This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: Terrain images proposal
mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
you seem to be suggesting that a source map image name be associated
with each hex (cell). Is there a need to have multiple source map
images? Or, can we get by with a GDL global that indicates a single
source image, and thus not have to associate it on a per hex (cell) basis?
My thinking was that someone might want to have a map which is mostly
generated from tiles in the normal way, but with a few small (in relation
to the map size) images pasted in in places where the tiling doesn't look
good enough. In such a case they might want to use two different source
images, although anything that could be done that way could also be done
by putting the data into one image and looking at different parts of
it. Part of my thinking was that it would be nice to not have to edit or
specially generate an image - if we could just use GDL to direct XConq on
how to cut chunks out of one or more existing images, then we have one
less tool to write or manual processing/editing step to do in defining a
game.
The idea is interesting. The only problem is that Xconq has 4 different
GUI's that "need" to be maintained. Supposing that you actually figured
out a good way to implement your above suggestion, you would most likely
end up writing the code 4 different times. (The "5th GUI", the curses
interface, shouldn't cause too many problems, I think. :-)
Another issue is "z-ordering". You would probably have to provide some
mechanism so that the order in which redraws were stacked could be
determined (not only can regular hexes and embedded images overlap with
one another, but multiple embedded images can overlap with one another
as well).
One concern I have about using a layer to specify x,y coordinates is that
then the data to go into the layer probably can't be manually generated,
so it means adding another tool to choose the x,y coordinates and put them
in that layer for XConq to read.
Right. I think that with the present set of problems we are facing,
there is no good solution that will come cheaply. Either we will end up
developing external tools or we will end up doing some (potentially
heavy?) hacking of Xconq.
If we could instead specify "start at
these coordinates, fill these many cells up and these many cells over, use
this step size" then it becomes something that we can manually specify,
at the cost of only slight complexity in the XConq code that reads that
specification.
I think the more serious issues will occur in the display aspect of
things and not the reading aspect.
Maybe we could use a layer and also add a "by-grid" or similar layer
sub-form to automatically generate the coordinates. That might address my
concern while still using an existing data structure.
Yes, possibly.
Well, either you cover the entire map with your image, or else you already
face, anyway, the issue that your image has to match up along its edges
with the tiled terrain that it's going next to. If we allow some cells to
have image-overrides and other cells to not have them, then I think we're
going to get that issue in any case.
True.
Eric