Print

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

[Footkerchief]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the octagons just a particular "tileset" for use in an isometric rendering scheme?  That is, once we have isometric support, people can use the octagon sprites or the usual cubes or whatever.

The only place where the octagons look really ugly is the door sprite.  It would be much better if the door's orientation (N/S vs. E/W) were taken into account during rendering, either selecting a different tile or horizontally flipping the tile.  That way you could still have a door that actually looks like a door.

But yeah, isometric, with a toggle to only render up to the selected level like in Lifevis, looks the most promising to me.

[Raz]

I, for one, wouldn't like the constant toggle check for hidden items. Nor would I like rotating the view, because it gets really disorienting. These two combined would make for even more OCD driven play, constantly lowering walls and rotating view to make absolutely sure there's nothing there.

[Footkerchief]

I, for one, wouldn't like the constant toggle check for hidden items. Nor would I like rotating the view, because it gets really disorienting. These two combined would make for even more OCD driven play, constantly lowering walls and rotating view to make absolutely sure there's nothing there.

Have you used the toggle in Lifevis?  Generally, you'll leave it on all the time while playing -- that is, you'll be able to see inside the current Z-level just like now, with the benefit of being able to see the exterior of lower levels thanks to isometric -- and toggle it off for the rare occasions that you want a full exterior view.

[Jadael]

The only place where the octagons look really ugly is the door sprite.  It would be much better if the door's orientation (N/S vs. E/W) were taken into account during rendering, either selecting a different tile or horizontally flipping the tile.  That way you could still have a door that actually looks like a door.

Make orientated isometric doors work with this:

Code: [Select]

░░░░░░░
░B.░.B░
░.+░+.░
░░░X░░░
░.+░+.░
░B.░.B░
░░░░░░░
Or this:

Code: [Select]

░░░░░░░░░░░░
░B..░..░..B░
░░░░+..+░░░░
░B..░..░..B░
░░░░░..░░░░░
Those're just what I can think of of the top of my head. There are similar problems with other things besides doors.

[Footkerchief]

The game shouldn't even let you build a door in that situation.  There's a reason it's hard to render -- it doesn't make any sense.

[Jadael]

Makes perfect sense to me, because of how it handles diagonal movement. You're making arguments based on how your own personal idealized version of the game works. Which is cool- This is a suggestions forum, but it's worth taking into consideration things that have a low impact on gameplay, when you're talking about graphics.

[Andir]

Makes perfect sense to me, because of how it handles diagonal movement.

Just make all doors in the octagonal tiles rotating doors

[Footkerchief]

Makes perfect sense to me, because of how it handles diagonal movement. You're making arguments based on how your own personal idealized version of the game works. Which is cool- This is a suggestions forum, but it's worth taking into consideration things that have a low impact on gameplay, when you're talking about graphics.

Hmm.  I didn't think the game would even let you build a door in a corner like that, but apparently it just needs one adjacent wall.  It's hard to say whether those doors were meant to be allowed or not, but you're right, it would have an impact on gameplay.

I can't say I consider the octogon doors a better solution, though -- I mean, what, an octagonal solid with a picture of a door on each face?  What is that even meant to represent?

I guess the ideal would be to handle doors like walls -- i.e. pick a different graphic depending on the adjacent walls.  So you could have your "normal" door tile for N/S and E/W doors, and sprite creators could dream up whatever a door should look like when it's in a corner.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Agree with chief, diagonal shared doors are ridicules, I never use them in my own forts.  A door should require empty space on the two spaces 90 degrees from the side that satisfies its wall requirement.

[tsen]

Maybe we can convince Toady to do the next version of DF in hexes rather than squares?

[Andir]

Agree with chief, diagonal shared doors are ridicules, I never use them in my own forts.  A door should require empty space on the two spaces 90 degrees from the side that satisfies its wall requirement.

It's perfectly legal, and allowed seeing that dwarfs can move diagonally.  If you wanted to break the "corner door" as a valid placement, you'd also want to remove the ability for diagonal travel.  The octagon solves every problem facing tiles in this game, but it doesn't fit nicely when you tile it like squares or hexes.  In DF, every tile is like a small octagon and every creature is somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 of a tile wide, that's the naked truth of it.

[Jiri Petru]

Hey guys, have you thought about diagonall walls? I drew a simple picture, sorry about the lack of drawing skills. Explanation follows.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

On the left is how it would appear in the game, on the right are tiles how the pathfinding would see them.

Now obviously the game would need some changes to allow this. First of all, walls would need to be placed in a "click and drag" fashion, not in the "click, click, click" one. Clicking and draging allows you to specify which diagonals are passable and which impassable. I don't know how to explain it better - If you've played The Sims, you know what I'm talking about.

An alternative to clicking and draging would be placing already orientated walls, like placing rails in Transport Tycoon (can't find a screenshot of the rail placing interface, though).

The other significant change is doors. Right now, you have to place doors on an empty square. For my suggestion to work, you would have to build a wall first and then to place the door on the square with the wall. It would orientate itself as needed.
EDIT: I've just realised that placing walls first would sometimes prevent dwarves from fetching the door from the stockpile  Ok then... place a door on an empty square and then draw a wall through them, at which point they would align as needed.
EDIT2: Better yet, allow both.


EDIT3: Also, if we had support diagonal walls (and hills, and caves, etc...), we wouldn't need to change the grid projection. Even with the standard vertical-horizontal grid, you could build diagonal walls and the nature could generate in diagonal directions, thus allowing for better depth display, while not messing up with the numpad controls.

It is basically octagons on squares.

[Random832]

Code: [Select]

░░░░░░░
░B.░.B░
░.+░+.░
░░░X░░░
░.+░+.░
░B.░.B░
░░░░░░░
Draw the door at a 45-degree angle to the walls (i.e. vertical or horizontal in the isometric view) just like some tilesets would do for a wall in that position.

Code: [Select]

░░░░░░░░░░░░
░B..░..░..B░
░░░░+..+░░░░
░B..░..░..B░
░░░░░..░░░░░
Revolving door. This could be a standard fallback for when it can't figure out how to make a door make sense.

[Jiri Petru]

You've said there'd be problems with ramps in any (?) projection. As a reference, take a look at Transport Tycoon and the way it handles ramps.

[Random832]

You've said there'd be problems with ramps in any (?) projection. As a reference, take a look at Transport Tycoon and the way it handles ramps.

That's a limited set of easy ramps. (it looks like it handles some cases similarly to the way Simcity 2000 does, with the extra of supporting a smooth full-tile slope on a diagonal) I wasn't kidding when I said there are dozens of distinct ramp types that have to be considered even without rotation. This doesn't even consider, for example,
what

Code: [Select]

###
#^#
... should look like.