Re: Variable tileset size

[Matthias Grimm <matthias.grimm@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:25:38 +0000
Jens Granseuer <jensgr@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > Looks more like width / 4 + 1... :-P
> > 
> > Ooops. Thats right.
> 
> No, looks better, but is still wrong. It should really be
> 9 * (width / 32) for the current outline. But I'm thinking about
> defining
> that in the set as well, so the engine could theoretically support
> different shapes (still have to be hexagons, though).

I created three hexagon masks before I know about the shift value and
the formula and 'width / 4 + 1' match all of them. Your new formula will
only match your default tileset but none of my bigger masks. I might be
really the best to define this value in the tileset.
 
> Might be the best solution indeed, although I think I'd prefer
> on-the-fly
> scaling for unavailable sizes to not bloat the sets.

Agreed. This would also allow smooth zooming not only in two or three
steps. But how would you handle the mask? If you scale the mask as well
the risk to get gaps between tiles increases rapidly.

  Best Regards
    Matthias