Only the GUARD and ROYALGUARD tags are generating errors now.
Do you think I should remove them for now?
Fortress and Royal Guards are hard-coded right? So if it's a matter of them being renamed we'll have to wait for someone to find the new name (the DFHack guy is working on a new release which might help) but if it's something else like they are now just a normal squad under command of the Captain of the Guard and Hammerer: not separate professions but a renamed soldier, then maybe you won't be able to give them a unique tile.
For now you could just comment them out by replacing the [square_brackets] with something else, {curly_braces} or _underscores_ etc. the game will ignore them but they're still there if you need to edit them back in.
[POSITION:CAPTAIN_OF_THE_GUARD]
[NAME:captain of the guard:captains of the guard]
[SITE]
[NUMBER:1]
[RESPONSIBILITY:LAW_ENFORCEMENT]
[SQUAD:10:fortress guard:fortress guards]
...
[POSITION:HAMMERER]
[NAME:hammerer:hammerers]
[SITE]
[NUMBER:1]
[RESPONSIBILITY:EXECUTIONS]
[RESPONSIBILITY:ESCORT_TAX_COLLECTOR]
[APPOINTED_BY:DUKE]
[APPOINTED_BY:COUNT]
[APPOINTED_BY:BARON]
[SQUAD:10:royal guard:royal guards]
-----
Also I can't believe I haven't commented on your actual tileset yet! Thank Toady for allowing different mods in different saves.
So the tileset, it's pretty good, there's a bunch of great tiles I recognise that seem to crop up in a lot of graphic tilesets and I kinda like the RR style system for telling gem/mineral values apart.
There are a few tiles I'm not so keen on such as the vermin tile that looks like a rock (“Did that rock just move?”). And while the walls are nice that moss effect seems out of place in a tile set where there's only one variation per tile; DF just isn't ready for such flourishes.
And, though it's more a personal preference than a criticism, I see you've tried to combine floor tiles and punctuation but it looks off for both to me. I prefer one or the other as they don't combine very well and I've yet to see a tileset that can pull it off.
The font is a bit more angular than I usually like (especially the "O") but it is clear and easy to read.
Sorry it that seemed overly critical but it mostly comes down to personal tastes so don't take it to heart or anything. Anyway, you've got a few tiles left unused; so fill 'em up already! The less objects need to share a tile the better. The graphics are great, but you already knew that, it just needs all the new beasties now.
Your criticism is very welcome.
My philosophy is pragmatism & symbolism first, aestheticism second.
I agree with your opinion that the less objects need to share a tile the better.
But for me those objects are important information that needs to be conveyed to the player.
A bat, a butterfly, a blue jay and a dragonfly are all visually distinctive, but to the player they are all just flying decoration/nuisances. Giving them distinct tiles is pure aestheticism and a waste of precious, precious tiles.
The reason I have tiles left 'blank' is to be able to add new way to convey important information without needing to damage existing symbols.
But some uses of the tileset are hardcoded. For example, the gradient tiles are used for: Swarms of Vermin, Smoke, Mist, Partially Dug Rocks, gradient on the minimap, etc. Right now the only way to fix that problem is to make everything else look so equally out of place that this issue doesn't stand out. (Unless you meant something else by 'vermin that looks like a rock'?)
On the other side of the coin, DF2010 has new creatures, and I'm not privy to the list of added creatures. The other day I saw a 'Sea Lamprey' (a huge long leech), my creature pack did not have an icon for that creature, and the tile it defaulted to was misrepresenting (and still is) it's true nature.
I'd really like that list of new creature so I can fix those visual glitches.
--------------------
About the moss on the 'north wall', I'll try to remove them for an important release to see and get feedback on the variation. I agree with you that it's dangerously superfluous flourish.
About floor tiles, my alpha transparency tileset is using the no-variation init tag and has the period has a featureless ground pattern. These tiles are an experiment, that you for your feedback and your insight.
About the font, my alpha transparency uses a modified version of the Bisasam_16x16 tileset (I've reduced the width of lowercase letters). The font is almost pure angular. The O comes from that font. It's a love hate affair, I've tried to use Phssthpok's font, but I found it to be too small; I only kept using the numbers from that font (Bisasam's numbers are terrible.)
When I converted to BMP I grabbed the first good looking magenta transparency font I could find. Switching to a different font would be very easy.
Thanks for the infos and advise about the guards.
Poll
37 (75.5%)
Author
Topic: Phoebus' Graphic Set v1.7.3.1 for DF v0.31.03 (Old version) (Read 195714 times)