[CF-Devel] smoothing code.

Fri Jul 4 16:30:43 CDT 2003

Todd wrote:
>

      Is this the transitional graphic set we are going for?  This is more 

     >

      akin to the shaggy tile.  This appears to be the inverse of single tile 

     >

      smoothing (if your reading this and don't know what I'm talking about 

     >

      you can research in the archives...) than the full transitions proposed 

     >

      by Mark and Tim based on the legendary document.  I thought we had 

     >

      decided to go with the larger number of transitions for greater visual 

     >

      appeal.  I ask because I am working on some smoothing graphics and don't 

     >

      want to redo them.

     >

      The reason I ask is because these seem to have the same issues as the 

     >

      'shaggy tile' scenerio.

  I agree.  A URL tchize sent me on some examples is 

     http://users.skynet.be/am248983/smooth/index.html.

  To me, the only one that would need improvement is the corners (L shaped 
pieces).  Look at:

     http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article934.asp

  What is missing is the U (tile around 3 sides) and L (tiles along to adjacent 
edges).  Its unclear to me right now how those are handled with the current 
tiles - my only guess is that they are layered on top, but that certainly isn't 
as good as a properly drawn L or U (ore so because in the L and U, you probably 
want to curve in the corner more than for just a simple side).

>

     >

      Also I really want to get the layering sorted out.  I understood it that 

     >

      water was to be lowest level then we would work up such as :

     >

      water -> sand (and desert), marsh, and cobbles (roads) -> grass and 

     >

      swamp -> trees (different types of forest) and hills ->mountain

     >

     >

      Where more tiles could be added to the appropriate 'layer' as they come 

     >

      on line.

  I think as tchize did it, there is a single byte for what layer something is 
on.  This is probably overkill, but does make things easy - if you space things 
out (water = 0, grass = 10, tree = 20, hills = 30, mountain = 40 for example), 
that leaves a lot of space if you get into a case of 'I need to make a layer 
between hill and trees'.  Put that in at 25, and you're all set, and still have 
room in case something needs to be put between your new object and the hill.

>

     >

      This method would allow for the eventual retirement of the river and 

     >

      lake arches, which are a royal pain, with appropriate water arches.

  River I think will always be tricky - if you want to run a diagonal river, I'm 
not sure you could ever really do it without special archs.  I think putting a 
line of single space water arch's diagonally would result in a bunch of small 
lakes/ponds.  And if you something like:

RR
  RR
   RR
    RR

I think with the blending you'd get a river that seems to snake a lot, simply 
because there isn't a straigh diagonal that would get used for blending - even 
if real L shapes are done, that still curves.

>

     >

      Also is there any consideration being given to extending this (leaving 

     >

      the door open anyway?) to do stuff like health/magic auras over top of 

     >

      objects and players or special effects or weather animations?

  It's just a simple matter of extending the protocol/making a new map command. 
  This isn't really hard.  It is very difficult to predict what information may 
need to be sent.  Adding on/making new map commands isn't a big deal - the old 
one still exists in the server, so old clients work.  New clients just ask to 
use the new command with better features.

_______________________________________________
crossfire-devel mailing list

     crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com

     https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel