[CF-Devel] Fw: [Crossfire-cvs] CVS commit: arch/ground

[crossfire-devel-admin at archives.real-time.com]

>
     
        Here is how I envisioned doing such a system.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      first, all the logic would be on the client - no server changes at all.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      The client would see the type of terrains the come in.  This is simply
     
     done by
>
     
      looking at the image names (it does mean that cache mode has to be used,
     
     but
>
     
      that isn't a very big deal).
     
     
I would think it should flagged in the arch instead of having the client
look for an image that triggers the client to lay out the the border
transitions, no?  I  think a setting like the one tchize put in (but how
about somehting more concrete like 'transition_tiling' 1 or 0 rather than
smoothing...) would be a good way to do it.  This would let the map makers
turn it of on a tile as well if desired (you want to make a nice garden or a
lawn...).  Also if it is looking for an arch, if the graphic file name
changes in the future the client won't break the transitions.

 If an arch is made with transition tiling it would be assumed that the
necessary tile(s) have been also committed.  I think that there is a way to
do this without too many tiles (big debate on CNN about this - check out
     
     http://abraxis.sytes.net/games/transition_example
     
       for one possible method
of cutting down on tiles) it would be more flexable if the client could grab
new transitions just like other graphics...

This would be a little server change, (but not a big one?)- most of this
should still be done in the client with the option to turn it off.

I do wonder about how to weight the arches -  Transition_tiling could use
like 0-7  perhaps for seven possible landscape levels (need more? 0-16?) and
an off setting.  You could maybe even use the higher numbers for weather
effects tiles... so they dont use up precious layers either (the way it's
done now is not the best - not that there was an other option).  That would
be the best way however since the client wouldn't need any changes to
incorporate new landscape tiling information.  Unfortunatly I presume
sending tile level information would require a change to the protocol and
would not be backwards compatible with older clients.  Otherwise any
additions to the land would require the landscape ordering table stored in
the client to be updated.  I don't think that's so bad either really - it
won't be happing every day...







_______________________________________________
crossfire-devel mailing list
     
     crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com
     
     
     https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel