[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Variable tileset size
On 01.03.2005 22:21, Matthias Grimm wrote:
> 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.
Really? Off the top of my head, it's wrong for 64x56 where it should
be 2x9=18 when scaling, but is 17 using your formula. But it's true
that mine only works for multiples of 32 (the minimum?), not for
> > 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.
Maybe we should require 32x28 and allow only multiples of that. That
way we can make sure there are no gaps.