[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Adonthell-artwork] height levels

From: cirrus
Subject: Re: [Adonthell-artwork] height levels
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 22:28:22 +0000

Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > > I have a few questions about the new height level thing on mapobjects:
> > >
> > > Do you specify a height/ z-offset (or whatever it was called) for
> > > whole mapobjects or is there something like a height-map file which
> > > determines how high the individual pixels of a mapobject are?
> >
> > It's for the whole mapobject.
> Don't listen to him James! (my turn, now ;p) Height is for the whole
> mapobject FOR NOW. Just for my testing purpose. But I planned to give
> the possibility to specify a height level per pixel.
> > > Food for thought, I guess. For now I'll just improve the look of those
> > > gfx...
> >
> > Poor Alex :). One idea I could offer it to divide a mapobject into
> > 'zones'. Say 5x5 or 10x10 sub-tiles that can have a different height
> > each. That wouldn't be as accurate as a height map, but less CPU
> > expensive and probably sufficient. But still a bitch to program, I'd
> > say.
> Here's the dillema. Something accurate, or something fast? As far as I
> know, such sub-dividing wouldn't help much with CPU usage. But pixel
> based height (and walkability) seems to be extremly CPU intensive.
> Actually, as the movments are vector-based, it looks like I'll have to
> borrow some 3D world techniques. Problem is, I'm not very good at this
> (never did any 3D programming before), so I'm documenting myself for
> now. The problem being, that you have (AFAIK) to check
> walkability/height for ALL the pixels. That is, 1600 instead of 1 for
> square-based walkability. So yet I'm searching fresh ideas, and
> consulting some people familiar with 3D programming, hoping to sort that
> out. If someone has interesting ideas regarding this, I'm ok to take
> them! :)
> But to answer James: this has been planned as you described it, no
> worries!
> > Of course, the easiest thing would be cutting the graphics into small
> > pieces - at least for us programmers ;).
> Yeah, was what we did for 0.2 and such. It was heaven time for us! ;)
> But since the situation has inverted... :p

To be honest though - I can live quite happily without pixel-perfect
height-levels. I was just thinking if you wanted to do the river
properly that's what you'd need. Would it be possible to have the
height-map optional - on most mapobjects it wouldn't be necessary. That
way we'd have the capability if we really need it for something, but it
won't be thaat slow since most of the time it wouldn't be used.
As for the river, what I could do is make another edge with some
obstacles (rocks or something) which would go along most of the river
but occasionally we'd have openings using the current gfx and fancy
height maps where the player can wade into the river.

Btw, today I've been working on some rock gfx for the mountains - they
still need some work. I don't think they fit in with the other gfx well
enough. Also I want to make a better rocky floor texture because my
first attempt is rubbish. Here's a fakeshot of what I've got so far so
you can see for yourselves....

   ___    ___  ___       ___ 
  /    / /__/ /__/ /  / /__                 Reg. Linux User #148821
 /___ / / \  / \  /__/ ___/

PNG image

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]