Interior transitions - coming along

scott · Post by **scott** » November 5th, 2005, 5:38 pm

yobbo wrote:I think to change the placement of the walls (so they obscure objects properly, etc.) you need to modify the two numbers in the TERRAIN_ADJACENT_CORNER macro in terain-graphics.cfg; i.e. the numbers 52,76 and 56,68 in the lines:
Code: Select all
{TERRAIN_ADJACENT_CORNER       W      !WoK   !WoK    52,76 cavewall-convex}
{TERRAIN_ADJACENT_CORNER       !WoK   W      W       56,68 cavewall-concave}
maybe .

So what do you change these numbers to?

Here are the tiles. I just saved them straight out of the xcf. Was I supposed to move them around?

Post by **yobbo** » November 6th, 2005, 11:46 am

Hmm, sorry for my lacking explanations.

Yep, you need to move the tiles around. In fact I just made a gimp-python plugin to do it... I'll make another thread for it. Here are the wall tiles I made (cut up nicely for Wesnoth) - but they weren't very good. I just intended to demonstrate how to do the southern corner piece

.

I'm not really sure what to change those numbers to, I just know they have something to do with the order things are drawn in...

scott · Post by **scott** » November 6th, 2005, 6:09 pm

Ok, we're almost in business. Thanks, yobbo. They worked great.

I'm trying to give them their own letter, z in this case. I am using the following lines. The road transition is appearing on top of the base tile. I wonder if the road TERRAIN_BASE macro has to appear after the interior wall TERRAIN_BASE macro.

I have copied every macro using cavewall in any way and changed the letter and filename to no avail. DISABLE_TRANSITIONS doesn't seem to have an effect either but I kept it for good measure.

The numbers specify an order of precedence (as well as a base position), but when the number-based ordering mixes with the layer-based ordering (which the road is), all number-based terrain is supposed to be on top of all negative-layer terrain (road is layer -200).

Code: Select all

{TERRAIN_BASE z interior}	# the filename of the terrain
{DISABLE_TRANSITIONS z}
{TERRAIN_ADJACENT_CORNER		z		!z		!z		52,76 interior-convex}
{TERRAIN_ADJACENT_CORNER		!z		z		z		56,68 interior-concave}

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » November 6th, 2005, 7:35 pm

Tables should act like Mountains.

scott · Post by **scott** » November 6th, 2005, 7:59 pm

Hey, that would be awesome. Give a huge unit height change for climbing on the furniture (that's the terrain name). I'll try it out.

Edit: Mixed results. I use halos for large furniture so the unit appears behind the halo. Ho-hum. He can't get up on the bar because he shows up behind it.

-> What i might be working on · Post by **Eleazar** » November 9th, 2005, 12:50 am

Looking at this image made me realize how the perspective on the cave walls didn't match the perspective of all our good new stuff. The cave wall should be more like the one on the right. And if i only show the "front" side i can make it taller too.

So the question is: will the cave wall partially overlap units that stand behind it? Should it?

Post by **irrevenant** » November 9th, 2005, 8:12 am

Eleazar wrote:Looking at this image made me realize how the perspective on the cave walls didn't match the perspective of all our good new stuff.

That's what I tried to tell you when you first posted it; it looks flat/short compared to everything else.

The revised version looks good.

Post by **freim** » November 9th, 2005, 10:19 am

Eleazar wrote:Looking at this image made me realize how the perspective on the cave walls didn't match the perspective of all our good new stuff. The cave wall should be more like the one on the right. And if i only show the "front" side i can make it taller too.

So the question is: will the cave wall partially overlap units that stand behind it? Should it?

Hmm, yes. The perspective corrected one looks better. A partial overlap sounds good to me, but not to much.

Some time ago I came to the conclusion I have to do the same correction to my multihex mountains.

Post by **Jetrel** » November 9th, 2005, 10:21 am

Eleazar wrote:Looking at this image made me realize how the perspective on the cave walls didn't match the perspective of all our good new stuff. The cave wall should be more like the one on the right. And if i only show the "front" side i can make it taller too.

Thumbs up on the change.

Eleazar wrote:So the question is: will the cave wall partially overlap units that stand behind it?

I think so, though I'm not especially knowledgeable on the mechanics of these things - Ayin could give a definitive answer.

Eleazar wrote:Should it?

Yes, it certainly should (if it is tall enough). Overlapping only the feet or so is fine, and adds a sense of depth.

hands · Post by **hands** » November 9th, 2005, 9:22 pm

Eleazar wrote:So the question is: will the cave wall partially overlap units that stand behind it? Should it?

A wall should reach the upper edge of the interior space. The newer version seems to portray that much better, and there shouldn't be a problem with a little overlap since the wall should realistically be taller than any units next to it. I would actually be curious to see a fading wall top for near edges of cave walls similar to what you've done with canyons, but that might be a bit of overkill.