 pm
Is the porcupine based on American species (I didn't even know you had those!)? The African species with more extreme quills (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egentliga_piggsvin#/media/Fil:Westafrikanisches_Stachelschwein.jpg) would be more iconic, I think. Still, my choice of spiny animal was influenced by the presence of the other monotreme, so it might not even be an issue.
Post by: Starver on July 02, 2020, 10:08:01 pm
I'm aware that Old World varieties (parallel evolution, out of general rodent stock, much further away as 'relatives' to New Worlds than Cavies/Guinea Pigs to the latter, which probably 'helps' the different look of quill-bearing design) can even be found in southern Europe, but I am left with less of a solid image. I think they don't tend to climb trees, this side of The Pond.
Locally, there's only hedgehogs, and I don't think they're extant in the Americas at all. And are in the superorder branch that is not the one in which rodents (and apes!) exist, yet still came up with their own riff on the spine. Not as extreme, but I think more photogenic (https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/18532119.weird-uk-news-well-travelled-hedgehog-becomes-social-media-celebrity/), as well as handleable. ;)
Post by: Mike Mayday on July 03, 2020, 02:36:17 am
Post by: Starver on July 03, 2020, 07:24:32 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on July 03, 2020, 06:25:30 pm
After some initial hiccups, I've tried to maintain a consistent perspective for all the land creatures (I probably didn't succeed in all cases...).
I'm done with the birds:
(https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/34693670/d9f705b664f57eb3228924adac2feb111641f1ba.png)
And I'm working on the remaining fish - here are a few examples, most of them old, and today's barracuda and bluefish:
(https://i.imgur.com/fKqH0i0.png)
As you can see, in many cases I didn't stick to the "near isometric" perspective, assuming that this will help stress the fact that the creature is not on the ground, but rather flying/floating/swimming with little regard for directions. Or rather, that was the excuse, while the real reason is that it provided more variety (thus being more fun to draw) and it was a LOT more difficult to find reference material with the right angle for birds and fish than for land animals.
With the bluefish, I drew the fish from the "correct" perspective, but having found no appropriate ref image I tried to use my imagination (the problem is that takes much more time and I have a strictly limited amount of time for each sprite).
How do you feel about this? Do you think perspective is not so important for birds and fish or does it look noticeably wrong to you?
Post by: Superdorf on July 03, 2020, 06:27:46 pm
Post by: Uthimienure on July 03, 2020, 06:38:46 pm
Is probably fine. Directionality is always going to be a somewhat abstract concept in Dwarf Fortress.+1
Post by: Starver on July 03, 2020, 07:11:26 pm
You are very constrained (inb4 size comparisons[1]) and obviously I await the Premium++ animated versions with various modes of soaring, stooping, flapping, fluttering, hopping, running, striding and waddling[3] from the birds and the similarly diverse[4][5] marine movements. But these'd satisfy me for a first release. Accurately animated versions can probably wait until you have time to have the mental breakdown due to such overwhelming artistic demands... ;)
TL;DR;. ...Bravo. Just the rest of the aviary/aquarium to do, now, right? No pressure!
Post by: Bumber on July 03, 2020, 07:27:04 pm
It's a whale shark. Basking shark doesn't have spots.
Post by: Starver on July 03, 2020, 08:28:32 pm
And those stipples (perhaps not as regular as I expect from my vaguest knowledge of the carpet-shark family) just looked like dithering at first glance, and thus I obviously dithered too. ;)
Post by: voliol on July 03, 2020, 10:23:55 pm
Post by: teh sam on July 04, 2020, 11:18:10 pm
Post by: Cruxador on July 06, 2020, 08:39:19 pm
Yeah, I did indeed base it on the American porcupine as I thought it looks more graceful. But now that I think about it, it might be easy to mistake it for a hedgehog (or an echidna). Maybe if I make the hind spines longer it will be more clear.Besides that, the current version seems to be missing its tail, so fixing that would help. It sort of looks wrong without it, and definitely more hedgehog like-than it ought to.
Quote
and it was a LOT more difficult to find reference material with the right angle for birds and fish than for land animals.Er, you should probably be getting references of these from enough angles to have a general understanding of their body forms. I wonder if this limited breadth of reference images is part of why the peacock turned out wonky.
I think sprites for creatures in a 3D environment being different if fine, but some of the positions are a bit weird on their own.
Particularly the sperm whale making a weird pose (do they ever move their cores that much? Can they, even? The only examples I can find that even kind of look like that are the result of severe foreshortening).
Also a bit weird that the barn owl is sprited in the midst of landing when everyone else is flying. Similarly weird that the vulture has its legs sticking down; not something they normally do in flight.
The two falcon-looking ones (I can't identify more specifically by species, but top left and second from the bottom, also left) look short round and goofy. I know a certain degree of "chibi" is inevitable given that it's quite a small size to attempt recognizable faces on, and that's consistent with most of the other animals (the loon is a notable exception in this batch) but I think you could make them look a lot better by trimming those two pixels of extra chub from their breast. Maybe even bring the more abaft of the two up by a second pixel, to avoid too much of a straight line and to be consistent with how high the tail is? I know it'll mess up the really clean rendering you've done of the facial markings, but I think the silhouette/form of the body is important enough to sacrifice that at this scale.
Also a couple things I'm not too clear about. Of the two that look more or less like vultures, why does one have its legs down? As far as I know, California condors do that, but also don't look like that. I wasn't able to come up with another species that does that in regular flight. So I'm curious what both of the two buzzard-looking fellows are meant to be.
Also the one below the bald eagle, the impression it gave me at first was like an osprey, but the facial markings are wrong and you've been pretty accurate on those for the others, as far as I see. I googled around other related taxa that might fit the body form but didn't see anything appropriate in doing so (or in a cursory google of kite types) so I guess it's just something I'm unfamiliar with.
You are very constrained (inb4 size comparisons[1]) and obviously I await the Premium++ animated versions with [variant motion types]I don't think that's the sort of thing that will ever be a priority.
Quote
You don't [have an osprey] do you? Might not be the sub-species I'm most familiar with if you do. That's my excuse, anyway. Carry on!I checked the four recognized subspecies, none of them match. The bald eagle is also a sea eagle though, and could prey upon the fish just the same as an osprey would.
That barracuda looks strange and too cartoonish, I thought, not knowing what a barracuda looked like IRL. What a wack animal! No complaints about it, nor the poses.The impression is because of the angle. They look normal side-on. This one looks a bit more cartoonish because of the ridge Mike added on the back of the head, but aside from that it's accurate (if we assume that the blue color is based on the lighting it's assumed it'll have in its natural environment).
Post by: Bumber on July 06, 2020, 08:54:27 pm
Particularly the sperm whale making a weird pose (do they ever move their cores that much? Can they, even? The only examples I can find that even kind of look like that are the result of severe foreshortening).I think it's a size constraint issue. Can't have it looking smaller than the whale shark. The pose is exaggerated, but it differentiates them from fish.
If you had an osprey there in the top picture[2], by eye it's conceivable it could catch and fly away with anything but the (sperm?) whale.I just noticed that the birds are at 2x magnification.
Here's the proper comparison:
(https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/34693670/d9f705b664f57eb3228924adac2feb111641f1ba.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/fKqH0i0.png)
Relevant bonus footage. (https://youtu.be/Fqr-aW0bGNw?t=26)
Post by: Cruxador on July 06, 2020, 09:21:02 pm
Is the sperm whale at maximum possible size already? There aren't that many things it needs to appear smaller than, and since they don't go through narrow corridors, (except maybe as zombies) there's no visual downside to making it huge.Particularly the sperm whale making a weird pose (do they ever move their cores that much? Can they, even? The only examples I can find that even kind of look like that are the result of severe foreshortening).I think it's a size constraint issue. Can't have it looking smaller than the whale shark. The pose is exaggerated, but it differentiates them from fish.
I think even taking that into account though, it looks a bit too weird.
Post by: Pillbo on July 07, 2020, 02:26:50 pm
Ok, I have a question for you guys.
After some initial hiccups, I've tried to maintain a consistent perspective for all the land creatures (I probably didn't succeed in all cases...).
...
How do you feel about this? Do you think perspective is not so important for birds and fish or does it look noticeably wrong to you?
I think you did a great job with them and the perspective looks fine to me.
One suggestion for the heck of it would be to have two sprites for the flying/swimming birds if possible. One for in flight/swimming and one for standing. It'll be good either way but it would be a nice touch.
Post by: voliol on July 07, 2020, 03:25:00 pm
Ok, I have a question for you guys.
After some initial hiccups, I've tried to maintain a consistent perspective for all the land creatures (I probably didn't succeed in all cases...).
...
How do you feel about this? Do you think perspective is not so important for birds and fish or does it look noticeably wrong to you?
I think you did a great job with them and the perspective looks fine to me.
One suggestion for the heck of it would be to have two sprites for the flying/swimming birds if possible. One for in flight/swimming and one for standing. It'll be good either way but it would be a nice touch.
”Swimming birds” never swim in DF afaik, so for now it’s a non-issue.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on July 07, 2020, 04:51:14 pm
Seperate sprite for standing birds, not swimming birds. Birds stand don't they? Especially when you pluck their wings off.Ok, I have a question for you guys.
After some initial hiccups, I've tried to maintain a consistent perspective for all the land creatures (I probably didn't succeed in all cases...).
...
How do you feel about this? Do you think perspective is not so important for birds and fish or does it look noticeably wrong to you?
I think you did a great job with them and the perspective looks fine to me.
One suggestion for the heck of it would be to have two sprites for the flying/swimming birds if possible. One for in flight/swimming and one for standing. It'll be good either way but it would be a nice touch.
”Swimming birds” never swim in DF afaik, so for now it’s a non-issue.
Post by: Starver on July 07, 2020, 05:19:37 pm
Post by: teh sam on July 08, 2020, 06:04:35 pm
Post by: voliol on July 08, 2020, 07:23:52 pm
Which one of them is the Kea? I'd like to start hating them on sight. :)The green bird with the red spot on its tail!
Post by: Rekov on July 08, 2020, 08:08:30 pm
If at some point in the future DF starts having things like animation for flying/moving, or even just different sprites for a bird that is flying vs. a bird that's perched on a twig, I think that's the point where it becomes worrying about specific poses.
Post by: ror6ax on July 10, 2020, 05:38:13 am
Post by: Surprisekitty on July 10, 2020, 12:26:19 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/nvBUMve.png)
Seeing that picture reminds me of the fact that doors don't seem to have a "direction" when it comes to their sprite. Like, your always looking at the door head on. That's the #1 reason I don't use diagonals with doorways, because the door looks hideous. The door doesn't "look" like it's a diagonal door. It's just a door facing forward that your looking at head on while sitting in a diagonal mineshaft. Is there any possibility of that being changed in the Steam tileset? Like, giving sprites context or something? Like "Oh, you placed the door in a diagonal corridor, so lets use a different sprite that would fit" sort of deal? I'm probably being overly critical, it's just a pet peeve of mine.
Post by: Starver on July 10, 2020, 03:11:35 pm
Though it would need redrawn versions to suit every situation (including dog-leg, like S to NE, assuming you don't just choose E-W or NW-SE spanning door in the middle square - and what do you do with a more complex door like one placed in a four-quadrants/four-demiquadrants junction?) and the graphic for a door betwixt E and W would be just edge on and difficult to make at-a-glance doorlike (especially if the standard is a door-with-jamb+lintel-frame graphic, which those you 'quote' aren't but we've seen elsewhere).
Still, I'm sure it's now at least considered, next time they get back to FixturesvAnd Fittings with a vengeance (seemingly on the Menagerie bit right now).
[1] Though I don't think it's so much meticulously-drawn sprites for every supportable consideration, but rather a rule-based subdivision of shade-filtering applied to the 'ground' graphic.
[2] Though I think this is partial-tile mix'n'matching too, unless I miss my guess/forget it being shown to be otherwise.
edit for tyops
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on July 10, 2020, 06:19:44 pm
Graphics are representative tiles. They don't need to be realistic. We've all coped with "wrong" doors for years without (much) complaint. It'll be OK.
Post by: Novaris on July 11, 2020, 05:12:45 am
Post by: Schmaven on July 11, 2020, 08:35:42 am
Since Dearf Fortress is entirely grid based, with each movable object occupying 1 tile, lifelike visuals don't seem like a realistic goal. Cool looking sprites - of course! But since each item no matter how big or small takes up a single tile, the view will always be interpretative. In that case, I prefer having tiles that clearly indicate what each item is at a glance, rather than losing some clarity to make it more orthographically correct. Ramps are a great example where it both looks more real, and is more clear, so it is certainly not always a choice between the two. (Walls seem like a similar candidate for sure)
Do some people have the opposite preference? That it would be better for everything to look as real as possible, even if that means it's sometimes (not always) harder to tell things apart.
Post by: Hiul on July 11, 2020, 10:41:40 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on July 12, 2020, 01:20:05 am
the bed look weird, i think because the pillow is to small or the bed is to wide.They're double beds. Pillow looks about the right size. Presumably there are two when the bed is shared.
Post by: Starver on July 12, 2020, 08:44:23 am
Post by: ror6ax on July 13, 2020, 03:08:57 am
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on July 13, 2020, 03:35:28 am
Straw beds from Gnomoria make a lot of sense on a certain level of fortress development. Or at least stone bunk beds. This reliance on wood for one of the very important needs is not dwarfy enough IMO.I'd hate to have to replace all the beds at a point when the game decides our dwarves have suddenly gained the knowledge of bed making (which they somehow forgot on their way from the mountain home). Or do straw mats get magically replaced by real beds when some gamey trigger is reached?
Post by: Starver on July 13, 2020, 09:31:50 am
Spoiler: Which is not a Graphics issue, but here's my take on that (click to show/hide)
From a visual POV, there's already much weirdness (conversion of log to planked flooring, which can be ripped up to form an axle, a windmill blade, stairs of various configurations, wagon-tracks, a bit of bridge, and back and forth between however many forms you wish, before commiting to be carved or otherwise constructed into cages or cups, bucklers or beds, hatch-covers or hives, which do not tend to look like they were bashed out of materials recycled from old constructiions. And there's no internal requirement to make or fit door handles, hinges, brackets, etc, where quute clearly most graphic-packs would visually suggest that such a process has happened.
For that reason, until any major revamp of "industrial logic", let the bed (created as wooden 'for Reasons') be represented as a recognisable bed despite the apparent (irreversible/unrecoverable and otherwise unexploitable) transmutation of a small amount of lignin to cotton, or whatever it might be assumed to be.
Well, that's my thoughts, such as they are. But they reign supreme only in my own head (if that!), so I have no objection if anyone thinks differently.
Post by: Cruxador on July 14, 2020, 11:38:53 am
Straw beds from Gnomoria make a lot of sense on a certain level of fortress development. Or at least stone bunk beds. This reliance on wood for one of the very important needs is not dwarfy enough IMO.Straw isn't an item in the game, is it? At least, it's not a material we really do stuff with in dwarf mode. So I'd assume that the wooden beds have straw mattresses, and if the dwarves sleep on the ground they make "beds" like a dog would by pulling some soft stuff together, whether that's straw or a balled up cloak or whatever's to hand.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on July 14, 2020, 04:12:25 pm
And what is "dwarfy" anyway? Raising llamas and crying over the soul of a poor, dead goblin before heading off to the tavern to enjoy some fine elven poetry? Seems perfectly reasonable that these guys build their bed frames from wood.Straw beds from Gnomoria make a lot of sense on a certain level of fortress development. Or at least stone bunk beds. This reliance on wood for one of the very important needs is not dwarfy enough IMO.Straw isn't an item in the game, is it? At least, it's not a material we really do stuff with in dwarf mode. So I'd assume that the wooden beds have straw mattresses, and if the dwarves sleep on the ground they make "beds" like a dog would by pulling some soft stuff together, whether that's straw or a balled up cloak or whatever's to hand.
Post by: PatrikLundell on July 14, 2020, 04:48:44 pm
And from a game perspective, adding the challenge to get wood for something to discourage complete turtling is usually not a bad thing (although it has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread, of course).And what is "dwarfy" anyway? Raising llamas and crying over the soul of a poor, dead goblin before heading off to the tavern to enjoy some fine elven poetry? Seems perfectly reasonable that these guys build their bed frames from wood.Straw beds from Gnomoria make a lot of sense on a certain level of fortress development. Or at least stone bunk beds. This reliance on wood for one of the very important needs is not dwarfy enough IMO.Straw isn't an item in the game, is it? At least, it's not a material we really do stuff with in dwarf mode. So I'd assume that the wooden beds have straw mattresses, and if the dwarves sleep on the ground they make "beds" like a dog would by pulling some soft stuff together, whether that's straw or a balled up cloak or whatever's to hand.
Post by: Iä! RIAKTOR! on July 15, 2020, 03:07:00 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on July 15, 2020, 05:01:44 pm
Some weapons looks unrealistic. Jewels looks very strange. Not all creatures fit ingame proportions.Creature size has been discussed several times in this thread. The artist are constrained by a 32*32 pixel limit (with a few pixels of oversize available for the very largest ones), and the smallest ones must still be recognizable, so there is not room for making them follow a strict size hierarchy, in particular if you also want to make them distinct (you could probably achieve a hierarchy if everything was just blobs, and size was measured in number of pixels each blob consisted of). That means that yes, some creatures may be too large compared to some others while also too small compared to others. The aim, as far as I understand it, is to roughly group creatures into small/medium/large/extra large.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on July 15, 2020, 10:12:08 pm
Some weapons looks unrealistic. Jewels looks very strange. Not all creatures fit ingame proportions.Yes. That's how tilesets work. They show you what something is with a graphical icon. Have you played Dwarf Fortress? It involves being able to clearly see where items are, which you wouldn't be able to do if everything was life size. Would be a bit of a blow to Steam sales if the artists inexplicably tried to make life-size models of everything.
Post by: JesterHell696 on July 16, 2020, 01:36:23 am
And from a game perspective, adding the challenge to get wood for something to discourage complete turtling is usually not a bad thing (although it has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread, of course).And what is "dwarfy" anyway? Raising llamas and crying over the soul of a poor, dead goblin before heading off to the tavern to enjoy some fine elven poetry? Seems perfectly reasonable that these guys build their bed frames from wood.Straw beds from Gnomoria make a lot of sense on a certain level of fortress development. Or at least stone bunk beds. This reliance on wood for one of the very important needs is not dwarfy enough IMO.Straw isn't an item in the game, is it? At least, it's not a material we really do stuff with in dwarf mode. So I'd assume that the wooden beds have straw mattresses, and if the dwarves sleep on the ground they make "beds" like a dog would by pulling some soft stuff together, whether that's straw or a balled up cloak or whatever's to hand.
Which is a point against it IMHO, I love DF because it is a fantasy world simulator not a arcade game which you "win", having a mechanic work in a specific way just for challenge gets a hell no from me.
Some weapons looks unrealistic. Jewels looks very strange. Not all creatures fit ingame proportions.Yes. That's how tilesets work. They show you what something is with a graphical icon. Have you played Dwarf Fortress? It involves being able to clearly see where items are, which you wouldn't be able to do if everything was life size. Would be a bit of a blow to Steam sales if the artists inexplicably tried to make life-size models of everything.
Life size might be doable with multi-tile creature and a 4k tileset, I don't think that's going to happen, whould be awesome tho.
Post by: Starver on July 16, 2020, 04:23:04 am
Which is a point against it IMHO, I love DF because it is a fantasy world simulator not a arcade game which you "win", having a mechanic work in a specific way just for challenge gets a hell no from me.Going back to my prior argument, in which I went into Minecraft-equivalence, if you play that in Survival Mode, and create a massive obsidian castle on a whim, perhaps carefully bucketting up magma from the depths (after having made a baker's dozen of buckets, a dozen for magma, one for your quenching water, with sand for casting 'moulds' or just rapidly double-pour) and casting it in place, having is that not better for the soul than using the 'Creative' mode to just have unlimited obsidian blocks in your inventory and plop-plop-plop them down (and insta-smash any misplacements along the way) while effortlessly flying and having no dangers from mobs?
If you would prefer the latter, consider DFHacking your every need into being (and every obstacle out of it). Nothing stops you doing that. I think you could fully form your entire fortress in the initial post-embark pause, fully fledged before any minor has tried to grab the pick from the wagon.
And you can't 'win' DF any easier (if at all) that way. You win if you think you have, and if you are happy to win at a one-person game of Monopoly by taking money from the Bank whenever you feel like it, then that's you.
I think you misunderstand the graphics, issues too, but as this thread is about graphics and their possible tweaks (with perhaps a back-channel to Toady if it seems like the game-engine needs further revamping) I'll leave you with your opinion, even if I think you're on the wrong track.
Post by: Iä! RIAKTOR! on July 16, 2020, 07:14:59 am
The more issue is design of unrealistic-drawn weapons and too strange jewels. I play DF only with ASCII standard, didn't even change a font.Some weapons looks unrealistic. Jewels looks very strange. Not all creatures fit ingame proportions.Yes. That's how tilesets work. They show you what something is with a graphical icon. Have you played Dwarf Fortress? It involves being able to clearly see where items are, which you wouldn't be able to do if everything was life size. Would be a bit of a blow to Steam sales if the artists inexplicably tried to make life-size models of everything.
Post by: evthestrike on July 16, 2020, 09:42:37 am
The more issue is design of unrealistic-drawn weapons and too strange jewels. I play DF only with ASCII standard, didn't even change a font.Some weapons looks unrealistic. Jewels looks very strange. Not all creatures fit ingame proportions.Yes. That's how tilesets work. They show you what something is with a graphical icon. Have you played Dwarf Fortress? It involves being able to clearly see where items are, which you wouldn't be able to do if everything was life size. Would be a bit of a blow to Steam sales if the artists inexplicably tried to make life-size models of everything.
Which weapons are unrealistic? Do you have any ideas about how to change them? What looks unrealistic about the jewels to you? I don't think your feedback is specific enough to be useful.
Post by: Iä! RIAKTOR! on July 16, 2020, 11:09:02 am
Even great axe. Why do you think it is two-bladed? For make weapon image, you need do read and understand each weapon RAWs.The more issue is design of unrealistic-drawn weapons and too strange jewels. I play DF only with ASCII standard, didn't even change a font.Some weapons looks unrealistic. Jewels looks very strange. Not all creatures fit ingame proportions.Yes. That's how tilesets work. They show you what something is with a graphical icon. Have you played Dwarf Fortress? It involves being able to clearly see where items are, which you wouldn't be able to do if everything was life size. Would be a bit of a blow to Steam sales if the artists inexplicably tried to make life-size models of everything.
Which weapons are unrealistic? Do you have any ideas about how to change them? What looks unrealistic about the jewels to you? I don't think your feedback is specific enough to be useful.
Jewels have too much of small details and this details is strange designed. Do you know how looks real jewelry (especially medieval)?
Post by: MoltenIdol on July 16, 2020, 11:38:51 am
(https://i.imgur.com/nvBUMve.png)
Seeing that picture reminds me of the fact that doors don't seem to have a "direction" when it comes to their sprite. Like, your always looking at the door head on. That's the #1 reason I don't use diagonals with doorways, because the door looks hideous. The door doesn't "look" like it's a diagonal door. It's just a door facing forward that your looking at head on while sitting in a diagonal mineshaft. Is there any possibility of that being changed in the Steam tileset? Like, giving sprites context or something? Like "Oh, you placed the door in a diagonal corridor, so lets use a different sprite that would fit" sort of deal? I'm probably being overly critical, it's just a pet peeve of mine.
I think the "Only narrow option" is good looking.
More importantly, I also think it actually makes doors look WAAAAY BETTER in the shown context.
I dont really like the "All convex corners option", since it crops ALL corners. I like to still be able to make square pillars (parallel with the walls), and "one tile-width" zigzag tunnels.
Most important to note tho, is that this option makes doors look EVEN WORSE in the shown context.
I have to admit, it would make sense to crop all corners, in a way, just to signify that ALL corners CAN and WILL be traversed by your dwarves, hostile creatures and so on.
Very important knowledge, and it might be a good idea to clarify that, visually.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on July 16, 2020, 04:42:34 pm
Tilesets are modabble. Post examples, say what needs to be changed or make your own. Being rude is just not at all productive.Even great axe. Why do you think it is two-bladed? For make weapon image, you need do read and understand each weapon RAWs.The more issue is design of unrealistic-drawn weapons and too strange jewels. I play DF only with ASCII standard, didn't even change a font.Some weapons looks unrealistic. Jewels looks very strange. Not all creatures fit ingame proportions.Yes. That's how tilesets work. They show you what something is with a graphical icon. Have you played Dwarf Fortress? It involves being able to clearly see where items are, which you wouldn't be able to do if everything was life size. Would be a bit of a blow to Steam sales if the artists inexplicably tried to make life-size models of everything.
Which weapons are unrealistic? Do you have any ideas about how to change them? What looks unrealistic about the jewels to you? I don't think your feedback is specific enough to be useful.
Jewels have too much of small details and this details is strange designed. Do you know how looks real jewelry (especially medieval)?
Yes the artists who have played the game for many years and made the most popular tilesets know what the raws are...
Post by: Hiul on July 17, 2020, 06:46:06 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
also is there a link to see this image gallery? i dont know where i can see the jewel or the great axe that been mentioned, and checking each page is quite a chore since mine quite lagging a lot.
Post by: Bumber on July 17, 2020, 11:42:48 am
The GCS seems to be at a weird angle, tilting to its right.
Post by: Uthimienure on July 17, 2020, 01:30:09 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I like the angle, it reminds me of when a jumping spider starts to rear up its head to watch its prey (me) when I get close. It adds nice character to the GCS for me.
Post by: ror6ax on July 17, 2020, 01:54:42 pm
it reminds me of when a jumping spider starts to rear up its head to watch its prey (me) when I get closeTell me which part of the world do you live in so I never come in a thousand km radius os this hell with jumping spiders.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on July 17, 2020, 02:46:39 pm
Tell me which part of the world do you live in so I never come in a thousand km radius os this hell with jumping spiders.
They are distributed all throughout the green marked areas ;)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Distribution.salticidae.1.png)
Post by: Superdorf on July 17, 2020, 03:03:55 pm
Post by: Uthimienure on July 17, 2020, 03:11:30 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And the video, after a bit of editing.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Nelia Hawk on July 18, 2020, 02:25:22 pm
clashes a bit with the rest of the artstyle... but god nopenopenope
Post by: Starver on July 18, 2020, 03:21:52 pm
Spoiler: Hey! What about me? (click to show/hide)
Post by: Iä! RIAKTOR! on July 18, 2020, 08:05:37 pm
Make tiles list, please. Of weapons - weapon tile and weapon name, so I will tell what weapons drawn wrong.Tilesets are modabble. Post examples, say what needs to be changed or make your own. Being rude is just not at all productive.Even great axe. Why do you think it is two-bladed? For make weapon image, you need do read and understand each weapon RAWs.The more issue is design of unrealistic-drawn weapons and too strange jewels. I play DF only with ASCII standard, didn't even change a font.Some weapons looks unrealistic. Jewels looks very strange. Not all creatures fit ingame proportions.Yes. That's how tilesets work. They show you what something is with a graphical icon. Have you played Dwarf Fortress? It involves being able to clearly see where items are, which you wouldn't be able to do if everything was life size. Would be a bit of a blow to Steam sales if the artists inexplicably tried to make life-size models of everything.
Which weapons are unrealistic? Do you have any ideas about how to change them? What looks unrealistic about the jewels to you? I don't think your feedback is specific enough to be useful.
Jewels have too much of small details and this details is strange designed. Do you know how looks real jewelry (especially medieval)?
Yes the artists who have played the game for many years and made the most popular tilesets know what the raws are...
"Millions of flies cannot be wrong?" (c) I think, you need to create also tiles list of all non-mundane creatures for Toady's approving.
Post by: Iä! RIAKTOR! on July 18, 2020, 08:11:11 pm
(https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/34693670/76f5bb2242f3934145a58dbdfda7fd0e6648cc9e.png)GSC will looks interesting if will be colored some similar to scytodes. This spiders is real spiders who also spray their web.
The GCS seems to be at a weird angle, tilting to its right.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Scytodes_glabula_3.jpg/800px-Scytodes_glabula_3.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Scytodes_thoracica_%28aka%29.jpg/800px-Scytodes_thoracica_%28aka%29.jpg)
Toad looks too spherical, but this may be your style. And also similar to drug toad.
Post by: clinodev on July 19, 2020, 04:15:50 am
Toad looks too spherical, but this may be your style. And also similar to drug toad.
A Giant Cave Toad psychedelic syndrome retcon is just the sort of FUN surprise spice the Steam release needs for the bitter old veteran players! Toady please! ;) :D
It's quite reminiscent of Kruggsmash's GCT pic from Monsterkiller which I see is now on the wiki, but that can hardly be helped, I suppose, same animal, same raws, with Krugg more taupe, and Mayday more gray interpretations of "TAUPE_GRAY"; Mayday bunched up preparing to leap, Krugg in a more relaxed state looking flatter.
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/5537b661-c42d-4f78-8d74-1f68a0499828/dc43xpl-350fb69f-00f3-45a8-b83d-c953e01d46d2.jpg/v1/fill/w_1024,h_644,q_75,strp/a_giant_cave_toad_by_kruggsmash_dc43xpl-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3siaGVpZ2h0IjoiPD02NDQiLCJwYXRoIjoiXC9mXC81NTM3YjY2MS1jNDJkLTRmNzgtOGQ3NC0xZjY4YTA0OTk4MjhcL2RjNDN4cGwtMzUwZmI2OWYtMDBmMy00NWE4LWI4M2QtYzk1M2UwMWQ0NmQyLmpwZyIsIndpZHRoIjoiPD0xMDI0In1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.Bltk6vaEFfEky4vwH9e9JB7VLf-qjQ-fvALQP7HT8IE)
I imagine both are drawing heavily from our real world largest toad, the Cave Toad, which is pretty rounded.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Cane_toad_-_ABC_News.jpg/800px-Cane_toad_-_ABC_News.jpg)
Post by: Vordak on July 19, 2020, 07:13:14 am
When you quote someone else's pics or just posting big pics - then hide them under spoilers. To multi-level quotes - is same request.
Thread begins to look like a garbage, it is difficult to read.
Post by: Starver on July 19, 2020, 08:26:53 am
@Iä! RIAKTOR!, more specifically: It's hard to know what fantasy beasts might look like in a fantasy world. The same with the GCS. The 'rules' for aposematism may develop differently (assuming 'honest signalling') or its mechanism for blending in (assuming 'dazzle camouflage' as the reason) if it isn't a pure mating display like I almost already linked, before (https://media.giphy.com/media/sU7sviPPIcFna/giphy.gif).
In-game, I rather always assumed that it's more or less a 'perception filter' that lets it go unseen. Perhaps cephalopod-like chromatophores carefully controlled just like they do it (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pgDE2DOICuc), but of course even more impressive, and capable of fooling dwarven infravision[2] right until it is too late. But who knows what's in Toady's head.
@Vordak, but more aimed at those Vordak was aiming at: Don't be afraid to edit down a quote of chaff, to leave just the wheat you're most interested in responding to, also. Add "[...]"s in if you don't want to look like you're trying to change meaning by an invisible blue-pencil.
In fact, if you can spare the time, close a quote after a point, comment on what was just quoted, and re-open (does not need repeated "=attribution-link" bit) to bring up the next point, if that makes things clearer and allows easier editing in follow-ups to you. I tend to do that by just clicking in a "[quote][/quote]" pair into the quote then shift the "/" from the usual closer into the usual opener, then put my new words between them.
Anyway, as I didn't quote anybody (because there wasn't much that would be left after chopping it down) I'm trying the "@"ed method. Unreadable in a different way. ;)
[1] Though not as flat as they become when dealing with traffic.
[2] Firstly, the one thing Toady hasn't meticulously modelled is the need for illumination (beyond bringing sightlines up slughtly shorter outside of daylight times/places) and a GCS cannot rely on light in its GC, even the bioluminescent sort as not all of its haunts are replete with plant/fungi that might be prime candidates for supplying that. Thus every non-blind(ed) creature must have an infravision-like ability, atop their daylight-seeing ability, to which a GCS must have a viable counter. And it must work in daylight (or backlit by magma?) also... Clever girl!
Post by: Superdorf on July 19, 2020, 11:24:37 am
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on July 19, 2020, 04:24:13 pm
Post by: Dishmab on July 20, 2020, 10:46:28 am
Post by: Cruxador on July 22, 2020, 01:15:57 am
@Iä! RIAKTOR!, more specifically: It's hard to know what fantasy beasts might look like in a fantasy world. The same with the GCS. The 'rules' for aposematism may develop differently (assuming 'honest signalling') or its mechanism for blending in (assuming 'dazzle camouflage' as the reason) if it isn't a pure mating display like I almost already linked, before (https://media.giphy.com/media/sU7sviPPIcFna/giphy.gif).Since you're not being specific about what you're referring to but only to whom, I can only guess, but I don't see anythign by Riaktor which relates to aposematism, camouflage, or chromatophores. I took the GCS suggestion as purely aesthetic; that it will look interesting if displayed that way and (implicitly) that it will call back to the real creature, which adds another layer of value to the sprite. Since its appearance would probably be irrelevant to its lifestyle given the low-light environment, might as well give it an appearance which makes the sprite better in another way. I think it's a good suggestion, although I don't know if Mike/Meph can do it well, or indeed if they'd be willing to consider revisiting something they've moved on from.
In-game, I rather always assumed that it's more or less a 'perception filter' that lets it go unseen. Perhaps cephalopod-like chromatophores carefully controlled just like they do it (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pgDE2DOICuc), but of course even more impressive, and capable of fooling dwarven infravision[2] right until it is too late. But who knows what's in Toady's head.
Post by: MoltenIdol on July 22, 2020, 05:39:33 pm
It triggers my "oh hell naw" reaction way harder.
Also looks more like something youd find deep underground
The red and black spider is a bit on the cartoony side, and Also pretty edgy. Is it a redback? Black widow?
Is a GCS Even poisinous?
Is See them more like Really fast hunting spiders, relying on speed and web, not poison.
Seems like Brown is a pretty common color for hunting spiders.
Post by: Bumber on July 22, 2020, 06:34:22 pm
Is a GCS Even poisinous?
Is See them more like Really fast hunting spiders, relying on speed and web, not poison.
GCS has paralytic venom.
Post by: GandalfTheGreyt3791 on July 22, 2020, 06:52:20 pm
Here an older mock-up with shading. Does that help with brain switching?Yeah the slopes are kinda trippy but if its anything like your other graphic set Then im sure it will be epic
(http://goblinart.pl/files/DFD/BIG%20Mockup1d.png)
Post by: Superdorf on July 22, 2020, 11:49:24 pm
Spoiler: Ramps have come a long way since that image. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Iä! RIAKTOR! on July 23, 2020, 09:55:56 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on July 23, 2020, 11:48:39 am
Whats about cave plants?They'll be done at some point, of course, but the artists have a huge amount of stuff to produce tiles for, and I assume they follow some kind of schedule rather than jumping around randomly among the tiles (although that would definitely be less tedious for me, had I had any hint of artistic ability to actually do it). I expect Toady to show them off when done (as it seems he needs something for his Steam posts that Clinodev cross posts for us).
Post by: Iä! RIAKTOR! on July 23, 2020, 12:31:36 pm
In vanilla DF even grass looks different. Cave plants must be done properly.Whats about cave plants?They'll be done at some point, of course, but the artists have a huge amount of stuff to produce tiles for, and I assume they follow some kind of schedule rather than jumping around randomly among the tiles (although that would definitely be less tedious for me, had I had any hint of artistic ability to actually do it). I expect Toady to show them off when done (as it seems he needs something for his Steam posts that Clinodev cross posts for us).
Post by: MoltenIdol on July 23, 2020, 04:31:06 pm
[/quote]
If im not mistaken, i think both redbacks and black widows have nerve venom. Either way, If the GCS's paralyzing venom doesn't actually kill you, i guess its more a way incapacitating the prey before killing/eating it.
That makes me feel like the hunting spider theme is more appropriate.
Plus, they throw their web, like some hunting spiders.
Also, hunting spiders are WAYYY more creepy because they come running at you, instead of waiting in their web.
As far as im aware, the GCS also charges like the hunting spider.
So the hunting spider look also conveys the behaviour of the GCS better.
Besides that, the "very venomous spider" look, is just
a bit basic.
Brown hunting spider = a lot more interesting visually, with the camo pattern(IMO)/fits the aesthetic better (IMO)/conveys its behaviour way better.
PS: I can understand if you dont want to redo a sprite.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on July 24, 2020, 12:40:20 am
Tilesets are moddable, all the new effects will be moddable. Many tileset makers, even Meph, will have their own version once the release is out. Or just draw cave plants "properly" yourself if don't agree with any of the the artists' version.In vanilla DF even grass looks different. Cave plants must be done properly.Whats about cave plants?They'll be done at some point, of course, but the artists have a huge amount of stuff to produce tiles for, and I assume they follow some kind of schedule rather than jumping around randomly among the tiles (although that would definitely be less tedious for me, had I had any hint of artistic ability to actually do it). I expect Toady to show them off when done (as it seems he needs something for his Steam posts that Clinodev cross posts for us).
But really, complaining about a piece of art before it's even been drawn isn't likely to achieve anything meaningful, don't you think?
Post by: Bumber on July 24, 2020, 03:28:12 am
Either way, If the GCS's paralyzing venom doesn't actually kill you, i guess its more a way incapacitating the prey before killing/eating it.
Well, you can suffocate from repeated applications of it, but perhaps you're more likely to get killed violently now that GCS can pull helmets off.
Post by: SuperPluck on July 24, 2020, 04:15:52 am
In vanilla DF even grass looks different. Cave plants must be done properly.
What do you mean by "properly"? Is there a suggestion in there somewhere?
How would you feel if someone told you "you're next posts should follow some rules" and don't tell you what the rules are you are expected to follow?
Post by: evthestrike on July 24, 2020, 08:10:53 am
Post by: Iä! RIAKTOR! on July 24, 2020, 11:15:24 am
I think there might be a language barrier happening here. Am I right about that?Yes. Sorry my bad English.
Post by: GandalfTheGreyt3791 on July 24, 2020, 11:23:54 am
Hey, welcome! :)that looks really goodSpoiler: Ramps have come a long way since that image. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Cruxador on July 24, 2020, 02:27:17 pm
I think there might be a language barrier happening here. Am I right about that?Although "must" isn't factually accurate, all the grasses and plants should be done properly, having their own sprite or tile. The graphical version should be a better representation of what's present in the game that the ASCII, at a bare minimum. If it can be argued that it's a step down on any grounds other than an inherent preference for ASCII, then that undermines the whole project (both in an idealistic sense with regards to quality, but also in that it can be picked up as a flaw by detractors and exaggerated greatly, which has a big potential to impede the project's official goal of making Bay12 some money).
Certainly, less than one sprite per raw would be too few. It's arguable to what extent growth states or seasonal variations need to be included; I remain of the opinion that any amount of variation present in the base game should also be present in this for the key reason that I briefly mentioned above, and because the initial marketing on release can have a long-reaching impact. See for example No Man's Sky, which now in 2020 fulfills its original promises and then some, but which will never be the colossal phenomenon it could have been if it hadn't disappointed so many people at launch. However, it seems Toady wants to start with a reasonable minimum, and that makes sense considering the literally limitless potential for enhancement, but nonetheless I think the bare minimum for release should be pegged at "more than the base game" in every aspect.
Also, plants are important.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on July 24, 2020, 06:59:59 pm
Post by: Cruxador on July 24, 2020, 10:18:12 pm
Sorry, did Toady state somewhere that he's not having different sprites for individual plants? What exactly is this theoretical argument about?I don't believe so. But you know, not every discussion is an argument.
Post by: Schmaven on July 24, 2020, 10:34:39 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on August 13, 2020, 02:28:07 pm
https://cdn.cloudflare.steamstatic.com/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/34693670/13f662e9694091cf4b49053b2bc2b52b39d88f2a.png
Two things shared already that I agree with is:
-the scrollbars look too "windows 95"
-the colours are not quite right (or they're "mad ugly" as one commenter put it).
Not sure what to change on both accounts.
Post by: ror6ax on August 13, 2020, 02:36:17 pm
Well then! Now that the UI has been shown on Steam, I'm interested in your feedback:
https://cdn.cloudflare.steamstatic.com/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/34693670/13f662e9694091cf4b49053b2bc2b52b39d88f2a.png
Two things shared already that I agree with is:
-the scrollbars look too "windows 95"
-the colours are not quite right (or they're "mad ugly" as one commenter put it).
Not sure what to change on both accounts.
Great progress! More excited to play this than ever!
Feedback:
The font is not really mixing with the style, but I suppose you just haven't gotten to it yet.
Embark button should be highlighted somehow IMO to indicate it's importance. Would also help non-natives who may not know what the word means.
Points left text is quite hard to spot and is in the list area - I think it should be outside of tabs - after all its value is transient to tabs.
The symbols indicating animal sex are hard to read. Male/female in some slightly different font/colour would do better IMO.
I can't tell where is the mouse cursor, if it's even in the picture( see my proposition about hover with the cursor in the post below).
The margin on top/bottom is different from margin on the left/right, it's annoying for the eye...
Post by: Vordak on August 13, 2020, 02:44:08 pm
Spoiler: Window (click to show/hide)
Some big items and creatures may not look very well in 32x32 borders.
The font strongly contrasts with the background, need something like a shadow borders around words.
And not "your items", but "your Majesty's items".)
Post by: ror6ax on August 13, 2020, 02:54:22 pm
It's horrible because GIMP tool sucks and I've taken only random 20% of what the wiki says on rock nuts but you got the gist of it, I'm sure...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
P.S How the hell do I attach images on this forum engine?? [edit] figured it out!
Post by: ror6ax on August 13, 2020, 02:57:09 pm
Post by: Starver on August 13, 2020, 03:19:39 pm
None of it was really your territory (@Mike), I think, so probably not worth you worrying from a graphics POV.
Although one thing I mentioned was sorting/filtering(non-textual) options for lists, so if that gets accepted you may need to design some icons representing Alphabetic/Value/Category/Breed sorting, and maybe even an "Affordable Costs" icon with active/inactive states to it. Unless they put them in as textual.
Depends on if anyone (who matters) thinks these are good ideas, so may never be an issue, but giving you a heads-up anyway. ;)
ror6ax: Not set up to upload images, to here, if that's what you mean. [img][/img] tags, otherwise. Nice demo picture, BTW.
Post by: voliol on August 13, 2020, 03:25:12 pm
Quote from: ror6ax
Embark button should be highlighted somehow IMO to indicate it's importance. Would also help non-natives who may not know what the word means.A different color (darker for the color-blind) should suffice, I think. Also, it feels like a "load profile" button is missing.
Post by: Uthimienure on August 13, 2020, 03:27:54 pm
2. Please, please, mouse optional, no mouse required, everything can be done with keyboard only. Mouse is fine for those that like it, but for others not.
a. Highlight or underline the hotkey for each item onscreen, like Dwarves, Items, Animals, etc...
b. Use keys like tab & shift-tab to switch between columns, arrow keys, page up/down, for navigating the lists, or similar.
Post by: ror6ax on August 13, 2020, 04:33:44 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on August 13, 2020, 05:28:50 pm
I agree with the sentiment that it would be useful to cut down on scrolling by reducing heights where possible. I realize the images set a limit for the items, but the dividers between items can probably be cut down one or two pixels, and the category ones don't need extra space above/below the text. This would also allow the "Available Items" list to require less scrolling.
Post by: Rekov on August 13, 2020, 06:41:41 pm
I think maybe people find a lot of the orange/brown too saturated? Here I've desaturated a few elements of the UI. My goal was to make the 'gold' of the scroll bars match the 'gold' of the highlighted "Items" button.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Starver on August 13, 2020, 06:50:30 pm
Hotkey functionality (with interface indicators to it) was part of it, and asking for Category headers to have expand/contract behaviour might speed scrolling (with sensibly-volumetric categories, so you don't still have to scroll across hundreds of items within the one you're actually interested in. But keyboard scrolling (PageUp/Dn, and or shift-/ctrl-cursoring) can be much quicker and more precise than even a mousewheel scroller.
On graphics: I like the scrollbars. Though they could be slightly more changed (give 'em more a "brasswork" appearance to match the border stuff? i.e. roundness widthways, which is almost certainly possible... But everybody does that) yet they're hardly too Win95ish. If I had to guess, I'd say it's reasonably regraphiced TCL, more akin to a common FOSS game than an MS program of that era. The 'flatness' (far less bevelled than it could be) nature resembles a style that sits with8nnthe middle of styles that have gone in and out (and back in?) style any number of times over the decades. And it works for me.
The text font looks like the default-Serif choice, unfettered by any actual selection so far. But I expect that's not been decided much upon yet. I doubt the MephDay team are {yet?) designing a whole characterset, so it'll be a choice to make later. Something Sans-y, I'd suggest (not Comic). It could be as fancy as a Celtic, or probably Rune-inspired (subtly,.not the whole-hog unreadable) to befit a given p3rsonal idea of mythology-reference. A 'Papyrus'-like influence might be interesting, but not actual-Papyrus. There's a surprising number of fonts on this machine (Eras looks nice...) but nothing that really stands out to me. But probably not worth homegrowing anything for, on top of all the rest of the graphics work.
Post by: clinodev on August 13, 2020, 07:44:45 pm
I second Uthimienure: mouse support is fine, mandatory mouse usage is not.
I agree with the sentiment that it would be useful to cut down on scrolling by reducing heights where possible. I realize the images set a limit for the items, but the dividers between items can probably be cut down one or two pixels, and the category ones don't need extra space above/below the text. This would also allow the "Available Items" list to require less scrolling.
We've been told repeatedly since the very first AMAs the days after the announcements to as recently as earlier today that the keyboard system will be retained as much as possible. Here's Kitfox official today on reddit quoting Toady in the August FotF. (https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/i93gyv/new_ui_art_dwarf_fortress_steam_update/g1d6luw/) Mayday was also confirming it today in the Kitfox Discord.
Post by: Uthimienure on August 13, 2020, 08:21:21 pm
I second Uthimienure: mouse support is fine, mandatory mouse usage is not.
I agree with the sentiment that it would be useful to cut down on scrolling by reducing heights where possible. I realize the images set a limit for the items, but the dividers between items can probably be cut down one or two pixels, and the category ones don't need extra space above/below the text. This would also allow the "Available Items" list to require less scrolling.
We've been told repeatedly since the very first AMAs the days after the announcements to as recently as earlier today that the keyboard system will be retained as much as possible. Here's Kitfox official today on reddit quoting Toady in the August FotF. (https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/i93gyv/new_ui_art_dwarf_fortress_steam_update/g1d6luw/) Mayday was also confirming it today in the Kitfox Discord.
In that Kitfox reddit post, I was surprised (and dismayed) to see this, especially the "bahaha":
kitfoxgames
Steam and itch.io publisher ⚒️
36 points
·
8 hours ago
This is the first time I've heard someone ask for keyboard support rather than mouse support bahaha
Post by: Cruxador on August 13, 2020, 09:27:48 pm
Yeah, that's pretty dire. I went and told her as much but assuming that's Victoria I think she's just mostly used to dealing with Gen Z folks and isn't very good at talking to other kinds of audiences. It doesn't really matter since in this case since it's not like she's the one deciding Toady's priorities in UI Design.I second Uthimienure: mouse support is fine, mandatory mouse usage is not.
I agree with the sentiment that it would be useful to cut down on scrolling by reducing heights where possible. I realize the images set a limit for the items, but the dividers between items can probably be cut down one or two pixels, and the category ones don't need extra space above/below the text. This would also allow the "Available Items" list to require less scrolling.
We've been told repeatedly since the very first AMAs the days after the announcements to as recently as earlier today that the keyboard system will be retained as much as possible. Here's Kitfox official today on reddit quoting Toady in the August FotF. (https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/i93gyv/new_ui_art_dwarf_fortress_steam_update/g1d6luw/) Mayday was also confirming it today in the Kitfox Discord.
In that Kitfox reddit post, I was surprised (and dismayed) to see this, especially the "bahaha":
kitfoxgames
Steam and itch.io publisher ⚒️
36 points
·
8 hours ago
This is the first time I've heard someone ask for keyboard support rather than mouse support bahaha
Post by: Starver on August 13, 2020, 10:41:57 pm
Unlike pre-Stram, it does group things[1], but I can't convince myself that it's related to the RHS category-button order, and so it might be first(-of-a-kind)-chosen order. Though it might still be tied to RHS order, which certainly retains a lot of the funny ordering of pre-Stram lists. I'd have been tempted to do a Food superclass that brought up various food(-related) subclasses like Seeds and Plants (on the left, separated by three other categories) and Eggs (on the RHS, almost a whole vertical screen apart from Garden Vegetables that might or might not (probably not) be emergent as Plants-category on the LHS in the current form.
Either way, there's no apparent method/use of collapsable/expandable categories on the RHS other than the scrollable Button List sets up the scrollable/filterable Item list.
(It's really hard to appreciate the full image, as it's so much more wider than the screen resolution on the machine I'm re-reviewing it on while I type in this/prior messages, and I've only just seen a prior error in my understanding. I could open it outwith the browser and scroll round, but right now I'm vertically scrolling down with the Page scrollbsr to find the in-post horizontal scrollbar, to adjust more left/rigt then scrolling back up to the image I'm trying to check. It is time consuming and a mouse-heavy task as the browser has no keyboard controls that work the in-post horizontality, that I know about.)
I can't tell if (as per current DF) selecting an item on the right makes it solely present to adjust on the left. You have item +/- buttons on both sides (disabled minus-signs for all visible RHS items where clearly no 'subscription' is made that can be reduced) so I don't think that's so any more. The Animal-Tab example shows non-zero selections at work, but in a list that has no (apparent) need for category buttons in a list. My suggestions in the other place included asking about a Search line for Animals, and further one that could perhaps filter by "Milk" or "Shear". If not that, then 'radio button' behaviour (could still be label-button, as per Items categories, but toggle-down, toggle-up in appearance) keyed to qualities such as these might act just as well for filtering those foreseen qualities of interest.
But none of that requires MephDay involvement, as it stands. Not in the *masterwork icons* realm, anyway.
[1] On embark I'd often remove all food (say) from my load, then re-add everything I still actually wanted and any other bits, in order to keep similar items together in the list. Which only ever mattered in the prep. screens, it had absolutely no purpose other than temporarily revaining an aesthetic.)
L
Post by: PatrikLundell on August 14, 2020, 01:16:45 am
Are these categories collapsible? Seems like a low-hanging fruit, at least from a design perspective. But if that's the case, there should be an indicator icon to make it clear that collapsed categories aren't just empty (or, under particularly bizarre worldgen outcomes, that empty categories aren't just collapsed). Conventionally, a little triangle to the left of the title that points down when the thing is expanded and right if it's collapsed, and think it would be good to stick to convention in this case. If they don't collapse currently... Can they? How difficult would it be to add? It may not add a ton to the system, but it would add something and subtract nothing so if the amount of Toady's time that it takes isn't too excessive, I think it would be handy.It's worth pointing out to the ½ second attention span people that keyboard shortcuts is much faster than mouse pecking once you've learned them, and that keyboard shortcuts is something every software that's intended to be used heavily (such as 1000+ hour time investment games and professional software) should use both for ergonomic reasons and for productivity ones.Yeah, that's pretty dire. I went and told her as much but assuming that's Victoria I think she's just mostly used to dealing with Gen Z folks and isn't very good at talking to other kinds of audiences. It doesn't really matter since in this case since it's not like she's the one deciding Toady's priorities in UI Design.I second Uthimienure: mouse support is fine, mandatory mouse usage is not.
I agree with the sentiment that it would be useful to cut down on scrolling by reducing heights where possible. I realize the images set a limit for the items, but the dividers between items can probably be cut down one or two pixels, and the category ones don't need extra space above/below the text. This would also allow the "Available Items" list to require less scrolling.
We've been told repeatedly since the very first AMAs the days after the announcements to as recently as earlier today that the keyboard system will be retained as much as possible. Here's Kitfox official today on reddit quoting Toady in the August FotF. (https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/i93gyv/new_ui_art_dwarf_fortress_steam_update/g1d6luw/) Mayday was also confirming it today in the Kitfox Discord.
In that Kitfox reddit post, I was surprised (and dismayed) to see this, especially the "bahaha":
kitfoxgames
Steam and itch.io publisher ⚒️
36 points
·
8 hours ago
This is the first time I've heard someone ask for keyboard support rather than mouse support bahaha
It can also be noted that Toady's FotF answer is not of the "yes, of course we'll retain keyboard support" type, but rather of a lukewarm "Yeah, we'll try to" kind, and the image is just another indication that this is something that will still be on the "remains to do" list when the time runs out.
Post by: Mike Mayday on August 14, 2020, 02:12:25 am
But your're right that it might be a good cue to show people that the categories ARE collapsible, and then some people will be initially confused / assume it's an empty category before they know that it's impossible. Going to suggest the arrows to Tarn then!
Post by: Starver on August 14, 2020, 06:56:50 am
Unless I'm still drawn to +/- because if passing keyboard focus over a (de)collapsable header (with some hover-style change to show that focus[1]) would it be confusing to use +/- hotkey to act on that this way, whilst acting on leaf as stock-(de)allocatoring, or would it be worse to come up with two more keys that do the job but never overlap[2], so need to strain the intuition of the user just that little bit further than strictly necessary.
But that's GUI, not graphics. In the sense relevent to this thread. It's a coding-level thing that's not really tilesetty in nature. Sorry, I'm not terribly good at resisting/redirecting the urge, on that point.
[1] I can't see those screenshots right now to see what even a mouse-hover might be doing to one element or nest of elements
[2] Arguable. If on a leaf item, the collapse-hotkey could quickly draw up the category to which it is a leaf, without moving there. And (if you have it so arranged) a second press collapses the supercategory to which the category is a leaf. Transfering keyboard focus to the thing that collapses, so 'uncollapse' keying expands outwards but you'd still need to tap down to leaf (or subcategory) to regain their focus. I mean you could remember last focii beneath anything so collapsed (either last one not navigated away from or every single one, so that it sortvof auto-jump-restores the most recent internal focus of whatever collapsee is relevent, but I could see that being confusing. At least as I write it. ;)
Post by: ror6ax on August 14, 2020, 07:12:28 am
Post by: Oab on August 14, 2020, 07:55:11 am
Thinking from a new player’s perspective, it looks a bit overwhelming. There is too much information in that screenshot, and being in a list form with no contextual tool tips like Ror6ax suggests here is a huge loss in tutorial potential. The bland look doesn’t help with this at all.
Like Vordak suggests, I think increasing the sprite icon size to at least 64x64 and the font associated with it would be a good start.
Having the icons in a pool rather than a list would also reduce the need for scrolling which helps reduce information overload. Players will find it more palatable with large icons. The icons of the sprite functioning as a quick visual identifier are of key importance.
Not sure if this is possible without more code work but a nice border around the icons would also be a nice touch or just more colors to give the boxes more form/depth. This would remove the bland office software look it has going on now.
The categories should also have a representative sprite icon associated with the object.
Post by: Starver on August 14, 2020, 08:06:18 am
Though the twiddly framing bits that are there do look nice. Some might say the corners are convoluted/overly-intricate, perhaps looking more important than their role as boundary connector, but I think it's a current style that works in context. How the final result looks (some more tweaks, maybe some untweaks as the whole glorious whole is judged in balance with itself across all sub-screens) is anybody's guess. Even Toady's.
(Originally written in response to ror6ax, but without changing a word of my digression, trying to get back On-Topic a bit, it maybe acts as a response to points just given by Oab.)
Post by: PatrikLundell on August 14, 2020, 11:39:14 am
:64*64 icons would mean the artists would have to make a large number of such icons (or scale the current ones up, which I suspect will be ugly when each pixel becomes a 2*2 block).
Like Vordak suggests, I think increasing the sprite icon size to at least 64x64 and the font associated with it would be a good start.
Having the icons in a pool rather than a list would also reduce the need for scrolling which helps reduce information overload. Players will find it more palatable with large icons. The icons of the sprite functioning as a quick visual identifier are of key importance.
:
If the suggestion of a "pool" for icons means that only the currently selected items have icons displayed off to the side, then I don't know how it will look. I'm definitely in favor of things that cuts down on scrolling, but I don't know if it will look odd when implemented.
Post by: Vordak on August 14, 2020, 12:09:00 pm
Spoiler: Vordak-Number 1 - UI shitty remaster (click to show/hide)
The suggestion is in the order of delirium.
This will increase the number of items displayed in the column, need just to reduce the line with item description(text window) vertically (not shown in pic).
P.s. If you are viewing an animal that is larger in size 32x32, than, maybe, 2x scale don't needed.
P.s.s. Background of window with item pic also must change color by side, where you select it item.
Post by: BLazerules on August 14, 2020, 04:03:46 pm
Post by: Cruxador on August 14, 2020, 06:39:56 pm
One thing I'd like to note is that it's difficult to see the icons. They kind of blend with their background, especially if they are small icons. I'm not sure what coloured background would alleviate this.True black might be a good fit. It depends a bit on display settings, but with how light the current "black" is, that would provide a pretty stark contrast on any display I've got, at least.
Post by: Oab on August 14, 2020, 07:20:54 pm
Doubling the scale wouldn’t impact the visual negatively as long as the ratio is consistent. Vordak’s above mockup is an example of that. There would be no additional work for the artists on that front, especially if it’s just scaling the sprites up. New icons for each category would be a nice touch though, and most certainly worth it.
@Vordak: That’s why I said pool. It wouldn’t be just one column, but however many can fit within the pixel real estate. As you say, just shrink the oversized text box rows to allow space for those columns. Your solution still maintains only one column which I don’t believe is ideal. I really like the scaled up selected item in your mockup, nice idea.
In the screenshot those rows contain 728 pixels and the column portion is 36. Using 64 pixels per icon would be 10 columns, or 20 if it’s kept at 36 pixels. I don’t have time right now to do a mockup, so for an example just imagine each side having 10 columns per category and however many rows. This would be displayed under each header which by default should be shrunk.
As far as other options to address these changes; the text headers could still remain as is, or become an icon themselves. A number overlay could be used to indicate quantity within the icon or a separate box designated elsewhere, or a tool tip could be used to indicate these things. My suggestion would be to have independent icons for each object regardless of duplication. This would be for ease of visual understanding as text is going to be avoided by most steam users by default.
There are a slew of options that could be discussed with how to handle all of that though.
The main issue I am seeing with the screenshot is the lack of information being presented to the player. What is the difference between x leather item and y leather items? What do I actually need to survive? Not to sound negative, but this isn’t really an improvement from what is currently in the game in that regard and that is an issue imo.
A tool tip would alleviate some of this problem and act as a pseudo tutorial as I suggested before in the other thread. Just adding a brief bit of information on the category headers alone would help a lot. This information could be displayed in the center along with the selected sprite like in Vordaks mockup for example. Lots of options to address this concern.
Post by: Pillbo on August 14, 2020, 08:24:03 pm
So when a lot are of collapsed categories you can see a general overview, something like:
| ▶ 3 Buckets |
| ▶ 3 Splints |
| ▶ 2 Weapons |
| ▶ 15 Thread (Plant) |
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I completely agree about the collapse triangles.
Post by: JesterHell696 on August 14, 2020, 11:52:02 pm
I like the little icons on each line and oppose their removal as depicted here.Spoiler: UI shitty remaster (click to show/hide)
The suggestion is in the order of delirium.
This will increase the number of items displayed in the column, need just to reduce the line with item description(text window) vertically (not shown in pic).
P.s. If you are viewing an animal that is larger in size 32x32, than, maybe, 2x scale don't needed.
P.s.s. Background of window with item pic also must change color by side, where you select it item.
Post by: Starver on August 15, 2020, 04:26:01 am
I like the little icons on each line and oppose their removal as depicted here.I suggest a compromise.
Remove the graphical icon that's so much bigger than the text it has to share the row with, but replace it with a mnemonic or otherwise illustrative text character!
I'm sure we could come up with a clever system. Maybe û for bucket, because it looks very amazingly like one, but use H for horse because nothing does...
:P
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 15, 2020, 05:03:29 am
Quote
The main issue I am seeing with the screenshot is the lack of information being presented to the player. What is the difference between x leather item and y leather items? What do I actually need to survive? Not to sound negative, but this isn’t really an improvement from what is currently in the game in that regard and that is an issue imo.The current game already offers a starter embark profile so new people won't ever have to think about this. This is the advanced, "prepare things to minute detail" options menu. And minute detail is a dwarf fortress selling point.
Some will skip the tutorial and dive into the advanced menus of course, but, well, not much you can do about those people.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on August 15, 2020, 05:41:01 am
I like the little icons on each line and oppose their removal as depicted here.
Seconded, showing the actual sprites like that is perfect (not necessarily the size/background color, but the concept).
Though keeping them the same size is probably good for consistency so people more easily recognise and learn what is what.
Post by: Vordak on August 15, 2020, 07:33:20 am
Spoiler: Vordak-Number 2 - Another one UI alteration (click to show/hide)
This is how I understand Oab's suggestions. Sorry, if I misinterpreted them and thereby discredited the Oab's ideas.
Post by: Oab on August 15, 2020, 09:32:02 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I didn't touch the right side, but something like the left side should be on the right as well.
I think its pretty clear with this crude version how the information is easier to digest. This could easily be further improved upon in that regard. (Open the image in a new tab for better viewing)
@Shonai_Dweller: Yeah I am aware of that, but that doesn't change my point. I disagree that you can’t do much about those people, and I actually think those people have the most potential of posting negative reviews. I've seen steam reviews be negative for less.
This whole venture isn't to appeal to current players, it’s mostly going to garner attention from players who play games like Rimworld. Rimworld is actually in the "More like this" category under the steam page already. I think the feedback being given should be more aligned with that fact.
Edit: Forgot to mention the number icon on the first seed could be used, or the multiplicative icons. I prefer the latter.
Also the first seed being highlighted makes the lower information box appear.
Post by: Vordak on August 15, 2020, 10:03:43 am
...
Use spoilers!
Here a couple problems.
1)It is quite inconvenient to pointing at item in one part of the window, when move the mouse cursor to the opposite corner to perform certain actions.
Spoiler: Possible solution (click to show/hide)
2)When there is only an icon, it is inconvenient to identify similar items, like backpacks, which will only slightly differ in colors by material.
Post by: Oab on August 15, 2020, 10:57:11 am
That box could technically go anywhere though. The solution you posted would be a good option.
Post by: Cruxador on August 15, 2020, 12:03:57 pm
Yeah those are good points. I was thinking the tool tip window would be a new window at the cursor location, but I am not sure how feasible that would be to code in.Based on past interviews, I would say tooltips are a very likely addition to the game. As well they should be, tooltips are a great way to provide additional information without compromising other elements of the design.
That box could technically go anywhere though. The solution you posted would be a good option.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on August 15, 2020, 04:53:49 pm
Post by: voliol on August 16, 2020, 04:24:09 am
Edit: ”text explaining the item” is the item name, not some sort of item description.
Post by: Vordak on August 16, 2020, 08:24:49 am
Spoiler: Vordak-Number 3 (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Vordak-Number 4 (click to show/hide)
Post by: Bumber on August 16, 2020, 09:59:45 am
I feel that adding in horizontal scrolling makes the user experience worse, not better.
Post by: Vordak on August 16, 2020, 11:05:18 am
Spoiler: Vordak-Number 5 (click to show/hide)
Post by: Starver on August 16, 2020, 12:29:53 pm
Super-categories of items (expandable), like "Food"
o Sub-categories if items (expandable), like "Milk"
o o Items, like "(containers of) Cow's Milk".
The trouble being that the obvious hierarchy, the Stockpile list, is quite awful in parts. Glob stuff, for one. Under the Meats, there's optional subdivision of source-creature then the various subtypes of (cookable) meats. Or would you prefer the other way round? Bags could be furniture subsetted, but they are containers in non-built circumstances (and, whichever, do you subdivide bags by material, or by cloth-class then precise cloth, adding layers). What if you want to accumulate (for review, at least) items made of Steel, do you need to dig into weapons, armour, furniture, toys.. etc, all separately, or could you switch to Material-property sorting? Before you have optional value/cost sorting.
This problem applies to multi-columned versions too (the first organisational category in multilayered drop-down collapsability could be the headers) and I don't propose this as a visualisation problem suitable for this thread, just raising it as something hovering in the background of the issue.
I'd also like to see the way this screen behaves with respect to resizing. Already I'm unsure about the ellipsis use in the various Vordak examples (it shows that we're at a limit of easy display) yet this is an image that is already depicting a screen far wider than I can see properly on most of my desktop displays and all my other ones (despite the ultra-widescreen ratio and fairly good resolution on this tablet, I can't seem to scale it well enough). I know the "5 plump helmet..." duplication is copypasting, but there'd be some definite cases where that truncatuon would matter IRL.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 16, 2020, 04:22:51 pm
Post by: ror6ax on August 16, 2020, 04:42:38 pm
Post by: Starver on August 16, 2020, 07:16:13 pm
Post by: ror6ax on August 17, 2020, 03:19:09 am
As someone mentioned before - embark screen has probably caused least amount of anguish to people.
I have zero issues with it's UX and never needed any googling to understand how it works - which cannot be said for many other DF screens.
...that is I never needed googling about what does the screen do. I did need and still need frequent trips to the wiki about properties of items on the list. AKA are llamas shearable? This problem is not unique to embark screen - at any given time of playing in both fortress mode and adventure mode a player can encounter items that they are not familiar with. Hence my ugly mockup with informational popup. Having a set properties window would work in embark screen but in the actual game you'd still need a popup of sorts.
Post by: ror6ax on August 17, 2020, 03:32:11 am
Post by: Vordak on August 17, 2020, 04:15:56 am
Spoiler: Vordak-Number 6 (click to show/hide)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 17, 2020, 04:27:41 am
By Jove, I think you've nailed it!Spoiler: Vordak-Number 6 (click to show/hide)
Post by: Uthimienure on August 17, 2020, 07:22:29 am
By Jove, I think you've nailed it!Spoiler: Vordak-Number 6 (click to show/hide)
Absolutely! The embark screen doesn't need graphics.
Search & sorting functions, yes.
A line at the bottom of the screen giving a description of the currently selected item, yes.
Post by: MoltenIdol on August 17, 2020, 07:56:30 am
Such as the collapsable menus. They take up way too much space, compared to their usefullness.
They could be way out to the far left.
Players Will eventually discover what type of item an item is, when they venture into the menu for adding Stuff to your embark.
And generally compacting everything would help with faster reading.
Theres too much space between information.
Right now, i feel like my eyes are drawn towards the graphics, instead of quickly spotting the information i need.
You see more information, faster, in the ASCII menu IMO.
The graphics part of Everything could have way more texture to it, and a darker background, so the text becomes more clear next to it.
Right now, its simple up against simple.
Its "hard to focus" on the text.
I Think the "runic" textures could be implemented more, such as in the scrollbar.
Or Some other Nice texture.
But in general, darken the ui, make it pop out of the screen more, with textures, shading, lighting and Stuff. Cram it together in every way possible. Get rid of unnescessary blank space.
If you ask me <3
Always exciting to See what Youre working on.
EDIT: Maybe just make a texture for Everything Thats gold
Make the sliders feel "3D", using light and shadow, like an actual button you can touch and drag.
Maybe with little "chips" in them, like theyre old and used.
The orange could have a more flat feeling to it. Still textures with light and shadow tho, and old.
Then, the untextured grey boxes of information would Really stick out and the text would be more visible at a glance.
Like the grey boxes of text are embedded in the graphics.
Maybe make the grey waaay darker.
More earthern colours for the orange. (Maybe also a dark Silver instead of gold? Maybe not) im just feeling some diablo II UI vibes all of a sudden.
Post by: Erendir on August 17, 2020, 07:57:58 am
What if there were a single list of items, and to get an overview of what you have selected to bring with you you would activate a checkbox.
And then, with so much horizontal space, you can do stuff like having categories on the left expanding on the right (for example).
Post by: Oab on August 17, 2020, 10:12:07 am
So based on the consensus of feedback it seems like the prominent concerns are the office software vibe and the lack of tool tips.
How about something like this? (Right side)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Remove the borders and add parchment or something like stone as a background for the different sections.
Post by: Starver on August 17, 2020, 11:18:48 am
On the one hand, LHS is what you first see and is more important for you. On the other, it's "You are getting ready to embark, these are the things we can load into your wagon to take away from here (we already packed our clients' usual base requirements, but you can shuffle some back)".
I'm trying to think of various other games, and their designs. It goes both ways (but not all those are direct Embark-equivalent, some are shop-counters, and even then they have Your/Their examples - though that might be for loot-selling psychology).
I can think of a couple that do it vertically, though that's involves a different demand on screen real-estate, and also 'single table' abounds with "Goods : #Owned : Sell At : [>] : [<] : Buy At : #Available" kind of philosophy, in one order or other.
Post by: Cruxador on August 17, 2020, 01:01:17 pm
I'm just questioning the general direction this conversation is going - that being a list with collapsable sections is not enough, we need more control.T O O L T I P S
As someone mentioned before - embark screen has probably caused least amount of anguish to people.
I have zero issues with it's UX and never needed any googling to understand how it works - which cannot be said for many other DF screens.
...that is I never needed googling about what does the screen do. I did need and still need frequent trips to the wiki about properties of items on the list. AKA are llamas shearable? This problem is not unique to embark screen - at any given time of playing in both fortress mode and adventure mode a player can encounter items that they are not familiar with. Hence my ugly mockup with informational popup. Having a set properties window would work in embark screen but in the actual game you'd still need a popup of sorts.
O
O
L
T
I
P
S
You Should try to use as much of the screenspace as possible. See how much you can cram in there, while still retaining readability.The ability to collapse the sections isn't the key design purpose of that used space; it's a convenience feature. Their primary purpose is to function as subheads. There are a lot of different types of items, and a lot of variants of items which have the same functionality. Of course it's true that people can eventually find out how things work; that's true now. The point of accessibility upgrades isn't to tell people to read the wiki and figure it out as they go along, but to increase the initial clarity.
Such as the collapsable menus. They take up way too much space, compared to their usefullness.
They could be way out to the far left.
Players Will eventually discover what type of item an item is, when they venture into the menu for adding Stuff to your embark.
Quote
And generally compacting everything would help with faster reading.This isn't correct, and it's not only a matter of opinion but in contradiction to an overwhelming body of design research. The importance of white space in graphic design is well established; a dense block of text slows reading and decreases comprehension.
Theres too much space between information.
Quote
Right now, i feel like my eyes are drawn towards the graphics, instead of quickly spotting the information i need.I agree that the colors of the UI really need another pass. The bright gold headers pop too much, the grey that is barely within the range one can consider dark grey is not a suitable replacement for black, and the text, overall, is overwhelmed by its surroundings. Plain white on black was too much contrast, but they've gone too far in the other direction, and if they want to abandon that old way, it should be done properly with a color, not just making the black lighter and lighter. I'm partial to a cream (#fdf5e6) on brown taupe (#483a2c) myself, with some lighter and darker variants mixed in (#f7e7ce, #f9debb, #cf9d6b and #6b594a, #594027, #634b33) for highlighting and similar but distinct elements and a licorice (#1a1110) tone for the ultimate backgrounds. Something along those lines would create a modest and warm range of tones that I think is appropriate to DF, which would work well on a far wider range of screens than the current medium greys do. Of course, that specific case wouldn't look great with the light yellow border designs, but to be honest adjusting them to a more vibrant and saturated range of tones would look more like gold anyway.
You see more information, faster, in the ASCII menu IMO.
The graphics part of Everything could have way more texture to it, and a darker background, so the text becomes more clear next to it.
Right now, its simple up against simple.
Its "hard to focus" on the text.
I Think the "runic" textures could be implemented more, such as in the scrollbar.
Or Some other Nice texture.
But in general, darken the ui, make it pop out of the screen more, with textures, shading, lighting and Stuff. Cram it together in every way possible. Get rid of unnescessary blank space.
If you ask me <3
Always exciting to See what Youre working on.
I think it's easy to do wrong if they were to make textures for everything here, however that applies to actual textures in the art/design sense, not the broader programming sense. Making more custom versions of UI elements would help, and I agree that the scrollbar is a key choice for this. There are no doubt going to be a lot of scrollbars, settling for what's basically a Windows 95 default isn't great. Instead, whey not have Meph make something that matches his gold filigree aesthetic?
@Vordak: Lol!I dig the parchment section, this is definitely an improvement over Mike/Meph's initial public draft. However although I called them out as too bright, the grey buttons and background aren't bright enough to go to a dark text color.
So based on the consensus of feedback it seems like the prominent concerns are the office software vibe and the lack of tool tips.
How about something like this? (Right side)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Remove the borders and add parchment or something like stone as a background for the different sections.
Post by: FantasticDorf on August 17, 2020, 01:58:24 pm
Besides, taking the assumption that we see our dwarves on the lefthand side of the screen in little boxes it'd be fitting to have them set against a darker background so we can see them better conveying their beardcolors or skin tones, then we'd read their credentials (or more to say, add and modify) about their skills on the righthand scroll. Bringing the pratical illusion and setting up some staging this is probably a POV of a mountain-home book-keeper/pen-pusher.
Post by: Oab on August 17, 2020, 05:39:08 pm
I was thinking the book keeper and broker screens could share the parchment idea as well.
Obviously this could look much better if more effort was spent on it. Crude copy pasting edits is all the time I can spare unfortunately.
Here are some additional potential improvements:
-Intricate design along the margin similar to Mephs borders.
-Having a quill for the selection icon would be a nice touch as well.
-Curled top/bottom.
-Dwarfy Finials top/bottom
-More appropriate highlight on the selection
-More appropriate tool tip art
You bring up an interesting point about the dwarfs. I don’t think their appearance is determined by this point though?
Now you have me thinking of a dwarf randomizer function that draws from historical figures. Too bad this screen comes prior to world gen.
@Cruxador:
Yes.
100% agree, and I really don’t understand the dismissive discourse in the steam suggestion threads. Unless of course it concerns suggestions on things that are clearly out of scope at this time.
Yep, and is actually true across most fields of design.
Your color suggestions are good in theory, but a lot of the sprites share those colors so there would be issues with contrast that would have to be considered.
Thanks.
Post by: Pillbo on August 17, 2020, 06:35:15 pm
Thinking about "Your Items", "Available Items(/etc)", does Your<=Available ordering work better than Available=>Your?
This has always been confusing and felt backwards to me. Available=>Your makes more sense.
Post by: Bumber on August 17, 2020, 09:48:07 pm
Post by: [HYBRID BEING] on August 18, 2020, 08:47:11 am
Post by: voliol on August 18, 2020, 09:12:50 am
Besides, taking the assumption that we see our dwarves on the lefthand side of the screen in little boxes it'd be fitting to have them set against a darker background so we can see them better conveying their beardcolors or skin tones [...]
A dark background wouldn’t work well with dark hair colors and skin tones, a medium (neither bright nor dark) background is the best option to work with as many dwarf colors as possible.
Post by: FantasticDorf on August 18, 2020, 09:40:09 am
You bring up an interesting point about the dwarfs. I don’t think their appearance is determined by this point though?
Now you have me thinking of a dwarf randomizer function that draws from historical figures. Too bad this screen comes prior to world gen.
Randomizer is a suggestion all in itself, at most a competent DFhack script writer could jerryrig taking the data from the adventurer screen's personality & appearance stage then copy-paste, its how i think they've managed to do similar feats, save backing out to main-menu and re-embarking all the while. Im quite sure that somehow they could use the latter half of that adventurer screen to even create new non-dwarf migrant races for embark.
Its already been sort of determined that dwarves will have graphics for themsleves that are defined seperately, its amongst some of the earliest topics when the screenshots for the steam release were announced, and this is mainly what i was referecing. In lieu with the recent screenshots of little dinky animals on the embark screen to take with you, it seemed like a natural step.
Besides, taking the assumption that we see our dwarves on the lefthand side of the screen in little boxes it'd be fitting to have them set against a darker background so we can see them better conveying their beardcolors or skin tones [...]
A dark background wouldn’t work well with dark hair colors and skin tones, a medium (neither bright nor dark) background is the best option to work with as many dwarf colors as possible.
That's fair, but backround tile color designations especially for screens in those little boxes might be relevant, default being black.
Post by: voliol on August 18, 2020, 10:38:32 am
Post by: evthestrike on August 18, 2020, 11:48:11 am
Unpopular opinion: icons and buttons look weird on parchment background, and it makes font choice more limited.I am not a huge fan of the parchment either, unless the rest of the menu matches that aesthetic better. I don't think it matches with the rest of the UI very well.
Any thoughts on the intro sequence? Will it remain the same, or are you making a new one/remaster it?It would be cool if the artists made a remastered version in pixel art. That would probably be a low priority though.
Post by: Rekov on August 18, 2020, 01:25:11 pm
The DF menu looks like a menu in a computer game, not parchment, and I'm fine, and indeed happy about that.
If you did want the menus to have an "in universe" look to them, I would have gone with carved stone, with little gems for the buttons.
Post by: FantasticDorf on August 18, 2020, 02:04:37 pm
I'm lost. What do you guys mean by parchment, exactly? Because that's what a modern game would have done, and I'm glad that DF didn't go that route.
If you did want the menus to have an "in universe" look to them, I would have gone with carved stone, with little gems for the buttons.
Video game history lesson time. People have been trying to imitate ye-olde paper documentation for game-menus since forever but its very subjective, since dwarves have a paper and book industry and don't actually write important things down on stone tablets.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Starver on August 18, 2020, 03:24:26 pm
(There's a lot of different textural visualisations we could use. Many are tropes possibly to the level of cliché. If I could think of one that was suitably genre-correct, attractivel distinctive and utterly novel then I'd be wasted just blurting it out here. That I'm not doing so is entirely due to the lack, though. That choice is well beyond my paygrade, though. I'llnprobably be best saying which ones I like, if they pop up...)
Post by: Cruxador on August 18, 2020, 04:28:53 pm
I'm lost. What do you guys mean by parchment, exactly? Because that's what a modern game would have done, and I'm glad that DF didn't go that route.If you mean modern in the historical sense, maybe. It's been out of the trend for design for the better part of a decade even at the most generous. It was in decline even longer ago than that. But Dwarf Fortress is not a game made for only one year, it doesn't need to be mired in a single decade's popular style and should consider design more broadly.
Quote
The DF menu looks like a menu in a computer game, not parchment, and I'm fine, and indeed happy about that.It looks like a menu in a computer program, but not game, from the 90s. Setting that aside, forgoing "immersion" type aspects is only better if it's because those aspects are inadequate and a more abstract aesthetic allows you to do something that would otherwise not make sense. However, even if we only look at color choices, that parchment look is an improvement, and the added value of the additional aesthetic detail ought not to be disregarded either.
If you did want the menus to have an "in universe" look to them, I would have gone with carved stone, with little gems for the buttons.
Post by: MoltenIdol on August 18, 2020, 07:08:11 pm
Its closer to actually making me want to play when looking at it.
Its looking more like a game, with at least a slightly immersive menu to get you into the vibe.
Just give us Some serious 80-90 fantasy vibes and Everything will be good.
Post by: Meph on August 19, 2020, 05:19:05 pm
Post by: Starver on August 19, 2020, 05:48:59 pm
Post by: Cruxador on August 19, 2020, 06:11:17 pm
I'm personally more a stone/metal texture fan. Fits the theme of Dwarves better. Sepia parchment also restricts the color palette quite a bit.What's "restricts"? No matter what you pick, you need a color scheme for the UI where the components work well together. No matter what you pick, every color added narrows the range of what other colors can be used and look good. If you can make a stone/metal that looks good, by all means do so, but so far the color choices aren't nearly as versatile in terms of the range of screens that they look good on as it would be to stick with tried and true options. You haven't even really got control over whether the elements will be predominantly warm or cool tones.
Post by: Meph on August 19, 2020, 06:48:16 pm
Post by: sanchezman on August 19, 2020, 07:04:12 pm
Take the seeds. I see:
5 plump helmet spawn. 1pts + -
From a visual perspective, it's not clear if it costs 1pt per spawn, or 1pt for all 5 spawn. I can only tell by actually clicking + or -. Also, it would be nice if the number could be typed instead of only incremented/decremented.
A clearer way to present the information might be something like this:
Plump helmet spawn. 1pts x [5] + - 5pts
The square braces are to indicate an editable box.
Post by: Uthimienure on August 19, 2020, 07:14:00 pm
Post by: Starver on August 19, 2020, 08:32:50 pm
But if we're having 'freetext' (restricted to digits) typing in those boxes, at least make focus a thing where tab/shift-tab moves it around logically across the active subwidgets.
Post by: Cruxador on August 19, 2020, 10:56:32 pm
Ah, Cruxador. Now I remember why I stopped posting here.What, because I addressed the subject of the thread? Responded to a post you made? If you can't hear any disagreement or that not every choice you've made is perfect without dissolving into a pile of salt, how are you gonna do anything iterative ever?
Do you want congratulations first? Look, it's an improvement over just a list. You (and Mike and Toady, and I assume also ThreeToe) brought the UI from 80s to 90s, which is a substantial improvement. It's good! But that doesn't mean there's no further room for improvement, and color scheme in particular is an area where the current offering could be improved a lot. It's not even a high-effort thing to implement in particular, compared to the amount of benefit attainable. I get that none of you guys are primarily graphic designers and as far as I'm aware don't have a graphic design background, and everybody has only a limited array of screens to work with. I reckon just about everyone gets that. Who said they expected your first public draft to be perfect? But UI is pretty important and absolutely deserves at least the time and care that went into ramps after initial feedback, and color scheme in particular is part of that.
And yet when someone simply says that a more conventional choice would be valid and avoid some pitfalls, that is so direly offensive to you that you "threaten" to leave, invalidating the purpose of the thread and undermining the project by eschewing community feedback?
Post by: Cruxador on August 20, 2020, 02:26:40 am
-the colours are not quite right (or they're "mad ugly" as one commenter put it).In my view is because the colors are not sufficiently suitable to all screens. I can adjust things such that they look pretty good, actually, but the portion of the population for whom this is the default setup won't be high enough. Maybe Meph's screen falls into this area, I don't know. But that's why a color scheme with a more robust appearance on a variety of screens is the thing to angle for.
Post by: Oab on August 20, 2020, 09:21:58 am
That parchment could easily be dwarven toilet paper. Don’t get caught up on the parchment idea itself, but instead focus on the visual clarity potential something like this could offer.
At the end of the day the background just needs more visual interest and should help create a cleaner overall visual.
Concerning the color not working or the icons clashing, that’s a moot point obviously that would have to be addressed with anything official. Correcting those issues is absolutely not difficult to accomplish, and I suspect Mike already has palettes that would work to accomplish this. For example the icons could just use a gray tone or some other appropriate color filter. This would probably even help to enhance the parchment theme.
Adding themes for immersion adds value as long as it’s relative and complimentary to the tile set art. The only concern is what do you do with all the other screens?
It’s great that many of you find the boxes of text good enough, but that is a minority thought and defeats the purpose of this venture. I would be happy with it as is to. This UI work more than anything is arguably the most crucial to get right. To appease the expectations of the majority of players on steam this needs and deserves unbiased feedback.Toady’s opinion doesn’t even matter much against the weight of the majority opinion on this. This is one of the costs of using steam as a platform unfortunately.
@Meph:
I suggest the parchment mostly because the art style you guys are using reminds me of older games that utilized parchment themes. It seemed easily adoptable, sensible, and complimentary even to the art style.
Stone/metal would absolutely work as a background and by default be usable for all screens to boot.
Post by: ror6ax on August 20, 2020, 09:48:07 am
Ah, Cruxador. Now I remember why I stopped posting here.
As a relative newcomer to DF and this forum this is not something nice to see.
There's a ton of goodwill and support for the UI work and many people essentially volunteering as a collective UX hivemind.
Supposedly unfriendly comments by one person are hardly a reason to kill this, obviously very popular thread.
The "help save the noobs" thread has a lot of love put into it as well and not a single acknowledgement that it's being read by anyone. I thought it is precisely the job Kitfox was supposed to be doing. With Thursday releases becoming smaller each week, I feel uneasy about the future of UX endeavour.
I've asked for a screenshot of an active mid-size fortress in several places and got to answer. It would take you guys 15 seconds to make a few and give us a bit more than 100x100px crop to appreciate and maybe give feedback about. Win-win.
Post by: voliol on August 20, 2020, 11:12:12 am
Post by: Meph on August 20, 2020, 11:37:07 am
Quote
The "help save the noobs" thread has a lot of love put into it as well and not a single acknowledgement that it's being read by anyone. I thought it is precisely the job Kitfox was supposed to be doing. With Thursday releases becoming smaller each week, I feel uneasy about the future of UX endeavour.As far as I'm aware Tarn does read pretty much anything here. Just two days ago he commented on the positive feedback the little UI preview has gotten.
I personally read everything here and on Reddit. Mike reads most of it too.
Cruxador: It's not because I shy away from feedback. Anyone who has followed me, MasterworkDF, my tileset, or the work here can attest to that. It's because you are usually explicitly contrarian to whatever was posted, extremely sure that your own opinion is the only valid one, assuming a lot of things that are incorrect. It's tiring. I'm sure you don't mean it that way or even notice anymore...
Quote
What's "restricts"? No matter what you pick, you need a color scheme for the UI where the components work well together. No matter what you pick, every color added narrows the range of what other colors can be used and look good. If you can make a stone/metal that looks good, by all means do so, but so far the color choices aren't nearly as versatile in terms of the range of screens that they look good on as it would be to stick with tried and true options. You haven't even really got control over whether the elements will be predominantly warm or cool tones.That's your response. On my note that I personally favour rock/metal.
You assumed that I designed the UI.
You assumed I said anything against parchment.
You assumed I currently "haven't even really got control over whether the elements will be predominantly warm or cool tones." - What?
You start with a rhetorical question, then telling me " by all means do" what I like, followed by the obvious "but" here is what you should actually do.
It's nice that you want to help this project, but between getting both Mike and me avoiding this thread, you have done more harm than good.
Post by: Cruxador on August 20, 2020, 12:33:53 pm
It's because you are usually explicitly contrarian to whatever was posted, extremely sure that your own opinion is the only valid one, assuming a lot of things that are incorrect. It's tiring.Well, for those areas where I think everything is already perfect, or as good as I have the capacity to recommend on, I don't tend to see any need to say something. If something is done right to that degree, it is presumably done so with intention; that is to say, the person who does it is aware of what was done well because they went out of their way to achieve that. Similarly, why would I say something if I didn't have a reasonable confidence that my opinion was justified in fact? If it's based on a lack of foundational information, then it would be helpful to clarify; if I don't know, I'm probably not the only one. Of course, if you're too tired to be bothered, that's understandable as well, especially the way things are these days. Certainly with all the fires I've been a bit stressed myself; it happens.
Quote
I was using the general "You", speaking to the design principle. I'll try and avoid using second person in such abstract circumstances, if that's particularly bothersome to you. It's the kind of thing I can easily forget though, since we talk only relatively sporadically over months and years, so if it happens again, please bear with me. I can try to avoid rhetorical questions as well, if that's something you perceive as inherently rude, but I use them a lot and will definitely forget to check back and rephrase things at some point. I already caught two in this very post where I'm more likely to be aware of it than any.QuoteWhat's "restricts"? No matter what you pick, you need a color scheme for the UI where the components work well together. No matter what you pick, every color added narrows the range of what other colors can be used and look good. If you can make a stone/metal that looks good, by all means do so, but so far the color choices aren't nearly as versatile in terms of the range of screens that they look good on as it would be to stick with tried and true options. You haven't even really got control over whether the elements will be predominantly warm or cool tones.That's your response. On my note that I personally favour rock/metal.
You assumed that I designed the UI.
You assumed I said anything against parchment.
You assumed I currently "haven't even really got control over whether the elements will be predominantly warm or cool tones." - What?
You start with a rhetorical question, then telling me " by all means do" what I like, followed by the obvious "but" here is what you should actually do.
Phrasing aside:
I didn't assume you designed the UI, but I did assume you had some degree of say in it, based on the imperfect understanding of the design process. I interpreted your statement about parchment as being against it, which I don't think is an unreasonable interpretation based on the uncaveated way that you phrased it, but if you merely meant to highlight a potential weakness, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. I'm sure I've been similarly unclear myself. With regards to the lack of control over warm or cool, I was referring again to the variety in how these colors can appear on different monitors; although the colors are very slightly warm, they are close enough to a purely even tone that given the tendency many screens have to emphasize blue light, they can wind up on the cool side of things. In other words, the colors chosen do not exert a very strong control over what the end user will perceive, because their position within the spectrum is near to a point that makes a substantial qualitative difference. That point falls within the range of variation in how the colors defined in the software are transmitted through the hardware to the wetware.
On the last point, I can see how my phrasing seemed petty and domineering, for which I apologize. What I meant is that I recognize that the stone/metal palette could look good, and I would by no means be opposed to it on principle, but it is more susceptible to a particular limitation which has not been overcome in the current (and, I know, definitely not final) implementation. I was also highlighting that there are alternatives which dodge the issue more effectively.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 20, 2020, 05:16:02 pm
(Seems like a good thing to have UI feedback somewhere else anyway. Discussions are already building up in a couple of different threads. And a link to a new thread would be easy to give to people on Reddit, etc who want to give feedback).
Post by: Starver on August 20, 2020, 05:43:12 pm
I'm very bad at it, but I'm trying to stick to graphics comments only here. (It does sometimes merge with layout style, a bit, where layout itself shouldn't be here. Ditto what, through maybe a graphical element, should be an added piece of functionality.)
Stage 1: A meta-thread to discuss the exact scopes of various existing/potential threads (like this post should be).
Stage 2: ???
Stage 3: Barely breaking even!!!
Post by: Toady One on August 21, 2020, 04:00:26 am
It is what it is ror6ax, no need to be overly anxious about it. Doing so mostly just adds stress to everyone involved. Kitfox are also not responsible for the UX redesign, afaik, their work is in publishing, which means advertising and legal stuff, as well as acting as an intermediary to Steam, and Meph, Mayday and Dabu (the composer). Meph and Mayday are clearly working directly with Toady though, so I'm unsure how exactly that works. They could of course explain/confirm/deny this themselves in further detail, if they wish to, I really do not know much more than this.
We handle all of the Steam News posts/images. Every two weeks, I pick some stuff out, often in coordination with Mike and Meph depending on what's going on, and I take some shots and write some text. I send that over to Victoria every other Wednesday night and she formats it and often adds a Kitfox Note. There are times where we've coordinated a little bit with Kitfox about an upcoming news post -- for instance on the embark UI, which was an important reveal. "Reveals" etc. are a little different from how we've operated in the past of course, but it's convenient for a number of reasons not to show things too early -- PC Gamer etc. pick up some of our images and it's not bad to put a good foot forward in those circumstances. I'm working on the main screen UI now, so it won't take forever for that restriction to be lifted.
Kitfox has nothing to do with the noobs thread. We've taken extensive notes on both the stress and noobs thread, which I've referred to on occasion in FotF, but we haven't taken action on them yet, so likely they seem abandoned if you haven't been following every Q&A, which is certainly a mistake of ours.
(edit)
But yeah, I've been reading the thread, and historically haven't posted much/at all since I'm not an artist and it has been useful for the artists and I didn't want to detract from that.
I've just been taking art/interface questions over in Future of the Fortress when it comes up. There's not much else but UI etc. going on now, so I'm not sure FotF is terrible for that discussion, even if it also has magic/etc. talk as well.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 21, 2020, 08:06:11 am
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=177122.msg8181151#msg8181151N
Let's get back to beakdog colours and beautiful procedural trees. :)
Post by: clinodev on August 22, 2020, 07:13:51 am
PatrikLundell has opened what will hopefully be seen at some point as the official UI discussion thread right here:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=177122.msg8181151#msg8181151N
Let's get back to beakdog colours and beautiful procedural trees. :)
Toady just saw you referencing that thread you've been pushing, and instead suggested the FotF replies.
Post by: Bumber on August 22, 2020, 11:38:07 am
Toady just saw you referencing that thread you've been pushing, and instead suggested the FotF replies.
???
Toady's most recent post is before that thread existed.
Post by: Superdorf on August 22, 2020, 11:56:51 am
Post by: Starver on August 22, 2020, 02:46:27 pm
My guesses: Layout, probably; Anything new presented as info and capable of being twiddled, likely; Colour themes (flat hues, borders, etc), I would imagine.
The extra graphical flourishes (the twiddly metalwork bordering)... Maybe some of it, though technically if it's artwork done by the Steam Artwork duo, it's supposed to be a big part of the reward from the Premium purchase. So probably rationed. (Or have Premium and Lo-Fi variants?)
Post by: clinodev on August 22, 2020, 04:19:09 pm
Toady just saw you referencing that thread you've been pushing, and instead suggested the FotF replies.
???
Toady's most recent post is before that thread existed.
It's a moot point as that thread's been locked.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 22, 2020, 05:42:07 pm
Post by: Yakefa on August 26, 2020, 08:00:54 pm
@Vordak: Lol!
So based on the consensus of feedback it seems like the prominent concerns are the office software vibe and the lack of tool tips.
How about something like this? (Right side)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Remove the borders and add parchment or something like stone as a background for the different sections.
That's a really good mockup, nice job! It takes the good base of the new UI a step further.
Tooltips would be amazing for a lot of players who are getting started. If we could avoid having to alt/tab constantly in order to visit the wiki, because nothing is really explained in the game, it would make a huge difference. Improve the flow, dpesn't force you out of the game to obtain essential knowledge that should be available inside the game.
I also like that the player's inventory is more distinguishable from the available items. In the steam page screenshots, you can't really tell the difference without the tiny text at the top.
Post by: Meph on August 26, 2020, 08:53:46 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/meiStE6.png)
Post by: Rekov on August 26, 2020, 08:58:48 pm
Post by: Cruxador on August 26, 2020, 09:12:34 pm
Right now, latest test on my end, looks like this:That's already a big improvement. I wouldn't have thought to go for the purple, but I think it works pretty well. I do think it would also really help to mellow out the color of the text a bit since despite being contrasted to a lighter color: The white retains some of the garishness (by which I mean excessive contrast) of the original ASCII scheme.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Are the textures for the individual options meant to remain as little bands through the middle, or is that purely a WIP aspect? I think it looks a bit goofy in its current implementation; it might look better to have them fill the majority of the field, not just the text field, excepting only a few pixels of buffer at the top and bottom. Maybe three?
About the scrollbars, I think the red gem might add some ambiguity about the function since they look like they might move independently though I assume in fact they're simply the center element of the bar as a whole. Maybe not a problem since the functionality would become apparent pretty immediately in use, though.
Post by: Starver on August 26, 2020, 09:44:38 pm
Despite the unsophisticated nature of the appearance (though is marginally more complicated[1] to en-widget) I would have prefered the "<item>" and "<#> items" to textually line up at the start of the <item...> bit (or right-align to the number, inuding the invisible "1"), just to make it more obvious as you rack up or down the quantities through various powers of 10 (including 10⁰). Speaking of which, there's obviously some attempt to match plurals or singular or uncountable massing(s) with axes/picks, anvil(), cloth/spawn/beer as examples, but the method (drawn from raw naming tag? ...must check) failed with "15 ... turtle()". Not your territory, of course.
That aside, I like the general up-vamp done. I can easily forgive some other little niggles I could mention, because they'd be more and more about "how *I* would do it", and I'm clearly not the one doing it. ;)
[1] Auto-width a number column, invisible separator, then name (greedy column), existing invisible separator, existing "<pts> pts" column (then inv. sep., +/- graphics) that I'd right-justify as well. Assuming it isn't currently more complicatedly set up with no invisible breaks just clever padding in two places, but that's even more complex to coordinate per-row.
Post by: Yakefa on August 29, 2020, 01:26:46 pm
Pointing this out again, but if there was one think to take from this fan mockup, it would be the different background colors used to differentiate your stash from the item reserve.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Using 2 (harmonious) different colors allows the eye to instantly recognize that each side of the screen has a different purpose, without having to read any text. I'm not using you should use the same colors, but this visual principle is a good UX rule.
Post by: ror6ax on August 29, 2020, 04:24:47 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on August 29, 2020, 04:43:40 pm
Post by: Yakefa on August 30, 2020, 09:09:48 pm
Item descriptions! We Dark Souls now!
As a player, do you like having tons of items thrown your way without any explanation? Unless you have a 6th sense, the answer should be negative.
This is just common sense to want to learn more about the fantasy world you're in.
And no one asked for a wall of text, a simple one-liner is usually enough for most items.
Post by: Egan_BW on August 30, 2020, 09:13:17 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 30, 2020, 11:01:59 pm
They don't get themselves typed in magically though do they? If it's not in the already massive Steam update schedule, it most likely won't happen. Most of the game is still a one-man project.Item descriptions! We Dark Souls now!
As a player, do you like having tons of items thrown your way without any explanation? Unless you have a 6th sense, the answer should be negative.
This is just common sense to want to learn more about the fantasy world you're in.
And no one asked for a wall of text, a simple one-liner is usually enough for most items.
Ask in fotf, due tomorrow, if it's part of the "new user-friendliness" updates for Steam. No point in interrogating the artists about it.
Post by: evthestrike on August 31, 2020, 11:34:30 am
Post by: Starver on August 31, 2020, 12:17:50 pm
A wheelbarrow..?
Code: [Select]
[ITEM_TOOL:ITEM_TOOL_WHEELBARROW]
[NAME:wheelbarrow:wheelbarrows]
[VALUE:50]
[METAL_MAT]
[WOOD_MAT]
[TOOL_USE:HEAVY_OBJECT_HAULING]
[FURNITURE]
[TILE:153]
[SIZE:30000]
[MATERIAL_SIZE:6]
[CONTAINER_CAPACITY:100000]Some basic stats can be ripped from that, but you'd need a bit of processing to natural language to get "This wooden wheelbarrow would be useful for hauling heavy objects" (colours/etc representing item details ripped from both generated and archetypal raws of an item under review.
Creature raws do that well in game (including one-off proc-gen ones, though with strange oxymorons like "four-legged biped" or whatever you get these days), and the creature-description page information should be available as hover-info-box, maybe (cut down a little?) but it might take a bigger effort to program item-raw parser/translater into natural language. Easier to add [TEXT_FOR_HOVER_BOX] tags, maybe, and manually fill these in for everything. But still a lot of extra work needing doing ("Hey, Zack! Got some time to spare?") alongside everything else.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on August 31, 2020, 04:14:50 pm
Aren't there already descriptions in the raws that could be displayed?No.
You'd have to type them all in, or as the post above says, make a generator for them, like the one which shows descriptions for the instruments.
Post by: ror6ax on September 01, 2020, 01:58:31 am
Post by: Egan_BW on September 01, 2020, 02:05:14 am
Post by: voliol on September 01, 2020, 02:40:55 am
Post by: Egan_BW on September 01, 2020, 03:22:43 am
Post by: Zesty on September 01, 2020, 05:24:47 am
Right now, latest test on my end, looks like this:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I like this a whole lot better, but do you think the gold pops a little too much? Draws your eye away from the important parts?
Here's a real dirty darkening, just to see if it feels better. Now it's the white text that pops, which is what you want your eye drawn to anyway. I tend to favor darker themes, and DF has always felt like a darker game in the past. Though I really appreciate the colorful direction the main game has taken.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Meph on September 01, 2020, 06:32:41 am
Zesty, good point about the color.
Post by: Starver on September 01, 2020, 10:54:51 am
(Want to get a dwarf down from a wall?)(You can't get down from a wall or a dwarf. You're obviously thinking of ducks.)
I would actually find it a bit distracting to have tooltips on everything (if automatic/default on hover - even with a 'delay in place' trigger[1] to it), and you probably know from Windows how 'helpful' file or folder details tend to pop-over some of the normal background that you're actually more interested in. One reason I tend to leave the mouse alone, cursor off somewhere safe/unimportant on the screen, and use keyboard controls for everything I can. I imagine I'll do the same here if the GUI revamp allows.
Right-click[2] menu access to relevent functions including "Description"/helpfile-window/whatever might be the better idea.
Or perhaps a dedicated/configurable/dockable bit of side-bar pane that can hold the 'pop up' info, but that depends upon giving over dedicated screen real-estate (like DF does now, or perhaps GIMPish, or Transport Tycoony) but I haven't seen mock-ups including any new-version general game-time layouts (beyond the clipped 'map' graphics), and I imagine that is still being bashed out heavily.
Configuration settings for 'levels' of note-pop/overlay/positioning, with "intro"/tuorial levels as default/initial option up to "not unless explicitly called upon" would be the obvious response, perhaps to encompass multiple such possible paradigms (quickly pointed out to new players as options to choose/rechoose to suit their preferences), if you can't be surewhat is the ideal solution to this.
Not sure how this ties in with easy "wall problem" solving. Except as tutorialised popover notifications during the actual Dwarf Is Stuck On A Wall/In A Tree contrived setup[3] used to explain external stairway/ramp solutions.
Also, this is beyond Steam/Itch tileset stuff, probably more FotF (which I remain several months behind in reading up on, must have another session to cut that down a bit) so I don't want to bother you artists much more with my thoughts on this somewhat separate aspect (it'd use your 'filligree bordering' and perhaps a texture, no doubt, but graphics and pallette taken in theme from other major elements, probably, either wholesale or tweaked).
[1] Which might force a player to pause the game to ID a moving creature/object/phenomenon. But better than the rapid cycling of pop-up info as things moving under the cursor and/or the cursor passes over intermediate things on the way to the next click of meaning.
[2] Or equivalent, where it's a different system pointing device and/or accessibility.
[3] Two-step ziggurat is spawned[4], perhaps, two dwarves teleported to its steps, third dwarf has to be made to place a ramp against first step, then an offset up-, up/down- and down-stairs, a bridging floor and an additional wall on the first-step to allow wall-top access to/from the second... Would cover a lot of the common principles in one short lesson.
[4] Has anyone considered, rather than constantly disrupting the embark fort, having "image-in-image" mini-embark tutorial maps? Small independent slices of fort-like terrain that take focus during the tutorial. Generated exactly as required for the tutoring lesson (including stockpiles and wildlife), banished when complete/dismissed when the player is finished learning/bored/done sandboxing in it, to get back to regular play that was suspended for the duration. Means no awkwardly 'magical' adjustments or requirements are needed in the main game to enable tutorialising, can be restarted (from scratch, if not with cached changes) at will as required...
Post by: [HYBRID BEING] on September 02, 2020, 02:36:19 am
Also, instead of huge lists containing single item in different materials on the right side, why not have a separate drop-down (or at least not visible initially on item selection) list for item material instead? Huge list is visually daunting, and material selection would indicate that material doesn't affect item's purpose, but it's properties instead. It could also have some graphical indication of said properties (like magma-safety) and be color-coded to show if material is wood/stone/metal.
Post by: teh sam on September 02, 2020, 04:02:19 pm
Also, I would echo what others have suggested about embellishing the Embark button in some way to draw the eye. Currently it does have the exclamation point, but I'm wondering if there's something else that would be tasteful to help it stand out a tad.
Post by: Meph on September 02, 2020, 04:18:16 pm
Quote
I notice that some sliders have red gems while the far right is blue. Is this just for variety or does the coloration indicate something?The cyan one is when you hover the mouse over it.
Embark button is embellished now. ;)
Post by: Meph on September 02, 2020, 07:20:08 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/xsLTpXe.png)
Post by: Egan_BW on September 02, 2020, 07:21:07 pm
Post by: teh sam on September 02, 2020, 07:26:58 pm
Post by: Zesty on September 02, 2020, 08:49:38 pm
And now for something completely different. A saguaro test. We know have the code support for different tree types. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/xsLTpXe.png)
They're enormous.
Post by: Ziusudra on September 02, 2020, 11:52:51 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: voliol on September 03, 2020, 12:53:42 am
And now for something completely different. A saguaro test. We know have the code support for different tree types. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/xsLTpXe.png)
This makes me happy. Looks great except for the weird straight cutoffs, but I can’t imagine they are intentional.
Post by: Dishmab on September 03, 2020, 01:25:54 am
Post by: Meph on September 03, 2020, 04:10:11 am
I feel like it looks great, but it should have points on the end to make it look like its going up or something, rather than just cut off.I can make it appear like they are going up on those ends, but the image is exactly how they grow in DF.
Post by: clinodev on September 03, 2020, 05:35:36 am
Post by: Meph on September 03, 2020, 07:58:31 am
Yeah, yeah, cacti are nice, but hit me with those Tower-cap and Tunnel tube! :D
To quote Toady: Feel free to flex your imagination on the underground trees!
Hence I made some weird looking tunnel tubes. :P
(https://i.imgur.com/fXTSXRY.png)
Giant mushrooms are fairly WIP right now. Due to the dots the repetition becomes very obvious.
(https://i.imgur.com/ttOwnMH.png)
Post by: voliol on September 03, 2020, 08:29:03 am
Post by: ror6ax on September 03, 2020, 09:24:43 am
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 03, 2020, 09:55:18 am
Post by: Cruxador on September 03, 2020, 02:41:26 pm
I think the giant mushroom border isn't quite right because the different levels don't look like one item.
Post by: teh sam on September 03, 2020, 03:45:55 pm
Post by: Dishmab on September 06, 2020, 02:30:04 am
Post by: Schmaven on September 06, 2020, 03:54:09 am
Post by: Starver on September 06, 2020, 08:38:13 am
Potentially you'd have ground/constructed-floor, any surface plant-growth, whatever zone/stockpile mat imagery is eventually used, a constructed thing (trap, pillar, lever, etc, if they don't clash with stickpile), contaminants/splashes, items (could be many and varied, esp. if quantum-dumped), gibs, corpses, all of the inumerable creatures currently laying down there, the one creature standing up, any corner infographics/whatever for the creature (mood, need, other statuses), mists/fogs/miasmas, the tint that indicates it's on the layer below, a wash to indicate your current cursor action is painting a selection across this tile... Maybe not all of these at once, maybe some things I've forgotten.
Perhaps there'll continue to be some cycling of visually mutually-exclusive items, or some layers are just so obscuring that you won't get to see what's 'beneath' anyway, short of the usual tile-interogation.
Watch This (very crowded) Space!?
Post by: Meph on September 06, 2020, 01:42:37 pm
Post by: teh sam on September 07, 2020, 10:12:46 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 07, 2020, 11:09:39 pm
Has it been confirmed that it will be everything overlaid all at once rather than the classic DF tile-cycle?
You see floor, item and creature.(Meph being one of the three people working on it, so presumably would know).
Post by: Starver on September 08, 2020, 02:36:00 am
Post by: Meph on September 08, 2020, 03:38:00 am
Has it been confirmed that it will be everything overlaid all at once rather than the classic DF tile-cycle?You see floor, item and creature.(Meph being one of the three people working on it, so presumably would know).
I looked it up ingame, it's certainly working atm. It shows floors, floor edges, shadows, plants growing on floor, the topmost item, the topmost unit. In that order.
Post by: Meph on September 08, 2020, 03:38:36 pm
(https://i.redd.it/9ecxq58wgzl51.png)
We are currently discussing if any of these would make sense ingame. It's a little bit of extra work doing this for every item and the final sprite might be less readable. Especially if three states mix.
This mock-up shows a sword and a breastplate with 0%, 25%, 50% and 75% wear (100% and the item is destroyed); as well as each quality level and four contaminants to test, vomit, blood, water and mud.
At the bottom you can find a few example with a mix of two or three states.
Please let me know what you think about it. :)
Post by: Starver on September 08, 2020, 03:50:09 pm
Worried that it would be too much work to do all the groundwork for everything, and get everything else finished as well. Obviously it's your call on that.
Post by: Meph on September 08, 2020, 04:01:41 pm
Post by: voliol on September 08, 2020, 04:05:33 pm
[...]
Please let me know what you think about it. :)
Honestly, I think all three at once are too much, visually. The wear is visually distinct and mechanically important, and the charm of bloody swords is too great to pass (though I wonder, why are there 4 different contaminant patterns?). But - the quality-levels atop of this is just too much, the gold details obscure the color of the base material. In the end, the base material is the most important property of an item, and should thus be recognizable at a glance. It also makes little sense that high-quality items be gold-adorned, unless they actually are (which I don’t think is possible for non-artifact items in vanilla).
Concrete points:
- Don’t use distinct graphics for item quality levels.
- To avoid clutter, only show one contaminant, and use patterns like the blood ones, that only cover part of the item, and assymetrically enough to make it clear it’s not part of the design.
Post by: Meph on September 08, 2020, 04:09:29 pm
Post by: Rose on September 08, 2020, 04:28:57 pm
Post by: Meph on September 08, 2020, 04:37:57 pm
You absolutely can actually adorn any item with gold in vanilla using a workshop.I know what he means. The visual adornment doesn't fit the decorations on the item. On the other hand, it's a fairly universal way to show value improvement: Add a ton of gold/gem nicknacks.
Post by: Egan_BW on September 08, 2020, 04:43:24 pm
I really like the blood. Fitting, eh?
It's a little hard for me to see the difference between the 0% and 25% wear breastplates. In general it's easier to spot the wear on the sword than the breastplate.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 08, 2020, 04:53:45 pm
I'd only suggest this for weapons, armor and clothing. Things that are important to use, with natural wear.From a player's point of view, weapons and armour wear out much more slowly than regular clothes, so I'm far more interested in assessing the state of my dwarves regular clothes than the militia's gear. Armour tends to break unexpectedly after being hit repeatedly in combat without much chance to do anything about it.
Not saying clothes need it, seems like a huge amount of work, just from a priority point of view.
For Adventurer, much higher priority of course. But the Dev team often seem to rank Adventurer as an embarrassing afterthought, so perhaps even less need to do the work.
Post by: ror6ax on September 08, 2020, 04:59:10 pm
From gameplay perspective - wear is the most important information for me(now that I know it is a thing in DF). Being covered in blood is far less important but still possibly indicating combat that I was not aware of, wounds, all that.
Why would I want to know if a dwarf is covered in vomit or mud, gameplay-wise? I mean it may be in there for eye candy value but I'm not quite sure it would be readable anyway.
Bonus question - these are (I assume) parts of overlay on a dwarf? How will the "inventory screen" look like? If a dwarf is covered in vomit, would it be shown in this view as well or will it be showing a clean version for readability? I'm much more concerned with being able to outfit my dwarfs with most quality armour(that requires me being able to tell which armour is which quality) than being able to tell if they walked though mud recently...
A suggestion is to implement these as they are shown for units in the actual gameplay - for visual richness of the game but make the "inventory screen" versions be more focused on showing masterfulness and being encrusted with jems because those represent information a user would want to get in order to make decisions about their strategy in upcoming play.
Post by: ror6ax on September 08, 2020, 05:04:52 pm
From a player's point of view, weapons and armour wear out much more slowly than regular clothes, so I'm far more interested in assessing the state of my dwarves regular clothes than the militia's gear. Armour tends to break unexpectedly after being hit repeatedly in combat without much chance to do anything about it.
I play DF for about a year, wasn't aware that wear is even a thing. I am aware (painfully) of the need to equip my military with best breastplates available tho.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 08, 2020, 05:14:41 pm
Quality-wise yes, it's good for dwarves to have high-quality gear.
From a player's point of view, weapons and armour wear out much more slowly than regular clothes, so I'm far more interested in assessing the state of my dwarves regular clothes than the militia's gear. Armour tends to break unexpectedly after being hit repeatedly in combat without much chance to do anything about it.
I play DF for about a year, wasn't aware that wear is even a thing. I am aware (painfully) of the need to equip my military with best breastplates available tho.
Instant spotting of armour wear though, besides in weapon traps, which seem to wear out quickly, doesn't seem like a pressing issue.
Dwarves running around with clothes rotting off their boodies is an actual gameplay issue everyone runs into, causes massive stress and isn't noticeable until you call up a few dwarves' minds to check what's going on. Early warning might be nice. Time to get the clothing industry underway (but not really worth doing graphics for, seems like far too much).
Dwarves pick up quality equipment by themselves. Unless you assign it individually, in which case you pick the stuff at the highest quality from a list and therefore don't need a graphic.
Post by: Uthimienure on September 08, 2020, 07:35:37 pm
Please let me know what you think about it. :)
No need to spend the time on this... it won't be visible unless playing zoomed in.
I play zoomed out pretty much all the time so I can see wtf is going on in the fort.
Not worth your time to go to such detail.
The worded description will give all the needed detail anyway.
Bug fixes, features, and game play are paramount.
Shiny baubles are not important.
Post by: Meph on September 08, 2020, 07:37:42 pm
Quote
Bug fixes, features, and game play are paramount.But... this is a purely graphical and UI related update, without bug fixes, new features or different gameplay.
Shiny baubles are not important.
Post by: Uthimienure on September 08, 2020, 07:52:41 pm
QuoteBug fixes, features, and game play are paramount.But... this is a purely graphical and UI related update, without bug fixes, new features or different gameplay.
Shiny baubles are not important.
I thought Toady was going to work in some bug-fixes and tweaks. Maybe I imagined that.
Don't mind me, I'm just being a grinch... I did switch over to ASCII and prefer it for the time being anyway... it's so elegant. My first DF exposure was LNP, then I quickly discovered Masterwork DF and was hooked on that, just so you know I've always favored the Masterwork graphics and am glad you're doing Steam.
I'm just worried that all the graphic stuff will slow down Toady's game development in the future. He has so far to go on the game yet, and unfortunately only one life to devote to it.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 08, 2020, 08:15:02 pm
Definitely show wear
Contaminants probably limit to blood (the only one that can be intuitively understood and most impactful).
Quality levels I'd say limit to a set of 3 (those that matter from a gameplay standpoint however slight, ie "regular", masterwork and artifact, and try and keep it from overpowering the material color)
Post by: Superdorf on September 08, 2020, 08:27:05 pm
- Contaminants are decent, and could probably be standardized to a couple spatter-patterns colored as relevant. Blood is... maybe a bit too shiny on the swords? Looks like fruit punch or something.
- Quality levels are kinda confusing. Quality in general is difficult to quantify, visually-- masterworks go undecorated in-game, as often as not. I dunno you can effectively depict that on a pixel-by-pixel scale.
Post by: Zesty on September 08, 2020, 08:36:15 pm
The quality differences are very nice to look at and you can still tell the material easily. When the battlefield is littered with copper, iron, bronze, and steel items, it's important to be able to distinguish by the material and I think you have a subtle enough difference in quality that it won't get in the way of that. Contaminants would make that more... busy, I guess?
Poisoned Weapon Attempts. Not skilled at all as a pixel artist at all, just proof of concept.
(https://i.imgur.com/cXaDUy0.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/s9sI0HU.png)
You can still tell it's steel at a glance. Clear green poison sheen on half. Quality/wear level won't get in the way of that.
I don't know how you solve the problem of quality levels looking visually distinct without adding a visual style that would only really fit for "Decorated (https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Item_quality)" objects. Quality, Wear, Material, and Contaminant (as long as it matters for combat effectiveness) are important pieces of information that would be nice to not have to fiddle in menus to see. As much as I'd hate to say it, sacrificing a visual look for quality may be for the best. But it'd be cool if there was still a "decorated" and "artifact" sprite even if you can't get a unique sprite for the 6 other levels of quality.
Post by: voliol on September 09, 2020, 12:35:54 am
As for artifacts, I assume individual graphics for them is low-priority. Using these sprites but using secondary material colors for the details (so you don’t get a gold-encrusted silver-encrusted item) should suffice for a rich experience. Especially if the other quality level sprites don’t make it in, then flashy 2-color artifacts will be easily recognizable as such. Of course, this implies creating an artifact sprite for all other items, which may be above what’s planned.
Post by: Egan_BW on September 09, 2020, 12:54:22 am
This comes from my fundamental assumption that it's more important that the graphics show what things actually look like rather than try to get across gameplay information. Nobody's going to convince me otherwise of this, and likewise I won't try to convince anybody who disagrees.
Post by: Zesty on September 09, 2020, 01:49:04 am
Post by: Cruxador on September 09, 2020, 02:44:59 am
Wear, contaminants and quality level.They look great. I share the concern about too much work but if you reckon it's reasonable, it would be cool to be able to see those details. Support for non-red blood might be another step, but it would be cool if the four contaminate masks could take any four different contaminants with color sourced from the material. Might be a bit of a niche ask, but everything coated in blue blood would be tremendously kino. That kind of setup means you could also have less in other cases; limit the full complement to weapons and armor, while mitigating the added work on other things.
(https://i.redd.it/9ecxq58wgzl51.png)
We are currently discussing if any of these would make sense ingame. It's a little bit of extra work doing this for every item and the final sprite might be less readable. Especially if three states mix.
This mock-up shows a sword and a breastplate with 0%, 25%, 50% and 75% wear (100% and the item is destroyed); as well as each quality level and four contaminants to test, vomit, blood, water and mud.
At the bottom you can find a few example with a mix of two or three states.
Please let me know what you think about it. :)
In principle, I agree; the graphics should align to what's actually there in every case. But that's not very practical to do for items, both because of pixel count and because of the extreme number of potential variations, either one of which could put the practical kibosh on such a plan by itself. I think the embellishments in your sprites are non-specific enough that the conflict isn't a big deal.You absolutely can actually adorn any item with gold in vanilla using a workshop.I know what he means. The visual adornment doesn't fit the decorations on the item. On the other hand, it's a fairly universal way to show value improvement: Add a ton of gold/gem nicknacks.
I don't think the contaminants is useful information, unless it has combat relevancy. Poisoned weapons would be good info to have and it'll presumably be easier to poison weapons in the future.I don't agree with the premise here. It's not just about showing information. If that was the case, a logographic aesthetic would be preferable, but the plan with the Kitfox release is to move away from the ASCII paradigm in favor of aesthetic.
I'm of the opinion that things shouldn't look different from how they are if possible; an unadorned steel sword made by an amatuer doesn't really look different from an unadorned steel sword made by an expert, at least not at this level of detail. There are separate systems for decorating items and for item quality, so higher quality items aren't ones which are prettier, per se, just better at performing their function. In the case of weapons and armor, serving on the battlefield and not falling apart.I agree in principle, but since I don't think it's reasonable to show decoration accurately in-game, taking into account the cost (in artist time) to benefit ratio. Dwarf Fortress supports a ton of decoration and it's just not reasonable to expect a sprite to be made for rings of hanging onyx and a bird bone image of three dwarves standing around a carp. The carp is laughing. That being the case, why not use the visual variation to show something else? It's not like high quality items wouldn't be decorated necessarily, after all, and the sprite has to be based on either a decorated or undecorated item at some point.
This comes from my fundamental assumption that it's more important that the graphics show what things actually look like rather than try to get across gameplay information. Nobody's going to convince me otherwise of this, and likewise I won't try to convince anybody who disagrees.
One "compromise" which I think would be best of both worlds would be to make the increasing levels of fanciness correspond to value (or deviation thereof compared to the base item before considering quality and decoration modifiers) instead of quality directly. That way, it's as accurate as we can reasonably get while still being very functional. Of course, you need to loo[k] at the item to see it properly but that's always the case.
Post by: [HYBRID BEING] on September 09, 2020, 08:40:52 pm
Wear, contaminants and quality level.
(https://i.redd.it/9ecxq58wgzl51.png)
We are currently discussing if any of these would make sense ingame. It's a little bit of extra work doing this for every item and the final sprite might be less readable. Especially if three states mix.
This mock-up shows a sword and a breastplate with 0%, 25%, 50% and 75% wear (100% and the item is destroyed); as well as each quality level and four contaminants to test, vomit, blood, water and mud.
At the bottom you can find a few example with a mix of two or three states.
Please let me know what you think about it. :)
Awesome, but maybe it would be better to reduce the number of sprites? For example, leave only two wear variations - 100% and 50% (or maybe even 75%), and leave out every other quality grade (which one it is, btw - core or total quality?). I think that would make difference more striking.
I agree that items shouldn't look like they are decorated with gold and jewels with they are just of a higher quality. It would look good for decorated items and artifacts, though. Additionally, artifacts could have an "aura" of sorts, as a visual cue (although, I'm not sure if it will clash with magic in future).
BTW, I don't think that tying sprites to value is a good idea, because it would make high quality items look no different from highly decorated ones.
Alternatively (or maybe additionally?), some kind of a health bar could be used to indicate wear, and something like medals in the corners - quality (like chevrons show veterancy in some RTS games (: ).
And what about other contaminants? Things could get really messy when there are a lot of them :D
Post by: Pillbo on September 09, 2020, 11:19:38 pm
Please let me know what you think about it. :)
I love it. I think it will add visual distinction between creatures and I don't think it's too hard to read. Like the quality levels too.
Post by: Schmaven on September 10, 2020, 03:10:40 am
Post by: Starver on September 10, 2020, 03:41:25 am
I know that other games give something like a brownish (bronze/basic), white/tint-of-blue (silver/good), yellowy (gold/excellent), tint-of-blue/white (platinum?/epic?)... whatever... "quality/tier" indicator, sometimes as an item-glow, sometimes as tile-border[2]. Those that don't just render the object (major areas of its wash) in that key colour, but of course that's reserved for actual material. It's not exactly subtle, and I forget if there's any other use of a Glow already demonstrated elsewhere for something else. We're not likely to get radioactive contamination needing visualising anytime soon, are we?
I do return to my original comment of what you did being beautiful. If those can be usefully used[3] I'd still be happy. (Though I also admit I saw nothing different between 0% and 25% damage of armour.)
[1] i.e. not worn, so standalone infographic definitely. In a stock/beneath-interrogative-cursor/tradescreen list (as applicable), too. Whether whilst on the terrain floor.. depends on compatibility with other effects.
[2] Perhaps another suggestion for the footnote-1 'standalone' representation?
[3] Other comments about decorations not being suitably decorative... well, if it was modification-quality thennin lieu of reliable "menacing spikes" at that scale, it'd reasonably fit. And coexist with a base-quality glow for indication, perhaps?
Post by: voliol on September 10, 2020, 03:57:38 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Starver on September 10, 2020, 04:09:09 am
If this is still current, then as you were and ignore that part of my last post. ;)
Post by: ror6ax on September 10, 2020, 08:03:04 am
(https://cdn.imgpaste.net/2020/09/10/9uxpv.png)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 10, 2020, 08:58:57 am
A suggestion for ease of identification of lower-grade weapons.Led attachments?
(https://cdn.imgpaste.net/2020/09/10/9uxpv.png)
Post by: ror6ax on September 10, 2020, 10:06:50 am
A suggestion for ease of identification of lower-grade weapons.Led attachments?
Powered by dwarf magic electricity.
Post by: Bumber on September 10, 2020, 11:33:41 am
I don't think there's a need to distinguish between items that are exceptional quality and below. Masterworks are distinct in that they trigger masterwork loss when destroyed.
I'd suggest having undecorated items of exceptional quality and below use the standard sprite. Masterwork adds the ribbon. Decorations add the gold (+ruby?) to any quality. Artifacts have the glow, ribbon, and gold (being implicitly decorated with menacing spikes, etc.)
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 10, 2020, 12:01:38 pm
Masterwork quality sprites don't look any fancier than exceptional, IMO. Yeah, rubies are more valuable than emeralds, but that's not something you think of at a glance. The extra gold is too subtle on some sprites.
I don't think there's a need to distinguish between items that are exceptional quality and below. Masterworks are distinct in that they trigger masterwork loss when destroyed.
I'd suggest having undecorated items of exceptional quality and below use the standard sprite. Masterwork adds the ribbon. Decorations add the gold to any quality. Artifacts have the glow, ribbon, and gold (being implicitly decorated with menacing spikes, etc.)
Seconded
Edit: Especially as it would be nice to have some indication if an item is decorated or not, even if it doesn't correspond to the actual decoration, which overly decorative quality levels would prevent.
Post by: Superdorf on September 10, 2020, 03:52:04 pm
I'd suggest having undecorated items of exceptional quality and below use the standard sprite. Masterwork adds the ribbon. Decorations add the gold to any quality. Artifacts have the glow, ribbon, and gold (being implicitly decorated with menacing spikes, etc.)
That'd be nice, yeah.
Post by: Wokko on September 10, 2020, 03:57:22 pm
Quote
I'd suggest having undecorated items of exceptional quality and below use the standard sprite. Masterwork adds the ribbon. Decorations add the gold to any quality. Artifacts have the glow, ribbon, and gold (being implicitly decorated with menacing spikes, etc.)I agree with these gentlemen
Post by: voliol on September 10, 2020, 04:08:21 pm
Quote
I'd suggest having undecorated items of exceptional quality and below use the standard sprite. Masterwork adds the ribbon. Decorations add the gold to any quality. Artifacts have the glow, ribbon, and gold (being implicitly decorated with menacing spikes, etc.)Fourthed? Or something. As for the artifacts, I remembered the undead (placeholder) sprites having a similar glow. It's a nice touch, as they both have "magical" properties, of some kind.
Post by: Eric Blank on September 10, 2020, 04:43:32 pm
I don't think there's a need to distinguish between items that are exceptional quality and below. Masterworks are distinct in that they trigger masterwork loss when destroyed.
I'd suggest having undecorated items of exceptional quality and below use the standard sprite. Masterwork adds the ribbon. Decorations add the gold to any quality. Artifacts have the glow, ribbon, and gold (being implicitly decorated with menacing spikes, etc.)
I do prefer this suggestion over the previous. Although maybe the decoration color can come from the material of the highest quality decoration on the item? That might not be possible sadly.
One other suggestion, is instead of the masterwork version being highly decorated, it could be a pristine, properly constructed vision of the ideal item, and lesser quality levels have variously obvious flaws, like crooked hilts, missing, but not broken plates, obviously imbalanced, top-heavy blades. Boots and helmets might fit loosely/be crooked when "properly" strapped on, gauntlets missing fingers. Spears or other long-hafted weapons could have broken parts of the shaft that were strapped back together with leather bindings and bent at the lowest quality levels.
Post by: ror6ax on September 10, 2020, 04:47:20 pm
Masterwork quality sprites don't look any fancier than exceptional, IMO. Yeah, rubies are more valuable than emeralds, but that's not something you think of at a glance. The extra gold is too subtle on some sprites.
I don't think there's a need to distinguish between items that are exceptional quality and below. Masterworks are distinct in that they trigger masterwork loss when destroyed.
I'd suggest having undecorated items of exceptional quality and below use the standard sprite. Masterwork adds the ribbon. Decorations add the gold to any quality. Artifacts have the glow, ribbon, and gold (being implicitly decorated with menacing spikes, etc.)
What about encrusted items?
Post by: Eric Blank on September 10, 2020, 05:42:01 pm
What about encrusted items?
Put a gem of the material displayed on it?
Post by: Schmaven on September 10, 2020, 06:19:53 pm
Post by: Bumber on September 11, 2020, 11:18:26 am
What about encrusted items?
Aren't those «decorations», too? I guess decorated items could have both gold and a ruby, like the wear/contaminant/quality example sprites. I'm trying to keep things simple in my idea and avoid a bunch of different sprites for every possible decoration.
Post by: [HYBRID BEING] on September 11, 2020, 12:58:18 pm
and lesser quality levels have variously obvious flaws, like crooked hilts, missing, but not broken plates, obviously imbalanced, top-heavy blades. Boots and helmets might fit loosely/be crooked when "properly" strapped on, gauntlets missing fingers. Spears or other long-hafted weapons could have broken parts of the shaft that were strapped back together with leather bindings and bent at the lowest quality levels.
Wouldn't that be confused for wear?
I think the suggestion to drop different sprites for grades exceptional and below is sound enough. If discerning lesser grades is really necessary, small icons could be added to sprites.
What to do about masterful decorations of exceptional or lesser grade items, though?
Post by: Starver on September 11, 2020, 01:28:40 pm
'Could' being the operative word. It would more accurately reflect the relationship of respective quality levels, though, if conceivably managed within the resolutiin it has to be compressed to.
A wonky and knotted length of wood should (with the metallic hue-fill instead) be much like a badly cast and rust-spotted length of bar, too, while I'm making wild suggestions for "making it easier".
(The biggest objection being that wear-level masking and baseness of construction are far more likely to clash insofar as trying to convey each intent separately, or perhaps have to receive appropriate customisations according to the mix.)
Post by: Eric Blank on September 11, 2020, 01:33:17 pm
Maybe a single crooked/funny sprites for the two lowest, a good sprites for the two middle tiers, and a red hilt/ribbon on the masterwork, then ornate decorations?
I was also thinking, wouldn't damage be more obvious through cracks overlaying the item not just chunks missing?
Post by: Rose on September 11, 2020, 01:58:33 pm
Post by: Pillbo on September 11, 2020, 02:13:00 pm
I don't think there's a need to distinguish between items that are exceptional quality and below.
I just don't see any need not to distinguish them. What's the benefit to the player to not have visual differences? Meph already showed he can make all the sprites quick so it's not like it's a development burden. It shouldn't be a problem for modding since there is undoubtedly a way to not include every variation should you choose.
The data is part of the object and game, if that data can be portrayed visually (even slightly) the game gets easier to play and visually more interesting to look at. Even if the only result of making all the quality/wear/contamination sprites was that my stockpiles looked less uniform I'd say it's worth it.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 11, 2020, 03:48:54 pm
One of the best ways to make the game feel more visually interesting and 'alive' is having variety in the hundreds/thousands of items sitting all over your fort. You could make multiple unique sprites, like in the meph tileset, for floors or beds which are randomly chosen, or you can go the no-brainer route and use the system already in place. If you have 7 quality levels and 4 wear levels why not just use them and give more flavor to the player?I don't think there's a need to distinguish between items that are exceptional quality and below.
I just don't see any need not to distinguish them. What's the benefit to the player to not have visual differences? Meph already showed he can make all the sprites quick so it's not like it's a development burden. It shouldn't be a problem for modding since there is undoubtedly a way to not include every variation should you choose.
The data is part of the object and game, if that data can be portrayed visually (even slightly) the game gets easier to play and visually more interesting to look at. Even if the only result of making all the quality/wear/contamination sprites was that my stockpiles looked less uniform I'd say it's worth it.
If it could be done without directly conflicting with the decoration system and make things seem to be a different system than they are I'd be all for it. But if it can't be made not confusing I'd say it's best to limit it to the more important bits that have gameplay importance.
Post by: Uthimienure on September 11, 2020, 03:53:36 pm
To each their own.
Post by: Starver on September 11, 2020, 07:12:04 pm
Not really Standing Orders, unless, similar to the auto-Forbid bits, it does any auto (d)|toggle variet(y) (or whatever we decide might be made available) on anything newly made.
But there's probably going to be a whole set of settings, at some point. Maybe even sliders (also, e.g. for in-game alteration of prominance of Announce, Pause and Zoom effects on each event), so why not this opt-out too?
Post by: Baloney on September 12, 2020, 01:56:17 pm
In short it was about adding the possibility to tween/interpolate between game states so that things move smoothly instead of everything teleporting between positions. I think the game will get a lot more mainstream appeal if graphics have movement between tiles instead of snapping between them.
Has there been any official comment on this?
(I understand that there's a lot of work involved in just making graphics and improving the interface but smooth movement will shoot the game into the stars. Even if the feature isn't added on release I would love for the devs to make it possible for it to be added in later, and not code themselves into a corner where it would involve way too much rewriting to add it. I bring it up just in the unlikely case the devs haven't even considered smooth movement, hopefully someone have or will mention the idea to them.)
Post by: Meph on September 15, 2020, 09:17:35 am
To everyone: The feedback on the weapon quality was great. So let's do that again. :) With instruments and instrument parts.
I prepared a dozen instruments in six materials each, as well as all the components. Those don't perfectly assemble, since some of those are internal parts, or belong to different types that wouldn't mix well. The wiki says that no materials are permitted for rings and neck bowls, hence there are none. ^^
(https://i.imgur.com/QZYmOZB.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/fdoFe4O.png)
Post by: Starver on September 15, 2020, 09:36:21 am
(And a bit worried you don't have an inside track on the code, or at least the intentions, and need to reference the wiki! :P )
Post by: Uthimienure on September 15, 2020, 10:24:44 am
Post by: Bumber on September 15, 2020, 03:25:21 pm
The constructed drums are layered on top of each other strangely. Maybe have one be smaller instead? The top drumstick seems to merge with the right drum in some, especially for stone. Needs a clearer border between.
Post by: Dishmab on September 16, 2020, 10:42:38 am
I have never been a fan of using bone as a material, but the aesthetics are nice. I feel like my game play style will change based on the new looks.
Post by: DeKaFu on September 17, 2020, 01:37:30 am
This may seem like a minor thing, but...
Is there any chance that the symbol for the hospital might be altered to use the (universally accepted medical symbol) Rod of Asclepius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_of_Asclepius) rather than the (modern, US-centric, based-on-an-error) Caduceus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduceus_as_a_symbol_of_medicine)?
The Rod of Asclepius (stick with a snake around it) has been the symbol of medicine for thousands of years, whereas the Caduceus (stick with two snakes and wings) was a symbol of trade and commerce until the 19th century when someone in the US army got confused and adopted the wrong symbol for their medical department. It was widely copied from there within North America, but more recently there's been a push to correct it and several medical organizations have made the switch back to the RoA upon realizing the mistake and (slightly unfortunate) symbolic implications.
It just seems to make sense to use the more historically correct symbol.
...and it's enough of a pet peeve for me that I'll probably end up substituting a custom tile to fix it when I play, otherwise.
Post by: Meph on September 17, 2020, 08:18:35 am
Quote
The caduceus is often incorrectly used as a symbol of healthcare organizations and medical practice, particularly in the United States of America, due to confusion with the traditional medical symbol, the Rod of Asclepius, which has only one snake and is never depicted with wings - the logo of the World Health Organization uses the Rod of Asclepius as its basis.
Wow... first I used a red cross, which turned out to be copyrighted, then looked for alternatives and out ot 4 versions we picked the caduceus. I feel pretty silly right now, of course that will be fixed.
Post by: DeKaFu on September 17, 2020, 02:54:20 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on September 17, 2020, 02:59:12 pm
Post by: Novaris on September 17, 2020, 03:02:52 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on September 17, 2020, 03:06:38 pm
Post by: Starver on September 17, 2020, 03:07:41 pm
"This is an image of a dwarf wrapped round a sock with a table balanced on his head at a jaunty angle." - obviously a Depot-related stockpile.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 17, 2020, 04:25:48 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on September 17, 2020, 04:38:00 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 17, 2020, 04:43:18 pm
The best part is that even if the player manages to figure out what objects are even being represented, they'll still have to look at Legends to figure out what they actually mean! Muahahahahaha!It's a plot to get everyone back to the keyboard again.
Post by: Meph on September 17, 2020, 06:48:31 pm
Post by: Rekov on September 17, 2020, 10:49:00 pm
I'm shocked that the red cross symbol is copyrighted. Don't tons of games use that symbol on healthpacks? I'm thinking specifically of military-themed games that have realistic looking medical equipment.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 18, 2020, 04:26:38 am
I think the caduceus has been used as a symbol of medicine long enough to be recognizable. The Wikipedia page that DeKaFu linked describes incidents going back thousands of years. While these are somewhat sketchy, a 100+ years of use in the US is more than enough.
If you're from that part of the world (US) where this mistaken use has cemented itself, sure it's recognizable (and the 2 symbols are somewhat similar so it's not surprising others have made the same mistake in the past as well). Regardless it's kind of silly to not use the original symbol when there is one since having an as far as possible ubiquitous symbol so as to make the UI more intuitive is the whole point.
Post by: Starver on September 18, 2020, 06:19:40 am
I'm shocked that the red cross symbol is copyrighted. Don't tons of games use that symbol on healthpacks? I'm thinking specifically of military-themed games that have realistic looking medical equipment.It is an officially protected symbol (along with the Red Crescent and, controversially[1], the Red Diamond), I'm not sure "Copyright" covers it, more than as a key piece of the Geneva Convention. It's been much degraded by 'casual' use[2][3] like game-graphics at least since the days of Doom and doubtless in various 8-bit applications in the decade or so beforehand (Civ used one or other of the rods, in its context of ddnoting medicine I can't remember off hand if that 'chose wrongly').
Filmmakers (and even "living history re-enactors") absolutely need permission to use Red-Crossed markings in their productions, so films like (or about) Dunkirk will get such permission, strictly vetted in the use to try to never defame the reputation of the organisation. This would make it tricky to depict "doctors gone wrong" or even "false-flag disguised as medics", even if it was depicting an actual such occurance for verimisilitude. There's probably ways to get around that (with agreement).
Video games have this issue, especially if "medic" class FPS characters are entirely supposed to be partisan and have at least a small-arm to go with their branded medikit, the use of each depending upon which team(s) are spotted out in the open with a reduced HP bar above their head. Maybe I would concede that in single-played runs through a Doomy dungeon, it's not any more inconceivable that someone from the in-game ICRCRC has ensured that official FAKs have been scattered as liberally upon pedestals, behind secret doors, etc (in whatever hell-dimension the player is currently fighting through) as that someone else has been similarly dropping ammo clips, body armour, etc.
For DF, you could probably get away with "green cross" symbol (IANALawyer!) if the snake-rod-of-whatever-form ever becomes too awkward to pixellate (say as shoulder-emblem for a character sprite where job-assigments/specialities are an overlaid infographic), but certainly the dorfs wouldn't really have any known cause to use the same symbology, it'd be for the benefit of the player (except where it isn't).
[1] Under the back-formed 'reason' that the cross is the colour-reversed Swiss flag (that coincidentally/by derivation only looks like a Christian cross) and the crescent is from the colour reversed Ottoman flag (without the star, and again only coincidentally/by derivation is the islamic symbol) and thus neither is meant to be religiously-symbolic (but it doesn't harm if crescents and crosses are used in crescent/cross-tending cultures), the "Red Star Of David" suggestion was not well received. Apart from anything else, would the Hindu 'Red Cross' organisations ask for the Red Aum or even, if you can imagine it, the Red Swastik? Eventually they allowed the Red Diamond (red border, white fill) and that tends to be used in cross/crescent-'phobic' situations.
[2] Though it isn't used at all in the UK health service, not on its ambulances, etc... First Aid packs may have it, but 'a cross' in white or embossed upon green seem to be de rigour, pharmacies employ a particular form of 'green cross', St. John's Ambulance have their own 'cross' symbol, and only actual British Red Cross resources (like their emergency vehicles) use, obviously legitimately, the exact symbology.
[3] Because of objections by the international/local Red Cross, unaffiliated mountain-medics in US ski resorts had to stop using red-crossed penants to indicate their nature, so they reversed the Red Cross symbology... To then be theoretically using the Swiss Flag, again, double-inverted!
Post by: bloop_bleep on September 18, 2020, 12:00:21 pm
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/4_Point_Star.png/605px-4_Point_Star.png)
It wouldn't be directly on the item and it's a simple shape, so less visual noise and easier to understand in small image resolutions.
It could have a second star inside it or stars around it for masterwork or artifact items to further distinguish them from lower quality levels.
Other than that I am all for high diversity of items.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 18, 2020, 06:33:25 pm
Maybe a bit late, but perhaps to indicate quality we could add a 4-pointed star of varying size (increasing with quality) in the corner? Like this one:Equipment is going to be shown on critters visually. A floating star for every item of clothing on every dwarf running around the fortress would be a mess.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/4_Point_Star.png/605px-4_Point_Star.png)
It wouldn't be directly on the item and it's a simple shape, so less visual noise and easier to understand in small image resolutions.
It could have a second star inside it or stars around it for masterwork or artifact items to further distinguish them from lower quality levels.
Other than that I am all for high diversity of items.
Post by: Cruxador on September 18, 2020, 10:45:56 pm
Baloney: Nope, Tarn isn't that far into the coding. It's been communicated though, he knows about it.Those are pretty good! The skulls on the bone ones are pretty cute, but after that first impression, I think it's probably better not to be quite that silly in the official tileset.
To everyone: The feedback on the weapon quality was great. So let's do that again. :) With instruments and instrument parts.
I prepared a dozen instruments in six materials each, as well as all the components. Those don't perfectly assemble, since some of those are internal parts, or belong to different types that wouldn't mix well. The wiki says that no materials are permitted for rings and neck bowls, hence there are none. ^^Spoiler: Images condensed for thread readability (click to show/hide)
Also not sure about the drums; the constructed ones look a bit too rock and roll for time period. I guess you were probably going for taiko or otherwise an east Asian type? But I feel like most people will just see modern floor toms. The drum components on their own kind of look like wastepaper baskets, but I'm not sure how solvable that is; the real item kind of does too.
Seems a bit odd that the only horn not shaped like a bull's horn is the one made of bone.
(And a bit worried you don't have an inside track on the code, or at least the intentions, and need to reference the wiki! :P )Even Toady doesn't necessarily know everything without having to check.
It's a UI element though, your dwarves will never see it. The player does. ;)Yeah, it would be nice if there was a symbol for health and healing that was widely recognized and didn't have inherent religious or cultural implications but, well, there isn't one (green cross traces its origins to the Christian cross), and trying to make one up would be likely to mislead.
Maybe a bit late, but perhaps to indicate quality we could add a 4-pointed star of varying size (increasing with quality) in the corner? Like this one:One key strength of moving away from ASCII is that instead of icons which must be learned, representative imagery can be used. Obviously there are still limitations, because of the scale and level of detail, the sheer number of graphics that would be needed for every possible permutation to represent the full detail, and because for the sake of gameplay, some things must be represented which don't physically exist. The first two cases are easily addressed by omitting nuance*, and visually, item quality is very much a matter of nuance. Therefore, there's no reason to show item quality in any way that doesn't reflect what's actually going on** based on these criteria, and only the third is relevant. Since item quality does physically exist, and can be construed visually as Meph proved, there's no need to invent something for this purpose.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/4_Point_Star.png/605px-4_Point_Star.png)
It wouldn't be directly on the item and it's a simple shape, so less visual noise and easier to understand in small image resolutions.
It could have a second star inside it or stars around it for masterwork or artifact items to further distinguish them from lower quality levels.
Other than that I am all for high diversity of items.
Also, while adding icons may not clutter the item itself, it still clutters the game, since in addition to having the item graphic, there's now also essentially a "status" icon for every item, and that adds up fast.
On the other hand, if you're thinking only about menus, then that's not a bad idea. It's basically the same idea as the icons by the names currently, but repositioned for a more visual experience. Personally rather than size of the star, I would rather borrow from the widely recognized visual language of mobile games (and Amazon reviews, and other things) by giving the items somewhere from 0-5 stars representing quality up to masterwork, and give artifacts something a bit more special that's clearly outside the star count system. The stars can also be colored, which is similarly conventional in showing item quality in games, although Dwarf Fortress already uses colors in a lot of ways.
*Though deciding in which cases to omit that nuance is not necessarily so easy, but that's a separate issue.
**Which I mean in a general sense; obviously omitting nuance within the inclusion is still viable, and is what's reflected on the current versions. But a solution which bares no resemblance to any possible visual representation of quality isn't recommended by these considerations.
Post by: PatrikLundell on September 19, 2020, 03:02:08 am
Post by: Cruxador on September 19, 2020, 08:05:24 pm
While a star count (or bar count, using a little less space) might be useful for isolated item display (in lists or when viewing details), it still uses up space. If sharing the space with the item tile it would cut away a piece of the item where it's overlaying it, and if placed outside it uses up additional space.A four pointed star can be recognizable a 3x3 square, and five of them can fit in 5x11 space, which barely exceeds the 6x9 of the font currently being used. Position them the long way and it fits within less space than two letters. That's not much worse than the icons used in the vanilla game.
Post by: Bumber on September 19, 2020, 08:11:00 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on September 19, 2020, 09:39:41 pm
Do weapons show up when equipped? Having the stars floating near the unit might be confusing.Yes that's the plan. And yeah, would be really confusing. And it would be a big restriction on all the weapon tiles to have to leave a space to add in a star later if it's just for inventory screens. Modders would hate it I expect, because who cares about stars? Quality is in the weapon description.
Post by: bloop_bleep on September 19, 2020, 10:58:42 pm
Although, I will mention I used a four-pointed star specifically instead of a five-pointed one to make it look like a "bling" or reflection off an item. That way it fits in cohesively with the item, and a bigger "bling" intuitively associates with better quality. Also why I chose bling size and not multiple stars.
I think that a bling if small enough won't really be that confusing or jarring on a unit or in a stockpile. I guess the bling should be over the item, though slightly to the side to not cover anything meaningful and diminish noise.
Post by: [HYBRID BEING] on September 20, 2020, 09:00:01 pm
Post by: ror6ax on September 21, 2020, 01:55:06 am
Would equipped items show as much details as unequipped? How would a fully armed dwarf look?
I suppose it's being developed - a few updates ago there was one placeholder dwarf with (as far as I remember) no equipped items.
Post by: Cruxador on September 21, 2020, 02:13:35 pm
Do weapons show up when equipped? Having the stars floating near the unit might be confusing.
My understanding is that to the extent where that will happen, these aren't those images. If you compare their size to the size of a tile, these are suitable to appear on the ground in stockpiles and similar, but they're too large to be wielded by a dwarf which also fits in the tile.Do weapons show up when equipped? Having the stars floating near the unit might be confusing.Yes that's the plan. And yeah, would be really confusing. And it would be a big restriction on all the weapon tiles to have to leave a space to add in a star later if it's just for inventory screens. Modders would hate it I expect, because who cares about stars? Quality is in the weapon description.
Toady mentioned in the PAX stream that they're still talking about how much will be represented on the characters. I would hope that at least, the different types of weapons each have a held sprite which inherits colors from material. The quality and other little details would be incredibly difficult, to the extent of being impossible for all practical measures, to render at that size.
Post by: Dishmab on September 21, 2020, 07:40:19 pm
Post by: Meph on September 21, 2020, 09:28:27 pm
Post by: Cruxador on September 22, 2020, 12:06:51 pm
Other than that, the homogeneity of the grassy plain didn't look great. It may not be a gameplay priority, but I think that getting in the raw-accurate grasses shown here before is going to be very important for the aesthetic appeal of the game. The bushes/saplings too, and the boulders would look better with like 3-5 random variations even though that doesn't reflect anything in the raws. I don't know how much of that is already planned/made but just not in yet.
Overall, there are some elements of the new UI I'm unsure of, but the graphical elements of it certainly aren't among them.
Most of that we will do. There is a bit of a worry that the actual RAW defined hair and skin colors clash a bit and make the sprite unreadable, right now we have a more limited selection that simply looks better. But clothing, armor, weapons, etc, is done.Good to hear. I hope the hair can be figured out for full accuracy but if not, that's a place where a compromise has low consequences.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 22, 2020, 12:18:56 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on September 23, 2020, 07:46:58 am
In regards to the steam update vid, any plans to change how the ramp is displayed at the tunnel entrance? :s
Designate the ramp for removal, duhh <3
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 23, 2020, 08:34:35 am
In regards to the steam update vid, any plans to change how the ramp is displayed at the tunnel entrance? :s
Designate the ramp for removal, duhh <3
Won't really help with potential confusion for new players though before they figure out that "fix". And it really does throw off the entire z-level perspective of ones initial tunnels if one goes with that initial digging approach, which is a fairly common one I'd say.
Post by: Dishmab on September 23, 2020, 11:15:55 am
Post by: Rekov on September 23, 2020, 11:42:43 am
When designating, marking zones, etc, a grid pops up and overlays the terrain. I would suggest having a larger grid as well. So for example, a red grid for every 10 tiles, and then the gold grid elsewhere.
(https://i.imgur.com/BXLL2Mb.png)
Also, whenever you are designating something, I think it would be useful to have a small indicator in a corner somewhere that shows you the X by Y size of the area you're currently dragging out. Instead of counting tiles, especially over long distances, have the game count them for you!
Post by: Meph on September 23, 2020, 12:51:47 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on September 23, 2020, 04:59:27 pm
In regards to the steam update vid, any plans to change how the ramp is displayed at the tunnel entrance? :s
Designate the ramp for removal, duhh <3
Won't really help with potential confusion for new players though before they figure out that "fix". And it really does throw off the entire z-level perspective of ones initial tunnels if one goes with that initial digging approach, which is a fairly common one I'd say.
Well, logically, as long as you havent removed the ramp in front of your entrance, it should be visually displayed as a fully functional ramp.
With graphics, that ramp becomes way more visible, i get it, its not nearly as distracting in ASCII.
But, why would you have a ramp in front of your doorway?
I always remove ramps in front of my entrance, when playing with ascii. It just makes sense you know.
I Also did it the first time i played DF.
I dont think new players Will be confused.
To dig an entrance in the first place, they have to enter the same menu that happens to contain the 'remove ramp function', which i believe is listed closely underneath the 'dig' option. So i think its pretty hard to miss out on that.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 23, 2020, 05:14:55 pm
Well, logically, as long as you havent removed the ramp in front of your entrance, it should be visually displayed as a fully functional ramp.
With graphics, that ramp becomes way more visible, i get it, its not nearly as distracting in ASCII.
But, why would you have a ramp in front of your doorway?
I always remove ramps in front of my entrance, when playing with ascii. It just makes sense you know.
I Also did it the first time i played DF.
I dont think new players Will be confused.
To dig an entrance in the first place, they have to enter the same menu that happens to contain the 'remove ramp function', which i believe is listed closely underneath the 'dig' option. So i think its pretty hard to miss out on that.
(https://i.imgur.com/QpiOjXx.png)
Depends on if they can parse what's going on in the image I guess, to me at least it just looks really weird.
Post by: PatrikLundell on September 23, 2020, 05:26:28 pm
Post by: Superdorf on September 23, 2020, 05:31:15 pm
Post by: Rekov on September 23, 2020, 05:34:46 pm
Concerning Rekov's grid suggestion: a 16*16 major grid aligned with DF's blocks would probably fit DF better than an "arbitrary" 10*10 one. However, it depends on what you use if for, I guess. If you're counting tiles decimal fits humans better, but if you try to align things with DF's divisions the hex one works better.
Yeah I mean it's arbitrary in the sense that most human civilizations have adopted a base 10 system in recent years. Making the major grid 16x16 would make it very obvious where to put those lines. You would just divide each embark tile into a 3x3 grid, where as with a 10x10 major grid, it's not going to line up with embark tiles.
That said, dwarf fortress is a PC game, and this is the kind of thing which could be made configurable. And if DF provided you with the numerical dimensions of whatever box you're dragging out as you do it, you wouldn't need the grid for counting as much as for an easy reference.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 23, 2020, 06:03:29 pm
Honestly, the little entry-ramp looks fine to me. Fits nicely with the other ramps, and still reads OK as an opening into the underground.
Maybe I'm just weird, dunno. For me it shifts the entire 3D perspective to where the tunnels seem to be one z-level higher than it should be.
Post by: Uthimienure on September 23, 2020, 06:28:22 pm
Honestly, the little entry-ramp looks fine to me. Fits nicely with the other ramps, and still reads OK as an opening into the underground.
Maybe I'm just weird, dunno. For me it shifts the entire 3D perspective to where the tunnels seem to be one z-level higher than it should be.
For me too. It looks weird because the bottom of the ramp doesn't reach all the way to the z-level below.
Visually, I see a dwarf walking south, halfway up a grass slope, then entering underneath the brown floor.
The dark "in-shadow" look of the little triangle appears to be leading underneath the brown floor.
Post by: Starver on September 23, 2020, 08:34:44 pm
Code: [Select]
Minor heights above Z
000000000|000000000|00000000
000000000|000000000|00000000
---------+---------+---------
000000000|000000000|000000000
111111111|111111111|111111111
222222222|222222222|222222222
333333333|333333333|333333333
444444444|444444444|444444444
555555555|555545555|555555555
666666666|666545666|666666666
777777777|776545677|777777777
888888888|876545678|888888888
---------+!!!!!!!!!+---------
#########|000000000|#########
#########|000000000|#########
That entry-with-ramps is obviously designed to work with a single-width channel (in the layer above) terminating in a convex half-channel (ramps up to all points of compass except North, in this case).I would suggest perhaps something more like:
Code: [Select]
000000000
111111111
222222222
333333333
444444444
5.4.3.4.5
654323456
7.4.1.4.7
864202468
(dots aren't integer values, which doesn't matter in shade gradients but buggers up my diagram)That's if we don't go for the full "double-steep sides" format:
Code: [Select]
000000000
111101111
222202222
333202333
444202444
554202455
664202466
764202467
864202468
...but we've already gone through the pros and cons of that imagery, and if we've gone for half-depth trench rather than double-steepness (in general, you'll note my first recommendation has fringes at double-steep gradient, though it adheres to the half-depth philosophy) then the latter might look out of place. And don't forget that an entryway of this form[1]An alternate plan, though not easily diagramised at that resulution of ASCII, is to have a conic-style "inner-pillar" that emphasises the transition between (either kind of) slit-trench and flat (not necessarily indoors) ground. Sort of a folded-curtain effect is the best way I can describe it.
Spoiler: And it's not easy to cater for *every* case (click to show/hide)
[1] A wagon-entrance can get away with a profile of 88|876543210|000000000|012345678|88 at its deepest, which could be several tiles long, but it still might look confusing when meeting totally-non-rampy ##|000000000|000000000|000000000|## on the next tile along, without any perspective view on the 'cliff edge', which I already know why we don't get to see in tile-details like this.
Post by: Bumber on September 24, 2020, 12:00:07 am
Concerning Rekov's grid suggestion: a 16*16 major grid aligned with DF's blocks would probably fit DF better than an "arbitrary" 10*10 one. However, it depends on what you use if for, I guess. If you're counting tiles decimal fits humans better, but if you try to align things with DF's divisions the hex one works better.
Shift+Direction moves by 10. 16 grid fits perfectly to all embark sizes, though.
Post by: Ray_Anor on September 24, 2020, 01:32:57 am
Concerning Rekov's grid suggestion: a 16*16 major grid aligned with DF's blocks would probably fit DF better than an "arbitrary" 10*10 one. However, it depends on what you use if for, I guess. If you're counting tiles decimal fits humans better, but if you try to align things with DF's divisions the hex one works better.What if give an option to set the player's settings about the size of the major grid?
Post by: voliol on September 24, 2020, 02:44:24 am
Post by: Bumber on September 24, 2020, 03:01:45 am
(https://i.imgur.com/QpiOjXx.png)
Depends on if they can parse what's going on in the image I guess, to me at least it just looks really weird.
At the very least there should be shading between the ramp and the hall, like there is at the bottom of the ramps.
Post by: PatrikLundell on September 24, 2020, 03:03:33 am
I did hesitate suggesting an option as that means more work for Toady to code the option selection up, and time is not an abundant resource. However, an option would be good.Concerning Rekov's grid suggestion: a 16*16 major grid aligned with DF's blocks would probably fit DF better than an "arbitrary" 10*10 one. However, it depends on what you use if for, I guess. If you're counting tiles decimal fits humans better, but if you try to align things with DF's divisions the hex one works better.What if give an option to set the player's settings about the size of the major grid?
Post by: Meph on September 24, 2020, 05:15:54 am
Anyhow, what do you guys think about the grass? We cut back on the more varied grasses after some worries about it looking too distracting. We haven't really touched them since, but now I think it's time to revisit that area. Here the look of the current sprites. There would be some variation added with lighter/darker tiles, just like the grass in the latest screenshots/video.
(https://i.imgur.com/Y0kkOsp.jpg)
Post by: Starver on September 24, 2020, 06:26:31 am
[1] I'm assuming I'm reading each one right, myself, not mistaking actual clumps of Gatherable Plants for mere eye-candy grass, etc. (Do we have an idea what a larger set of GPs look like, yet, similarly atop of whatever range of grass graphics we care have them on?)
Post by: PatrikLundell on September 24, 2020, 07:35:17 am
I find #1 to be boringly uniform, #2 to be about right, and #3 to be a bit distracting, but wouldn't be upset about #3 either.
#4 looks like a mess (which is understandable if it's a variation of surfaces), #5 looks OK on the mild side, #6 is OK if all the things looking like shrubs are shrubs, but not if some of them are intended to be grass variation (bamboo is going to be a challenge, though, given that it doesn't look like a lawn or pasture in real life).
#7 and #8 are both fine, although my preference would probably be in between those, but go for #8 if I had to select one or the other.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 24, 2020, 08:10:26 am
Edit: Oh, there's red flowers in picture 7, didn't even notice :s (stupid defective eyes).
Ah, right, the pictures posted on reddit were way clearer than the ones here, so ignore the bit about stuff being blurry.
Post by: voliol on September 24, 2020, 08:15:24 am
Also, I wonder, what are the green spherical "bushes"? You've shown them before, but I'd assumed them to be generic placeholder sprites for the above-ground crops. Now there are others though, like the strawberry plant, that are in a different style, so perhaps they are something else?
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on September 24, 2020, 08:31:52 am
(https://i.redd.it/vmj0i657l2p51.png)
Based on these images, yeah, looks really nice overall (except the first one which is just boring). For the grass patterns in particular, 5 and 7 feels like they have too big patches of samey stuff, which to me makes it more distracting as the patterns those patches form draw my attention too much, unlike the rest where it blends together into a much smoother "whole". Particularly like the last image, the flowers and everything is just gorgeous.
Post by: socate on September 24, 2020, 09:28:16 am
#8 is a good option too.
You've definitely put some love into all of them though.
Post by: ror6ax on September 24, 2020, 09:37:41 am
Number 2 looks ok but lacking in some tiny colourful flowers present in 5,6 and 7.
3 looks like small rocks all over the place.
4 looks dry and bleak. I would restart the fort if I had to be looking at this. The colour of the mug cracks(?) is very weird, feels like pink chromatic aberrations in a cheap photography lens. Could you try adjusting the hue to something brown-yellowish?
5, 6 and 7 look nice.
Last one is a bit too much for my taste - with added vegetation it will be very busy and hard on the eye.
6 is *almost* so irregular/natural that I perceive it as a real field, not a chessboard of individual tiles. Really damn good.
How does autumn/winter grass look like?
While we are on this topic - what exactly are the grey tiles? Rock coming out onto the surface? They are a bit too artificial/lifeless for me, rock is usually partially covered with moss when it's found out in the open. It's also usually not that flat and has subtle colour variation.
Post by: Starver on September 24, 2020, 10:44:10 am
And if I've got any of that wrong, my apologies to the artist and use that as my own pointers as to what the next revisions might need to be... ;)
Post by: Rekov on September 24, 2020, 11:52:38 am
As it is now, the plain grass with no variation at all looks too uniform to be natural, and it looks bland visually.
Post by: Starver on September 24, 2020, 12:35:29 pm
It's a different treatment to various of the other 'mud' tiles. In #7 there's a 2x1 'pool' half water, half 'mud', but it looks more sandy/silt rippled exposed pool bottom, but it matches in outline a doubley-watered 2x1 (and single 'dried' tiles exactly match the full profile of single 'wet' ones, but that could be more the nature of the grass overflowing the edges from neighbouring tiles, as per that artistic development) so whatever water-feature it depicts I assume that's the dried-version in these others.
I'd love to run my loo(k)-cursor around to make sure I was correctly identifying the true nature of each tile... ;)
[1] Although there's any number of things wrong with the latest update for Android Firefox (since they did away with the tabs, which I hate), it's just when I scroll over the post(s) with eight landscape images in a row that I've found that it's been closing on me. Might have been better to have done "(spoiler=grassland 1)(img)grass1.png(/img)(/spoiler)(spoiler=grassland 2)(img)grass2.png(/img)[...]", especially as it'd be easier to find out which number I am looking at, and which one someone else is referring to... ;)
Post by: Cruxador on September 24, 2020, 01:10:52 pm
If I'm not mistaken, people who see these as "options" have misunderstood; other than the first (which shows what's currently in the version used for promotional stuff) these are a variety of different places in the game that occur naturally, with different species of already-tiled grasses, not types of things but representations of what's already there.
The ramp does look a bit odd, I think a freestanding 4-way ramp would fit better there.I think that categorically, these grasses look good (aside from the first, which is terribly boring). Although there's always something to quibble over*, I can across the board say that I like the grass tiles. As far as distracting goes, they're far less of a problem than two other elements common here. Firstly, the terrain variation. This is probably the fault of not having different grass tiles for different thicknesses of grass, which would be cool but probably more work than is reasonable... Although there's the gameplay argument that it's relevant information for pastures. However, the contrast between multiple types of terrain, especially in the 4th image, where there's three types all in high prominence, is visually rather annoying and definitely exceeds the "distraction" element of grasses by orders of magnitude. It's really quite bad, and since I don't think there's really a good solution, it's fortunate that these landscapes are kind of rare.
Anyhow, what do you guys think about the grass? We cut back on the more varied grasses after some worries about it looking too distracting. We haven't really touched them since, but now I think it's time to revisit that area. Here the look of the current sprites. There would be some variation added with lighter/darker tiles, just like the grass in the latest screenshots/video.Spoiler: images hidden for ease of thread reading (click to show/hide)
EDIT: Thinking about it more, I wonder how much could be achieved just by removing the hard dark line which delineates the different types of terrain. /edit
The other thing that looks not so right is the bushes in image 6. The hard black lining isn't a big problem in 1 or 6, where there's few of them, and in 4 it's even kind of necessary due to the general visual chaos, but when there's a ton of them, it looks bad. Although depending on how many you've done already this could be a very a big thing so I'm hesitant to recommend it, it might be a good idea to do plants without the black line. Of course, this is subjective, since the more contrast there is, the more you emphasize that it can be picked, but I feel like with the current aesthetic, it's almost to the point where they must be picked in order to have a nice looking yard. I would consider a more muted linework as in the saplings and the other bushes to be more appropriate. Though, maybe this is already known and just not implemented and I'm saying useless things.
But yeah, with regards to the grass, they look great, I thought they were basically good before despite having nits to pick, and they look great in game. I was worried that they wouldn't capture the way that vanilla, despite being ASCII, was able to capture the beautiful effect you feel when al the flowers bloom in spring, but I think it should be fine.
Reposting this link since there seems to have been some loss of quality somewhere in the other one:I don't see any blur, I think what you're seeing is actually reduced saturation. It's especially apparent in the yellow flowers of the bushes, but you can clearly see the difference in all of the non-white flowers, really. I find both of them to be tolerable on a screen that boosts saturation and contrast (the kind commonly optimized for movies and gaming) although the aesthetic appeal of the non-white flowers is largely lost, but viewed on a more muted screen, as is usually intended for computing, reading, and similar, I agree that the one posted here is woefully dreary and indistinct in comparison. I still think it's basically okay, but especially the red flowers in 5 and the lavender flowers in 8 are really sad.Spoiler: as before, shrinking the image (click to show/hide)
Based on these images, yeah, looks really nice overall (except the first one which is just boring). For the grass patterns in particular, 5 and 7 feels like they have too big patches of samey stuff, which to me makes it more distracting as the patterns those patches form draw my attention too much, unlike the rest where it blends together into a much smoother "whole". Particularly like the last image, the flowers and everything is just gorgeous.
4 looks dry and bleak. I would restart the fort if I had to be looking at this. The colour of the mug cracks(?) is very weird, feels like pink chromatic aberrations in a cheap photography lens. Could you try adjusting the hue to something brown-yellowish?I live somewhere that spends a lot of time dry, I think the issue really is just the amount of contrast.
5, 6 and 7 look nice.
Quote
Last one is a bit too much for my taste - with added vegetation it will be very busy and hard on the eye.I see where you're coming from, but I think it's down to that single grass type. Since magenta tends to be very vivid on computer screens, it would make sense to darken it a fair amount. That luminosity change might also correspond to a saturation change but I don't think that's where the issue is.
Quote
3 looks like small rocks all over the place.I feel like this perception may stem in part from the fact that literally everything else in that color range in image 3 is a rock... Although depending on your screen settings, what Meph posted originally definitely looks a lot less flower-like than the version Manveru linked.
Quote
While we are on this topic - what exactly are the grey tiles? Rock coming out onto the surface? They are a bit too artificial/lifeless for me, rock is usually partially covered with moss when it's found out in the open. It's also usually not that flat and has subtle colour variation.They're rocks, yeah. You can see them in classic DF too but they don't stand out as much because they're just a different color but the display is still mostly black. One thing to keep in mind with regards to moss is that DF does model it, so adding it to stuff that doesn't have moss is misleading. You can argue that these things really should have moss, and I would agree, but it's a gameplay issue rather than graphics. Lichen doesn't exist in DF as far as I'm aware, so that would arguably avoid this issue, but that's definitely something for Toady to weigh in on rather than something that should be decided on a purely graphical basis.
I know I'm probably an outlier here. I like variation. Dwarf Fortress has so many different types of grasses, and an embark site usually has a combination of these. I think if the different grasses looked subtly different (maybe not each individual grass, but you could group them reasonably), then that would provide enough visual variation.I only took a cursory look at the reddit thread so far, but you really don't seem to be an outlier. Even though Meph led the discourse a bit** by talking about the "distracting" problem of the past, a whole lot of folks have been expressing satisfaction with what's currently on display, with relatively limited caveats.
As it is now, the plain grass with no variation at all looks too uniform to be natural, and it looks bland visually.
(bamboo is going to be a challenge, though, given that it doesn't look like a lawn or pasture in real life).I feel like this may be rooted in misconception. Although large bamboos are best known due to being particularly unique and charismatic among grasses, there are plenty which stick to the the small meadow-like scales appropriate for a DF grass, outside the realm of landscaping. The first five or so in this reference gallery are broadly suitable, I reckon: https://imgur.com/gallery/iI5EEJa (https://imgur.com/gallery/iI5EEJa)
TL;DR:
• Looks good
• Saturation in the reddit post is better across monitor types
• Contrast between terrain types is excessive, might improve just by removing the dark lines, which did seem to help in my mockup (https://imgur.com/a/G2XCV0E)
• Black lines on harvestable plants are probably too intense
• Magenta flowers in 8 could benefit from less luminosity on some screens
*In this case, image two has shadows for flowers that aren't blooming. And there are some specific cases where the transition between types of grass is imperfect, though probably unavoidable within reasonable constraints, as these are grasses which don't really bunch up. Addressing this is a rabbit hole that could eat near-infinite time for only marginal benefit.
**Not a criticism; it's a necessary measure to get useful feedback.
Post by: Uthimienure on September 24, 2020, 02:11:25 pm
Post by: Dishmab on September 24, 2020, 02:25:25 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on September 24, 2020, 04:45:29 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on September 24, 2020, 04:47:18 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/QpiOjXx.png)
Depends on if they can parse what's going on in the image I guess, to me at least it just looks really weird.
At the very least there should be shading between the ramp and the hall, like there is at the bottom of the ramps.
This. + 1
Also, the Idea of lichen plants helping the transition between terrain sounds good, even though that means making a whole new plant.
Im thinking tho, as a purely graphical solution, would it be possible to have all tiles, that are next to a grass tile, have a little bit of grass on them, spreading out from the neighbouring grass tile?
If you understand my meaning.
Regarding what grass looks better, i personally enjoy looking at #2, and #8, their subtle variation is good. It is not distracting,, but clear enough to notice that there is a variation in grass types. I like that.
Also, #2 and #8 are the least "flat" looking ones.
The grass seems unkempt and of varying heights, but generally pretty tall and dense.
Id say #2 is probably the best, as it seems just a tad less busy somehow.
Obviously, #1 takes the place for the most uniform. and flat looking.
Post by: Starver on September 24, 2020, 06:26:35 pm
Also, the Idea of lichen plants helping the transition between terrain sounds good, even though that means making a whole new plant.I mentioned lichen, but not at all in that context.
Quote
Im thinking tho, as a purely graphical solution, would it be possible to have all tiles, that are next to a grass tile, have a little bit of grass on them, spreading out from the neighbouring grass tile?This we have (mild overlap, breaking up the grid). Do you mean more so?
Post by: MoltenIdol on September 25, 2020, 02:31:24 am
Also, the Idea of lichen plants helping the transition between terrain sounds good, even though that means making a whole new plant.I mentioned lichen, but not at all in that context.QuoteIm thinking tho, as a purely graphical solution, would it be possible to have all tiles, that are next to a grass tile, have a little bit of grass on them, spreading out from the neighbouring grass tile?This we have (mild overlap, breaking up the grid). Do you mean more so?
Cruxador also mentioned lichen, in the context of easing the transition between tiles
Yes, i realize the grass tiles overlap, which is great. I was thinking, some small patchy pixels of green, spreading out from the grass tiles, on to neighbouring dirt and stone etc.
So it doesnt go from "all gras" to "Zero grass" in such an instant. Let It fade into eachother, blur the lines Even more.
If you ever tried playing around with the Warcraft III World Editor, you might remmember placing grass-textures on a fresh map. Warcraft III was all squares as well, but they had some interesting and effective ways of hiding that with textures.
Of course, the grass would overlap into other tiles, like here, but they also had different versions of the same grasstype, with varying grass-density, that you could place to ease the transition between dirt tiles and grass tiles, using the half dirt/half grass tiles, thus bluring the lines even more.
I was thinking this could be achieved, but purely as a graphical overlay, not as a new type of grass tile.
Just a thought :)
Post by: Starver on September 25, 2020, 04:13:15 am
Cruxador also mentioned lichen, in the context of easing the transition between tilesAh. Probably pronounced the other way from when I wrote it, then. ;)
Post by: Cruxador on September 25, 2020, 11:38:11 am
Well, I think the idea wasn't a new plant but just using some pixels of color to add lichen visually, without corresponding gameplay.(https://i.imgur.com/QpiOjXx.png)
Depends on if they can parse what's going on in the image I guess, to me at least it just looks really weird.
At the very least there should be shading between the ramp and the hall, like there is at the bottom of the ramps.
This. + 1
Also, the Idea of lichen plants helping the transition between terrain sounds good, even though that means making a whole new plant.
Quote
Im thinking tho, as a purely graphical solution, would it be possible to have all tiles, that are next to a grass tile, have a little bit of grass on them, spreading out from the neighbouring grass tile?The problem is, sparse grass is already a thing. It's represented, currently, with the same visual effect as full grass. If the system were updated to represent tufts of grass over the base terrain, we would have sparse grass where there's supposed to be sparse grass. But that would require a variant version of each grass for each level of density. Although there's not that many density levels and each one would be relatively easy to make, it's still a multiplicative increase in the number of tiles, and also needs to either generate or layer tiles since now the terrain and the covering are taken into account. It's an improvement and I want it too, but whether to budget the time for it is a non-obvious decision that would have to be made not just by Mike and Meph.
If you understand my meaning.
Post by: MoltenIdol on September 26, 2020, 06:55:47 am
Well, I think the idea wasn't a new plant but just using some pixels of color to add lichen visually, without corresponding gameplay.(https://i.imgur.com/QpiOjXx.png)
Depends on if they can parse what's going on in the image I guess, to me at least it just looks really weird.
At the very least there should be shading between the ramp and the hall, like there is at the bottom of the ramps.
This. + 1
Also, the Idea of lichen plants helping the transition between terrain sounds good, even though that means making a whole new plant.
Fine by me :).
[quote by Cruxador]:
"The problem is, sparse grass is already a thing. It's represented, currently, with the same visual effect as full grass. If the system were updated to represent tufts of grass over the base terrain, we would have sparse grass where there's supposed to be sparse grass. But that would require a variant version of each grass for each level of density. Although there's not that many density levels and each one would be relatively easy to make, it's still a multiplicative increase in the number of tiles, and also needs to either generate or layer tiles since now the terrain and the covering are taken into account. It's an improvement and I want it too, but whether to budget the time for it is a non-obvious decision that would have to be made not just by Mike and Meph."
[quote end]
Yeah. We'll, wether its done purely as a graphical overlay, or implemented in context to already existing grass-density code, i guess its the same amount of work for the artists.
If they decide to do it.
But it would definitely help the transition.
Id argue that the same thing could be done with dirt tiles, spreading out over adjecent rock surfaces, purely as a graphical overlay (or, have dustings of dirt spread out from dirt tiles, as an actual game mechanic), since dirt would technically end up on top of the rock surface a lot of the time, being spread out.
+
Small rock tips potentially popping out on dirt-tiles with adjecent rock tiles. (Purely graphical overlay?)
Again, just an idea that might or might not work as intended.
It would really blur the lines between tiles, thats for sure, and maybe it should just have a 50% chance of visually occuring, so its not all over the place.
Some hard borders are good too.
Might look like crap.
Might be the right technique.
Who knows
\_('-')_/
Post by: Meph on September 27, 2020, 01:19:43 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/YiLeMEM.png)
Post by: voliol on September 27, 2020, 01:27:14 pm
The rocky patches look way better like this, I think.
Post by: Meph on September 27, 2020, 01:30:49 pm
There is meadow grass, cottongrass and mountain heathers on that screenshot, and one other grass I don't remember atm.
Post by: Cruxador on September 27, 2020, 07:13:39 pm
A bit more like this?The transition with the stone patch looks great. The garish clashing is completely fixed and it looks very realistic. The only exception is how there's same-sized splotches distributed more or less evenly, but that's not something that can be handled purely graphically. Taking into account the limitations and need to represent the actual situation accurately, this is implemented as well as it conceivably could be; it's perfect.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Regarding the "high saturation" tiles, I do think they stand out too much. Specifically, too much yellow: That goes beyond questions of lighter and darker and is a matter of color balance. Maybe that would look different on a different embark and be fine, for example if proportions of different colors were different. but I think in the image there, it would be good to rejigger the colors. Overall, the color choices convey a dreary overcast day compared to the sunny day in the more monotonous grass textures from Toady's latest video. It's subjective which is better; neither is worse from a technical perspective or anything but I find the sunny day more pleasant. Would be cool to have a shader that let both be possible according to weather but again, that's beyond graphical.
Each grass has four sprites as variations, the lighter/darker ones are just that. Same grass, the variants are just to make it look a bit less copy+pasted.Cottongrass is the one that's blooming now, I assume? I think you toned the brightness down a bit too much.
There is meadow grass, cottongrass and mountain heathers on that screenshot, and one other grass I don't remember atm.
Post by: Superdorf on September 27, 2020, 07:33:01 pm
A bit more like this?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I'm using this as my desktop background now :))
Post by: ror6ax on September 28, 2020, 04:04:34 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Artefact quality art, Meph! Thanks so much!
Post by: MoltenIdol on September 28, 2020, 06:33:46 am
A bit more like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/YiLeMEM.png)
Yes, that looks really good!
Post by: Eric Blank on September 29, 2020, 01:30:55 am
A bit more like this?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This looks really good
The boulders though, they do stand out a bit as something being displayed edge-on instead of top-down, they resemble the style of the items you've drawn, i'd expect to be able to interact with them. They pop out quite well, not like the rest of the background landscape components. Maybe a sprite thats more in the style of the surrounding grass/rock patches so they blend in?
Post by: Meph on September 29, 2020, 01:53:33 am
The boulders are not multi-level and can be looked through/over. I rather have them in the style of plants, saplings, and everything else on the surface. Only walls and trunks are top-down, because of the multi-level aspect.
Post by: MoltenIdol on September 29, 2020, 03:20:57 am
Say, dirt and rock etc. having the dirt spread into the rock tiles, just like the grass does. (Witht the dirt being "on top" of the rock, like the grass)
Or would that be too much?
I think It might look really smooth, in my minds picture at least ;)
Good day out there!
Post by: Meph on September 29, 2020, 04:24:53 am
Quote
Do you think using this technique elsewhere, to also ease transition between other tiles would be good?We use that a lot. Did you see the world map?
Post by: MoltenIdol on September 29, 2020, 05:17:34 am
QuoteDo you think using this technique elsewhere, to also ease transition between other tiles would be good?We use that a lot. Did you see the world map?
Yes i did, and I think the technique really works.
Im REALLY looking forward to playing this graphical release once its "done" ;)
Im purely talking about the terrain when "in game", looking at your fort or adventurer.
Its purely an aesthetical suggestion, and I realize it might be a good amount of extra work.
But i think it would look good when applied to even more terrain.
Take for example the image nr. 4 (i think it was), with the patchy terrain.
If you could have that same way of transitioning between all those tiles, i truly think the "patchy square looking terrain" problem would be almost solved.
Although i would like to add, that SOME hard-borders between tiles, once in a while, might look really good as well (especially hard borders on grass tiles), and make the terrain come off as more "natural", like a forest floor, with werid irregularities and big tuffts of grass that almost creates a small "overhang" (with a hard border).
It might create the (wanted IMO) illusion of more uneven terrain, without it actually being uneven Because of differing z-levels.
Post by: clinodev on September 29, 2020, 06:12:45 am
Post by: Starver on September 29, 2020, 07:12:00 am
The boulders though, they do stand out a bit as something being displayed edge-on instead of top-down, they resemble the style of the items you've drawn, i'd expect to be able to interact with them.They can be interacted with, albeit in a distinctive and (I think) unique subset of ways. If you think of them as "natural furniture", in seem ways, they are in the right subset of graphical convention. (Not multilevel, as mentioned, block wagons but not (other) creatures like traps do (save for any entrapment action), is effectively a pile of knappable stones for Adv mode[1], I think.)
Ok, in Fort Mode they're "smooth to remove", almost like "remove ramp" is for that feature (but without pick needed), and like unbuilt ramps they can be subsumed by a construction over them. (Does this also remove the ramp when deconstructed again?[2]) Just another sign of a seemingly ad hoc inconsistency of the game, nothing to do with graphics, ultimately.
[1] I forget, are you supposed to be able to use a boulder as a stone-item building material in Adv mode? It's one thing I recall mentioned, but never tried myself.
[2] I'm beginning to realise how many potential interactions I don't use often, or indeed at all, even in a Fortress. But that question isn't a question to this thread, just an idle musing to myself, that I may test next time I power up DF.myself.
Post by: Eric Blank on September 29, 2020, 05:01:50 pm
It would be nice if you could pry them up without a pick and use them like a rough stone though. but that belongs in the suggestions forum.
Post by: PatrikLundell on September 30, 2020, 03:25:55 am
Post by: Urist McBlind on September 30, 2020, 04:57:05 pm
This could help readability in places where opposing ramps meet (the flat terrain extending into the tile forming a gap between the ramps). While the current ramps have mostly fixed the perspective-flipping problem for me, having the ramps form perfect geometric shapes is still disconcerting. I think the transition from ramp to flat ground looks great, but it doesn't work quite as well at these collision points, making my brain try to see the 3D shapes they must surely form, especially in those places where three or four orientations meet.
Maybe it would help to round the outside corners on corner ramps where the slope hits the ground? I understand showing the intersection between slope-planes at corners helps readability, but having the line extend all the way to the corner of the tile throws off the perspective since the diagonal is longer while presumably covering the same height it implies a softer slope than the horizontal or vertical slopes would suggest.
Post by: Meph on September 30, 2020, 06:08:22 pm
Post by: Starver on September 30, 2020, 07:30:48 pm
Something similar to one of your suggestions was when I played with 'tying' any ramp apex to the appropriate mid-sides (for any definite orthagonal ramping) or corners (for any definite diagonal ramping) extending a conic 'pile' in towards the inner (or even eliptically to reach the opposing exge without overflowing the adjacent edges) from each such point. Then 'in-filled' over any octants spanning joining such adjacent corners+midedges concerned (and, optionally, across those between and didn't but weren't needed a same-level or down-a-level access). Easy to mathematically establish the 'mask' for every one of the cases[1].
It looked Ok in any trivial form of single-level view with hyposometric shading (floor to ceiling range) but the directional-shading alternative (either 'standard' top-left lighting or sunlight-direction hueing) necessary to seemlessly depict multiple layers (with or without bathymetric shading for depth-perspective) rather made it look less lovely than the seemless-slopes (if not being seemless onbthe boundaries between differently-directuonal slopes).
Enforcing (or over-using) flat plateaus/strips between planar sections of ramp also makes things look odd (regardless of the rendering mask method). You get 'terraces' on multilevel slopes (rather than 'corner patios' for edge-but-not-corner-reaching conics) where you'd expect a more steady hillside. And what you do with concave slopes matters a lot. Ditto 'saddle' configurations, and multi-saddled ones. (Not that they are too common in natural landscapes, but they do occur, and can be expected to arise in deliberate player building/digging operations.)
...sorry, I've just thought/experimented a lot about this subject. In leiu of having put any of this information to good personal use, I'm left trying to put into mere few words what is probably better dealt with in any number of properly annotated diagrams in a whole dedicated essay on the subject! But make of it what you can.
(And, yes, wot Meph sed. While I was trying to make this post not look too dense and unreadable, and failing.)
[1] Actually tried it out on triangular, square and hexagonal tiles (plus, for a laugh, pentagonal ones, assuming a spherical geometry (dodceahedron), just because it sat in that sequence. Obviously, tri-tiles have the least self-set details (especially after reducing to archetypes to cater for every rotation and reflection), but are complicated by each corner-connection may have to link nicely with three ( 6 - self - (2*side_adjacent_tiles) ) 'diagonals', depending on your given rules for inter-tile movement, and that hurts when adding a sufficiently "neighbour aware" tile profile. Hex-tiles are actually much nicer (even more so pents, unless you go with a hyperbolic geometry instead) as they have six edge-neighbours, but no corner-only ones, so you can reduce the archetypes (or complications of procgenning each tile mask on-the-fly) quite ignificantly. Square-grid tiles are actually not very good, except for being easier to work with in raster-graphics rotations without fudging integer triangular coordinates (and, by extension, hexagons) from a half-a-diamond that has cordinates coming from a sheared-square. ...Or so I worked out at the time. But I probably missed half a dozen other data-tricks that actually can be used, as I only did all this for my own entertainment. ;)
Post by: Meph on September 30, 2020, 10:21:01 pm
Post by: Urist McBlind on October 01, 2020, 05:35:45 am
Also, I was looking through the recent update video again because I don't think we've had a good look at multilevel ramps elsewhere, and I noticed the grass tiles spreading over the top of the ramps. If that is intentional, I think there needs to be a better lighting transition; the ramps going down are on a different z-level so the fade creates a stark contrast.
I also noticed another ramp configuration which doesn't quite work:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Something similar is happening here (you can also see some of the blockiness I talked about above):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Or maybe, on the vertical edge, the slope going to the right could dominate, instead of the one going north. There is definitely going to be a sheer wall somewhere which is supposed to be traversable, though. Or I could have this completely wrong, because it's nigh on impossible to read.
That's the problem with going from ramps in the abstract to visually defined ones...
PS: Dayum Starver you make my post look like baby talk :o ;) Thanks for the 'splainin :)
Post by: Starver on October 01, 2020, 06:25:29 am
McB/everybody: Yeah, sorry about that. I know what I (think I) mean, but I forget to stop explaining sometimes. Ooh, look, a footnote longer than the paragraph it arose from...
[1] OTOH, it means I can safely sit in my armchair, being an armchair expert, rather than have to provide deliverables to fickle consumers who don't share my vision, via impatient intermediaries who don't share my own sense of priorities and concept of scheduling. It's bad enough in what passes for my day-job!
Post by: Meph on October 01, 2020, 06:46:39 am
Post by: Urist McBlind on October 01, 2020, 07:22:52 am
Really thankful for Meph's (and co's) patience and willingness to engage.
Post by: Rekov on October 01, 2020, 10:11:19 am
(https://i.imgur.com/Udny2Ke.png)
There is a slight band of shadow along the bottom of both of these ramp tiles. It makes sense in the left example left where the angle with the floor tile occludes the light, but doesn't make sense on the right where the continuing ramp is a flat plane.
But while this could be fixed, it is probably not worth the effort of doing so, because it would mean not just having ramp shading for every possible ramp shape (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173474.msg8116793#msg8116793), but every possible ramp shape in combination with every possible neighboring tile in multiple directions, and that would be quite impractical.
Post by: Uthimienure on October 01, 2020, 10:22:13 am
Post by: Cruxador on October 01, 2020, 12:03:43 pm
I think this could look good, but I also think getting it to consistently look good in the wide variety of procedurally generated terrains would be incredibly challenging. Things like that would definitely be an improvement still, but with so much else to do, I reckon the reward is probably not worth the effort.QuoteDo you think using this technique elsewhere, to also ease transition between other tiles would be good?We use that a lot. Did you see the world map?
Yes i did, and I think the technique really works.
Im REALLY looking forward to playing this graphical release once its "done" ;)
Im purely talking about the terrain when "in game", looking at your fort or adventurer.
Its purely an aesthetical suggestion, and I realize it might be a good amount of extra work.
But i think it would look good when applied to even more terrain.
Take for example the image nr. 4 (i think it was), with the patchy terrain.
If you could have that same way of transitioning between all those tiles, i truly think the "patchy square looking terrain" problem would be almost solved.
Although i would like to add, that SOME hard-borders between tiles, once in a while, might look really good as well (especially hard borders on grass tiles), and make the terrain come off as more "natural", like a forest floor, with werid irregularities and big tuffts of grass that almost creates a small "overhang" (with a hard border).
It might create the (wanted IMO) illusion of more uneven terrain, without it actually being uneven Because of differing z-levels.
Seems fine as-is because it delineates the z-levels.I think it's superfluous for that purpose. The way DF generates terrain/slopes, there will nearly always be some flat areas close enough that the player can mentally "fill in" the missing info and know where the difference between z-levels is. Exceptions to this will be vanishingly rare, enough so that they don't need to be specifically designed for; the grid covers most cases where it would matter anyway.
However, I agree with Rekov; although it would be an improvement it doesn't make a big difference and the cost/benefit is very questionable. I think it should probably be on a list of things to do, but more likely on the "would be nice but we probably won't get to this in the foreseeable future" list rather than the "definitely get this done by steam release" list. And not even all that high up on the list, honestly.
Post by: Oab on October 01, 2020, 01:49:49 pm
A solution to that could be to have unique tiles for each ramp type based on their respective multi-level position. This would mean manually darkening and desaturating the lower layers as the view ascends until it eventually fades into pure shadow. Working alongside the shadow overlay I believe this would work well. I think this would further improve the overall visual aesthetically and functionally.
This could be done by copy pasting the existing ramps and manually changing the palettes or even just using filters. Either way it's a quick process. Coding in all the additional tiles would be required for this though which in theory shouldn’t take much time either.
I am still really interested to see a screenshot of a cavern with a lot of various ramps.
@Meph:
The most recent shot of the grass tiles are looking quite good. I have a couple suggestions to possibly further improve them after taking a closer look.
The first would be to add more color ramps for the grass types. Having it all the same couple shades of green makes it look less like wild terrain. I see two distinct palettes in that recent shot which play really well off each other.
I would have the most common grass be the primary color palette and ramp off of it for each additional species using more deliberate use of hue shifting.
Make the variants for each grass species by tweaking the amount of light/dark for each individual ramp as you are, and you will end up with massive variety while retaining seamless blending. More flowers/colors would be nice as well.
Like others I noticed the contrast issues going on between some sprites and the background.
I would use the grass color palettes for the plant sprites that spawn in the same biome, but with slightly increased saturation to help it be more readable. For the rocks I would use one of the less saturated grass palettes as a basis for the boulders colors. For example: the rock could share the darker green palette of the grass gradually going more towards a more saturated lighter gray.
Post by: Meph on October 02, 2020, 01:25:34 am
I've been toying with the idea of a more elaborate furniture layout to portray not only material, but also quality, spatter, wear... and add some toggleable variants... and add the actual decorations. I'm curious what you guys think. Initially we also wanted to add orientation, aka rotating the furntiure piece N, E, S, W, just like the siege engines can be rotated, but that multiplies the sprite count by 16, so we are holding off on that for now. Tarn might code-support it for modders though.
The current setup we want to test looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/xTkQWuB.png)
That's a bed.
- Four materials, wood, stone, metal and glass. Shown using texture on the bed-frame.
- Seven quality levels, from regular to artefact. Shown on the creases and embroidery on the cloth.
- Four varieties (optional ornamental changes to avoid copy+paste effect) that you can cycle through. Shown by different pillows.
- Five decorations, which are colored depending on their material and copied on top.
- Four wear-states, which are copied on top.
- Four spatter effects, which are colored depending on their material and copied on top.
Examples would look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/T0VBGPN.png)
Individually those can be read easily, it gets more harder if everything happens at once: A very decorated bed with two spatters and heavy wear for example. Luckily spatter is rare on furniture, as is wear; while decorations are controlled by the player, you can pick yourself how much you want to put on a given piece.
Here the table:
(https://i.imgur.com/O7Fu95d.png)
And an example with ten random tables (empty), ten with spatter and wear, ten with decorations, and finally ten with everything at once.
(https://i.imgur.com/5gQxdxi.png)
Post by: Rose on October 02, 2020, 01:54:17 am
Post by: voliol on October 02, 2020, 02:30:16 am
The brown wear looks odd on the non-brown tables though, it looks as if they’ve sprouted roots, or have brown insides.
Post by: Meph on October 02, 2020, 02:56:26 am
The wear could easily get the fitting color for the material.
Post by: Urist McBlind on October 02, 2020, 03:45:19 am
Only criticism would be that I prefer lower viewing angles for tables which allow me to see more of the table's legs to make it read as "table" immediately, but that could just be me being too used to my current tileset (good ol' ironhand).
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on October 02, 2020, 04:41:24 am
Post by: Schmaven on October 02, 2020, 04:58:40 am
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on October 02, 2020, 05:12:32 am
I like the fancy wood grain pattern, metalworking, and intricate details of the top 3 masterwork quality tables. The masterwork glass table could maybe use a different light sparkle pattern or some ornate glass patterning like the other masterwork tables.
The ones furthest right are the artifact quality ones, the masterwork is to the left of those (unless I'm understanding things wrong).
Post by: Schmaven on October 02, 2020, 06:57:25 am
Post by: ror6ax on October 02, 2020, 08:33:50 am
As for tables - somewhat longer legs would be nice to experiment with IMO.
The rest is absolutely perfect.
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 02, 2020, 10:15:18 am
Tho that might look weird when tables are placed adjecently to eachother vertically.
I cant recall; did you already talk about tables visually changing and connecting with adjecent tables? Both vertically and horizontally?
About the decorations: i feel like some of the decos makes it harder to recognize the tables as being tables, eg. the decoration with the "bars" across the table. Maybe all these things could be toned down a bit. Somehow.
Longer legs on tables would help with that problem. Then there would be no doubt when looking at a table, no matter the decorations.
Lastly: i Really like the spatter effects, and I am still of the opinion that items and weapons should retain the spatter effects as well, clearly it works. I get that weapons are much smaller, but:
Logically, if a weapon is coated in mud, barf, blood etc., it would become pretty hard to determine the quality or wear-state of said weapon, without inspecting it closely.
Which makes sense from a gameplay point of view, as you can 'k' and all that, to look at stuff, or open the inventory to view it when its in your hands.
The tables with patterns and textures are Really charming.
Its always exciting to See more content develop :)!
On a side note; could the beds have some more mundane/humble colours of sheets in the future? They look Very royal. Maybe Some linnen would do for the low quality, then make the sheets more pretty as quality goes up, or give them Some broidery.
Maybe in the futures future, it could be tied to cloth dyeing somehow, Even en tho beds dont require cloth atm.
Hay beds anyone?
Post by: Uthimienure on October 02, 2020, 10:55:56 am
...
About the decorations: i feel like some of the decos makes it harder to recognize the tables as being tables, eg. the decoration with the "bars" across the table. Maybe all these things could be toned down a bit. Somehow.
...
...
...
On a side note; could the beds have different colours of sheets in the future? They look Very royal. Maybe Some linnen would do for the low quality, then make the sheets more pretty as quality goes up, or give them Some broidery.
Maybe in the futures future, it could be tied to cloth dyeing somehow.
+1 to these ideas
The beds could have simple sheets for basic quality, ramping up toward embroidered multi-color quilts for the best.
I don't think the longer legs are needed, however.
Post by: ror6ax on October 02, 2020, 12:45:12 pm
Quote
The beds could have simple sheets for basic quality, ramping up toward embroidered multi-color quilts for the best.
That would be great.
Post by: Dishmab on October 02, 2020, 02:14:14 pm
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 02, 2020, 09:16:12 pm
I Really like the Idea of hay and linnen being "used" as lowtier bed materials.
7 Humble dwarves, haybeds, clothes falling apart, drinking rainwater from wooden cups. Its Perfect.
Maybe some furs and hides for the artifact quality?
Even though it might send the Wrong signals, eg: "do i need cloth to make hightier beds?" and so forth, i still think it would be cool, to follow your carpenters rise to mastery.
Post by: Cruxador on October 02, 2020, 11:18:07 pm
I've been toying with the idea of a more elaborate furniture layoutIt looks great, but how many furnitures are there in the game? The sheer amount of extra work you're putting on a full plate seems pretty up there. 44 sprites per furniture adds up quickly, depending on how loosely you define "furniture". If the time can recently be allocated though, this level of thoroughness is great. As far as the details, the only thing I notice is I think the spikes (or studs?) on top would look better with the side that's "attached" to the table not having an outline.Spoiler: collapsed for post length (click to show/hide)
There's a few things others have said that I basically agree with:
• The wood grain table doesn't scream "high quality" necessarily. Arthur's round tale wasn't famous because of the table itself, after all.
• It's very unclear to me what the table "bars" represent.
Maybe in the futures future, it could be tied to cloth dyeing somehow, Even en tho beds dont require cloth atm.Hay beds would be the most correct representation, but considering bedding isn't modeled by the game at all, I reckon it should be treated as abstracted, like how axes could have wooden hafts and not necessary all be made in the style of the Indo-Persian Tabar, for example.
Hay beds anyone?
Because the textile/bedding aspect doesn't actually exist in-game, I think emphasizing it too much would be misleading.
Post by: Zesty on October 03, 2020, 02:35:58 am
(https://i.imgur.com/cE46Zlo.png)
This looks great. I really like how you toned down the lone stone ground tiles. I'm not overstating it when I say it is pleasing to look at. I'm excited to see dry, bubble/feather, and wormy/eyeball grasses.
Anyhow, what do you guys think about the grass? We cut back on the more varied grasses after some worries about it looking too distracting.
I'd like you to reconsider this. Variability isn't distracting. Busyness is. Variability is very good and will help make different forts feel unique.
Post by: Starver on October 03, 2020, 07:45:13 am
If there's any improvement I would suggest, it's to make/keep more prominent the non-turf elements you then find atop. Though this is not particularly lacking right now anyway.
Post by: Hiul on October 03, 2020, 05:06:34 pm
can just copy paste the bed sheet motif from the table motif like this one for example just maybe with different color.
(https://i.imgur.com/5gQxdxi.png)
Post by: Eric Blank on October 03, 2020, 05:35:55 pm
Also, glass and stone might be hard to tell apart if they had the same material colors. Since theres not a lot of obvious difference between quality levels now, what about exempting stone tables from inheriting the base, and make the shape/quality of the base the obvious difference in table quality? From like a slab of rock with the top smoothed over to an ornate single pillar with fancy "feet"? Then glass tables then can have the obviously wooden legs, so you can tell the difference at a glance even with very similar material colors.
The shear number of sprites for quality levels and variations you're thinking about doing is impressive, honestly. I would be content with a single sprite for each material type, but it's going to look amazing with all that extra stuff
Post by: Wokko on October 04, 2020, 12:59:34 pm
Players wouldn't be confused into thinking that they need cloth materials because they would notice it only after they make some beds, so there are probably no downsides to that approach.
edit: artifact beds shouldn't have drawers underneath, especially that prominent
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 04, 2020, 01:17:11 pm
Imo, making bed quality depend on the sheets (hay-look->cheap cloth->royal cloth) would look both better and clearer, more intuitively understandable.
Players wouldn't be confused into thinking that they need cloth materials because they would notice it only after they make some beds, so there are probably no downsides to that approach.
edit: artifact beds shouldn't have drawers underneath, especially that prominent
I agree with all of this i gotta say.
Post by: Starver on October 04, 2020, 02:22:41 pm
edit: artifact beds shouldn't have drawers underneath, especially that prominentThat's not a drawer. That's a roller. It's a fancy convertible (transformable!) version of...
Spoiler: ...this! (click to show/hide)
Post by: Pillbo on October 04, 2020, 08:05:18 pm
Imo, making bed quality depend on the sheets (hay-look->cheap cloth->royal cloth) would look both better and clearer, more intuitively understandable.
Also wanted to say that varying the color of the sheets to some degree would help keep them from looking too much the same. At least those examples make it look like a wood beds get red sheets, stone another color, and so on.
Post by: voliol on October 05, 2020, 01:13:09 am
Post by: Meph on October 05, 2020, 02:09:37 am
Hay-beds would make sense for the lowest quality, but I'm not entirely sure how that would look with the few pixels at the disposal for the sheet.
Longer legs for tables: They are dwarves. :P They need low tables.
Quote
I cant recall; did you already talk about tables visually changing and connecting with adjecent tables? Both vertically and horizontally?I mentioned it, but it makes tables very difficult, especially when merging those with multiple different qualities, decorations or materials.
Quote
It looks great, but how many furnitures are there in the game?10-30, depending on what you count.
Post by: Hiul on October 05, 2020, 02:46:07 am
and would be nice to have some round ball thing near the edge for the gradual upgrade which either made of wood or paint with ornamental color or just small protruding wood frame near the edge for aesthetic.
like this one
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
regarding hay bed, seems like some cover it with sheet anyway so its not that showed, maybe add some hay hint near the edge, also it would help to enhance the hole by showing some hay protruding out of the sheet for poor quality, the most poor definitely just show as hay without sheet though.
like this one
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Meph on October 05, 2020, 08:38:30 am
I finish the chairs and cabinets in this style as well:
(https://i.imgur.com/B3v0QOl.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/mDl6B3P.png)
Post by: Cruxador on October 05, 2020, 01:45:39 pm
Imo, making bed quality depend on the sheets (hay-look->cheap cloth->royal cloth) would look both better and clearer, more intuitively understandable.Please don't underestimate the capacity of players to get confused.
Players wouldn't be confused into thinking that they need cloth materials because they would notice it only after they make some beds, so there are probably no downsides to that approach.
edit: artifact beds shouldn't have drawers underneath, especially that prominent
Also, I do think on principle, in cases where the game is limited it's not good design to emphasize or call attention to those limitations as it would do if we made the type of bedding appear to matter without the type of bedding actually being modeled.
Well, there are two ways to go about this: Have a big difference between the quality levels, or make it a gradient. I decided to use a gradient, since players can't control the quality level. No one can say "hey, please build 3 superior beds and 3 exceptional beds, thanks". If that would be the case, I might go for more unique designs between the quality levels.I think this is a concept issue rather than an issue with your representation but the spikes and rings look kinda nonsensical. Partly that can't be helped because putting spikes and rings on a stool or cabinet is already something we never see in real life, but I also think it's emphasized by the contrast between the stark white and the various browns. It might jump out less, visually, if those decoration graphical elements will inherit the color of the decoration material. Of course, if they're microcline it could get way worse, but at least then it's accurate.
I finish the chairs and cabinets in this style as well:Spoiler: I collapsed the images (click to show/hide)
Post by: Pillbo on October 05, 2020, 02:41:08 pm
Post by: neobit on October 05, 2020, 03:16:04 pm
(...) The chairs kinds of look like desks or small tables to me.
I feel same but for last line of chairs only, they look unstable.
If you want to stick with single leg, maybe resizing its bottom could improve the looks?
(https://i.ibb.co/G046PBN/chairs-before.png)
vs
(https://i.ibb.co/3CBqnDF/chairs.jpg)
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on October 05, 2020, 03:41:26 pm
...
It might jump out less, visually, if those decoration graphical elements will inherit the color of the decoration material. Of course, if they're microcline it could get way worse, but at least then it's accurate.
I think it did already? There were some images shown earlier with golden decorations for exxample being gold colored.
Post by: Starver on October 05, 2020, 05:31:57 pm
[...]but the spikes and rings look kinda nonsensical. Partly that can't be helped because putting spikes and rings on a stool or cabinet is already something we never see in real life,I'll admit my first thought about the rings (most of all on the cabinet) was "multiple intimate piercings by a certain type of actress".
Second thoughts reminded me that these textural illustrations had to be created to match the textual 'illustrations' perhaps conjured into being by first imagining (perfectly 'reasonable'? (https://www.hanbonforge.com/BLOG/What-is-the-function-of-the-rings-on-broadswords)) ring-ornamentation upon certain other types of goods and then extending it out to everything. (Or, maybe, not restricting it from anything... Can a ring be "decorated with rings"? Maybe worth checking. Not that I couldn't think of some arty ring with small rings upon it[1]...)
So my third thoughts are that although it might not be an obvious visual configuration (I tended to think of something like a "lion-head vase" ring-attachment, not entirely adorned but in locations where carrying/suspension handles are possibly more useful than merely ornamentation), then why not? Dwarves are peculiar beings, and though rings affixed upon a human bedframe might be... more strategically placed for a given purpose as anchor points, then why not just have them demonstrating some craft-aesthetic peculiar to them (or at most their whole fantasy world).
[1] I've made a chainmail bracelet for someone, once, of 'armour'-sized rings and also worked with chainmail rings small enough to possibly 'sleeve' an item of finger-jewellery
Post by: Urist McBlind on October 05, 2020, 06:00:34 pm
(...)The chairs kinds of look like desks or small tables to me.Yeah, for me these read as tables more easily than the actual tables (exactly the viewing angle I would prefer for them ;D). Maybe round seats to go with square tables? Could we maybe get pictures of chairs next to tables, since that is how we're mostly going to see them?
I think more varied quality levels would be cool since I think the causation for players not caring about quality differences goes the other way, and isn't really about not being able to determine which version to get; People just mix different quality beds because they can't see a difference, but would totally be willing to accept churning out tons of beds to produce enough beds to fit an aesthetic. It's why most people don't bother putting many decorations on furniture at the moment (as far as I can tell from talking to people and looking at community forts) but are excited about your renderings here - it's a lot of effort for something you don't get much out of, but you can be sure I'm going to make all my tables in a dining room have complementing decorations now that it looks this great.
Of course, that would require a lot of different art, and would end up very subjective, but it might be worth it at the very high (like extended bedposts or the round balls in Hiul's post for artefact or masterwork) and very low levels (I like the straw suggestions) while keeping the intermediate stages relatively mundane/interchangeable.
As for the decorations, I think the rings look nice, if you think of them dangling loosely, kind of like a chime. Alternatively you might want to just put them as inlays rather than standing off at angles, or use them as handles.
The spikes might be less jarring if you treat them more like studs, and put them along the chair or table legs, or the corner pieces of the cabinet, rather than going in a circle around the object. The spikes on top of the cabinet should definitely be along the front rather than along the back, since the ring of spikes looks continuous on first glance but can't be unless they go diagonally along the side surfaces for some reason.
Also, are the drawer/door combinations on the cabinets random or indicative of something?
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 05, 2020, 07:37:14 pm
I cant recall if there was already any comment on this.
Also, I'm really curious, so om just gonna ask:
How far are you guys in the artistic part of the process? Are all creatures done?
Are you doing Some work here and there, or are you generally focusing on one category at a time eg. furniture?
Its very exciting. I almost feel guilty for asking.
Post by: Pillbo on October 05, 2020, 08:07:29 pm
It would be cool to be able to toggle decorations off. (Without toggling off engravings).
I think the option to toggle decorations, quality, wear and contaminants will make many people skeptical of the tileset happy. Maybe just a 'simplified graphics' option that turns all that off.
Post by: clinodev on October 05, 2020, 10:45:32 pm
Quote
I think the option to toggle decorations, quality, wear and contaminants will make many people skeptical of the tileset happy. Maybe just a 'simplified graphics' option that turns all that off.
I typed in and then deleted a comment last night about simplicity, but if we're all piling on, lol. . ..
I find myself simultaneously wanting to encourage every possible complication of the official tileset (to give future tileset more options,) while at the same time hoping for simpler third party tilesets for myself. I don't do the sort of mass housing levels a lot of people do for various reasons, but if I did, I think the various furniture grades would drive me mad, much less spatter and wear.
Post by: Zesty on October 05, 2020, 10:47:38 pm
Well, there are two ways to go about this: Have a big difference between the quality levels, or make it a gradient. I decided to use a gradient, since players can't control the quality level. No one can say "hey, please build 3 superior beds and 3 exceptional beds, thanks". If that would be the case, I might go for more unique designs between the quality levels.
I finish the chairs and cabinets in this style as well:
(https://i.imgur.com/B3v0QOl.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/mDl6B3P.png)
Menaces with spikes? Neat. Rings aren't as neat.
I like variation, I just hope it all looks good in the big picture. I mentioned before how things being too busy may be an issue.
Post by: Meph on October 06, 2020, 03:13:41 am
The decorations would take on the color of the material used.
Wider stand for the chair makes sense. :)
Quote
How far are you guys in the artistic part of the process? Are all creatures done?The creatures are mainly done. All regular creatures are done, I think there are only 30 ish animal men missing or so. The giant animals mostly use an enlarged version of the base animal sprite, so they don't look super pretty; and the zombies are currently a recolor instead of a unique sprite. Procedurally generated creatures aren't done yet, though I did make one as a test, the Nightcreatures. FBs are more complicated, and I'm part way through the werecreatures. Those two are tricky because they have creature types in them that otherwise don't exist in the game, like snakefly, lacewing, antlion larva... there are 211 base bodies for FBs, most of which are unique to FBs. ^^
This is how the creature sheets look atm: Adult, child, Adult zombie, Child zombie, war trained, hunting trained, female adult/child/zombies, adult/child corpse. The zombies are more or less placeholders, I'd love to replace them with actual zombified versions. The corpses are desaturated, turned 90° and have a blood-spatter effect... in theory we could do unique corpse sprites too (look at the top-right at the llama corpses) but that would be a lot more work. A stretch goal for sure. ;)
(https://i.imgur.com/W9J0zZw.png)
We will go over the sprites before release and fix anything that stands out a lot. For example I prefer to stick close to relative size (smaller cat for example), and there are some stylistic differences here and there. For example I did all the vermin, which include some fish, and I made them side-view; Mike did the creature aquatic file and drew them seen at an angle. Now we have two different looking styles for fish. ^^
Quote
Are you doing Some work here and there, or are you generally focusing on one category at a time eg. furniture?Mike focusses on one thing at a time and perfects it, I prefer to jump around, having a lot of discussions with Tarn about how to code certain parts, how the mod support would work best, test v.1, make a v.2, while waiting for it do something else... ;)
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 06, 2020, 03:45:47 am
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 06, 2020, 04:29:22 am
(Yay for smaller cats!)
Post by: clinodev on October 06, 2020, 04:41:56 am
I'm not sure it's a bad thing to have vermin fish and "real" fish using distinct styles. That allows you to immediately see that it's one or the other.
Agreed.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on October 06, 2020, 05:12:40 am
Post by: voliol on October 06, 2020, 06:58:53 am
Can't remember if it's been brought up, but in regards to peacocks, the peachicks afaik look pretty identical between the sexes, so would be more accurate to use the same sprite for both ^^
Spoiler: That's an adorable if I've even seen one. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Celestial on October 06, 2020, 10:32:22 am
Well, there are two ways to go about this: Have a big difference between the quality levels, or make it a gradient. I decided to use a gradient, since players can't control the quality level. No one can say "hey, please build 3 superior beds and 3 exceptional beds, thanks". If that would be the case, I might go for more unique designs between the quality levels.The spike is very cool(Magic) , I like it. for the ring ,i think it a little bit weird,XD, think for your work.
I finish the chairs and cabinets in this style as well:
(https://i.imgur.com/B3v0QOl.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/mDl6B3P.png)
Post by: Pillbo on October 06, 2020, 02:14:02 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on October 06, 2020, 04:47:44 pm
(Looking at the table specifically. Cabinet seems OK).
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on October 06, 2020, 05:08:51 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on October 06, 2020, 06:06:35 pm
Post by: Starver on October 06, 2020, 06:29:30 pm
Oh, these are the chairs and thrones? Hmm. Wouldn't want to sit on the spiky throne.(Yeah, there's all those rebels and turncoats in the north, the raiders to the west, the challenges to the south and the aspiring reclaimant queen overseas to the east and you might not even be able to trust your own close familly...)
If we can guarantee the use-orientation, I'd suggest making the edge off which the legs dangle unmodified by spikes, rings, etc, but I know we cannot (and even if we multiply the sprite, or at least the decor-overlay sprite, to allow directionality, it's really not always going to be obvious enough for code to agree with what the player thinks about her layout, in a particularly packed dining room).
I actually think they'll all look better in a combined tableau, chairs and tables look more obviously chairs and tables when adjacent to each other even in CodePage-inspired versions.
Finally, not sure I'd call them 'thrones', as applicable, but I'm spoilt by the more common mediæval-inspired imagery, and I suspect they make decent Imperial curule-style seating, amongst other symbolic sitting-platforms. And if they had backs and arms, I'm back to my "looking correctly orientated" point, in that ~75% of the time a simple player-facing image would be plainly wrong, so a unidirectional design is probably best after all.
Post by: Wokko on October 07, 2020, 02:25:12 am
(https://i.imgur.com/ZvCutXS.jpg)
Post by: Meph on October 07, 2020, 02:50:57 am
Post by: [HYBRID BEING] on October 07, 2020, 03:09:34 am
(https://i.imgur.com/W9J0zZw.png)Bulls are missing? And what about hunting/war dogs' corpses?
Yes, thrones should have a back part. They currently don't because it would require 4 sprites, since the throne would need to be aligned towards the table.What about freestanding thrones? Would they have a back part even though they would be accessible from each side?
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on October 07, 2020, 03:58:48 am
I always have my noble's throne (which doesn't have a table) facing the door.
Post by: Meph on October 07, 2020, 04:49:01 am
Post by: Wokko on October 07, 2020, 05:20:38 am
edit: maybe artifact chairs (all materials) could have a back part.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on October 07, 2020, 05:41:58 am
Can't you just make a front-facing throne and leave it at that?You could, but while working on graphics, why not try out as much as possible to make the game look good? Front facing throne used to sit at a table to the left or right just looks bad.
edit: maybe artifact chairs (all materials) could have a back part.
Post by: Meph on October 07, 2020, 05:56:57 am
(https://i.imgur.com/o3maJ2p.png)
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 07, 2020, 07:34:43 am
Take this example:
cccc
tttt
cccc
tttt
c= chair
t=table
A human can determine that the chairs all ought to face south, as this:
:while pretty, and logical to any newcomer (apart from the facing), collides with DF's "private table" rule, where neither tables nor chairs (the latter is logical) are shared.
(https://i.imgur.com/o3maJ2p.png)
Thus, this delves into coding territory, and, as such, is probably better relegated to the rapidly growing pile of candidates for post Premium releases with various minor improvements.
Post by: Meph on October 07, 2020, 07:37:46 am
Post by: Starver on October 07, 2020, 07:51:00 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 07, 2020, 11:00:35 am
The code is already there, since it's the same that allows people to rotate ballistas/catapults. It's just that it's a lot of work for artists. The idea right now is to enable the code support, but don't do the sprites right now.I'd suggest delaying the code support until it's time to work on the sprites, as Toady is rather short of time currently, but I'm sure Toady will do whatever he feels is best/most satisfying.
Any independent tile sets will have a lot of work to convert to the changes, both in the form of how it's integrated and in the functionality supported, so they'll most likely won't run out of work before you do, assuming it's intended for introduction within first year or so after the initial Premium release.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on October 07, 2020, 11:15:14 am
I'd suggest delaying the code support until it's time to work on the sprites, as Toady is rather short of time currently, but I'm sure Toady will do whatever he feels is best/most satisfying.
Any independent tile sets will have a lot of work to convert to the changes, both in the form of how it's integrated and in the functionality supported, so they'll most likely won't run out of work before you do, assuming it's intended for introduction within first year or so after the initial Premium release.
I think the implication is that enabling it is a negligible amount of work, unlike actually doing the sprites.
Post by: Meph on October 07, 2020, 11:42:08 am
Yeah, that's what i meant.I'd suggest delaying the code support until it's time to work on the sprites, as Toady is rather short of time currently, but I'm sure Toady will do whatever he feels is best/most satisfying.
Any independent tile sets will have a lot of work to convert to the changes, both in the form of how it's integrated and in the functionality supported, so they'll most likely won't run out of work before you do, assuming it's intended for introduction within first year or so after the initial Premium release.
I think the implication is that enabling it is a negligible amount of work, unlike actually doing the sprites.
Post by: ror6ax on October 07, 2020, 01:00:07 pm
Not being able to set them in a common-sense way will confuse the hell out of newcomers and will happen A LOT.
I would not have a lot of patience to try some of the more subtle game mechanics if even placement is buggy.
...which brings us to the overall topic of item/workshop placement.
One way of indicating prohibited placement is very much needed. Like magma kilns should not be placeable unless correctly placed relative to magma pool. Either tables have to be shareable(more reasonable IMO) or chairs should not be allowed to be placed in a way that is not compatible with the table. Same goes with stair digging - it should just work, or clearly indicate what's missing instead of allowing to build a maze that dwarfs will not be able to traverse due to some arcane internal logic of the game.
Sorry to be sounding demanding but not fixing stuff like this is akin to releasing FPS that does not allow to change weapons because coding that is somehow problematic. This is the core mechanic of the goddamn game. You(everyone involved) just can't release this to general public on Steam and expect the game not to be demolished in reviews.
Post by: Rekov on October 07, 2020, 01:52:40 pm
A square or round stool doesn't need to be rotated toward any of the cardinal directions, so it makes sense to use this as a representation for the time being. If the mechanics of chairs are altered at some point such that they only face in one particular direction, then the art ought to reflect that. But until that point, it would be unnecessary and confusing.
Not that this has anything to do with graphics for the Steam tileset, or graphics at all for that matter, but the reason you don't want to restrict where you can place tables or chairs is because it constrains the order in which you have to place them. Maybe I want to install a row of chairs first, because they're built and I'm still waiting on the tables. Maybe I want to have tables that don't have chairs next to them.
Dwarf Fortress seems to be moving in a direction where it is going to be much friendlier to new players in terms of teaching them the mechanics as they play. Players can learn the optimal placement of tables and chairs without forcing them to only play "correctly."
Post by: Meph on October 07, 2020, 02:16:30 pm
Quote
One way of indicating prohibited placement is very much needed. Like magma kilns should not be placeable unless correctly placed relative to magma pool. Either tables have to be shareable(more reasonable IMO) or chairs should not be allowed to be placed in a way that is not compatible with the table. Same goes with stair digging - it should just work, or clearly indicate what's missing instead of allowing to build a maze that dwarfs will not be able to traverse due to some arcane internal logic of the game.
None of those examples make sense. Kilns could be placed before the magma channel is dug; chairs could be placed before tables, or placed alone to make an office; stairs allow access to new tiles to construct stairs, even if they can't be carved into the rock.
We are all for tooltips and giving players better info through the UI, but restrictions like you mention are not planned at all.
Post by: Cruxador on October 08, 2020, 01:20:57 pm
Simplicity: Wear is extremely rare on furniture. Spatter is relatively rare and will be cleaned. Decorations are player controlled. Variations are player controlled. In the end, most of the furniture should look like regular furniture, unless you go out of your way to make it fancy on purpose.Looks like sprites we already knew but more efficient, aside from the headless llamas and spread-winged chickens. Generally solid, but various things I've noticed:
The decorations would take on the color of the material used.
Wider stand for the chair makes sense. :)QuoteHow far are you guys in the artistic part of the process? Are all creatures done?The creatures are mainly done. All regular creatures are done, I think there are only 30 ish animal men missing or so. The giant animals mostly use an enlarged version of the base animal sprite, so they don't look super pretty; and the zombies are currently a recolor instead of a unique sprite. Procedurally generated creatures aren't done yet, though I did make one as a test, the Nightcreatures. FBs are more complicated, and I'm part way through the werecreatures. Those two are tricky because they have creature types in them that otherwise don't exist in the game, like snakefly, lacewing, antlion larva... there are 211 base bodies for FBs, most of which are unique to FBs. ^^
This is how the creature sheets look atm: Adult, child, Adult zombie, Child zombie, war trained, hunting trained, female adult/child/zombies, adult/child corpse. The zombies are more or less placeholders, I'd love to replace them with actual zombified versions. The corpses are desaturated, turned 90° and have a blood-spatter effect... in theory we could do unique corpse sprites too (look at the top-right at the llama corpses) but that would be a lot more work. A stretch goal for sure. ;)Spoiler: collapsed the image as per usual (click to show/hide)
We will go over the sprites before release and fix anything that stands out a lot. For example I prefer to stick close to relative size (smaller cat for example), and there are some stylistic differences here and there. For example I did all the vermin, which include some fish, and I made them side-view; Mike did the creature aquatic file and drew them seen at an angle. Now we have two different looking styles for fish. ^^QuoteAre you doing Some work here and there, or are you generally focusing on one category at a time eg. furniture?Mike focusses on one thing at a time and perfects it, I prefer to jump around, having a lot of discussions with Tarn about how to code certain parts, how the mod support would work best, test v.1, make a v.2, while waiting for it do something else... ;)
• I think the zombies would be better a bit less saturated. The overall effect is nice but right now it's headed too much in the "cartoony" direction; people like their grim to be dark.
• Child versions of turkey and peacock should be based on the female adult sprites regardless of sex, they don't grow the display feathers until they're older. Actually, the female ones are also not correct but I'm assuming these sprites are just made by resize and maybe slight clean up, making completely new child sprites for every bird would be good but a lot of additional work.
○ Also the colors of the male peacock around the wing are still wrong.
• Is the blood spatter effect on the corpse necessary? One would think that they often produce a blood spatter anyway, and when they die nonviolently somehow, that's also noteworthy information.
○ I kind of wonder if some of them might look better all the way upside down... Might be better to stick to a single convention though.
I always thought of rings as dangling, rather than these....mug holders? Makes sense I guess...I parse them as hanging vertical, but it's hard to do perspective at this scale.
(Looking at the table specifically. Cabinet seems OK).
The "best" place to put the magma channel is under an impassible tile though, to prevent dwarves from falling in, so it should be made before. That's something worthy of mention tooltip. Maybe a basic explanation of what it is/does and then a paragraph break and then "TIP: If you place the channel under the _____ which is impassible, the dwarves can't fall in". Doing that (with "TIP" in a different color, especially) would be very consistent with existing conventions and therefore clear to incoming players.QuoteOne way of indicating prohibited placement is very much needed. Like magma kilns should not be placeable unless correctly placed relative to magma pool. Either tables have to be shareable(more reasonable IMO) or chairs should not be allowed to be placed in a way that is not compatible with the table. Same goes with stair digging - it should just work, or clearly indicate what's missing instead of allowing to build a maze that dwarfs will not be able to traverse due to some arcane internal logic of the game.
None of those examples make sense. Kilns could be placed before the magma channel is dug; chairs could be placed before tables, or placed alone to make an office; stairs allow access to new tiles to construct stairs, even if they can't be carved into the rock.
We are all for tooltips and giving players better info through the UI, but restrictions like you mention are not planned at all.
As for the stairs, there should DEFINITELY be a warning that clarifies that down stairs require a corresponding up stair or up/down stair on the z-level below. Maybe even an option, on by default, to automatically channel an up-stair below. Since you can channel it into an up/down later if you want anyway, I can't think of a case where you want the one without the other, so I reckon the only people who wouldn't want this would be capable of finding the option and turning it off, and it would remove a significant potential stumbling block for new players. But barring that, a warning that stands out in the tooltip would help.
Come to think of it, I don't know what kind of markup Toady is doing with the new text implementation. This might be beyond the scope of graphics and this is kind of a tangent anyway, but it would be cool if as much text was accessible/editable as possible, both for modding in the usual sense and for translation purposes. Even if doing it to hardcoded text might be outside the focus of the Steam release, I would hope that at least the "accessibility arc" stuff (tooltips and tutorial) would be done in a way accessible to translators.
Post by: Pillbo on October 08, 2020, 02:33:17 pm
Steam update shows dwarves:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Can we see a beautiful bearded baby?
Post by: Rose on October 08, 2020, 03:48:08 pm
Can we see a beautiful bearded baby?
You have to mod the game for that.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on October 08, 2020, 05:15:22 pm
No, all male dwarven babies have beards. Unless they change it for Steam.Can we see a beautiful bearded baby?
You have to mod the game for that.
Post by: Pillbo on October 08, 2020, 05:26:15 pm
Quote
They are well known for their stout physique and prominent beards (on the males), which begin to grow from birth;http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Dwarf
Quote
At birth, a male baby dwarf has a beard of length zero. After that, they gain 1 length every day until they have 1000 length.http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Beard
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Bring on the bearded babies!
Post by: Rekov on October 08, 2020, 08:53:43 pm
Post by: clinodev on October 08, 2020, 09:38:18 pm
Would it be possible to have a graphics option for whether clothing color reflects profession as opposed to the actual fabric/dye color? It wouldn't require any additional art, right? Just a change in which color is referenced in terms of the tint.
That's how I'm reading today's Steam announcement, the best of all worlds, imho:
Quote
This is in the basic profession=clothing display mode. You can still see the actual clothing the dwarves are wearing, but it is recolored based on their job, so you can easily spot them. This one has gloves and a dress; each dwarven civilization generated by the game chooses different preferred clothing types as well as hair styles (on top of a ton of other information.) Typically, they'll have a variety of options, and you order them up to be made in the workshops once you have a leather, silk, wool, or plant-based fabric industry going.
This stoneworker for instance, has stuck with the same basic fashion plan clothing-wise, in stoneworker-white, but has shaved her head.
There are of course other ways to display dwarves, and other preferences that can vary even with the same player based on what they are doing. At the bare minimum, you'll also be able to see the items in their actual colors. This makes the fort look more drab, especially before you start up your dye industry or trade, but sometimes you don't want to see the profession colors when looking at your dwarves dance in the tavern. Also generally expect a lot of this to be updated as we see other screenshots in the future. These are the most important graphics in the game, in some ways, and they'll receive a lot of iterations.
Post by: Cruxador on October 08, 2020, 09:51:28 pm
I for one will keep my fingers crossed that the artists find a lot of free time to implement furniture/workshop directionality.I was gonna say the adamantium looked too bright; although it's supposed to be bright, the bronze is too and that's more consistent with the rest of the palette. But I'm not sure if it's adamantium actually, or what it is; in any case definitely very bright compared to the other textures.
Steam update shows dwarves:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Can we see a beautiful bearded baby?
Also, the bear is very small compared to the dwarf.
Post by: Bumber on October 09, 2020, 02:30:07 am
I was gonna say the adamantium looked too bright; although it's supposed to be bright, the bronze is too and that's more consistent with the rest of the palette. But I'm not sure if it's adamantium actually, or what it is; in any case definitely very bright compared to the other textures.
I don't think it's adamantine. Steam post implies it's profession-colored clothing.
Bronze looks like gold, so it's definitely too bright.
Post by: Meph on October 09, 2020, 02:30:18 am
The black bear size is alright:
(https://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/animals/graphic/mammals/a/american-black-bear_size.gif)
Post by: neobit on October 09, 2020, 02:50:28 am
(...)
Steam update shows dwarves:(...)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Oh, that is tasty!
The only thing that is rather odd for me are the gloves in civilian mode. They make that small part of skin to look like the real hands, as they would have really short arms. Especially when they match/almost match the colour of the shirt.
Maybe it is just me, but first pic there immediately looked to me as the dwarf has backpack (or a coat) and these creep arms.
Maybe removing that skin part would improve the looks?
Post by: Wokko on October 09, 2020, 02:59:24 am
It looks good for leather armor, but bronze armored dwarves probably need their torsos moved slightly to the left, so that their right foot aligns with the body.
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 09, 2020, 04:12:56 am
I also remember talk of NOT having all hairstyles and beardstyles shown in game because of business on screen, which i personally think would be such a shame. Id love to see all the variety of different cultures shown on the dwarves, without having to read it.
Also, those braided beards looked really cool.
Ps: the black bear looks like a cub.
I get that its not the biggest of bears, but it should still "feel" bigger Than a dwarf imo. Not nescessarily taller, but bigger.
It doesnt Really matter if the blackbear sprite becomes as big as the other bear sprites in comparison, as long as it feels bigger than a dwarf. So just a weeee bit bigger IMO.
Post by: FrankVill on October 09, 2020, 04:22:32 am
Have you thought about distinguishing them by their height?
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 09, 2020, 07:06:55 am
Hi I have a question Humans and dwarfs are similar in appearance except for their height and the thickness of their body. In fact, humans also sometimes have beards like dwarfs.
Have you thought about distinguishing them by their height?
I Think that the dwarves heads, are bigger Than that of humans, and humans are taller and slimmer, as you mentioned.
Post by: Hiul on October 09, 2020, 10:20:21 am
also why that profession in the far right one there cover his head? is it executioner? look like fisher related job base of the color, which doesnt make sense for covering their entire face.
at first i though it was adamantine chainmail which make sense and such design exist despite DF armor dont protect eyes,nose,ear,mouth in general which should be open face type of chainmail and helmet.
beside by covering their face by default image, wont it harder to recognize them by only seeing? i can see executioner covering their face and thats only for single job so its easier to know but with many job or profession it hard to see from single glance.
though if it really the fishery type of profession which i assume either the dissector or the butcher, i say keep the top part as hat though since it remind me of medieval butcher uniform like this
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Schmaven on October 09, 2020, 10:47:56 am
https://store.steampowered.com/newshub/app/975370/view/2891832587105130223
Post by: Hiul on October 09, 2020, 11:09:14 am
The steam announcement page answers some of your questions:
https://store.steampowered.com/newshub/app/975370/view/2891832587105130223
ah that make sense, i though it was profession uniform like other say. though i guess the mask need some ornament to it, rather than flat like that, though maybe it hidden due to the color.
i still think the bronze helmet one should not cover the face under shadow though, unless their eyes and nose position can be so far different in place.
Post by: Bumber on October 09, 2020, 09:30:45 pm
Post by: Pillbo on October 11, 2020, 12:38:15 pm
Post by: Cruxador on October 11, 2020, 03:07:29 pm
What's the current plan for skeletons? I assume you aren't going to make individual skeleton sprites per creature, but if someone wanted to could they?A skeleton in DF is just a zombie with no meat.
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 11, 2020, 04:33:46 pm
True, so the rephrased question would be whether the info about if a zombie is a skeleton or not is available to the tile selector logic (which may have to be directed at Toady).What's the current plan for skeletons? I assume you aren't going to make individual skeleton sprites per creature, but if someone wanted to could they?A skeleton in DF is just a zombie with no meat.
Post by: Meph on October 12, 2020, 03:08:34 am
Post by: Zesty on October 12, 2020, 05:15:13 am
Post by: Pillbo on October 12, 2020, 01:04:26 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 12, 2020, 01:49:40 pm
Post by: Meph on October 12, 2020, 02:13:18 pm
Post by: Pillbo on October 12, 2020, 02:16:24 pm
Having a few general body shape skeletons (humanoid, bird, snake, domestic animals) would also be a helpful for things like recognizing that the same dead miner is STILL in the tavern and rotted to bones, or that the horse someone took to my butcher stockpile has no meat on in.
So it would be cool if it was made possible to show corpse wear, even if it doesn't make it into the official tileset.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on October 12, 2020, 02:25:35 pm
The issues wouldn't be the code, but the ~1300 skeleton sprites. There is a non-trivial amount of creatures in the game. ^^
There'd probably be much less sprites needed for skeletons specifically tho, a lot of stuff would/could look pretty similar if not identical as just bones (not saying it's necessarily worth the effort still).
Post by: Meph on October 12, 2020, 02:58:13 pm
Spoiler: NOT FOR STEAM DF, but you mean a selection like this, right? (click to show/hide)
Post by: Pillbo on October 12, 2020, 03:39:14 pm
Post by: Starver on October 12, 2020, 03:58:01 pm
The issues wouldn't be the code, but the ~1300 skeleton sprites. There is a non-trivial amount of creatures in the game. ^^You could have most (sic!) of the artists move onto other stuff and delegate this one task to just a skeleton crew...
(IGMC)
Post by: Meph on October 12, 2020, 04:08:40 pm
Post by: Zesty on October 14, 2020, 05:13:56 pm
I have something like that in my personal tileset, I can suggest it to Toady.Spoiler: NOT FOR STEAM DF, but you mean a selection like this, right? (click to show/hide)
Something like that would be pretty good. A basic skeleton for different body shapes. Cuts down on the work. Maintains cool skeleton enemies on screen.
Post by: Meph on October 15, 2020, 02:57:03 am
Dog, zombie, (animated) skeleton, mutilated corpse, corpse, rotten corpse, partially decayed corpse, skeleton.
(https://i.imgur.com/yXNVjOW.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/NkxFWVj.png)
In the end a horse, donkey and mule skeleton might look identical, but the decay stages wouldn't. Since the Steam DF version has custom child-corpse sprites, we'd have to do that for both adults and children. That's around 1300 skeletons, and 2600 rotten/decayed corpses. The child skeletons make up around 650 of that, so 650 left, if every skeleton fits on average two creature types, that's 325 skeleton sprites to make. (Edit: Wait, some are animal men/giant versions, so much fewer) Mh. Certainly a thought I'm willing to entertain. ;)
Anyway, that would add almost 4000 sprites, but at least the decayed corpses and skeletons could be reused as zombies and animated skeletons.
Edit: Some snakes. The easiest skeletons to test. XD
(https://i.imgur.com/KYrxUL0.png)
Post by: Wokko on October 15, 2020, 05:23:25 am
Maybe there should be at least code support for decayed and skeleton sprites, so that fanmade 4000 sprites would be possible in the future.
edit: It would be greatly appreciated if you did at least the most common creatures for decayed corpses and skeletons: five main races, some domestic animals, cats, maybe others.
How would hands and other bodyparts be displayed if they are zombified?
Post by: Hiul on October 15, 2020, 09:43:47 am
Post by: Wokko on October 15, 2020, 10:50:49 am
yeah agree it look good and its 2SP00KY5ME, though maybe for future patch after this is complete or something, since seems like its quite heavy and require lots of work for doing it now.I've read Meph's post on DF subreddit, and he said that it's going to take him a few days.
That sounds too quick for ~4000 sprites, but if that's true, then it might be better to make at least some of these sprites.
Post by: Pillbo on October 15, 2020, 11:29:48 am
Just a thought, couldn't you save space on the mutilated corpse by having a bloodstain spite that the standard corpse is rendered on top of? Same with rotating the the corpse/skeleton for whether or not it's dead/reanimated? Or is it easier on the game to just have them ready to grab on the sprite sheet like this?
That's around 1300 skeletons, and 2600 rotten/decayed corpses. The child skeletons make up around 650 of that, so 650 left, if every skeleton fits on average two creature types, that's 325 skeleton sprites to make. (Edit: Wait, some are animal men/giant versions, so much fewer) Mh. Certainly a thought I'm willing to entertain. ;)
Certainly a thought I'm willing to encourage!
Post by: Meph on October 15, 2020, 12:19:50 pm
A lot of the 4000 sprites would be more or less automated. For example I just made some cats for fun, all it takes is one skeleton. The cats themselves are also done, so the only thing left to do is to copy the skeleton behind the cat, erase part of it, done. Maybe recolor some parts red/green for blood/rot. But it's 30 sprites made from 1 sprite I had to draw by hand.
(https://i.imgur.com/rkpMHXh.png)
Post by: Cruxador on October 15, 2020, 12:50:43 pm
Also since I always gotta quibble on something, it's a bit odd that the leopard consistently decays back to front. I wonder if it would go quicker, instead of erasing individually, to just make a mask for the animal group. Might be a pain to get the red/green right doing it purely that way, I dunno. Might be better (cleaner colors) to just use another layer on top without masking or any overlay effects if considering that workflow.
Also I reckon the blood in these cases would also be old so more of a dark red, I know a small amount of blood and a large amount of bone in a single pixel should average to pink but I'm not sure it works in all cases. Really like the bloody face of the lion though.
Post by: Meph on October 15, 2020, 01:57:13 pm
I prepared some more examples with 10 different snake skeletons (straight, coiled, cobra, -man, giant, both adult and child) 10 skeletons, 174 sprites based on them.
(https://i.imgur.com/W3BmN8l.png)
Post by: voliol on October 15, 2020, 01:59:40 pm
Post by: tpssurvivor on October 15, 2020, 02:17:08 pm
Post by: Meph on October 15, 2020, 02:21:09 pm
Post by: tpssurvivor on October 15, 2020, 02:27:48 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/xuXmfVS.png)Well you got me :P
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 15, 2020, 02:33:48 pm
What was shown earlier made it very clear which critters were undead (having the undead color scheme), and which ones were alive. The mockup/tentative "more realistic" (whatever a realistic zombie is) images makes it hard to see the difference at a glance, unless there's something else that tells you "look here! an undead!" or at least "an enemy".
Post by: Vordak on October 15, 2020, 02:36:22 pm
The earnest request.
Change this bones color palette - ultimately, it has already been used in the local tilesets, and some sort of problems may arise between tilesetmakers and publishers, despite the fact that this palette is from the free sources (https://opengameart.org/content/abusive-prison-tileset-layer-c).
Here were already shown pictures with bone figures (on UI design pics) - there was a good and quite different palette.
Post by: Meph on October 15, 2020, 02:42:50 pm
EDIT: nevermind, you are right. It is almost exactly the same palette. O.o
(https://i.imgur.com/Iq9MsMx.png)
Spoiler: I used the skeletons in my tileset for the palette (click to show/hide)
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on October 15, 2020, 02:47:04 pm
A concern regarding the critters in various states of decay (I really like the images themselves, though):
What was shown earlier made it very clear which critters were undead (having the undead color scheme), and which ones were alive. The mockup/tentative "more realistic" (whatever a realistic zombie is) images makes it hard to see the difference at a glance, unless there's something else that tells you "look here! an undead!" or at least "an enemy".
If one really wanted to emphasize it one could put a purple aura around them or something similar I guess? Personally I think it'd be enough to just avoid the unclear cases, that is not have too many intermediary stages where there's barely any visible decay.
Post by: Meph on October 15, 2020, 02:52:20 pm
Post by: Pillbo on October 15, 2020, 03:53:30 pm
A concern regarding the critters in various states of decay (I really like the images themselves, though):
What was shown earlier made it very clear which critters were undead (having the undead color scheme), and which ones were alive. The mockup/tentative "more realistic" (whatever a realistic zombie is) images makes it hard to see the difference at a glance, unless there's something else that tells you "look here! an undead!" or at least "an enemy".
Judging by this image the difference will be undead = standing up, corpse = laying down.
(https://i.imgur.com/NkxFWVj.png)
Edit: I misread your message at first, I read it as 'how to see the difference between dead and undead'. Perhaps somewhere between the purple version of the undead, and the rotting corpse would help? A purple rotten corpse? Skeleton with glowing creep eyes?
(https://i.imgur.com/MUS25ax.png)
Post by: Cruxador on October 15, 2020, 07:04:29 pm
A concern regarding the critters in various states of decay (I really like the images themselves, though):I mean, this is also applies to living enemies. I think it might be ideal to just slap an underlay/highlight to denote allegiance (as in, wild animal, invader, similar to the descriptions listed in the unit list) as an optional display to resolve this. Make it pop up by default when you've got the military menu up. I mean, I know that's beyond graphics but I feel like this is a problem that exists beyond just the undead, and also one that was solved by other games in like the 90s.
What was shown earlier made it very clear which critters were undead (having the undead color scheme), and which ones were alive. The mockup/tentative "more realistic" (whatever a realistic zombie is) images makes it hard to see the difference at a glance, unless there's something else that tells you "look here! an undead!" or at least "an enemy".
Post by: Meph on October 16, 2020, 02:11:09 am
Maybe a bit of both? Undead sprite + a purple color hint:
(https://i.imgur.com/n3TGqpE.png)
Post by: Zesty on October 16, 2020, 02:27:16 am
Purple outline isn't bad at all. I'd be pretty thrilled with it.
Post by: Wokko on October 16, 2020, 04:28:27 am
Maybe just white eyes with black glow like on placeholder zombies would be enough to make undead distinguishable. Making large outline would make the sprites too busy.
Post by: Starver on October 16, 2020, 06:07:47 am
I speak as one who gets stuck into the "making 'perfect' the enemy of the 'good-enough'" cycle often enough. You ought to have seen the first three versions of this very paragraph!
Post by: ror6ax on October 16, 2020, 07:15:44 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 16, 2020, 07:37:57 am
(Quotes for the terms as there are no real zombies to compare with, and legibility isn't really the correct term as we're not dealing with text).
The current version of loyalty cascades is sending very bad vibes: two completely unmarked teams fighting to the death with absolutely no in game means to see who belongs to either team (it can be teased out with DFHackery). I definitely don't want to see that repeated due to the graphics not conveying "loyalty" clearly.
Post by: Meph on October 16, 2020, 08:25:37 am
Post by: Starver on October 16, 2020, 09:39:38 am
I could imagine that upon a loyalty-situation suddenly happening, the appearance of a red/blue/etc pennant or flash over everyone in your bar could indicate the factionising. Just triggered upon any (non-sparring) combat. Could also be useful if invading forces, that are not just hostile wildlife, arrive (given a marker) and pre-infiltrated allies of this force reveal themselves. Perhaps military get the designated 'home colour' (typically blue) at the instant the invaders are detected/revealed (red), but civvies/visitors stay unmarked until they get involved/disturbed. Revealing red/blue/yellow[1]/whatever as soon as it is applicable. It'd be visually stunning. And (with possible coding nod to reposition on awkward cons, like Giant- creatures) could be implemented without having to detail an icon-specific overlay for all umpteen-thousand sprites, even if many of those could be 'easy' copy-paste from their Ur-icon.
For 'internal' factionism, cyan/magenta/etc. Yes, if RGB was outward conflict, CMY could be (increasingly complex) internal splits, but I don't see straight-green pennants as suitable. Unless we preassign a Green for the hostile goblins, etc, which I think takes too much thinking and won't survive the more complex extensions of worldgens and alliances we're promised in future.
Not sure it's actually right for DF, but it's yet another option. Not cluttering up the view, unless it is relevent (and/or selected to happen in selected options), and needn't be very many pixels to be indicative, perhaps as small as...
Code: [Select]
####### #=black/outline pixel
#?????# ?=indicator colour pixel
#?????#
#??#??#
#?# #?#
## ##
# #
...and if you could get away with no (or partial, by half-shaded/alternated) bordering, without 'hiding' on the background it lays upon, you could have extra flood of the chosen hue over this overlay. This shape of pennant wouldn't look like anything 'real', also.[1] Neutrality, such as as-yet ininvolved traders and their guards.
Post by: Wokko on October 16, 2020, 10:33:48 am
Might be good to make corpses stand out more.
Post by: Eric Blank on October 16, 2020, 11:54:39 am
Post by: Pillbo on October 16, 2020, 02:31:07 pm
Related to the labeling hostiles conversation here's a suggestion from a while ago that's a similar idea- A visual tagging system for the graphical release (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=174979.msg8050491#msg8050491)
Quote
I think it would be helpful [for the player to be able] to add visual tags to creatures or items with the graphical release. An icon [or simple colored flag/border] to show up on the creature tile during play so you can see where they are without pausing or searching.
I think it would be good for a lot of different uses- keeping track of your suspected vampires or werebeasts; labeling some family members you're interested in; monitoring some visitors you distrust; labeling items made with a material you need to keep track of; identifying a puppy that killed a goblin; watching the constant tantrummers; separating dwarves by gender/job/nobility/beards/cave adapted/disabled etc.
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 16, 2020, 09:25:21 pm
Maybe toggleable, but have it be 'on' by default, to let players know that its a feature, immediately.
This could álso be a toggleable overlay when looking with 'k'.
It would be very helpful and simple, without breaking immersion by having little symbols everywhere on the sprite.
If you to decide go down the small symbols route though, make it toggleable, as I think that would be pretty disturbing to look at, during a big war.
Plus, it wouldnt relay the information very effectively and quickly, as opposed to a really visible aura around the whole sprite, which would be much more clear immediately, and give a great sense of "which blob of troops is my blob of troops".
Imagine where the enemy line meets yours.
With the aura being around the whole sprite, it would really make that line perfectly clear in all situations.
Regarding zombies and skeletons:
I think glowing eyes should suffice. Maybe not red, since that could be mistaken for blood.
Maybe purple?
They do loose some of their creepy factor (i think the "realistic" looking take is pretty creepy), but surely purple glowing eyes cant be mistaken?
Post by: Wokko on October 16, 2020, 09:59:59 pm
Like warcraft 3: (https://i.imgur.com/SSSBHqw.png)
They are too colorful in wc3, I'd suggest make them more transparent, or as an outside circle.
Post by: Uthimienure on October 16, 2020, 10:13:24 pm
I don't like it at all.
If it gets put in the game, I sure hope it is *optional* so I can turn it off.
Post by: Schmaven on October 17, 2020, 02:54:50 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 17, 2020, 03:50:18 am
With the new dwarf sprites showing clothing and armor, I think it will be fairly clear which soldiers are yours if you have a standard uniform for them. Auras on top of that seems a bit overkill. I mean combat is chaotic, and in the fog of war, it can be hard to tell what's going on in a fight. Making the undead stand apart from the living seems like a good idea, and I like the glowing eyes approach for that. So as far as enemy and friendly unit discrimination goes, if it is in fact needed, something more subtle than an aura would be nice so as not to distract from that sweet bronze armor everybody is wearing.If you're successful in the artifact creation/acquisition department at least your elite troops wouldn't be particularly uniform. It can also be noted that both the fortress and the enemy may field troops of multiple races, so you can't discriminate them based on that either.
:The military handling would have to change quite significantly to convert the current "See enemy! Charge! (without communicating with squad mates that don't see anything)" 'strategy' into anything resembling battle lines. Time will tell if the promised "better sieges" will provide that (if so, it will happen after the Premium release anyway).
Imagine where the enemy line meets yours.
With the aura being around the whole sprite, it would really make that line perfectly clear in all situations.
:
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 17, 2020, 04:39:27 am
If its not toggleable, well, then I truly dont want no part in it.
I just thought toggleable auras would be clearer, and less annoying than small icons on the sprite, that are always there, breaking my immerson.
TOGGLEABLE TOGGLEABLE TOGGLEABLE. Weird word.
Post by: Meph on October 17, 2020, 05:01:27 am
Post by: Starver on October 17, 2020, 05:18:39 am
I just thought toggleable auras would be clearer, and less annoying than small icons on the sprite, that are always there, breaking my immerson.Unless I missed it (wouldn't be the first time), I was the one only one introducing "small icons on the sprite" in this latest iteration of discussion. And I specifically (or at least intended that I specifically) mentioned that they wouldn't always be there and that they'd be togglable.
Frankly, you've got to put some highlighting marks on there. Whether it be aura, spotlight, tile border, floaty mini-icon or whatever.
Also consider what you do with multiple entities in the same space (all but (at most) one supine, however that gets indicated). If the same side, maybe you don't need to separate the distinguishing graphics, but if there's a battle going on (when this is useful) the likely situation is that one character is stomping on an opposing unit's head. Could it be clearer by offsetting whatever-your-indicator-is down a few pixels for the current underdog? (And layering it behind, to be partially occluded.) Not sure how this would work with aura, except by however you deal with multi-occupancy of the core figures involved, but spotlights, halos, 'shoulder'-flashes, etc could probably equally do this. Which would be good if multiple such methods were used to depict multiple different aspects - though you'd not want (by default, at least) the screen real-estate to get much busier than it's already liable to get.
(I imagine, if the work goes into testing each method, that there could be a selection available in user-options. If they prefer a ground-spot over a halo/etc, they can choose that. And "always on/always on for military only/on during any hostile presence/on during sentient hostile presence/on for those currently|recently caught up in combat reports/on during military-management mode/never", or probably just a subset of that. But I seem to think that's already been put forward in a slightly different context.)
...aaaand, ninjaed by Meph with as good a clarification as any.
Post by: Hiul on October 17, 2020, 05:43:53 am
something like how conquest of elysium game do it, but you can has option to choose or modified what your preferable color for yours and enemy or neutral be, so even color blind can have an option to know which is which, also i think this can help to know which is an active unit or not, and also help to know or easier to distinguish where your army is located from the other non military mess.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Pillbo on October 17, 2020, 01:31:21 pm
Glowing dead at least makes sense because they are imbued with some sort of magical energy.
Post by: ror6ax on October 17, 2020, 02:25:37 pm
Post by: Pillbo on October 17, 2020, 04:31:35 pm
Post by: Wokko on October 17, 2020, 05:45:58 pm
I actually do. Recently I had 3 kobold thieves pay me a visit in a fortress of 25-ish and I've spent a lot of time trying to make out where they are.That actually is a problem with all tilesets (and noticeable in other roguelikes too). It's hard to notice where the creatures are when the terrain gets busy, even though creature tiles are the most important, and should be the most visible on the screen. I'd really want Meph and Mayday to address it.
Well kobold thieves are supposed to be sneaking around, it fits that they aren't noticeable. Do you struggle in an invasion knowing who is the invader?Their sneakiness is already represented as them being invisible before one of your dwarves notices them. Creatures should always be noticeable at a glance for the player.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on October 17, 2020, 06:20:03 pm
Did we all just forget how to play the game in the excitement for pretty graphics? Just pick them from the list if you can't see them in your tileset for some reason.I actually do. Recently I had 3 kobold thieves pay me a visit in a fortress of 25-ish and I've spent a lot of time trying to make out where they are.That actually is a problem with all tilesets (and noticeable in other roguelikes too). It's hard to notice where the creatures are when the terrain gets busy, even though creature tiles are the most important, and should be the most visible on the screen. I'd really want Meph and Mayday to address it.Well kobold thieves are supposed to be sneaking around, it fits that they aren't noticeable. Do you struggle in an invasion knowing who is the invader?Their sneakiness is already represented as them being invisible before one of your dwarves notices them. Creatures should always be noticeable at a glance for the player.
Post by: Schmaven on October 17, 2020, 06:48:30 pm
I suppose it becomes a lot harder to tell when looking at screen shots though.
Post by: Wokko on October 17, 2020, 07:49:34 pm
Did we all just forget how to play the game in the excitement for pretty graphics? Just pick them from the list if you can't see them in your tileset for some reason.That doesn't sound convincing. The graphics are both for those who know how to play, and who don't, so nobody here "forgot how to play".
And does that mean you disagree that creatures should be noticeable without using any lists?
Sounds like you prefer ascii, so don't try to apply ascii logic to graphics, using lists is not enjoyable, they require the player to pause gameplay just to get vital information.
Post by: clinodev on October 17, 2020, 09:18:25 pm
Did we all just forget how to play the game in the excitement for pretty graphics? Just pick them from the list if you can't see them in your tileset for some reason.
Right? Look at these casuals in here discussing graphics in the official graphics discussion thread!
Next thing you know, the devs will be wasting time making the game more playable for normies, ugh.
Post by: Meph on October 18, 2020, 04:34:20 am
Post by: Hiul on October 18, 2020, 04:46:21 am
Post by: ror6ax on October 18, 2020, 07:45:40 am
Post by: Wokko on October 18, 2020, 07:53:55 am
I forgot to mention, but the problem of "not noticing creatures on the screen" is the most troublesome in adventure mode, where most of the time you look at the static screen. Shadows like in Minecraft would probably help to notice creatures on busy terrain
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: ror6ax on October 18, 2020, 09:02:24 am
Other things we've seen so far have nice shadows.
Post by: Pillbo on October 18, 2020, 01:11:08 pm
Toady saw the suggestion and thinks a small color-coded something below the creature, with friendly/neutral/hostile would be a good idea. With an on/off button. ;)
Has he expressed an opinion about the skeletons/corpses/glowing undead conversation?
Post by: Meph on October 18, 2020, 03:58:12 pm
Quote
Has he expressed an opinion about the skeletons/corpses/glowing undead conversation?
Yes:
Quote
And the decayed stuff looks fantastic. We've had a few discussions about the workload, but if that's not a burden, I'm all for it. We're not doing our job if we aren't giving players nightmares, ha ha ha.
Post by: Starver on October 18, 2020, 03:58:50 pm
Mein Gott! I would have missed that block of log!Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote
Doesn't need to be complex unique shadows for every sprite, just a circle under every creature would be helpfulAn auto-mask of the sprite involved, slightly feathered, translated, scaled slightly sideways, subscaled down to maybe half vertically..?
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on October 18, 2020, 04:44:59 pm
I prefer graphics which look like graphics thanks. If a kobold running across the screen is invisible, you've messed up your graphics. But, a quick on/off overlay to highlight where bad guys are could be fun.Did we all just forget how to play the game in the excitement for pretty graphics? Just pick them from the list if you can't see them in your tileset for some reason.That doesn't sound convincing. The graphics are both for those who know how to play, and who don't, so nobody here "forgot how to play".
And does that mean you disagree that creatures should be noticeable without using any lists?
Sounds like you prefer ascii, so don't try to apply ascii logic to graphics, using lists is not enjoyable, they require the player to pause gameplay just to get vital information.
Post by: Wokko on October 18, 2020, 05:23:20 pm
I prefer graphics which look like graphics thanks. If a kobold running across the screen is invisible, you've messed up your graphics. But, a quick on/off overlay to highlight where bad guys are could be fun.So you just dodged a question and said nothing of value. I don't understand why you would be against making creature sprites distinct, and don't know where you've read anything about messed up graphics.
Creatures are the most important sprites on your screen. They have to be very visible. There's nothing to argue about.
Mein Gott! I would have missed that block of log!I don't think you read that clearly. That pic was just to show how those circular shadows look like.
Quote
An auto-mask of the sprite involved, slightly feathered, translated, scaled slightly sideways, subscaled down to maybe half vertically..?Does that sound complex to you? Compared to a unique silhouette for every creature, a minimally adjusted circular shadow is a lot simpler.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on October 18, 2020, 10:17:25 pm
Someone said they spent a whole lot of time searching for a kobold on their screen. I said their tileset probably wasn't good enough but in any case they should use the list. Seemed strange they should have forgotten how to play the game. Because that is how you play the game currently. And likely will continue to be the most efficient way of playing the game once people stop trying to spot the tiny, tiny, graphics in the high-speed mayhem.I prefer graphics which look like graphics thanks. If a kobold running across the screen is invisible, you've messed up your graphics. But, a quick on/off overlay to highlight where bad guys are could be fun.So you just dodged a question and said nothing of value. I don't understand why you would be against making creature sprites distinct, and don't know where you've read anything about messed up graphics.
Followed by "leave here vile ascii lover, this is for real fans" or something.
Post by: Starver on October 19, 2020, 12:52:22 am
So my decision that there was no smiley needed was wrong then?Mein Gott! I would have missed that block of log!I don't think you read that clearly. That pic was just to show how those circular shadows look like.
Quote
Compared to the layers being used to (pre-build ) the unique dwarf(/other) sprites for usage according to cloth8ng, wealons, facial-hair, etc, it's trivial.QuoteAn auto-mask of the sprite involved, slightly feathered, translated, scaled slightly sideways, subscaled down to maybe half vertically..?Does that sound complex to you? Compared to a unique silhouette for every creature, a minimally adjusted circular shadow is a lot simpler.
Just postulating saving time on a non-generic 'fitted' shadow that doesn't take up artist-time to make. At least make the oval adjust to beast-size (Raw-led or just coarse-grained for child/giant 'footprint'. Anyway, just pushing it out there.
Post by: Hiul on October 19, 2020, 01:40:13 am
Post by: ror6ax on October 19, 2020, 05:21:14 am
Post by: ror6ax on October 19, 2020, 06:02:10 am
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 19, 2020, 06:43:25 am
Toady saw the suggestion and thinks a small color-coded something below the creature, with friendly/neutral/hostile would be a good idea. With an on/off button. ;)
Meph, that sounds amazing.
I Also agree with a uniform oval shadow under all units and creatures.
It wouldnt nescesarily make units easier to distinguish from one another, but it would make all units pop out of the terrain.
Both grounding them to the environment, but also just to help distinguish them from terrain in general, when the screen is paused/static.
Maybe, flying creatures Shouldnt have a shadow (or a much smaller one).That way it would also be easy to Tell if a creature is flying, or actually standing on the ground.
Post by: Starver on October 19, 2020, 10:45:04 am
(Though given Toady's acquiesence on the faction-spotlight idea, I'm not sure it would fit. It'd be the same area, if shadow is an oval footprint too and not a mutually-exclusive pair of selected-options. Unless they're different sizes, and I'm not sure if a halo of shadow round a spot of light or a halo of light around a shadow would be better. With a 'shaped' shadow, could be overlapping and revealing of light-edge, though... Something to think of, probably.)
Post by: Pillbo on October 19, 2020, 11:49:19 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Back to graphics. Hurray for more rotting corpses! Simple shadows would probably be a good idea.
Post by: Starver on October 19, 2020, 01:31:50 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Took a few rows of the snakes recently posted.
1) Converted all non-alpha to a basic, slightly blurred shadow-mask on a rearward layer.
2) Rescaled each row's shadow heights to half (did *not* rescale shadow widths to intended 125%, to further squash). For ground-perspective purposes. Technically should be keystoned, I suppose, but it seems to work directly linearly like this.
3) Shifted these up a few pixels (because the way I rescaled shifted them down too far), but definitely could have been shifted up a few more. (IRL the rescaling should be to nominal tile-centre, not tile-boundary base, and then then shifted down a few pixels (to taste, establish during mass rendering testing).)
3b) Accidentally deleted Row 2's shadows, without noticing, but didn't redo as it makes a good comparison for the 'unshadowed'.
4) Added a set of 'colour-spots' for allegience (rows 1,2,4 only, for deliberate comparison) in an even more rearward layer (choosing a green/'allied' for not too acidic but still contrasting a little with the grass-colour... YMMV. I'd suggest a neutral smudged white/grey edging. Easy to do, but that's beyond the scope of this little mock-up.)
5) Shifted rightmost snakes "up" to demo flying skeletal snakes!
6) Pasted (naively, in this case, no attempt to be pixel-perfect) over a sample-background.
Took longer to type this than to manually do in GIMP. Shouldn't be too far beyond producing instantly on-demand from each Steam-tile graphic. (SMOC!!!)
Realistically, steps 1-5 would be done once per creature on arrival (or even creature-template, where multiples of same type appear). And again if they rot a bit/get injured/add/change clothing/etc. Step 6 is what is always done anyway.
NB. Not at all "You should do it exactly like this/at all", just "*I* might do it like this, if I had opportunity..."
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 19, 2020, 02:27:08 pm
I have to say I don't like your take on shadows, because it looks like all of them are levitating (sorry for being blunt).
I think you'd need to have at least parts of the critters seem to touch the ground, and can't really have any shadow under any part that should touch it. I'd probably try to have the implicit light source to the South, resulting in the critter hiding most of the shadow, as any other direction would demand shadowing of the critter itself (a very slight shift to one side or the other might work, though). If shadows are too messy to implement in a good looking manner, I think the graphics are better off without them.
The affiliation indicators, in contrast, work out well.
Post by: Starver on October 19, 2020, 02:39:20 pm
@Starver:No, s'fair. I chucked that together in two minutes[1], and I probably needed another three-to-five pixels of shadow-shift to put the (grounded) ones in the right position.
I have to say I don't like your take on shadows, because it looks like all of them are levitating (sorry for being blunt).
But I wanted to see what the spotlights looked like (the green, at #080-ish, is the least visible on grass, the yellow looks light-green because they're all made better than 50% semi-transparent to the green below, the red looks Ok[2] and if you assume that's Hostiles then it's what you need to see most) so I rushed past that bit.
[1] Ok, more like three, because I kept forgetting to merge-down a change onto the right layer, part of the reason why I lost the second-row of shadows. ;)
[2] On grass-tiles, I imagine there'd be definite problems if displaying on red-sand. Note my suggestion for a neutral (desaturated?) edging, to highlight where it would blend in, possible blend in when the inner highlights.
Post by: Uthimienure on October 19, 2020, 08:47:24 pm
;)
Post by: Cruxador on October 19, 2020, 08:49:06 pm
I'm sure there could be a toggle-able marker somewhere, which indicates civ-members, friendlies, hostiles, etc. As Cruxador has said, if games can do that 30 years ago, we can do that too.I was about to be like "Uh, no I said-" and then I realized actually at some point when I wasn't looking, time passed.
Hard to say whether that would actually look good, without seeing it. I don't think it would add much, though. Units already have pretty dark outlines. The main issue I can foresee about them popping, based on what's already out, is plants which also have dark outlines. But I think that we also shouldn't forget: Units move. That makes them a lot easier to notice. I still hope it can be possible to show them sliding from the midpoint of one tile to the next, rather than just teleporting between adjacent tiles, but even if that doesn't happen it'll be enough change to catch the eye.Toady saw the suggestion and thinks a small color-coded something below the creature, with friendly/neutral/hostile would be a good idea. With an on/off button. ;)
Meph, that sounds amazing.
I Also agree with a uniform oval shadow under all units and creatures.
It wouldnt nescesarily make units easier to distinguish from one another, but it would make all units pop out of the terrain.
Both grounding them to the environment, but also just to help distinguish them from terrain in general, when the screen is paused/static.
Maybe, flying creatures Shouldnt have a shadow (or a much smaller one).That way it would also be easy to Tell if a creature is flying, or actually standing on the ground.
If something is flying, one way you can tell is because it's in the sky without ground below it.
QuickNDirty visualisation:Yeah, I mostly agree with Patrik on this. I kind of might prefer the faction indicators to be more clearly UI elements rather than something that looks a bit like it's part of the world. At least, that's what I had in my mind to reduce ambiguity. Perhaps some rather iconic design (as opposed to realistic or intricate, not in the slang sense) in 2-bit color with one bit being transparency and the other inheriting the "faction" color; you don't have a ton of pixels to work with (your example snakes are at about four times the correct size, relative to backdrop) so anything too fancy you do has the potential to undermine the visibility on a feature for which visibility is the primary purpose.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Took a few rows of the snakes recently posted.
1) Converted all non-alpha to a basic, slightly blurred shadow-mask on a rearward layer.
2) Rescaled each row's shadow heights to half (did *not* rescale shadow widths to intended 125%, to further squash). For ground-perspective purposes. Technically should be keystoned, I suppose, but it seems to work directly linearly like this.
3) Shifted these up a few pixels (because the way I rescaled shifted them down too far), but definitely could have been shifted up a few more. (IRL the rescaling should be to nominal tile-centre, not tile-boundary base, and then then shifted down a few pixels (to taste, establish during mass rendering testing).)
3b) Accidentally deleted Row 2's shadows, without noticing, but didn't redo as it makes a good comparison for the 'unshadowed'.
4) Added a set of 'colour-spots' for allegience (rows 1,2,4 only, for deliberate comparison) in an even more rearward layer (choosing a green/'allied' for not too acidic but still contrasting a little with the grass-colour... YMMV. I'd suggest a neutral smudged white/grey edging. Easy to do, but that's beyond the scope of this little mock-up.)
5) Shifted rightmost snakes "up" to demo flying skeletal snakes!
6) Pasted (naively, in this case, no attempt to be pixel-perfect) over a sample-background.
Took longer to type this than to manually do in GIMP. Shouldn't be too far beyond producing instantly on-demand from each Steam-tile graphic. (SMOC!!!)
Realistically, steps 1-5 would be done once per creature on arrival (or even creature-template, where multiples of same type appear). And again if they rot a bit/get injured/add/change clothing/etc. Step 6 is what is always done anyway.
NB. Not at all "You should do it exactly like this/at all", just "*I* might do it like this, if I had opportunity..."
Post by: ror6ax on October 20, 2020, 02:03:08 am
Post by: Hommit on October 20, 2020, 09:13:20 am
Post by: Meph on October 20, 2020, 09:30:52 am
Post by: Starver on October 20, 2020, 09:59:30 am
c.f.
[...]and I'm not sure if a halo of shadow round a spot of light or a halo of light around a shadow would be better. [...]
If the solid-spot has a dark border (reverse option) I can't currently tell on this Darkling backround... No wait - opened image in new tab and not obviously unternally/externally darkened. (Overlay... properly/representationally... on grass terrain and I think it'll be too subtle. You need to do that to be sure.)
Anyway, that apart, I do like #2. Perhaps #1's non-feathered(/-antialiased) edging looks more "not a direct part of reality", though. Popover (though partially 'tucked under') HUD element as it might be.
A single sparse[1] contrasting pixel (suggest grey) could outline the circle (and also inline the halo, if not making that into a shadow-circle/oval).
[1] Next px round, orthagonally or diagonally 'next' to the neighbour border-pixel. Maybe even every two such pixels? Simple 'demo' as follows, in text-art as I'm away from my GIMP again:
Code: [Select]
sssssssGGXggg
ssssGGGXXgggg
GGGGXXXgggggg
XXXXggggggggg
ggggggggggggg
s:shadow/shade over tile background, G:colour-of-ring (green, here), X:greyish solid, g:normal tile background (green mottled for grass, theoretically)
sssssssGGgggg
ssssGGGgXgggg
GGGGXgXgggggg
XgXgggggggggg
ggggggggggggg
...not sure the latter works at this level of 'zoom', but might look better at 1px=1px.
Post by: Wokko on October 20, 2020, 10:00:02 am
(https://i.imgur.com/CEmnW9z.png)The first one looks good, very baldur's gate-like. Perhaps the circle should be moved slightly down, to make the dog appear inside the circle, rather than on the edge.
The fourth one is also good, more like wc3.
The third one looks empty on top, and solid circle doesn't look as good as other variants.
I don't know if blurred circle would look better during gameplay than crisp one. If we are allowed to vote, I'd vote for the first.
edit: is it going to be color coded on Player-Friendly-Hostile with Green-Blue-Red?
(I wish we could have all of those variants)
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 20, 2020, 11:16:29 am
When it comes to affiliation, you an use various color schemes, such as the NATO one (Blue = Friendly, Red = Enemy, Yellow = Unknown, Green = Neutral), where the "unknown" ones would be all the non participants, such as visitors. Merchants and diplomats would then be Neutral (usually), as they belong to a known faction (rather than belonging to unknown factions, including the enemy one in the case of [frequently goblin] performance troupe members).
Distinguishing between own and allied forces currently has little meaning, as there usually are no allied forces since the game currently doesn't support player (fortress) alliances. Might be different in adventure mode, though.
Post by: ror6ax on October 20, 2020, 01:35:48 pm
The first one looks good, very baldur's gate-like. Perhaps the circle should be moved slightly down, to make the dog appear inside the circle, rather than on the edge.
+1
Post by: El_Stono on October 20, 2020, 02:52:29 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/CEmnW9z.png)
I also think #1 and #2 look the most fitting.
When it comes to affiliation, you an use various color schemes, such as the NATO one (Blue = Friendly, Red = Enemy, Yellow = Unknown, Green = Neutral), where the "unknown" ones would be all the non participants, such as visitors. Merchants and diplomats would then be Neutral (usually), as they belong to a known faction (rather than belonging to unknown factions, including the enemy one in the case of [frequently goblin] performance troupe members).
Distinguishing between own and allied forces currently has little meaning, as there usually are no allied forces since the game currently doesn't support player (fortress) alliances. Might be different in adventure mode, though.
I think adding a green aura for non-hostile and a red aura to hostile animals and/or visitors would help new players, especially for cave creatures like dralthas or randomly generated creatures. A purple ring/spot/whatever could also be used for highlighting undead instead of a purple outline, because they attack all living creatures and are not just a "regular" enemy faction. The citizens and animals of the player shouldn't be highlighted imho.
Post by: bloop_bleep on October 20, 2020, 04:21:06 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/CEmnW9z.png)
I also think #1 and #2 look the most fitting.
I dunno, are we sure we want doggos to carry green hula hoops around with them constantly? Imagine this in aggregate, like in a dog pen. Won't it be distracting? I'd like something subtle like #4 more.
Post by: Eric Blank on October 20, 2020, 04:33:09 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on October 20, 2020, 04:39:38 pm
Post by: DeKaFu on October 20, 2020, 05:14:46 pm
If there's actually some guidance I'm really looking forward to seeing the "official" interpretations for a lot of them.
Post by: Wokko on October 20, 2020, 06:01:21 pm
A purple ring/spot/whatever could also be used for highlighting undead instead of a purple outline, because they attack all living creatures and are not just a "regular" enemy faction.Giving undead purple circle is one of the best ideas here, imo.
I'd like to add on #1 and #2 selectors: the second variant looks like a physical object because of it's blurriness, looks like it has shadows, and thus is part of the world. #1 actually looks like part of UI rather than object.
Post by: Egan_BW on October 20, 2020, 06:06:09 pm
Would Necromancers have the same marking as zombies? Unlike their creations they're not necessarily hostile, but they're certainly still dangerous in a strange non-hostile way.
Post by: Meph on October 20, 2020, 06:39:33 pm
Quote
I have a question regarding the various cave creatures and stuff that are original to Dwarf Fortress. I've always been pretty interested in how Toady One and Threetoe actually envisioned them when they were adding the critters to the game, so I've enjoyed tracking down crayon art pictures etc. How much (if any) input is the official tileset going to have from them on how the weird original critters are supposed to look, as opposed to just working off the same one-line descriptions as everyone else?
There are two approaches we use. At the ones where Tarn or Zach have a clear preference and vision, which we follow as closely as possible. For example the Bronze colossus isn't the coloss of Rhodes like I thought, but Talos from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_and_the_Argonauts_(1963_film) The Roc is pretty much from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7th_Voyage_of_Sinbad A lot of pulp influences, which I love. Strangely enough, I've seen both these films.
On the other hand, there are creations that weren't given as much thought, which really only have a name. For example the cavern plants or trees. In those cases Mike or me do what we think might look good. That's after asking Tarn what he wants to do, and he wanted to see what we can come up with. :)
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 20, 2020, 06:59:07 pm
Green for friendly, red for hostile, yellow for unknown, blue for neutral. Makes the most sense to me. Purple ring for undeads is nice.
IMO, all units on screen should have a halo when toggled, and hopefully have colours for all different allignments.
Itl be a great QoL feature.
Post by: Pillbo on October 20, 2020, 08:09:19 pm
Post by: Cruxador on October 20, 2020, 11:29:25 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/CEmnW9z.png)I think number one is most appropriate. I feel like the anti-aliasing of 2 makes it look less clean. The little shadow version is likely to be obscured by more a more variable amount depending on sprite size, and I don't like the blurred edges there either. 3 is okay, I just find its nature less immediately obvious since it's not as conventional, and it'll obscure more terrain. However, I think it would be good to make a proper mockup and see if some seeing-impaired folks reckon the band is thick enough. I reckon a 2px width might strike a better balance. It also depends on the degree of contrast between the ring and the ground, but the ground has a wide range of potential colors.
This is meant to be something you can turn on to make things clear, or turn off otherwise. My intended "default" behavior would be that it's only on while the military menu is up. But it's definitely something that different people would have different preferences for.(https://i.imgur.com/CEmnW9z.png)
I also think #1 and #2 look the most fitting.
I dunno, are we sure we want doggos to carry green hula hoops around with them constantly? Imagine this in aggregate, like in a dog pen. Won't it be distracting? I'd like something subtle like #4 more.
Post by: neobit on October 21, 2020, 02:51:15 am
It would be nice to be able to toggle just hostiles with this. Versus, say, every creature on the map being labeled, or none.I agree with this.
Separate toggles: halo for hostiles, halo for friendly, halo for neutral. What about additional toggle with a user filter?
As for the halo itself, I also think #1 should have doggy moved more into the center i.e. ring should go a little down. I personally prefer #4 but most likely it won't be that useful on certain creatures that have more of the body in the bottom e.g. snakes.
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 21, 2020, 03:03:13 pm
It would be nice to be able to toggle just hostiles with this. Versus, say, every creature on the map being labeled, or none.
Would be neat, + 1
Post by: Zesty on October 21, 2020, 07:03:33 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/CEmnW9z.png)
I lean 4.
How does a screen full of units look? I'm not thinking you're going to need your screen filled with red and green just to tell units apart.
Post by: ror6ax on October 22, 2020, 10:51:55 am
Looks very nice overall, but there's a problem with text alignment - text is sometimes glued to the top of the button widget, not centered inside a popup or not centered inside of extra free space on the bottom of the minimap or stockpile type list widgets. I still think a better font is needed, the more UI emerges, the more out of place the current one looks to me.
(https://i.ibb.co/s2XN6y3/Screenshot-2020-10-22-at-17-43-00.png) (https://ibb.co/SPZMdRv)
(https://i.ibb.co/syvSRvF/Screenshot-2020-10-22-at-17-43-32.png) (https://ibb.co/72JcCJG)
(https://i.ibb.co/nDYpd09/Screenshot-2020-10-22-at-17-44-04.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/fF1VFxP/Screenshot-2020-10-22-at-17-44-18.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
Post by: ror6ax on October 22, 2020, 11:00:31 am
(https://i.ibb.co/wS9Bnc5/Screenshot-2020-10-22-at-17-54-25.png) (https://ibb.co/N98t0Tc)
Perhaps a sort of engraved stone panels style with subtle green outline or hue? Like veins of colourful mineral?
Post by: ror6ax on October 22, 2020, 11:31:38 am
(https://i.ibb.co/R9PMhTg/Screenshot-2020-10-22-at-17.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rmMLb2Q)
Post by: Wokko on October 22, 2020, 11:36:35 am
All creatures seem to be right in the center of the tile, with their legs in the bottom. Would it be better if instead, their legs were in the center of the tile?
That would also probably look better with unit markers.
Post by: Rose on October 22, 2020, 12:04:46 pm
After watching that video with stockpile UI, I've got a question.
All creatures seem to be right in the center of the tile, with their legs in the bottom. Would it be better if instead, their legs were in the center of the tile?
That would also probably look better with unit markers.
That would probably make a lot more sense if we could get some sort of isometric view.
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on October 22, 2020, 12:22:45 pm
Quick mockup to hopefully somewhat illustrate what I meant about the font and the green buttons.
(https://i.ibb.co/R9PMhTg/Screenshot-2020-10-22-at-17.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rmMLb2Q)
While I'm not sure the tint of green is that optimal, I'd say both the color and font are much better in the original than in your version :>
(though maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to illustrate)
Post by: Rekov on October 22, 2020, 12:45:24 pm
On a general note, these last screenshots (with the possible exception of the bright green and red buttons) have a very warm and welcoming feeling to them, which is a good thing.
Unless you've embarked on a glacier, in which case it would be counterproductive. Is climate-based color temperature adjustment a possibility for DF?
Post by: Erendir on October 22, 2020, 02:14:21 pm
It would be nice to be able to toggle just hostiles with this. Versus, say, every creature on the map being labeled, or none.I agree with this.
Separate toggles: halo for hostiles, halo for friendly, halo for neutral. What about additional toggle with a user filter?
Green for friendly, red for hostile, yellow for unknown, blue for neutral. Makes the most sense to me. Purple ring for undeads is nice.
I think in addition to quoted ideas a separate category "civilians" may be useful. And maybe yet another separate "non-war animals".
Post by: Meph on October 22, 2020, 04:05:04 pm
Post by: jocke the beast on October 23, 2020, 03:20:41 am
Post by: BLazerules on October 23, 2020, 07:04:17 pm
Quick mockup to hopefully somewhat illustrate what I meant about the font and the green buttons.My eyes aren't the best and deal really badly with a lot of things.
(https://i.ibb.co/R9PMhTg/Screenshot-2020-10-22-at-17.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rmMLb2Q)
So yeah that (previous posts) neon green is a bit over used and looking at it a while does irritate my eyes. Maybe made a bit more of a pastel colour or something would help...
The font you showed on the otherhand is bad though. I actually find this more difficult to read. But that's just because the pixely font is very chonky and my poor excuse of eyeballs deal with that better.
If you want an example of how bad my eyes are: in "idlers" I see "iders" because the l and d just merge together for me. While the chonkster font causes no issue there. The fact that is pretty rectangular also helps. Its like an accessibility feature by accident.
Post by: Cruxador on October 23, 2020, 08:52:49 pm
Tarn still has to finish ~60 UI bits like this. Most of it is WIP, and I'm not going to waste too much effort working on something that's maybe 10% done. Once the functionality is there, we can start giving it a nicer style.Fair enough if the big single-color fields are placeholder then. It's often not clear what's WIP/placeholder, what's up for discussion and what is reckoned to be "good enough" unless you say something. I think it's probably not too early to discuss font since that doesn't highly rely on other UI elements. I like Manveru's color choice on the font since it has good contrast to read and matches the UI. I think something with straighter letterforms (and more consistent line width) would be preferable because that there has too much anit-aliasing around the edges, but a nice serif font would still be better over something too console-like. I'm a fan of Libre Baskerville, personally, but there are plenty of good choices (and there are definitely better ones than that at when it comes to looking nice at a smaller amount of pixels). Serif is still out of style for digital body text though, since accepted design principles haven't really caught up with modern screen resolutions.
The font will definitely be changeable, and hopefully not that difficult to change. That being the case, I reckon in terms of accessibility, it would make sense to include a "classic" chonk fontQuick mockup to hopefully somewhat illustrate what I meant about the font and the green buttons.My eyes aren't the best and deal really badly with a lot of things.
(https://i.ibb.co/R9PMhTg/Screenshot-2020-10-22-at-17.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rmMLb2Q)
So yeah that (previous posts) neon green is a bit over used and looking at it a while does irritate my eyes. Maybe made a bit more of a pastel colour or something would help...
The font you showed on the otherhand is bad though. I actually find this more difficult to read. But that's just because the pixely font is very chonky and my poor excuse of eyeballs deal with that better.
If you want an example of how bad my eyes are: in "idlers" I see "iders" because the l and d just merge together for me. While the chonkster font causes no issue there. The fact that is pretty rectangular also helps. Its like an accessibility feature by accident.
Post by: Wokko on October 27, 2020, 10:29:34 am
Current world map's color palette looks way too bland. Could you look at the following picture and see if you could make the color palette more like this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: ror6ax on October 27, 2020, 03:46:09 pm
Post by: QDDeerGirl on October 30, 2020, 02:26:50 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 30, 2020, 09:50:57 pm
Is it possible to add simple post-processing, to modify the hue/saturation/luminance for everything except the UI and interiors? (example below)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Good Idea.
The terrain is very bright and colorfull.
What youve done looks way more like a rainy day, its pretty effective. A critical strike.
The contrast to the bright Sunny environment, is very extreme tho. Also, just a bit too dark. It would be pretty good for nighttime (if tweaked a bit), assuming nighttime Shouldnt be pitch black, for the sake of gameplay, and being able to Tell Where your dwarves are.
Maybe, if you could lower the saturation a bit less, it would be more in line with the general brightness, that seems to dominate the current artstyle.
Also:
could we have something like this for day and night?
That would be AMAZING. An actual day and night cycle, visible to the player. Yet another previously invisible mechanic, seamlessly integrated into the visual picture of the world, the player recieves.
This should actually be pretty high priority IMHO.
Maybe have several stages like, sunrise, morning, midday, evening, Sunset, night, and so on.
I mean, this could be somewhat easy to do, right?
Huge payoff tho. Great for immersion, and generally, just getting a sense of time(Very usefull), the world spinning, day and night coming and going.
An actual World, where time passes, and that creates an effect, that you can see.
And make the picture MUCH less static + make for more varied, potentially Beautiful scenes.
This is not on you, toady, or anyone.
But, it would almost be a bit dissapointing, if dwarf fortress: steam version, didnt come with a day and night cycle. (At least at some point).
Good night everyone
Post by: MoltenIdol on October 30, 2020, 10:19:47 pm
Post by: Wokko on October 30, 2020, 10:51:49 pm
I think people mentioned day-night cycle in fortress mode would make the screen flash because of how fast time passes.Is it possible to add simple post-processing, to modify the hue/saturation/luminance for everything except the UI and interiors? (example below)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Good Idea.
The terrain is very bright and colorfull.
What youve done looks way more like a rainy day, its pretty effective. A critical strike.
The contrast to the bright Sunny environment, is very extreme tho. Also, just a bit too dark. It would be pretty good for nighttime (if tweaked a bit), assuming nighttime Shouldnt be pitch black, for the sake of gameplay, and being able to Tell Where your dwarves are.
Maybe, if you could lower the saturation a bit less, it would be more in line with the general brightness, that seems to dominate the current artstyle.
Also:
could we have something like this for day and night?
That would be AMAZING. An actual day and night cycle, visible to the player. Yet another previously invisible mechanic, seamlessly integrated into the visual picture of the world, the player recieves.
This should actually be pretty high priority IMHO.
Maybe have several stages like, sunrise, morning, midday, evening, Sunset, night, and so on.
I mean, this could be somewhat easy to do, right?
Huge payoff tho. Great for immersion, and generally, just getting a sense of time(Very usefull), the world spinning, day and night coming and going.
An actual World, where time passes, and that creates an effect, that you can see.
And make the picture MUCH less static + make for more varied, potentially Beautiful scenes.
This is not on you, toady, or anyone.
But, it would almost be a bit dissapointing, if dwarf fortress: steam version, didnt come with a day and night cycle. (At least at some point).
Good night everyone
It should be planned for adventure mode though, even ascii currently has day-night cycle in there.
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 31, 2020, 03:10:10 am
Post by: Starver on October 31, 2020, 04:27:08 am
As a game that has no real (Fort mode) use for illumination, in any explicit manner, we rather assume that the demi-Godlike player has infravision to cope with all the (known) corners and depths of the world. If the dwarves themselves have that, or sneakily make beard-hair into everlasting torches as they plumb the depths, is left open to interpretation.
The effect, I like. As an optional filter. BHETs aside, I presume that the internal areas would remain unfiltered (by masking the effect by tile-status, much as already seen with sublevel-fogging), to enhance? But that does seem a little topsy-turvy, I suppose the excuse being respective dwarven attitudes to surface and subterrainean locales. Needs a bit of thought there, I think.
Post by: Rekov on October 31, 2020, 05:30:31 pm
Day/night cycles in fortress mode would likely be horrible, given that time passes quickly in that mode. I assume it would be at home in adventure mode, though. If day/night cycles are introduced, they definitely should be optional, at least for fortress mode.
You could theoretically borrow a page from Cities: Skylines where the day/night cycle isn't actually attached to days, but takes place over the course of a week or a month or something. It doesn't actually make any sense, but it's a way to abstract the concept so that days can pass quickly enough where mechanics are concerned, but the length of the day/night cycle is long enough that people can focus on each phase as it arises.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on October 31, 2020, 08:29:02 pm
But why would you introduce day/night at all if there's no mechanical reason for it? (Fortress mode critters don't sleep at night, werewolves just change at the beginning of the day of a full moon, etc).Day/night cycles in fortress mode would likely be horrible, given that time passes quickly in that mode. I assume it would be at home in adventure mode, though. If day/night cycles are introduced, they definitely should be optional, at least for fortress mode.
You could theoretically borrow a page from Cities: Skylines where the day/night cycle isn't actually attached to days, but takes place over the course of a week or a month or something. It doesn't actually make any sense, but it's a way to abstract the concept so that days can pass quickly enough where mechanics are concerned, but the length of the day/night cycle is long enough that people can focus on each phase as it arises.
Post by: Maltavius on November 03, 2020, 03:19:14 am
Stools are seats featuring three or four legs. ... Stools may also stand taller than the typical table to fit a tall counter and bar. Chairs usually have four legs, a seat and a back. They can include arms or footrests.
Quick mockup to hopefully somewhat illustrate what I meant about the font and the green buttons.
(https://i.ibb.co/R9PMhTg/Screenshot-2020-10-22-at-17.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rmMLb2Q)
Oh please NO!
Fonts that try to look fantasy-ish are the worst to read.
Please have a standard Serif or sans-serif font.
Post by: Bumber on November 03, 2020, 04:02:18 am
Regarding the chair graphics. They look nice, but they aren't chairs. Those are stools ;D
Stools are seats featuring three or four legs. ... Stools may also stand taller than the typical table to fit a tall counter and bar. Chairs usually have four legs, a seat and a back. They can include arms or footrests.
They aren't getting backs because the direction of DF chairs is ambiguous.
Post by: JesterHell696 on November 03, 2020, 06:50:42 am
Quick mockup to hopefully somewhat illustrate what I meant about the font and the green buttons.
(https://i.ibb.co/R9PMhTg/Screenshot-2020-10-22-at-17.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rmMLb2Q)
Oh please NO!
Fonts that try to look fantasy-ish are the worst to read.
Please have a standard Serif or sans-serif font.
I see nothing wrong with that font, I think its easy to read and prefer it over a standard font.
Post by: Starver on November 03, 2020, 08:59:51 am
Maybe choices of Scandiwegian/Germanic/Hibernian fancy fonts (greater or lesser rune-like nature, etc), but not default unless they're a light-touch on the decorations. At least for anything that needs instant reading. Without going overboard, there'd be possibilities to use multi-typeface designs (not more than two whole families), perhaps to delineate between interface and 'lore' text. Menus (bar/drop-down/mouse-click, usually) the more serious, perhaps the psychology/thoughts display about the nature of a resident/visiting entity can be given a "life book" look..?
The one in the image examples makes me think of mediæval manuscripts, with perhaps a Celtic twist (notably the "C") which is probably not far off from that intended. I could probably live with it if it doesn't get too far into the low px values.
[1] My handwriting was bad as a child, so I was enrolled on a course. My normal cursive handwriting is still very bad, but I can now also write "minimum" in Black Gothic with a wide nib so that each of the 15 verticles look pretty much identical, and the eight cross-strokes almost invisible compared to their accompanying serifs. Even more unreadable, but absurdly neat!
Post by: voliol on November 03, 2020, 09:37:21 am
The happiest smiley looks off to me, I think it has to do with corners of the mouth not being raised enough. Currently it's more of a "very fast rollercoaster face" and less of a wide toothy smile, which is what I'm guessing you're going for.
Post by: MoltenIdol on November 03, 2020, 11:17:32 am
I definitely find that font a bit difficult to read/straining on the eyes. Could be the relatively low contrast colors or the general composition of the image though.
The happiest smiley looks off to me, I think it has to do with corners of the mouth not being raised enough. Currently it's more of a "very fast rollercoaster face" and less of a wide toothy smile, which is what I'm guessing you're going for.
I agree with all this.
The text could be a bit more fat. I Think that would help a bit.
But id just go with another font entirely if it was me.
In general, id have loved to see the UI compliment the tone of the game more, with stone buttons and stone panels with engraved texts, and some decorations here and there.
But since youre not taking that route, you should go all in on readability.
Post by: Cruxador on November 04, 2020, 01:26:57 pm
Regarding the chair graphics. They look nice, but they aren't chairs. Those are stools ;DThat is not a fantasy-ish font, and is a pretty standard serif. The problem is that it's slightly italicized and also makes use of varied line width. Both of those look fine in print, but because of the way pixels work, it means that the font relies on anti-aliasing to look right on screens. This makes the letter forms far fuzzier and less distinct, and therefore less legible at the same size. Naturally, something to avoid.
Stools are seats featuring three or four legs. ... Stools may also stand taller than the typical table to fit a tall counter and bar. Chairs usually have four legs, a seat and a back. They can include arms or footrests.Quick mockup to hopefully somewhat illustrate what I meant about the font and the green buttons.
(https://i.ibb.co/R9PMhTg/Screenshot-2020-10-22-at-17.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rmMLb2Q)
Oh please NO!
Fonts that try to look fantasy-ish are the worst to read.
Please have a standard Serif or sans-serif font.
As past calligrapher[1], I'd say it's not an overblown font, like ror6ax suggests, but it could easily be a bit simpler. At least an option of switchable serif/non-serif typeface. It doesn't need to be Transport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_(typeface)), Johnston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnston_(typeface)) or Gill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill_Sans) in nature. (I suppose Tarn and his geographically close circle would be more familiar with Highway Gothic.) And, to continue the theme, perhaps something like Rotis Serif (or R. Semi Sans), as apparently used in Singapore, for the non-Sans choice.It's not really an issue of complexity but of whether or not the typeface is optimized for digital. Your examples are only incidentally better.
Quote
Maybe choices of Scandiwegian/Germanic/Hibernian fancy fonts (greater or lesser rune-like nature, etc), but not default unless they're a light-touch on the decorations. At least for anything that needs instant reading. Without going overboard, there'd be possibilities to use multi-typeface designs (not more than two whole families), perhaps to delineate between interface and 'lore' text. Menus (bar/drop-down/mouse-click, usually) the more serious, perhaps the psychology/thoughts display about the nature of a resident/visiting entity can be given a "life book" look..?Decorated fonts are not appropriate for body text or at comparable sizes. They should be used for headers only. Dwarf Fortress does not tend to use headers. Although this may change with UI work, and it's certainly true that orthodox design principles would encourage Toady to add them and in general to add more white space and break things up into sections more, DF has conventionally tended to delineate sections in large blocks of text by color and otherwise not at all.
I definitely find that font a bit difficult to read/straining on the eyes. Could be the relatively low contrast colors or the general composition of the image though.Contrast is part of the problem; compare how legible "Accept" is compared to the others. But it doesn't tell the whole story, and too much more contrast than that button would quickly start to be garish and unpleasant on the eyes. It's more that the low contrast exacerbates the indistinct nature of the letterforms caused by anti-aliasing; it would be adequate otherwise.
The happiest smiley looks off to me, I think it has to do with corners of the mouth not being raised enough. Currently it's more of a "very fast rollercoaster face" and less of a wide toothy smile, which is what I'm guessing you're going for.
Post by: Starver on November 04, 2020, 02:12:10 pm
Digital optimisation isn't really part of it. You can digitally anti-alias or not anti-alias any font rendering upon direct rendering. If you're doing it with pre-prepared rasters of every size you are going to use, you can tweak as necessary from a base vector descriptor - if you go for definite raster then rescale by non-integer values then you're no better and possibly worse through double-rounding errors for each edge-pixel, etc, whether 'aliased' or not.As past calligrapher[1], I'd say it's not an overblown font, like ror6ax suggests, but it could easily be a bit simpler. At least an option of switchable serif/non-serif typeface. It doesn't need to be Transport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_(typeface)), Johnston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnston_(typeface)) or Gill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill_Sans) in nature. (I suppose Tarn and his geographically close circle would be more familiar with Highway Gothic.) And, to continue the theme, perhaps something like Rotis Serif (or R. Semi Sans), as apparently used in Singapore, for the non-Sans choice.It's not really an issue of complexity but of whether or not the typeface is optimized for digital. Your examples are only incidentally better.
l give examples of fonts made to be readable, just for that 'being readable'. I'm not saying to use those exactly.
I think I'd go with a serifed one, if I were developing, but a clear one. And I (perhaps relying on my own level of sight ability) find that font (barely 1px of slope sideways over the entire height of a long riser, the 'nib' wider horizontally than vertically but not terribly so) Ok in the format that it is. Perhaps a single-bit bitplane version might be better but would need extensive tweaking for every case, not dynamic rendering without risking confusing artefacts in their outlines.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on November 04, 2020, 04:52:04 pm
Do hope that's not confirmed.Regarding the chair graphics. They look nice, but they aren't chairs. Those are stools ;D
Stools are seats featuring three or four legs. ... Stools may also stand taller than the typical table to fit a tall counter and bar. Chairs usually have four legs, a seat and a back. They can include arms or footrests.
They aren't getting backs because the direction of DF chairs is ambiguous.
Golden stool in the king's "throne room" will just look rubbish.
Post by: Schmaven on November 04, 2020, 05:25:10 pm
A throne in the throne room does make more sense than a royal stool. Royal stools belong in the sanitation arc.
Post by: Starver on November 04, 2020, 06:14:03 pm
If some dwarves end up sitting backwards on chairs, I'm cool with that.The image that goes through my mind (https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/the-making-of-an-iconic-image-christine-keeler-1963). (That link chosen for the bonus info.)
Quote
A throne in the throne room does make more sense than a royal stool. Royal stools belong in the sanitation arc.https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Curule_seat
IMO, it's excusable, even though the real reason is more technical and doesn't involve any actual headcanon.
Post by: voliol on November 05, 2020, 01:29:01 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Is the bridge on the same z-level as the wagon? It looks anchored to the top of the wall tiles, like the ramps. I think some shadow is missing there?
The little icons at the bottom are enticing, I'm eager to find out what each of them are. The map, I assume, is for the current "c"-screen.
Post by: ror6ax on November 05, 2020, 01:32:39 pm
I would not have guessed that is a bridge in a million years.
My proposition is to have the closed bridge leave some type of outline where the bridge would open towards. That could be something more in-gamey like a wooden 'fence' going on the edge of the tiles or something more UXey like a striped overlay for the area covered.
As to the opened bridge - it's way too flat-looking. I love how bridges look in Spacefox because of the decoration they have - both very easy to spot and beautiful to look at. If it's a bridge that closes up, it would make sense to see the chains that pull it up. The edge of the bridge that is connected to the land tile should be visibly different to the edge(s) that just end adjacent to the other side of the ditch - missing that is a common gameplay issue (for me at least).
As to the ramps in the sand - I can't tell if those are ramps or just sand. I guess it's the shadow that was indicating that but it's not enough variation IMO.
Workshops look great. I keep fantasising of the time when you'll have bandwidth to make animations of fire in the hearth and some light radiating from it...
The amount of separate menus on all sides of the screen starts to worry me a little bit. Gluing bottom three into one ,centered, perhaps somehow separated, but one menu would look less cluttered IMO. Notifications and alerts could then appear on the left of that menu and the play/pause widget could be on the right...
Post by: Manveru Taurënér on November 05, 2020, 02:33:23 pm
Post by: Starver on November 05, 2020, 04:23:15 pm
I had a very basic visualisation drawn up on this subject, a few months back, to 'explain' what happens in each case, but don't think I found the right moment to produce it in conversation. If there's interest, I'll dig it back up.
Post by: MoltenIdol on November 05, 2020, 05:27:10 pm
And a Very important edit.
1. STOCKPILE IDEA
The stockpile fence looks Weird on the ramp.
Stockpiling things is gonna look weird on ramps.
Maybe (and I Know this is coding related), have stockpiles Dodge around ramps, when you designate the stockpile.
As always, make it toggleable, but Maybe 'on' by default?
The logic here is, that stockpiling a Boulder on a steep ramp, probably isnt a good Idea Anyway.
And its gonna look really weird with the new "3d" ramps.
It already ruins the illusion of 3d, with the stockpile fence not reacting to the clearly increasing elevation.
2. BRIDGE IDEA
Some clever shading, Where the bridge meets the ramps.
Maybe, make the sides of the ramps (the sides connecting with the bridge), Really stand out as 'this is the end of this ramp, and there is no terrain next to it'. So you can easily tell the sudden drop in elevation. If you catch my drift.
Give the ramp sides a 'rough and shaded edge' that doesnt perfectly connect with the adjecent tile, when there is no adjecent ramp or natural wall.
That way, thered be a small irregular and shaded space between the bridge graphics and the ramps, showing their position relative to eachother more clearly, while the terrain would still look natural, and "taller" than the bride.
Hopefully.
THE VERY IMPORTANT EDIT:
the way that walls cast a soft shadow on the ground in halways? That kind of shadow Should Also be applied at the end of those ramps Where they meet the bridge ,and be cast onto the bridge, to indicate that the bridge is at groundlevel
And Also from the walls north of the bridge. That would complete the illusion.
(In most cases, depending on the material of the bridge)
When the bridge is drawn up, it Should cast the shadow itself, to simulate the bridge acting like a wall, being tall and impassable and all that.
Currently, the raised bridge looks like an empty flowerbed.
All in all, progress is looking super tight tho!
Post by: MoltenIdol on November 05, 2020, 05:27:54 pm
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on November 05, 2020, 05:47:15 pm
My phone keeps double posting. Ignore this. Still havent found out how to delete my replies.You can't, unfortunately.
Post by: Cruxador on November 05, 2020, 08:52:23 pm
Although none of this is wrong, some fonts take better or worse to it, and this can be pretty significant at small sizes. That's what I was referring to. In particular, a greater emphasis on straight lines with proportionately somewhat longer length and smaller, sharper curves tends to work; your freeway examples use quite rounded letterforms and although they're suitable to being read at a distance, that's by being simple and having heavy line weight, which aren't applicable to the same degree in this case. I was getting a bit more into the weeds of typeface design, basically.Digital optimisation isn't really part of it. You can digitally anti-alias or not anti-alias any font rendering upon direct rendering. If you're doing it with pre-prepared rasters of every size you are going to use, you can tweak as necessary from a base vector descriptor - if you go for definite raster then rescale by non-integer values then you're no better and possibly worse through double-rounding errors for each edge-pixel, etc, whether 'aliased' or not.As past calligrapher[1], I'd say it's not an overblown font, like ror6ax suggests, but it could easily be a bit simpler. At least an option of switchable serif/non-serif typeface. It doesn't need to be Transport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_(typeface)), Johnston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnston_(typeface)) or Gill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill_Sans) in nature. (I suppose Tarn and his geographically close circle would be more familiar with Highway Gothic.) And, to continue the theme, perhaps something like Rotis Serif (or R. Semi Sans), as apparently used in Singapore, for the non-Sans choice.It's not really an issue of complexity but of whether or not the typeface is optimized for digital. Your examples are only incidentally better.
l give examples of fonts made to be readable, just for that 'being readable'. I'm not saying to use those exactly.
Both versions of the bridge look very 'out of place' and quite cryptic.I would much prefer not to have something that unreal.
I would not have guessed that is a bridge in a million years.
My proposition is to have the closed bridge leave some type of outline where the bridge would open towards. That could be something more in-gamey like a wooden 'fence' going on the edge of the tiles or something more UXey like a striped overlay for the area covered.
Post by: JesterHell696 on November 06, 2020, 09:24:02 am
Same, I love that DF is a simulation, if gamey stuff is added I hope its optional.Both versions of the bridge look very 'out of place' and quite cryptic.I would much prefer not to have something that unreal.
I would not have guessed that is a bridge in a million years.
My proposition is to have the closed bridge leave some type of outline where the bridge would open towards. That could be something more in-gamey like a wooden 'fence' going on the edge of the tiles or something more UXey like a striped overlay for the area covered.
Post by: Rekov on November 06, 2020, 02:50:44 pm
As to the ramps in the sand - I can't tell if those are ramps or just sand. I guess it's the shadow that was indicating that but it's not enough variation IMO.I think what he meant is that he removed the ramps to get at accessible sand beneath them.
I second the stockpile looking really awkward where it intersects and covers those ramps. I don't see any obvious visual improvement to be done. I think I will personally just not put stockpiles on ramps for aesthetic reasons, regardless of the mechanics.
Post by: Starver on November 06, 2020, 03:11:35 pm
(I would prefer that stockpiles on ramps look not quite right than either 'invisible' stockpile squares - at the extreme, a 1x1 stockpile on a slope just not being marked - or changing game mechanics to disallow stockpiles just to make the graphics work better. But that's merely my view.)
Post by: Uthimienure on November 06, 2020, 03:43:08 pm
That would be reasonable in my opinion.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on November 06, 2020, 04:28:04 pm
How about if stockpiles just can't be put on slopes?Can stockpiles actually be placed on slopes in the game right now?
That would be reasonable in my opinion.
Post by: Schmaven on November 06, 2020, 04:45:28 pm
How about if stockpiles just can't be put on slopes?Can stockpiles actually be placed on slopes in the game right now?
That would be reasonable in my opinion.
I know they can be on stairs which makes sense. Who doesn't have a box of whatever on their stairway? Ramps IRL are more of a challenge being sloped and all.
Limiting stockpiles to non-ramp tiles would be fine by me. Miners can always remove the ramps if need be.
Post by: Starver on November 06, 2020, 05:50:14 pm
Again, I would highly prefer against disallowing stockpiles (and zones, etc) where they used to be allowable, just to make the graphics less trouble. Starting from what we are now, I suggest a more intelligent graphic solution to represent what there is now. It's not impossible to place a rock on a slope, either in-game or IRL. To make the physics into a more marble-run scenario would change game-play (not the least some additional mega-trap/material-moving options, that might look good but might be a step too far).
Post by: Uthimienure on November 06, 2020, 06:53:40 pm
How about if stockpiles just can't be put on slopes?Can stockpiles actually be placed on slopes in the game right now?
That would be reasonable in my opinion.
When I try, it allows them to be placed on Up slopes, but not on Down slopes.
Post by: Starver on November 06, 2020, 07:19:58 pm
Down-slopes are no-floors, immediately below which is a floor-with-ramp (it's just a visual thing). As open space, it obviously doesn't.
Post by: Rekov on November 06, 2020, 07:27:44 pm
I think there are really two different categories here:
1) The graphics make it clear that the mechanics are improbable in some cases. Ex: Stockpiles on ramps, or wagons being able to go up ramps.
2) The graphics make it clear that the mechanics are actually impossible. Ex: The scenario depicted below:
(https://i.imgur.com/vDzaffP.png)
There would be no possible way to make this work IRL. You couldn't create a geometry that would allow movement here as it is in DF.
Post by: Starver on November 06, 2020, 07:42:50 pm
Post by: Uthimienure on November 06, 2020, 08:38:30 pm
Up-slopes are floors with ramps on them (built or remaining). As a floor, it naturally accepts a stockpile.
Down-slopes are no-floors, immediately below which is a floor-with-ramp (it's just a visual thing). As open space, it obviously doesn't.
Yes, if you were explaining that for me, thanks I already knew it and was just answering the question about the game mechanic. :)
Post by: Starver on November 07, 2020, 07:31:49 am
I also realised that my wording might be confusing (and was too late to change, having been read) in:
(I would prefer that stockpiles on ramps look not quite right than either 'invisible' stockpile squares - at the extreme, a 1x1 stockpile on a slope just not being marked - or changing game mechanics to disallow stockpiles just to make the graphics work better. But that's merely my view.)i.e I would prefer some visual anomoly (which might be tweaking a stockpile boundary to make it more clearly look like it 'rides up' the slope) than:
a) Have a stockpile de facto but with no marking on ramp-spots - confusing enough in an edge of a larger stockpile nibbled awag, but a 1x1 'invisible' stockpile totally unmarked because it sits on a ramped tile would be dangerous, or
b) Change the existing game 'physics' for the sake of aesthetics alone*. Not that it couldn't be changed for other gameplay reasons, of course.
Slopes are just one (probably minority) visual feature. They are an improvement on the 'ramp spires' of old, but don't let this dominate the conversion.
As an incidental issue with slope visualisation not yet seen, though the bridge example does invoke the same sort of confusion, you can build a wall on a slope (it would trivially block passage at the lower level, but also provide a new floor jutting out from the upper) and I think there could be incomprehension when viewing that (from either 'slice-camera' height).
And have we seen the current difference between constructed fortifications (non-top-walkable) and [optionally-constructed-and-]carved fortifications (have a potentially walkable 'wall-top')? I know we've discussed crenalation variations in the dim and distant past somewhere, but I don't think in any current graphical context.
* Which you then asked about, as new, as your reasonable solution, and getting the question "can they..?", from another, cluing me in on the impenetrability of my original quote which had meant to roll on the fact that they could. Not that I've done much better this time, I'm sure.
Post by: Starver on November 07, 2020, 03:40:37 pm
Spoiler: What if I built a wall away from a slope? (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Four-way up-ramp (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Making the bridge not look so much like it's on the level above (click to show/hide)
These are just concepts of my thinking, quickly edited up on a laptop (wish I'd have a mouse, not this touchpad). Me and my lack of artistic skills, so just relying on a few GIMP filters, etc, rather than redrawing everything.
(Which reminds me, I was also going to do something about the stockpile-on-slope... No time right now, maybe later.)
Post by: MoltenIdol on November 08, 2020, 07:15:22 am
Spoiler: Making the bridge not look so much like it's on the level above (click to show/hide)
This is exactly what i was talking about.
In order to complete the illusion, you need to add shades being cast from the ramps onto the bridge, as well, to indicate the ramps are also 'taller' than the bridge.
As in, the ramps end abruptly when they meet the bridge, thus creating a sudden drop in elevation, which then produces a shadow being cast over the bridge.
So like a wall shadow, but for ramps. A kind of triangular shadow.
Right now, the ramps still look flatter than that bridge.
Post by: Rekov on November 08, 2020, 01:31:04 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/khwImCy.png)
This is the single tile, only, that is supposed to be what the ramp-designate should look like situated between walls at its four orthagonal neighbours. It might make more sense in context, but I've not yet applied directional shading, just height-shading, so it'd look odd there as well.
It's just one of several 'solutions' to corners at ground-level, mid-edges at top-level, rather than the generic 'spire' that's ground at edges, the centre is the height.
The general version that serves walkability up to Z+1 on each diagonal and level access in from the orthagonals looks 'better'.
The whole being able to walk through tiles diagonally is an entirely different problem which I've tried (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173474.msg8152561#msg8152561) to address (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173474.msg8152605#msg8152605) elsewhere (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173474.msg8152667#msg8152667), so let's leave that aside for now.
Your tile doesn't read at all for me, which may be because it lacks directional shading.
The simplest "working" version of this tile is the following, where dwarves would have to climb up and down incredibly steep and sharp ridges and valleys, which doesn't make much sense tbh.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
You can try to widen out the 'paths' that dwarves would be walking on a little, but it still leaves you with a fairly ridiculously complex tile, and "ramps" that are so steep as to basically be walls.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
That this is possible at all, I would hazard a guess, is the result of ramp mechanics interacting with diagonal movement mechanics to create a dynamic that doesn't actually make any sense.
Post by: Starver on November 08, 2020, 02:05:59 pm
Back to the bridge cutting through the ramps... (@Molten: If you look at the prior example, I do have shading from the sliced ramp-edges, trapezoid not triangular for various aesthetic reasons. But it's significantly (too much?) fainter because I found going the same strength of burning/darkening as the sliced wall-edge made it very ugly in the corner.)
Spoiler: A little animation to show various constructions (click to show/hide)
Post by: MoltenIdol on November 09, 2020, 05:41:32 am
At first, i didnt notice the ramp shadows in your mockup.
Thats the reason i said it might solve the problem in most situations, depending on the material-color of the bridge.
EDIT:
The left wall connecting with the bridge is missing some shadow at the walls south-east corner, connecting the new shadows you are showing, with the old shadow that already exists in the hallway.
And I think the trapeze shadow works really well.
It should basically be applied every time there is a ramp like this. As long as theres is a 'floor tile' for the shade to be cast upon, ofcourse.
Post by: waterphage13 on November 09, 2020, 07:59:05 am
Post by: [HYBRID BEING] on November 13, 2020, 05:29:30 am
Post by: voliol on November 19, 2020, 04:59:15 pm
Post by: Mike Mayday on November 19, 2020, 05:26:56 pm
https://www.twitch.tv/mike_mayday
Post by: ror6ax on November 24, 2020, 02:45:19 pm
If this was readable it would have been so friggin cool https://imgur.com/a/yntZIGL#b1ArqTH
https://www.fontspace.com/ds-runenglish-2-font-f1730 is quite nice, I mean:
(https://cdn.imgpaste.net/2020/11/25/OAy0q.png)
Post by: Meph on November 24, 2020, 05:23:32 pm
Post by: bloop_bleep on November 24, 2020, 06:16:30 pm
Post by: Pillbo on November 24, 2020, 08:29:12 pm
Play with the logo if you want, but I like this. It's perfectly legible and does exactly what it's supposed to:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZHMStEZ.png)
Post by: Meph on November 25, 2020, 05:11:49 am
(https://i.imgur.com/s3XoPK9.png)
Post by: clinodev on November 25, 2020, 05:38:33 am
I think it's unfortunate that this thread has been moved down a level of hierarchy. It'll be more difficult for users to find it.
I agree. Moving it to its own spot in "DF Modding" doesn't put it in a more obvious place, which I imagine is the intent.
Moving it to DF General Discussion with Future of the Fortress and Dwarf Fortress Talk, and the two "We Need Your Help" threads, on the other hand, would consolidate the official threads considerably, and put it with the ad hoc Steam announcement thread.
Also, this seems to be in light mode, eww.
Post by: ror6ax on November 25, 2020, 07:27:31 am
Post by: voliol on November 25, 2020, 07:32:16 am
I hope this is not the death of the subtitle/full name. I know it won’t be used for official marketing, due to it’s confusing nature, but it would still be a shame if ”Slaves to Armok: God of Blood”, ”Chapter II:”, and ”Histories of X and Y” were to go.
Post by: Starver on November 25, 2020, 10:09:15 am
(Though it wouldn't be a dealbreaker, it'd add to the feeling of continuity.)
Post by: ror6ax on November 25, 2020, 10:28:59 am
but it would still be a shame if ”Slaves to Armok: God of Blood”, ”Chapter II:”, and ”Histories of X and Y” were to go.
It would make sense as an easter egg, perhaps on a credits/version screen if there ever will be any.
Post by: Mike Mayday on November 25, 2020, 03:04:45 pm
I think it's unfortunate that this thread has been moved down a level of hierarchy. It'll be more difficult for users to find it.
I agree. Moving it to its own spot in "DF Modding" doesn't put it in a more obvious place, which I imagine is the intent.
Hey, nope, that wasn't the intent. It was to allow us to have separate discussions in separate topics, rather than keeping all suggestions in one thread, which was getting just impossible to follow for me. I have about 15 minutes or less for browsing this forum per day and I don't want all the great input from the community to go to waste. That's why I asked for the possibility of more structured discussion.
Personally, I'd put it as a sub-forum of the Suggestions forum, this was Tarn's call. Maybe we'll move it later on.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on November 25, 2020, 03:32:32 pm
Hmm. Yes, seems to be a case of "well people are used to tilesets being in modding" thinking. Which forgets that new people or casual forum goers wandering over from Reddit, etc wanting to give input won't ever find it here.I think it's unfortunate that this thread has been moved down a level of hierarchy. It'll be more difficult for users to find it.
I agree. Moving it to its own spot in "DF Modding" doesn't put it in a more obvious place, which I imagine is the intent.
Hey, nope, that wasn't the intent. It was to allow us to have separate discussions in separate topics, rather than keeping all suggestions in one thread, which was getting just impossible to follow for me. I have about 15 minutes or less for browsing this forum per day and I don't want all the great input from the community to go to waste. That's why I asked for the possibility of more structured discussion.
Personally, I'd put it as a sub-forum of the Suggestions forum, this was Tarn's call. Maybe we'll move it later on.
Good start though. Hope the "white scheme" setting is temporary though. Feels like I've fallen into the lower boards...
Post by: Mike Mayday on November 25, 2020, 03:44:50 pm
EDIT: ah yes, go to http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;area=theme and choose the theme "Darkling"
Post by: clinodev on November 25, 2020, 03:59:06 pm
I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, everything's still dark for me. Maybe it's something you set in your personal preferences?
EDIT: ah yes, go to http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;area=theme and choose the theme "Darkling"
I'd never have found that if someone I trusted hadn't told me it was there, cheers!
Personally, I'd put it as a sub-forum of the Suggestions forum, this was Tarn's call. Maybe we'll move it later on.
Unfortunately, Suggestions is another place people are unlikely to look, imo.
Post by: Uthimienure on November 25, 2020, 05:35:12 pm
The title screen looks nice :). Will be exciting to see it’s final form.
I hope this is not the death of the subtitle/full name. I know it won’t be used for official marketing, due to it’s confusing nature, but it would still be a shame if ”Slaves to Armok: God of Blood”, ”Chapter II:”, and ”Histories of X and Y” were to go.
+10
Post by: Toady One on November 26, 2020, 12:42:45 am
edit: oh, and hopefully I fixed the theme issue as well!
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on November 26, 2020, 06:39:14 am
I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, everything's still dark for me. Maybe it's something you set in your personal preferences?Toady seems to have fixed whatever it was that went wrong with the theme. Now it's the same as the rest of the DF discussion boards. 8)
EDIT: ah yes, go to http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;area=theme and choose the theme "Darkling"
Post by: Zesty on November 29, 2020, 08:34:30 pm
We probably do a little bit of rock/metal design, with a dwarf logo on top. Here a mock-up. Overall Tarn mentioned something like the menu resembling a fortress, as an idea. Either way, nothing too fancy, and with a readable font.
(https://i.imgur.com/ljtWpCu.png)
Seems oddly thin. As if it's meant for your phone.
Post by: Starver on November 30, 2020, 04:35:06 am
(To anyone actually designing for 'phones', remember also to design in landscape mode as a preference (and not just a deep menu setting to be habitually one or the other) and that, for both modes, there might be good reasons to have the device 'inverted', like charging-/audio-port sockets facing the best direction at a time, so choose your app-building options wisely to encompass such possibilities.)
Post by: Cruxador on November 30, 2020, 10:10:39 am
We probably do a little bit of rock/metal design, with a dwarf logo on top. Here a mock-up. Overall Tarn mentioned something like the menu resembling a fortress, as an idea. Either way, nothing too fancy, and with a readable font.Would be very cool to have this with the latest loaded world's map filling the black "background" area.Spoiler: image collapsed (click to show/hide)
Post by: Asin on December 19, 2020, 12:23:05 am
What size would you say the tileset is, usually? 24x24, 32x32, 18x18, 16x16, etc?
Post by: PatrikLundell on December 19, 2020, 04:23:55 am
Post by: Mike Mayday on December 19, 2020, 10:06:03 am
Post by: Asin on December 19, 2020, 11:20:21 am
Post by: Cruxador on December 20, 2020, 01:59:06 am
All that is true, the world map tiles are 16x16, the main game tiles are 32x32 and the interface tiles are 8x12.Does "interface tiles" refer primarily to the text font, or are the aesthetic elements of the interface also tile-built?
Post by: Mike Mayday on December 20, 2020, 04:43:33 pm
Post by: Obsidian Soul on December 26, 2020, 06:05:10 am
Post by: Obsidian Soul on December 26, 2020, 10:24:29 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Lovely soothing reasonably uniform grass. Mhm. <3
Post by: Iä! RIAKTOR! on December 26, 2020, 06:10:05 pm
Post by: Iä! RIAKTOR! on December 26, 2020, 06:33:49 pm
Jewelry needs serious rework too. As examples of realistic designs in fantasy games I recommend Discord Times, Legends of Eisenwald and Bastard.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 26, 2020, 07:09:36 pm
Post by: Iä! RIAKTOR! on December 26, 2020, 09:58:46 pm
The official tileset will probably be valuing readability and aesthetic over realism. It makes more sense to critique things from the angle of "will the player know what this represents?" rather than "is this what the item actually looks like?"There is no best aesthetic than imagination of player. As readability, ASCII (+ingame text description) is much more better than any tileset that I ever seen.
Post by: Cruxador on December 27, 2020, 12:35:10 am
Double bladed axes are unrealistic.You don't know what you're talking about. Look at Indo-Persian sources for many obvious counter-examples. Greek and West African sources attest the use of similar weapons, albeit less readily available. Don't take internet nerd lore as gospel; pop history usually contains as much falsehood as truth regardless of branding.
Quote
Jewelry needs serious rework too. As examples of realistic designs in fantasy games I recommend Discord Times, Legends of Eisenwald and Bastard.This is so vague that it can't even be ascertained whether you might have a valid point, much less how to appropriately act on it if so.
If that's your perspective, then you're likely not the market for the tileset anyway, and will be better served continuing to use ASCII.The official tileset will probably be valuing readability and aesthetic over realism. It makes more sense to critique things from the angle of "will the player know what this represents?" rather than "is this what the item actually looks like?"There is no best aesthetic than imagination of player. As readability, ASCII (+ingame text description) is much more better than any tileset that I ever seen.
Post by: Egan_BW on December 27, 2020, 01:06:32 am
Irrelevant.The official tileset will probably be valuing readability and aesthetic over realism. It makes more sense to critique things from the angle of "will the player know what this represents?" rather than "is this what the item actually looks like?"There is no best aesthetic than imagination of player. As readability, ASCII (+ingame text description) is much more better than any tileset that I ever seen.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on December 27, 2020, 01:08:22 am
Post by: FantasticDorf on December 28, 2020, 05:22:26 am
but it would still be a shame if ”Slaves to Armok: God of Blood”, ”Chapter II:”, and ”Histories of X and Y” were to go.
It would make sense as an easter egg, perhaps on a credits/version screen if there ever will be any.
Really the steam version in essence is a quintessential chapter III in itself.
The great thing with Dwarf Fortress is that (almost) everything is customisable. Including the new graphical additions! So the medieval weaponry fetish crowd, the ASCII+ lovers, and even new people trying to play the game for the first time are catered for. Awesome.
Roll over to the modding forum and there's a great demand for alternative graphical content also, predominantly absurdist humor & sci-fi in line with mod content. But i do wonder about the attention steam workshop might bring over to trying to do simple modifications beyond simply making a human sprite a extra layer of green and due to difficulty spriting saying that's a finished job done; unlike the classic version where with no details it mostly is left up to transcription & imagination what a creature looks like being a genie let out of the bottle that can't be put back in again.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on December 28, 2020, 06:48:24 pm
To feel like you'd have to add graphics, especially these new complex graphics, to play with modding "properly" might be a big turn off for many.
And people call those of us who prefer simple ASCII style graphics "elitist"... ::)
(And now way off topic, sorry).
Post by: bloop_bleep on December 28, 2020, 09:10:49 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on February 02, 2021, 11:27:42 am
How compatible are the official Premium tileset copyright/use rules with using it to illustrate the wiki pages? Logically that should be permitted as that would both be a selling point and enhance the usability of the wiki, so if that hasn't been considered, it ought to be.
Post by: Feeona on February 02, 2021, 04:37:20 pm
Starver raised an important point in http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=176640.msg8243514#msg8243514 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=176640.msg8243514#msg8243514):
How compatible are the official Premium tileset copyright/use rules with using it to illustrate the wiki pages? Logically that should be permitted as that would both be a selling point and enhance the usability of the wiki, so if that hasn't been considered, it ought to be.
I don't see there being a problem with the wiki using the Premium sprites. :)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on February 02, 2021, 05:29:50 pm
Are there any computer game wikis that have been banned from using screenshots of the game itself? Kitfox would be shooting themselves in the foot to try that. And since they just posted in the Improve the Wiki forum, I suspect they'll continue with the common sense every other game company uses.Starver raised an important point in http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=176640.msg8243514#msg8243514 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=176640.msg8243514#msg8243514):
How compatible are the official Premium tileset copyright/use rules with using it to illustrate the wiki pages? Logically that should be permitted as that would both be a selling point and enhance the usability of the wiki, so if that hasn't been considered, it ought to be.
I don't see there being a problem with the wiki using the Premium sprites. :)
Post by: Starver on February 02, 2021, 07:56:30 pm
Spoiler: Further off-graphics ramble (click to show/hide)
Relevent to the tileset discussion, the main body of the WikiThread ramble had me presuming it would be 'simpler' and less effort for selective graphics to be suitably compiled and donated direct by the artists[4] themselves. But I've not done the legwork to compile what might be the current, or desired, list of demonstrative graphics already demonstrated in well-established pages.
There's definitely the "what bars/blocks and structures of a material look like" composite. Some principles (like bridges) are variously illustrated but not sure if non-figurative graphics are always needed. Probably a representative dwarf (perhaps gender alternatives, maybe a mixed uniform/profession sampling) and the same with other sentient-races.
It seems excessive to do for creatures, etc, what the current "what this CodePage character is" listing gives - though it'd be truly handy, it'd be both dismissing the idea that you now can tell what this particular "g" is on sight and force the release of effectively all of the Premium tiles (even if just restricted to the adult/both dimorphic adults, not child/zombie/etc).
I'm not currently asking for answers here (much more needs to be done, including the main Wikipeople making their own assessments of what could be done) but I think it's now also fair that this Tileset Team be able to think about what may be asked of them (even if it's just passing the bulk of the work to the crowdsourced 'enthusiastic amateurs' with full blessings).
(And I'm glad it doesn't look like it isn't a case of "easier to ask forgiveness than for permission" and that the questions might better to have been not asked.)
[1] Par for the course!
[2] Or book series, film franchise, TV series, etc.
[3] Can't count myself among them. I have almost never found anything I can add or clarify that isn't already already catered for by the time I come across it, so I'm by far a net consumer.
[4] This following the suggestion that a representation of non-ASCII/non-Premium graphics could be a 'third' active display option, but that's a question for elsewhere.
Post by: clinodev on February 02, 2021, 08:28:53 pm
Are there any computer game wikis that have been banned from using screenshots of the game itself? Kitfox would be shooting themselves in the foot to try that. And since they just posted in the Improve the Wiki forum, I suspect they'll continue with the common sense every other game company uses.
I don't see there being a problem with the wiki using the Premium sprites. :)
Just for clarity, you're replying here to the same Kitfox CM who replied in the other thread.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on February 02, 2021, 10:16:23 pm
So I see.Are there any computer game wikis that have been banned from using screenshots of the game itself? Kitfox would be shooting themselves in the foot to try that. And since they just posted in the Improve the Wiki forum, I suspect they'll continue with the common sense every other game company uses.
I don't see there being a problem with the wiki using the Premium sprites. :)
Just for clarity, you're replying here to the same Kitfox CM who replied in the other thread.
Was meant as a reply to Patrik
Post by: PatrikLundell on February 03, 2021, 04:47:02 am
And it can also be noted that a violation of the rights that's enthusiastically overlooked can turn around 180 degrees at a corporate takeover.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on February 03, 2021, 08:49:01 am
Post by: Rose on February 03, 2021, 11:44:45 am
And B, if somebody did do that, it wouldn't be a small indie publisher,
And C, kitfox staff have literally posted in here saying it won't happen.
Post by: bloop_bleep on February 04, 2021, 02:38:33 pm
Post by: ror6ax on February 11, 2021, 06:09:58 am
Post by: Cruxador on February 12, 2021, 04:20:35 pm
Yeeeeah..... A, literally nobody does that ever.She didn't say it definitely won't, let's not put words in her mouth. She's not a lawyer and she's speaking only on what she knows which is more than us but still, nobody's omniscient. But there's no reason to suppose that it would be a problem, and her statement reflects that.
And B, if somebody did do that, it wouldn't be a small indie publisher,
And C, kitfox staff have literally posted in here saying it won't happen.
This might seem like a pedantic point but people often mistake informative posts from games developers and representatives as promises, so we should make sure we're clear about this kind of thing.
Post by: Meph on February 12, 2021, 04:38:26 pm
Any updates on the de-Tarned version of inspection view that was shown in KitFox newsletter on 14th of January?Nope, that UI element isn't fully done yet. We'll have a go at it once it's more finalized, that way we don't do the design two or three times. ;)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on February 12, 2021, 11:05:28 pm
And again, pointless rambling hypothetical situation that has never happened in the history of computer game wikis.Yeeeeah..... A, literally nobody does that ever.She didn't say it definitely won't, let's not put words in her mouth. She's not a lawyer and she's speaking only on what she knows which is more than us but still, nobody's omniscient. But there's no reason to suppose that it would be a problem, and her statement reflects that.
And B, if somebody did do that, it wouldn't be a small indie publisher,
And C, kitfox staff have literally posted in here saying it won't happen.
This might seem like a pedantic point but people often mistake informative posts from games developers and representatives as promises, so we should make sure we're clear about this kind of thing.
"Rogue lawyer bans screenshots from informal marketing materials for computer game company!"
Lawyer gets fired...
Post by: Bumber on February 13, 2021, 02:46:50 am
For the lowest stress indicator, it looks kind of more like a grimace than a smile. I guess it's clear in context with the other faces, but it could probably be better somehow.
"Rogue lawyer bans screenshots from informal marketing materials for computer game company!"
Lawyer gets fired...
...Nintendo offers job, saying legal dept could learn a thing or two. XD
Post by: PatrikLundell on February 13, 2021, 03:12:58 am
And I agree the happiest "dorf" has a very weird expression, possibly rabid ...
Post by: Schmaven on February 14, 2021, 10:33:33 pm
Post by: Feeona on February 17, 2021, 04:22:20 pm
The official word from Kitfox Games in regards to Steam version images use on the DF Wiki:
Quote
Kitfox and Bay 12 would love for the Dwarf Fortress wiki to use the sprites from the Dwarf Fortress Steam version as decoration, explanation, diagrams, illustration, etc. Please do not redistribute the graphics as packs, sell them, put them on merchandise, or otherwise commercialize them. Use common sense. If you have any questions or a situation you're not sure about, ask us: info@kitfoxgames.com
Post by: Toady One on February 18, 2021, 01:28:52 am
"... (Like last time, none of the interface art is final here.)" from the post, so yes. I'd say those particular ones are placeholders before the first artist pass.
Ha ha, yeah, I've just been drawing these in paint while the artists are doing important stuff like elves and underground shrooms. We'll have a first pass at some point as I get more of the specialized 'q' buildings in (specialized as in, like bedrooms.)
Hi folks!
The official word from Kitfox Games in regards to Steam version images use on the DF Wiki:QuoteKitfox and Bay 12 would love for the Dwarf Fortress wiki to use the sprites from the Dwarf Fortress Steam version as decoration, explanation, diagrams, illustration, etc. Please do not redistribute the graphics as packs, sell them, put them on merchandise, or otherwise commercialize them. Use common sense. If you have any questions or a situation you're not sure about, ask us: info@kitfoxgames.com
Thanks Feeona!
Post by: Bumber on February 25, 2021, 05:15:27 pm
Post by: Meph on February 25, 2021, 05:26:15 pm
I'm so happy Tarn agreed to turn 1 sprite into ~1000 sprites just so that I can completely overkill it.
(https://cdn.cloudflare.steamstatic.com/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/34693670/eaccb2ddc7de60470f2f81c74c595318e1f27c11.png?t=1614268368)
Quote
(From Steam news) After Patrick drew lots of new images and adapted many additional images to the statue format, we're finally able to begin showing some portion of the details! This is my coati hall, with eight coatis and a coati person. There's also a sunfish enjoying some time in the waves under the moon. The colors of the statue give some indication of their material, various stones I located in the mines. It's a strange room, and I shouldn't be in charge of decorating anything, but my dwarves enjoy the space, because they don't know any better. There's also a visiting human monster hunter there, possibly confused.
(https://cdn.cloudflare.steamstatic.com/steamcommunity/public/images/clans/34693670/76f5676c1faa37515eea272c9432a3e0e559c4ef.png?t=1614268368)
@Bumber: The plinths are that tall because I initially wanted to show little faces on them, indicating the "action" of the statue, like "the dwarf is laughing" or "the human is being tortured", but it looked too out of place. After we changed that I made them a bit smaller, but the space is still needed for decorations, wear and spatter, which are all on the pedestal, not the statue itself.
Hydras were manually turned into a bust. The height is not even the problem, it's the width. Statues can be quite tall, but for numerous reasons we decided to keep them within 32x width.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on February 25, 2021, 05:35:12 pm
Post by: Meph on February 25, 2021, 05:42:33 pm
Does the choice to have statues reflect their descriptions more remain (for modded sets) or are you going with "one main subject, one graphic"?I'm afraid I don't fully grasp the question.
Post by: Egan_BW on February 25, 2021, 06:00:24 pm
Will there be code support for modded tilesets to show the "action" of a statue, in addition to the subject?
That might be more of a question for Toady.
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on February 25, 2021, 06:01:32 pm
What i believe the question was, is:It's a question for the official graphics thread. Oh, that's here.
Will there be code support for modded tilesets to show the "action" of a statue, in addition to the subject?
That might be more of a question for Toady.
Thanks for clarifying my question.
Post by: Meph on February 25, 2021, 06:07:33 pm
Right now, no. If I ask Toady nicely, most likely.
That being said, there are 55 "actions" and around 1000 statue sprites, so if you were to make one each, you are looking at 55.000 sprites. It's also difficult to make a mountain that is praying, or a dodecahedral dodecahedron that is screaming. Hence why my idea was emoji-like faces on the pedestal.
Post by: Rose on February 25, 2021, 08:22:47 pm
Is there anything for multiple dwarfs surrounding a dwarf? (I imagine no, it was hard enough getting that working in 3D)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on February 25, 2021, 08:28:09 pm
Post by: Meph on February 26, 2021, 03:00:07 am
There isn't anything for statues with multiple objects. It's just not enough space.
Shonai_Dweller: No skeletal death-god statues. ^^
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on February 26, 2021, 04:03:45 am
Rose: Different poses would mean different poses of clothing and armor and weapons too. :/Oh no. So, a death god depicted as a skeletal dwarf will just be a dwarf? Surely the first thing everyone builds for their temples is a depiction of the god? :)
There isn't anything for statues with multiple objects. It's just not enough space.
Shonai_Dweller: No skeletal death-god statues. ^^
Post by: Starver on February 26, 2021, 05:45:04 am
If Meph's right about it being difficult to repose statue graphics (for 'attitude' reasons) because that'd ruin the integratuon of wearables/holdables then perhaps some additional acutriments can be added according to availability and the applicable lore (SQUEAK!!! (https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Death_of_Rats))...
Post by: clinodev on February 26, 2021, 06:50:56 am
"In later years, much of the blame for the delays behind the initial 2037 Premium release of Dwarf Fortress on Steam would fall on Patrick Martin "Meph" Schroeder and his contributions to the 645,000 base and combinatory tiles of the Mayday/Meph tileset, although existing contemporaneous records indicate he was in fact heavily encouraged by various community members in his growing mania. While historical record frees Meph from the full guilt for events that led to the tragedy, nevertheless those fatal hours in May 2029 were likely written in stone as early as 2021."
The Strange Legal Legacy of The West's Favorite Game :Alpha Dwarf Fortress, and the Men Who Died to Defend It.
Harvard Press, McMasters and Long, et al., Boston, 2052.
The Strange Legal Legacy of The West's Favorite Game :Alpha Dwarf Fortress, and the Men Who Died to Defend It.
Post by: Meph on February 26, 2021, 06:58:56 am
"LIES! LIES! FAKE NEWS! It's the UIs fault. The evil socialcommunistical graphical user interface, it leeches time right from Toadys brain! It's the truth. You have to believe me! Drawing 14.836 sprites for cheese doesn't take time at all. We should apply gem-cuts to cheese! Cabochon cheese, Pearl cut brie, tapered baguette cut gouda, tetrahedral tetrahedrons of dwarven maggot cheese, this is all NECESSARY for player enjoyment!!!"
Some rando yelling on the internet.
Some rando yelling on the internet.
Alex Jones Jr. Jr., the III of his name, Confederate US, 2052.
Picture unrelated:
(https://i.imgur.com/0fOoG6n.png)
Post by: Starver on February 26, 2021, 07:27:38 am
Drawing 14.836 sprites for cheese doesn't take time at all.Ah. I see. You're doing a bare minimum graphics set and just lazily re-using for the other 90%.
(Tell me you're still doing petit chèvre, bleu petit chèvre, organic petit chèvre, organic bleu petit chèvre, bleu organic petit chèvre, grande petit chèvre and grande petit chèvres bleu, organic and organic<+>bleu, at least..?)
Post by: ror6ax on February 26, 2021, 10:27:43 am
2052.
Picture unrelated:
(https://i.imgur.com/0fOoG6n.png)
See, now just make them yellow and there's cheese.
And maybe some blueish veins for roquefort...
*ducks*
Post by: Bumber on February 26, 2021, 05:42:22 pm
See, now just make them yellow and there's cheese.
And maybe some blueish veins for roquefort...
*ducks*
*quacks*
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pr5QCwqq/cheese.png)
Post by: RoseHeart on February 26, 2021, 08:55:18 pm
Any UI improvements and conveniences found in other tilebased roguelikes would be a big help.
Post by: RoseHeart on February 26, 2021, 09:04:15 pm
I find Dwarf Fortress hard to learn, but find some roguelikes like the tile Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup very approachable.
Spoiler: image (click to show/hide)
I had fun just watching the simulation, but would love to be able to engage more with DF with some help.
Post by: Schmaven on March 02, 2021, 07:24:34 pm
Post by: Uthimienure on March 02, 2021, 08:18:13 pm
I know it's been suggested in other places, but I don't recall seeing it in here: It would be handy to have a 1-tile long raised bridge look different than a 1 tile long lowered bridge. Right now I make all my drawbridges a minimum ot 2 tiles long so I can tell at a glance if it's up or down.
That gets a BIG +1 from me!
Post by: Meph on March 02, 2021, 08:56:09 pm
I know it's been suggested in other places, but I don't recall seeing it in here: It would be handy to have a 1-tile long raised bridge look different than a 1 tile long lowered bridge. Right now I make all my drawbridges a minimum ot 2 tiles long so I can tell at a glance if it's up or down.You might be positively surprised. :)
Post by: PatrikLundell on March 03, 2021, 02:26:14 am
Post by: Uthimienure on March 03, 2021, 07:49:59 am
Post by: Schmaven on March 03, 2021, 02:00:09 pm
I wonder if there is a clean way to do something for open floodgates?
That's a other good one. What if the 'frame' of the floodgate always remained visible, but the gate part was variable?
Closed: [X]
Open: [ ]
Post by: Meph on March 03, 2021, 02:50:33 pm
We got door frames, hatch cover frames and floodgate frames.
Post by: Vordak on March 13, 2021, 11:37:12 am
Will there be a difference in an appearance between Animated dead (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Undead) and Intelligent undead (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Intelligent_undead) for civ humanoids?
Post by: Meph on March 13, 2021, 05:50:58 pm
Post by: Rekov on March 19, 2021, 02:56:51 pm
It's very difficult for me to tell visually which ones are male and which ones are female. And while this might be expected, as androgynous elves are something of a trope, they all look very distinctly masculine, not androgynous. It has something to do with the severity of the highlights on their faces. It all looks very hard and rugged.
For the humans and dwarves it's a little more obvious. The human/dwarven women have red lips which lets us tell them apart from their non-bearded male counterparts.
I think another big part of the problem is the shared/similar bodies? You'll have to forgive me for these rough examples, but they're enough to convey the point. Just from the silhouette it's obvious which one is male and female.
(https://i.imgur.com/2H1jGEK.png)
Post by: Meph on March 19, 2021, 05:48:02 pm
Post by: Rose on March 19, 2021, 05:49:42 pm
Because right now, when they're side by side, it just looks very wrong.
Post by: Rekov on March 19, 2021, 05:57:48 pm
I see your point, but using different silhouettes is a bit tricky due to the equipment. Either we have to make two sets of every piece of clothing and armor, or the silhouette gets covered as soon as anyone wears any clothes.Fair enough! And as long as there's support for people modding separate male/female bodies and clothing/equipment, I'll be happy enough.
Post by: Uthimienure on March 19, 2021, 06:04:14 pm
Meanwhile I'm in the opposite camp where elves and humans are fine, but dwarfs are too different. Either dwarfs should have a slightly smaller head, or elves and humans should have bigger.Yeah, the dwarves' heads make them proportioned like (dare I say it) newborn babies. But hey, it's a game and I'm used to watching the tile-sized faces walking around anyway.
Because right now, when they're side by side, it just looks very wrong.
Post by: Rose on March 19, 2021, 07:34:43 pm
Post by: Schmaven on March 19, 2021, 09:35:10 pm
It would make more sense if the humans and elves also had similarly proportioned heads. As a bonus, elves would have more visible ears that way.
That would be really interesting to see: if the human and elven heads were enlarged toward if not equalized with the dwarven head size. Their facial features would get better clarity that way. The proportions are a bit less 'realistic' but they're just pixel tile representations so I have no issue with that trade off.
Post by: Rekov on March 20, 2021, 05:09:33 pm
Comparing a Steam.DF female elf to one from my upcoming mod:
(https://i.imgur.com/W9Z42bR.png)
The head-size is pretty much the same, though mine are a little wider. The bigger difference is style. Steam.DF is more realistic, while mine is cartoony, almost chibi, but this makes the features much more obvious. The things that make my head (ignoring body silhouette for now) disinctly feminine are:
1) The roundness of the chin/jaw
2) The color of the lips
3) The shape of the eyes, which implies eye-lashes.
Post by: jecowa on March 21, 2021, 12:18:51 pm
Post by: bloop_bleep on March 21, 2021, 12:42:15 pm
Post by: MaXMC on April 21, 2021, 10:24:29 am
I see your point, but using different silhouettes is a bit tricky due to the equipment. Either we have to make two sets of every piece of clothing and armor, or the silhouette gets covered as soon as anyone wears any clothes.Actually that's way more realistic. I don't see any need for boob-armor in Dwarf Fortress, its 32x32 pixels for <insert deity> sake...
Post by: jecowa on April 21, 2021, 06:58:28 pm
Post by: Meph on April 22, 2021, 05:45:09 am
Post by: Starver on April 22, 2021, 05:54:46 am
(Though at least I have somewhere to put my oranges.)
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 28, 2021, 06:52:51 pm
https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/n0ml8n/steamdf_bridge_design_wip/
(Going to start talking coding wishes now, beyond the artwork. I know it's Toady that codes and not you, but this is the only place we have to discuss the official Steamset)
Is there any way to make the outside world bridges you find out in the wilderness crossing rivers a different design to dwarven drawbridges? I'd imagine arches for the former and the flatter designs you've made for drawbridges.
I know it's the same thing technically right now, but exploring the world in Adventurer with the new Steam tileset and music is something a lot of us are looking forward to. And flat dwarven drawbridges crossing a brook are a little immersion breaking.
Post by: Bumber on April 28, 2021, 07:03:04 pm
Is there any way to make the outside world bridges you find out in the wilderness crossing rivers a different design to dwarven drawbridges?
I thought those were made out of constructed walls and floors?
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on April 28, 2021, 07:48:37 pm
Hmm. Didn't realise that. Would still be nice if they could look like bridges.Is there any way to make the outside world bridges you find out in the wilderness crossing rivers a different design to dwarven drawbridges?
I thought those were made out of constructed walls and floors?
Post by: Starver on April 28, 2021, 07:54:34 pm
I don't mind the ropes as much as others do. As part of the "pull up the drawbridge" it makes sense. Can I reverse the suggestion to scrap the ropes but keep the supports (rope visible along bridge-side surface, not held up, theoretically concertina-moding the bridge when the raiser-bit is activated).
Somewhere, some time ago, I did my own visualisations of how to deal with both raising and retraction (of both multitile and single-tile[2] bridges) according to my personal headcanon. I think I never got around to posting those, I didn't want to influence things. Not sure if there's a tween-point graphic here for transition-animation, but it looks very compatible with how I think they should function.
The slightly raised version (second imgur link down, wasn't it?) doesn't really work for me. Not as a dynamic bridge... Perhaps a floor-type one that transitions to unfloored normal-ground could be assumed to be like that, for aesthetics, but we have to fight with the whole "what is a floor" visualisation, with ⅐th/⅛th of a cell's verticality/whatever, making paved roads 'proud' (as they were, often, for construction/drainage reasons).
The desire for different bridge-types makes me hark back to Transport Tycoon (though I can't remember now how that was paramaterised... higher cost version chosen, more futurustic, the trainline/road rates for higher transit speed, was it?). I could easily see some method of displaying (mostly as encountered in Adventure Mode) subtly different over-decorations (to the MAT-/quality-based initial variations) a cultural clue as to in whose territory/control the structure exists.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwick_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigellachie_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonar_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxford_Bridge - not strictly examples, to follow, but any excuse to show some interesting bridges of various types that aren't all just across the Forth. ;) )
[1] Doesn't stop my browser trying hard to open on the App I must have had installed by default on this tablet...
[2] Lengthwise, which I'd like to see examples of with the raiser-rope feature included (i.e. drawbridge-door/wall constructions).
Post by: Mr Crabman on April 30, 2021, 03:27:19 pm
Post by: jecowa on May 01, 2021, 02:14:53 pm
War trainable animals face right so they are facing the same direction as the dwarves. Dangerous animals face left to face the dwarves to attack them. Weak and cowardly animals (like deer) face right so they can flee from the dwarves.
Post by: Mr Crabman on May 01, 2021, 02:42:28 pm
Imo, dwarfs face right. Right is the direction of progress in games like Super Mario Bros. Goblins, Undead, Humans, and Elves face left so they can face the dwarves in combat (or in trade).Dwarves actually face left though as seen in all the screenshots so far, just like humans, elves, and most animals (haven't seen goblins); I at first thought it was about hostility (don't know what they're called, but those big green guys with the stretched out hand face right), but I recall seeing some hostile creatures facing left (eg, dragons and hydra), and am not sure what the deciding factor is.
War trainable animals face right so they are facing the same direction as the dwarves. Dangerous animals face left to face the dwarves to attack them. Weak and cowardly animals (like deer) face right so they can flee from the dwarves.
Post by: bloop_bleep on May 01, 2021, 10:24:08 pm
Imo, dwarfs face right. Right is the direction of progress in games like Super Mario Bros. Goblins, Undead, Humans, and Elves face left so they can face the dwarves in combat (or in trade).
War trainable animals face right so they are facing the same direction as the dwarves. Dangerous animals face left to face the dwarves to attack them. Weak and cowardly animals (like deer) face right so they can flee from the dwarves.
This doesn't feel that relevant if the other creatures are to the left of the dwarves...
Post by: jecowa on May 02, 2021, 03:15:42 am
Post by: Shonai_Dweller on May 02, 2021, 04:14:54 am
It doesn't work out when they are on the other sides, but it's probably better than them facing a random direction. You can get clues about an animal from the direction it's facing. And you'd have the option to set up your fortress entry so that dwarves are facing outwards and visitors/invaders are facing inwards.Would invader and visitor dwarves be reversed then? Would make my merc squads look pretty weird all facing different directions.
Post by: jecowa on May 02, 2021, 05:33:47 am
Post by: Pillbo on May 03, 2021, 11:43:28 am
Post by: Mr Crabman on May 03, 2021, 12:24:54 pm
I personally would like it if creatures faced right when oriented north through southeast, and faced left if oriented south through northwest. But I think Meph said that changing sprite direction wasn't going to be an option because of... shadows maybe?
I think it would be better if northwest through southwest will face left, northeast through southeast will face right, and north and south will face whichever way they were more recently; ie if they were facing right at first, if they start moving south they will stay facing right. This way you won't get them flipping back and forth when moving southeast or northwest (since dwarves don't always move in a line; they may move diagonally, and then a bit upwards, then diagonally again).
I don't think the shadows would look that bad flipped, but then again I'm no artist, and I haven't seen how it would look. My real worry would be about their asymmetrical stuff like which hand they're holding an object in swapping whenever they turn, not the shadows (and if this could be solved, I seriously hope they could add directional facing as an option).
Post by: Starver on May 03, 2021, 08:07:00 pm
But if it were only so simple. ;)
Post by: Mr Crabman on May 04, 2021, 05:15:30 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This is great, but it would be useful if there were somewhere displaying how large this dragged out area is (that goes for any designation in general), either as a tooltip on the side of the box, or in a fixed position somewhere, and possibly beside this, the absolute number of how many squares there are (for the mathematically lazy).
For example, in the above image, it would be 11x18 (or the other way around; I can't remember whether vertical or horizontal comes first), and also 198 squares. Obviously this information would also be shown for placing/building of objects or constructions, and maybe when selecting already existing zones as well (so you can see at a glance for example, how big a zone or a farm is)
Maybe this is already planned though.
There could be also be a toggle option to show the numbers of each tile (distance from the corner being dragged from) instead of the green diamond shapes, showing the distance from the initial point being dragged out (starting with 1, not 0).
Another QOL feature to consider (as an option) is highlighting the line of squares down the middle on each side (assuming that side has a middle/isn't an even number), for example, something roughly like this, but better looking/clearer than my quick edit:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The vertical side is 18 tiles so it doesn't have a middle to highlight (or maybe there could be a line in between the 2 middlemost tiles?), but if it was, it would also have a highlighted line of dots, and so you would also see the middle of the rectangle by where the lines meet.
Post by: Meph on May 04, 2021, 05:19:42 am
Post by: Putnam on May 05, 2021, 05:53:59 am
I think some sort of movement-direction information is recorded by DF so I think it could be possible to flip the direction according to how they're moving.
"Move" actions stores x/y/z coordinates of tile they're moving to, so one could pretty reasonably have direction flipping based on comparing move's x coord to dwarf's
Post by: Rose on May 05, 2021, 10:49:01 am
I think some sort of movement-direction information is recorded by DF so I think it could be possible to flip the direction according to how they're moving.
"Move" actions stores x/y/z coordinates of tile they're moving to, so one could pretty reasonably have direction flipping based on comparing move's x coord to dwarf's
Armok Vision does that, and also uses the move timer to move them smoothly. It works well, other than the fact that the destination can change at the last minute if somebody is standing there.
Post by: [HYBRID BEING] on June 03, 2021, 09:09:45 am
make every 10th line thicker and to add a x,y number on the sideA little late to the party, but, IMHO, visually splitting selection in tens seems a bit redundant if there is a total x,y counter. A visual pointer for center alignment though, as Mr_Crabman suggested, would be useful. As for even sides, two rows/columns in the center could be made thicker.
Ultimately, giving user an option via settings or maybe modifier key (think how Alt, Ctrl and Shift change selection in graphic editors) would be a perfect way to go.
Post by: Mr Crabman on June 05, 2021, 09:33:14 am
A little late to the party, but, IMHO, visually splitting selection in tens seems a bit redundant if there is a total x,y counter. A visual pointer for center alignment though, as Mr_Crabman suggested, would be useful. As for even sides, two rows/columns in the center could be made thicker.
Ultimately, giving user an option via settings or maybe modifier key (think how Alt, Ctrl and Shift change selection in graphic editors) would be a perfect way to go.
I'm definitely in agreement here; splitting in tens isn't very useful compared to center alignment if there is a counter. Maybe an option for also splitting in tens could also be useful (so you know where the tens are), but center alignment seems important as well.
Post by: Bumber on June 06, 2021, 01:40:06 am
Post by: Mr Crabman on June 06, 2021, 05:15:12 am
Every 8th or 16th line would fit the map better, given each embark square is 48x48.
In a sense; but since people count in base 10, it seems like it would be more intuitive to use 10. Then again, I can't imagine this would be hard to make a customizable option for, so may as well just make it an option how often (though again, an option for centering lines would be more useful in most cases I think).
I'm just going to repeat my other question here in case it gets lost from being on the last page:
When should a suggestion be posted in this thread as opposed to elsewhere in this forum? And what about the Suggestions forum, is that just for gameplay (and in principle audio and UX) stuff, while this forum is for the tileset and UI/UX?
Post by: PatrikLundell on June 06, 2021, 07:28:15 am
Post by: Starver on June 06, 2021, 07:49:13 am
(Ninjaed, sorry, was distracted by having to make a short trip, between starting and posting this.)
Post by: clinodev on June 06, 2021, 09:51:41 am
Post by: Mr Crabman on June 06, 2021, 10:40:59 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on June 06, 2021, 11:20:41 am
I see, so something that wouldn't involve new art being drawn or existing art being modified (but which is still oriented around nicer overall graphics/tileset functionality) should be in Suggestions rather than this forum?Yes. Things like "the stockpiles ought to be split into these categories allowing those criteria to be specified within them" are suggestions beyond the artistic realm. If that gets implemented, the artists would be called upon to create icons for the new versions (and possibly revise existing ones, of the boundaries have shifted sufficiently to work better with a different image), but that's at the tail end of the process, not he decision part.
Post by: Meph on June 06, 2021, 12:08:25 pm
Post by: Mr Crabman on June 06, 2021, 12:14:08 pm
Well, if there are suggestions, I'm all ears. ;)
Ah, well I just posted it in Suggestions like a minute ago (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=178601.0), but it's basically reflections in water and glass/reasonably reflective tiles. Just a nice little visual extra.
Post by: Ziusudra on June 06, 2021, 02:22:47 pm
Every 8th or 16th line would fit the map better, given each embark square is 48x48.12 might be better since it has 2, 3, 4 & 6 as factors.
Post by: clinodev on June 06, 2021, 06:13:52 pm
Well, if there are suggestions, I'm all ears. ;)
Joking aside, now that there are fish barrels presumably, the fishery needs a fish barrel, probably in the top right. Likewise the still and other workshops where barrels are currently displayed should be updated with the new "contents shown" barrel tops.
Post by: Meph on June 08, 2021, 08:12:20 pm
Forwarded that to Tarn. :)Well, if there are suggestions, I'm all ears. ;)
Ah, well I just posted it in Suggestions like a minute ago (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=178601.0), but it's basically reflections in water and glass/reasonably reflective tiles. Just a nice little visual extra.
Post by: rda on June 10, 2021, 04:20:34 pm
Perhaps the relevant letter could be a different color, like Constructions or well. Or underlined, like Ashery.
For the shortcuts where you need to hit alt like slab, either you could use a different labeling or just have the letters not highlighted until you press alt.
Alternatively, if you hit ? it could show an overlay with the keyboard shortcut for everything on the screen, that way it wouldn’t change the UI during normal use.
Edit: never mind, disregard this whole post. I saw it’s labeled in some of the steam screenshots.
Post by: Bumber on July 31, 2021, 01:43:50 pm
Post by: ror6ax on August 03, 2021, 06:41:58 am
Post by: clinodev on August 03, 2021, 07:01:28 am
Post by: Vordak on August 03, 2021, 01:21:27 pm
Meph mentioned he would be mountaineering and significantly offline this Summer (https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/o428az/regarding_dwarf_fortress_gladiator_tournament_vi/h2glg0t/) in the context of a DF community thing he wanted to be involved with but couldn't be.
Can we get same kind information, but about Mike Mayday?
Post by: Starver on August 03, 2021, 02:06:43 pm
(To ror6ax, my impression is that there's so much that is inextricably indivisible from placeholder/prototyping/TBC at this point in time that you couldn't realistically use transparency/white-out/background-mask/censor's-pen and still have anything useful left. Not that I want to pre-empt the Word Of God(s) on this, which is part of my above point, but I think it's not as useful as continuing to see any WIP/mockup presentations and letting feedback on it all be considered, whether it's supposed to be a 'finished' and polished element (https://tinhouse.com/murder-your-darlings/). BICBW!)
Post by: Meph on August 03, 2021, 04:45:15 pm
Post by: Vordak on August 12, 2021, 02:35:50 pm
Spoiler: Picture (click to show/hide)
Post by: voliol on August 12, 2021, 02:57:46 pm
I will just put this pic here without any further comments by my side.Spoiler: Picture (click to show/hide)
That human looks plenty dwarfy to me... That aside the time has propably passed for making major changes to the main species design, since the armor sprites would have to be redone with them. That even if the design changes would be objective improvements, which I would not say the ones in the picture are.
Post by: FantasticDorf on August 12, 2021, 04:36:07 pm
I will just put this pic here without any further comments by my side.Spoiler: Picture (click to show/hide)
Simply a matter of broadness in the TL modifiers really if you ask me, for reference a rough scribble of the mechanical cutoff points are (with about a cm3 0.25 creature mass in either direction off base without going exceptionally over 150) which might be a interesting visual thing to facet into some of these values.
Code: [Select]
>150: gigantic
>125: very large
>110: large
91-109: average size
<90: small
<75: very small
<50: tinySo really here, you could be looking at a tall dwarf to the left, broad short dwarf to the top right, and a thin very tall dwarf to the bottom right. If you count the way the face has heavy cheekbones, you can still tell they're a dwarf even through the skewered proportions, like the monster hunter in this post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173474.msg8252821#msg8252821) has a noticable difference in posture (and presumably face, i can't recollect what this tilesets humans look like.)
In the animal world and maybe creatures like snake-people, there could be some TL modelling for reptiles, fish and earthworms of exceptional sizes via the length modifier to make them 2 tile.
Post by: Silverwing235 on August 12, 2021, 06:48:55 pm
For myself, and for gathering some particular ruminations of others on this matter (https://discord.com/channels/329272032778780672/555404726817259580/875465493513916437 (https://discord.com/channels/329272032778780672/555404726817259580/875465493513916437))....I can only hope for now, that some kind of 'Abracadabra' pass could be made in post, to resolve what appears to be a very...minor issue overall.I will just put this pic here without any further comments by my side.Spoiler: Picture (click to show/hide)
That human looks plenty dwarfy to me... That aside the time has propably passed for making major changes to the main species design, since the armor sprites would have to be redone with them. That even if the design changes would be objective improvements, which I would not say the ones in the picture are.
Post by: Wokko on August 13, 2021, 02:35:01 pm
I will just put this pic here without any further comments by my side.This looks good, it always bothered me that dwarves are not stout or "dwarfy" enough, they don't have shoulders, they are not wide.Spoiler: Picture (click to show/hide)
But this one looks almost perfect, maybe just move dwarf's head a bit upwards.
And people say it would take too much time to redraw everything? I thought DF has not a lot of equipment, and it would be a simple edit anyway, not complete redrawing from scratch.
I wish this became new design.
Post by: Starver on August 13, 2021, 04:12:02 pm
I thought DF has not a lot of equipment, and it would be a simple edit anyway, not complete redrawing from scratch.Well, take this example of some possible art variations done for just one weapon and one bit of clothing (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=173474.msg8188145#msg8188145), and assuming you aren't 'just' mathematically squeezing and squashing everything (perhaps both, if you want the head upwards after compressing them vertically as a whole/compressing them irregularly/both compressing most but expanding the neckline) and accepting the imperfections[1] then every current bit of originally-dwarf-fitting/positioned equipment has to be revisited and retouched-up.
If the artwork was vectorised from the start (a whole different issue), then the above issues would not be there. But add a number of vector-based issues instead. It's not ASMOC.
[1] Everything has been deliberately and lovingly crafted pixel by pixel, and then they end up being smooshed around and anti-aliased.
Post by: Wokko on August 14, 2021, 01:26:03 am
Post by: Starver on August 14, 2021, 04:41:47 am
Post by: bloop_bleep on August 24, 2021, 09:33:51 pm
Post by: Rekov on August 25, 2021, 11:01:13 am
Hey guys, just asking the community, approximately how far is the sprite work along?The impression I get is that almost all of the sprites are done. Toady is now working on menus and other interface stuff, and the end of which will be another art pass that finalizes the appearance and design of the various buttons.
Post by: Meph on August 25, 2021, 04:49:01 pm
Hey guys, just asking the community, approximately how far is the sprite work along?It's pretty much done, except for some procedurally generated critters. It's still an open question how far we delve into that. Otherwise we have a looooong list of things we might want to try, but it's additions, not necessary to play the game. It mostly comes down to not distracting Toady from the UI work. ;)
Post by: ror6ax on September 01, 2021, 03:44:58 am
Post by: ror6ax on September 17, 2021, 04:06:27 am
Post by: Erendir on September 24, 2021, 03:16:21 am
Post by: Pillbo on September 24, 2021, 03:26:45 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/18QkfuB.gif)
Post by: Uthimienure on September 30, 2021, 11:44:38 am
I'm particularly fond of circular shapes.
Post by: Metruption on September 30, 2021, 02:01:02 pm
When painting zones, stockpiles, or whatever, will we be able to paint shapes other than rectangles & fills?You can paint a rectangle and then remove stockpile designation with d-x to subtractively create the desired non-rectangular shape.
I'm particularly fond of circular shapes.
Post by: Uthimienure on September 30, 2021, 02:53:08 pm
Yeah, I do, but that's pretty tedious work ;)When painting zones, stockpiles, or whatever, will we be able to paint shapes other than rectangles & fills?You can paint a rectangle and then remove stockpile designation with d-x to subtractively create the desired non-rectangular shape.
I'm particularly fond of circular shapes.
Post by: Mr Crabman on October 11, 2021, 02:22:59 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/fs6Z3D3.png)
Use a slightly different icon for bedrooms and dormitories; for example, using the "bed with 2 pillows" sprite instead of "bed with 1 pillow" to emphasize the more communal nature of dorms, or a lower quality level (or both).
And also maybe use a brighter sprite for the dungeon; what's there now doesn't contrast very well with the background and it's hard to make out what it is.
Oh, and maybe it was left out for lack of room, but shouldn't that be changed to "Sand Collection" and "Clay Collection" or something? It's what we have currently sure, but it's still weird to just say "Sand" and "Clay".
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 12, 2021, 03:15:18 am
I'd probably go for
- "Animal Training Area" (which would probably be cut by the box edge to show "Animal Training"
- Fishing Area (which could be "Fishery")
- Fruit Gathering Area (Again, it would be cut off), although "Orchard" could work
- Sand Gathering Area, but could be "Sand Extraction"
- Clay Gathering Area, but could be "Clay Extraction"
Post by: voliol on October 12, 2021, 10:52:21 am
Post by: PatrikLundell on October 12, 2021, 10:59:03 am
Post by: FantasticDorf on October 13, 2021, 10:15:03 am
"Gather Sand" and "Gather Clay" would match the pattern of "Gather Fruit", but that conflicts with the active "Fishing" and "Animal Training" as well as "Archery Range" (which would be Archery Training" if described as an activity zone).
I'd probably go for
- "Animal Training Area" (which would probably be cut by the box edge to show "Animal Training"
- Fishing Area (which could be "Fishery")
- Fruit Gathering Area (Again, it would be cut off), although "Orchard" could work
- Sand Gathering Area, but could be "Sand Extraction"
- Clay Gathering Area, but could be "Clay Extraction"
Saying that, explicitly the interaction zones are explicitly dealing with verb-actions rather than generalized names for the real kind of area those activities would happen in.
- On the other hand, places like the new "Dungeon" isn't a "imprisonment zone" because the building precludes the activity, like shrines and temples aren't praying zones
Gathering fruit in Crabman's suggestion could also be mistook for the harvesting designation if someone was playing DF blind (which a good amount of people probably will)
Post by: ror6ax on November 05, 2021, 06:42:37 pm
Post by: Starver on November 05, 2021, 07:18:39 pm
And traditional DF shortening isn't that, so I suspect it's a default thing for whatever the newly-imported Window Manager module is. (j.e. text-labels truncated until they (and an ellipsis) fit into the designed in space). Not sure whether there's going to be the option for mouse/widget-interaction methods to resize tabular columns, or more advanced automation to 'try' each label to discover the range of widths needed and piping the largest (sane) requirement into each respective column.
(The gods know I've often spent loads of time at the start of a projet trying to get details like that to work in an aesthetically pleasing manner, then found I still need to work out how to do what the interface was always supposed to be doing, behind the scenes, and I've spent too much time worrying about border-line thicknesses/whatever. Really I should have tidied up the procedual appearance after I showed it actually processed the data like it should. ;) )
Post by: vettlingr on November 13, 2021, 09:54:34 pm
Vordak, I didn't take the color palette from that image. I'm using the same one I have in my tileset, from the example image I posted earlier.
EDIT: nevermind, you are right. It is almost exactly the same palette. O.o
(https://i.imgur.com/Iq9MsMx.png)Spoiler: I used the skeletons in my tileset for the palette (click to show/hide)
Denzis bones.
Galacti-Chrons Palette
Back to open game art we go...
Spoiler: Actual Palette not from meph (click to show/hide)
Words can't describe how disappointed I am
Stop claiming other peoples work as your own
Post by: Meph on November 14, 2021, 02:23:09 am
Post by: vettlingr on November 14, 2021, 02:32:32 am
Vettlingr I did answer your PM, but just be very clear: You are absolutely correct, I do use Denzis bones and nice bone-color-palettes that I found online. Both of which are free to be used according to their license. In my own, free, non-commercial tileset.It is an impossibility that all are free-to-distribute licenses, maybe these two are, but I have looked over others which I know are not.
Also I know that you didn't draw anything yourself in your tileset, everything is ripped, stripped or jumbled/mishmashed together.
If Everything is from free licenses and nothing is original content:
It is not your work and it is not your tileset.
You can even claim it so don't even try
Post by: Meph on November 14, 2021, 02:42:49 am
Post by: vettlingr on November 14, 2021, 03:25:12 am
I feel like this is not the place to discuss the Meph tileset, since this is the Steam DF thread.It is. Since this is unproffessionalism and these practices are something that is extremely detrimental to any development cycle. You are stealing mikes fame, riding toady, riding kitfox. You should have been honest from the start, that you were no pixel artist.
And it is not a discussion, I am calling you out and telling you off because I have never seen this degree unprofessionalism, plagiarism, alleged "stolen valor", pretend talent and alleged fraud in all my years of game artistry. You were given the position of art direction and tileset artist in assumption that you actually did draw tiles yourself, which was a big lie.
You have to understand that they may have to do internal investigations to make sure you have not done any of your usual antics while working on the official tileset, that is why I find even borrowing a palette for commercial use so alarming. Alleged plagiarism is extremely serious and sometimes it is unavoidable even if you feel you have done everything right. Burrowing a palette like that
As I said in my Very outraged PM, I hope it is Extreme idiotic and oblivious naivety that has brought you to this point.
This all that being said. I have yet to see any evidence of plagiarism in the official tileset, yet. Though I haven't looked into it much yet.
Post by: Meph on November 14, 2021, 03:47:44 am
I probably am very naive, for example I never considered that it might be wrong to use a similar or even the same color palette. I googled it now, copyrights for color palettes don't even exist. It's impossible to steal them, because no one has rights to colors.
I understand that you are upset, since you think I'm somehow lying to Kitfox or Tarn or Mike, but... maybe wait for their replies first.
Post by: Inarius on November 14, 2021, 02:07:25 pm
Post by: Matrim_Cauthon on November 14, 2021, 11:18:53 pm
I feel like this is not the place to discuss the Meph tileset, since this is the Steam DF thread.It is. Since this is unproffessionalism and these practices are something that is extremely detrimental to any development cycle. You are stealing mikes fame, riding toady, riding kitfox. You should have been honest from the start, that you were no pixel artist.
And it is not a discussion, I am calling you out and telling you off because I have never seen this degree unprofessionalism, plagiarism, alleged "stolen valor", pretend talent and alleged fraud in all my years of game artistry. You were given the position of art direction and tileset artist in assumption that you actually did draw tiles yourself, which was a big lie.
You have to understand that they may have to do internal investigations to make sure you have not done any of your usual antics while working on the official tileset, that is why I find even borrowing a palette for commercial use so alarming. Alleged plagiarism is extremely serious and sometimes it is unavoidable even if you feel you have done everything right. Burrowing a palette like that
As I said in my Very outraged PM, I hope it is Extreme idiotic and oblivious naivety that has brought you to this point.
This all that being said. I have yet to see any evidence of plagiarism in the official tileset, yet. Though I haven't looked into it much yet.
You're calling out a free, hobbyist mod that clearly marks itself as being made from other art as it's base, as not meeting the standards of a commercially sold product.
It should be immediately clear why that is ridiculous.
Post by: FantasticDorf on November 17, 2021, 04:32:33 am
This all that being said. I have yet to see any evidence of plagiarism in the official tileset, yet. Though I haven't looked into it much yet.
Ill be honest and say a impartial take will probably be more valuable, the DF playerbase is large enough, without throwing in any bias and possibly seeing something that isn't actually there (such as a tile that was made and inspired by the DF premium perhaps at this current time to be compatible at a later date).
Save your energy for steam-workshop, with it being availible to the mass-public without the enclosed enviroment of threads and the scrutinous Bay12 community keeping it in check, i think there will be a lot of "demo'ing" art from far more casual suspects, which in turn will be a uphill battle for visual content creators to make styles that arent stepping on someones toes.
Anyway, i look forward to the next couple of pictures coming out of the steam set to pour over.
Post by: clinodev on November 17, 2021, 07:22:52 am
For your convenience, here is the thread Meph moved the discussion to, where his current comments are focused on getting people to stop attacking Vettlingr. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=161047.msg8329663#msg8329663)
Post by: PatrikLundell on February 11, 2022, 02:47:10 am
If possible, I'd like the dwarf type settlements to differ in color from the "neutral" ones (castle, vault, shrine, tomb, labyrinth, and cave/lair). It would also help to make them more visible against the typical mountain background of dwarven settlements.
The monasteries and towns stand out nicely against the background, for instance.
The Retreat might benefit from some decorations to help them stand out more, although there's always the risk of turning it into Christmas trees...
Post by: Mr Crabman on February 11, 2022, 06:33:35 am
Feedback on the settlement icons presented in the official thread:
If possible, I'd like the dwarf type settlements to differ in color from the "neutral" ones (castle, vault, shrine, tomb, labyrinth, and cave/lair). It would also help to make them more visible against the typical mountain background of dwarven settlements.
The monasteries and towns stand out nicely against the background, for instance.
The Retreat might benefit from some decorations to help them stand out more, although there's always the risk of turning it into Christmas trees...
I feel like the dwarven settlements are plenty distinct enough from the mountain background; in fact, maybe a little too clearly visible (they look almost painted on).
The retreats are also plenty distinct, at least to me; the tone of green makes them pop out a lot from the surrounding forest.
Post by: FantasticDorf on February 11, 2022, 08:35:05 am
The rest of them I can read pretty well at a glance. I assume the textual information for a necromancer tower is just tempoary too to current development roadmap because it'd be quite troublesome rather than just calling it a "Tower" for modding and future DF development neutrality purposes.
Post by: Starver on February 11, 2022, 09:29:13 am
edit: Aha.. http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=179359.0 (and possibly some other new threads).
[1] I'm clearly getting confused over names... Whoever.
Post by: voliol on February 11, 2022, 10:15:40 am
...I feel like we need a new Official Tileset thread, given the change in artists. If there's not one already (I spotted this activity via "New replies...", not board-browsing, I should really check), and/orI second making a new thread, given this one was started by Meph and only the thread author can change its name, it is stuck as containing "Mayday/Meph"... unless I am wrong and those powers are also available to mods, e.g. Toady? In that case he could change it to "Mayday/Ironhand", though I suppose it might still be confusing with Meph being the person at the top of the thread.Patrickedit2: Jacob/Ironhand?[1] be posting in here to say something appropriate.
edit: Aha.. http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=179359.0 (and possibly some other new threads).
[1] I'm clearly getting confused over names... Whoever.
Post by: Meph on February 11, 2022, 09:30:26 pm
Post by: PatrikLundell on February 12, 2022, 04:49:07 am
Post by: voliol on February 12, 2022, 05:03:21 am
Better? ^^
...I feel stupid for not considering that. Thanks! :)
Post by: Starver on February 12, 2022, 09:44:06 am
Partly because I was unsure what you'd want to do about it (if you wanted to, if you thought you even could/should). Which was a whole set of presumptions of my part.
(That other thread I linked indicated possibly less immediate interaction by Ironhand, who I really only knew as "one of the names" before the changeover, being more a passive spectator of graphics-packs than an avid adherent of them, so I really don't know how relatively responsive it'll be until I start seeing activity along those lines in threads like this that I'm already 'watching'. In other words, I don't really know enough to comment, but that's never stopped me before!)
Post by: jecowa on December 27, 2022, 01:54:21 am
I've been looking through the ramp tiles. I'm not sure if these two look right:
Quote
[TILE_GRAPHICS:GRASS_RAMPS:1:11:GRASS_RAMP_WITH_WALL_NW_SE]
[TILE_GRAPHICS:GRASS_RAMPS:3:11:GRASS_RAMP_WITH_WALL_NE_SW]
You can see one of them in positions 1:1 and 2:2 in this mockup:
(https://i.imgur.com/qVj43Gb.png)
I think it's odd that they have 2 diagonal "lines" in them instead of only 1 diagonal "line" like in the adjacent tiles located in positions 2:1 and 1:2 in the mockup. I'm having a hard time visualizing how it would look in 3D.
Maybe it could look a little more like this?:
(https://i.imgur.com/1WX6qoK.png)
Post by: Starver on December 27, 2022, 04:39:04 am
Though I see where you're going, your 'correct' example makes tiles 0:2/2:0 and 1:3/3:1 into partially-flat upper-Zs, where they were wholly-flat in the original, and some other rather more advanced changes to tile profile (not the least the traditionally ∆-slope tiles of 1:2 and 2:1 gaining a flat upper-shelf diagonal to match its non-orthogonal neighbours) that relies on far more look-around knowledge to invoke than ...from what I've seen of this process... anything Tarn has actually managed to encode in the rendering system.
The cross-diagonals of the 1:1 and 2:2 pieces (lower-Z 'flat' groove \-wise and two upwards-shoulders splaying out /-wise, yes? ...plus the internal/inverted shoulders of the 1:2 and 2:1's /-wise axis) seem necessary to maintain correctness of corner-and-edge matching against the reality of each (especially non-ramped) neighbour, whilst also maintaining visibly consistent liquid-flow possibilities through the low-cut grooves by not forcing the tile-centre up too far from the base-Z level (in 1:2 and 2:1, the common corner sits at low-Z, in the original, each centre is at Z-and-a-half on the way up to the upper level, but has no necessary part to play in low-level (3/7ths or less) liquid flows).
Given the constraints and rare edge-conditions of trying to render low, high and ramp-connecting tiles (maintaining the essentially profile-agnostic ramp system of pre-Steam convention), it's as good a kludge as I think you might expect.
All this reply being contingent upon my correctly comprehending the photoclinometry of the shaded relief. I don't think we're looking at a knife-edge \-wise ridge between top-left and bottom-right, at this isolated glance, but I cannot yetvrule it completely out in my mind, without the necessary cues taken from larger expanses of gameplay/mockup imagery. ;)
Post by: Mike Mayday on December 27, 2022, 06:11:00 am
I was also looking for methods that would require as little coding from Toady as possible. Everytime we added something, two new opportunities to make things more accurate arose, that would require extra art and coding. All in all, the ramp system is a bit janky, but IMO good enough. With everything, there was a point where we had to call it a day and move to other stuff. Maybe later?
At this point, if I were to request improvements to the ramp shading system, I'd probably focus more on the occlusion shading of edges between z levels, e.g. when there are two ramps forming a single surface. This would allow for nice rounded slope corners. But I've seen someone make that mod already and it looks better than I thought it would.
Post by: Starver on December 27, 2022, 09:38:35 am
(Is that more simple a description? Is it even accurate? It'll have to do for now.)
When we were still all pondering this, originally, I had played with the possibility of octants[3] and some 'bleed' effects into adjacent flat-ground edges (or even an octothorn/twisted octothorn subregioning) for more fine-grained level-matching, but I think the quadrant version works well enough. It just needs 45° diagonals (and the tile-edge horizontals and verticals), rather than messing with an expanding multitude of 22.5° slope-meets-slope variations, etc.
(Whoops, between that paragraph and the various feetnete, below, I've definitely gone complicated again. But I think it is a complicated subject, and no avoiding that. Definitely when discussing how it could be even less trivial than it currently is ... Not that there's any single good answer to it, but I think what we see is as good as we need.)
[1] We saw with streams, though, that the texture-style for flat ground upon the immediate bank was used to add a 'hang-over' of matching texture-style, rendered above the water's edge tile, e.g. grass stems hanging over, to break up the hard edge. I presume this still exists.
[2] Not sure how the example of ramps would be so touching two adjacent tiles, one low-Z and one high-Z. I suspect it'll be the ramps that would be there if the low-Z were also a ramp... If nothing else, to not have a cascade of earth-reshaping, beyond the single tile you might purposefully enramp/deramp. But I'd have to try this out with Steam version to confirm my prediction.
[3] Either divided with orthagonals and diagonals (N-S, NE-SW, etc) or the panels orientated that way with the dividers at the mid-angles (NNE-SSW, ENE-WSW, etc)
edited to resolve inadvertent bbcode invocation
Post by: Claije on December 27, 2022, 10:04:41 pm
Metal Bars, Tables, and Trousers are all material colored, but cheese for example is not and has a base yellow sprite for all cheese.
If I recolor that cheese to the DEFAULT_TEMPLATE color, it doesn't recolor to material colors defined in the cheese.
I haven't located anywhere that implicates images to use palettes, but I've seen comments in the files that say different images are palette colored. Is this all hardcoded?
Post by: Schmaven on December 31, 2022, 01:30:16 pm
Post by: darkhog on January 06, 2023, 06:54:13 pm
Post by: jecowa on January 28, 2023, 01:20:40 am
Spoiler: Current open space (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Edited open space with shading (click to show/hide)