mesilliac's terrain graphics thread
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Forum rules
Before posting critique in this forum, you must read the following thread:
Before posting critique in this forum, you must read the following thread:
Re: mesilliac's terrain graphics thread
@Sangel: yeah, that bleeding of the base terrain over the north edge of the cliff is the main problem now. The easiest thing to do will probably just be to redraw the north-facing cliffs to hide it as much as possible. Like JAP suggested, the base will probably be a new tile with some rocks to mask it a bit... but at the angle we're looking down at the north-facing cliff, you wouldn't see fallen rocks at the bottom of the cliff, so again it's not really an ideal solution.
Basically the cliff graphics need to take up more tile-space, without looking absurd.
@JAP: thanks for the useful cliff references . The one that's closest to my image for how I'd like them to turn out is http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/d30-25/col ... -cliff.jpg . I have some good memories of rafting on the colorado river!
@Jetryl: yum, cookies
Re: giant spiders climbing cliffs.... this would be cool but it's probably not worth the effort it would take to do. It's very easy to make the cliffs copy the characteristics of other terrains. As AI says, they will probably just act like a line of lava or chasm in terms of gameplay.
Basically the cliff graphics need to take up more tile-space, without looking absurd.
@JAP: thanks for the useful cliff references . The one that's closest to my image for how I'd like them to turn out is http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/d30-25/col ... -cliff.jpg . I have some good memories of rafting on the colorado river!
@Jetryl: yum, cookies
Re: giant spiders climbing cliffs.... this would be cool but it's probably not worth the effort it would take to do. It's very easy to make the cliffs copy the characteristics of other terrains. As AI says, they will probably just act like a line of lava or chasm in terms of gameplay.
Re: mesilliac's terrain graphics thread
Easiest way would probably be to move the away-facing tiles a bit up so they cover the bleeding terrain. Though it might then be difficult to distinguish the cliff from a base tile if there is a lot of base terrain showing on the bottom of the hex.mesilliac wrote:@Sangel: yeah, that bleeding of the base terrain over the north edge of the cliff is the main problem now. The easiest thing to do will probably just be to redraw the north-facing cliffs to hide it as much as possible. Like JAP suggested, the base will probably be a new tile with some rocks to mask it a bit... but at the angle we're looking down at the north-facing cliff, you wouldn't see fallen rocks at the bottom of the cliff, so again it's not really an ideal solution.
Basically the cliff graphics need to take up more tile-space, without looking absurd.
Can you commit the cliff changes? Or post them here? I'd really like to play with the graphics.
Aurë entuluva!
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: July 26th, 2007, 10:44 am
Re: mesilliac's terrain graphics thread
I don't think that having cliffs as an alias of chasm would be a good idea, as then they become somewhat pointless due to the limitations of the chasm.
However, I am imagining implementing them in a way which would (probably) be horribly complicated. (and they would be a new terrain type)
I was kind of imagining that a cliff-ground transition hex would be made (a cliff piece where part of it has crumbled in the middle?) which would allow units to switch between the level below and the top of the cliff.
I think that units on top of cliffs should be able to see past them (in games with fog etc) while units below cliffs should not, unless they can fly. (this implies that movement can go down cliffs and not up which sounds horrendous- especially since I don't think that units should be able to move down or up them at all (unless they can fly))
I think that ranged attacks should be able to go up and down cliffs but not melee attacks (although due to HAPMA then you could argue that a unit on top or beneath could stay out of range or out of sight).
I think that attacks from one cliff to another (ie both units are on top of cliffs) should behave as normally on the terrain type which the top of the hill shows.
I hope I haven't completely discouraged you.
Mithridates
PS I don't think that I could help with implementing until the summer at the earliest-assuming I can comprehend the WML
However, I am imagining implementing them in a way which would (probably) be horribly complicated. (and they would be a new terrain type)
I was kind of imagining that a cliff-ground transition hex would be made (a cliff piece where part of it has crumbled in the middle?) which would allow units to switch between the level below and the top of the cliff.
I think that units on top of cliffs should be able to see past them (in games with fog etc) while units below cliffs should not, unless they can fly. (this implies that movement can go down cliffs and not up which sounds horrendous- especially since I don't think that units should be able to move down or up them at all (unless they can fly))
I think that ranged attacks should be able to go up and down cliffs but not melee attacks (although due to HAPMA then you could argue that a unit on top or beneath could stay out of range or out of sight).
I think that attacks from one cliff to another (ie both units are on top of cliffs) should behave as normally on the terrain type which the top of the hill shows.
I hope I haven't completely discouraged you.
Mithridates
PS I don't think that I could help with implementing until the summer at the earliest-assuming I can comprehend the WML
Re: mesilliac's terrain graphics thread
Here's the current WML and graphics. It's not in a state to be committed to svn yet, but it's easy to work with.
"thinwalls.cfg" has the macro the cliffs use. And the macro is deceptivly named "path"
I left the old never-get-on-top-of cliff in there. @Mithridates: in their current incarnation, these cliffs don't technically have a top, or a bottom. It's all smoke & mirrors!
I hadn't thought about sight though. It would make more sense for units to be able to see from the "top" of cliffs. Still, IMO implementing this would be more effort than it's worth.
"thinwalls.cfg" has the macro the cliffs use. And the macro is deceptivly named "path"
I left the old never-get-on-top-of cliff in there. @Mithridates: in their current incarnation, these cliffs don't technically have a top, or a bottom. It's all smoke & mirrors!
I hadn't thought about sight though. It would make more sense for units to be able to see from the "top" of cliffs. Still, IMO implementing this would be more effort than it's worth.
Re: mesilliac's terrain graphics thread
Most of what you suggest is not really possible without changing the way wesnoth works, but that part:
@mesilliac:
Thanks.
is a good idea (would be aliased to mountain).Mithridates wrote: I was kind of imagining that a cliff-ground transition hex would be made (a cliff piece where part of it has crumbled in the middle?) which would allow units to switch between the level below and the top of the cliff.
@mesilliac:
Thanks.
Aurë entuluva!
Re: mesilliac's terrain graphics thread
Lemme take a look at these, I will implement them in my campaign. Which editor group do these belong to?mesilliac wrote:Here's the current WML and graphics. It's not in a state to be committed to svn yet, but it's easy to work with.
"thinwalls.cfg" has the macro the cliffs use. And the macro is deceptivly named "path"
I left the old never-get-on-top-of cliff in there. @Mithridates: in their current incarnation, these cliffs don't technically have a top, or a bottom. It's all smoke & mirrors!
I hadn't thought about sight though. It would make more sense for units to be able to see from the "top" of cliffs. Still, IMO implementing this would be more effort than it's worth.
Re: mesilliac's terrain graphics thread
It might be a little past this in the forum, but why don't you make walls (house walls), take up a whole hex, make their movement cost 99? Then you can add wooden floor to make houses! (RPG heaven )
You should see my staff!
Re: mesilliac's terrain graphics thread
On a related note, whatever happened to the water/chasm and deep water/chasm transitions someone was working on?
Re: ~
You mean like... waterfalls? does anyone have a link?Espreon wrote:Yes! The fact that it has not been mainlined yet is driving me crazy!Neoskel wrote:On a related note, whatever happened to the water/chasm and deep water/chasm transitions someone was working on?
Indeed... I am working on walls... which will eventually act like thisEbob wrote:It might be a little past this in the forum, but why don't you make walls (house walls), take up a whole hex, make their movement cost 99? Then you can add wooden floor to make houses! (RPG heaven )
In fact I just used the wall WML that I already had for the walls to draw these cliffs... basically all the walls in page 1 need is a suitable texture and they would probably be perfect for small RPG houses . They make nice corners and can join in T's and X's.
The current stone walls look a little "fat" if you use them this way (but it's not what they were designed for anyway).
Arr, I started too many projects at once.
Re: ~
Try here: http://forum.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=18010.mesilliac wrote:You mean like... waterfalls? does anyone have a link?Espreon wrote: Yes! The fact that it has not been mainlined yet is driving me crazy!
If those transitions were ported to your cliffs, we could really have proper waterfalls. Since it'd be potentially annoying to have to draw graphics for water pouring over the edge both when there's water on the other side (like with a waterfall) and when there isn't, it would probably be ok to simply limit it to only working with the former case.
Re: mesilliac's terrain graphics thread
So I think I worked out the transitions for interior floor terrains.
They do take up a lot of space around the tiles, it is true. But, it allows me to make a thin wall variant (like in the shot here), and have the floor come right up to them. Also a "door" should be fairly easy to do.
Thus, this is the pretty-much-final floor template and .cfg: The screenshot isn't so impressive, but here it is anyway. The official Wesnoth "graph paper" terrain!
(yes these are the template images)
They do take up a lot of space around the tiles, it is true. But, it allows me to make a thin wall variant (like in the shot here), and have the floor come right up to them. Also a "door" should be fairly easy to do.
Thus, this is the pretty-much-final floor template and .cfg: The screenshot isn't so impressive, but here it is anyway. The official Wesnoth "graph paper" terrain!
(yes these are the template images)
-
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: March 26th, 2004, 10:58 pm
- Location: New York, New York
Re: mesilliac's terrain graphics thread
You've rendered square-based geometry... in an isometric plane... on a hex-based field... with tessellating properties...
"Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit." - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Re: mesilliac's terrain graphics thread
The hard part was finding a spiritual medium to contact Escher who spoke Dutch
An essay on terrain perspective Part 1
So, umm, I'm gonna have to eat my words a bit. I said elsewhere that drawing something from top-down then squishing it vertically to 50% of its height puts it in the correct perspective to be lying on the ground. I was wrong (sorry Turin).
To explain, here's an essay on terrain perspective in wesnoth . To summarise (because tbh the rest will be a headache to read):
For terrain only:
Something drawn from top-down should be squished vertically by 1/3 to 66.666...% of its original height.
Something drawn from side on should be squished by 1/4 to 75% of its original height.
Unit perspective is not the same. It looks better this way.
Now for the essay.
You might already know that a regular hexagonal grid has a kind of inherent perspective. The hexagons align at 30° angles, implying an Isometric Projection.
Wesnoth tiles aren't regular hexagons, but they happen to have some very nice properties anyway. Either high-school trig or playing around with the measuring tool in GIMP will tell you that the inherent angle that wesnoth hexes are aligned on is 33.69°. This is close to isometric. As close as most "isometric" games, which usually use a 26.565° angle. The reason it is some funny angle is that this is the angle you get when you move 3 pixels horizontally and 2 pixels vertically (26.565° comes from moving 2 pixels horizontally and 1 pixel vertically). For the purposes of this post, I'm gonna call this perspective "wesometric" .
To find out how much this view was squished from the top-down view, just expand it until the wesometric square is a true square. A little math or playing around will give you a vertical expansion to 150% of the original height. This shows you the "true" top-down view of a wesnoth hex, as implied by this perspective. In corollary, if you have drawn something from top-down and want to scale it to fit in with this perspective, scale the image to 2/3 of the original height
Part 2 to follow...
To explain, here's an essay on terrain perspective in wesnoth . To summarise (because tbh the rest will be a headache to read):
For terrain only:
Something drawn from top-down should be squished vertically by 1/3 to 66.666...% of its original height.
Something drawn from side on should be squished by 1/4 to 75% of its original height.
Unit perspective is not the same. It looks better this way.
Now for the essay.
You might already know that a regular hexagonal grid has a kind of inherent perspective. The hexagons align at 30° angles, implying an Isometric Projection.
Wesnoth tiles aren't regular hexagons, but they happen to have some very nice properties anyway. Either high-school trig or playing around with the measuring tool in GIMP will tell you that the inherent angle that wesnoth hexes are aligned on is 33.69°. This is close to isometric. As close as most "isometric" games, which usually use a 26.565° angle. The reason it is some funny angle is that this is the angle you get when you move 3 pixels horizontally and 2 pixels vertically (26.565° comes from moving 2 pixels horizontally and 1 pixel vertically). For the purposes of this post, I'm gonna call this perspective "wesometric" .
To find out how much this view was squished from the top-down view, just expand it until the wesometric square is a true square. A little math or playing around will give you a vertical expansion to 150% of the original height. This shows you the "true" top-down view of a wesnoth hex, as implied by this perspective. In corollary, if you have drawn something from top-down and want to scale it to fit in with this perspective, scale the image to 2/3 of the original height
Part 2 to follow...