Re: [Adonthell-artwork] Flooring...

[James Nash]

Ello

> Cool. Not only they are beautiful, but they are handy as well. Makes 
me think 
> (in easier) of the tricks you've deployed for the walls in 0.3. 
That's the 
> James touch! ;)
> 
> I've seen the mountain demo that's on your server since yesterday, 
it's cool 
> as well!
> 

Glad you spotted / liked it!

> One thing: the tiles are seen in perspective, but I guess that it 
they were 
> seen from top, they would be squarish, wouldn't they? I don't 
remember if the 
> dimensions guidelines are already on paper, but it they aren't, it 
would 
> maybe be time to put them on then. I don't know neither if you have 
taken the 
> dimensions into account or if you've worked freely.
> 

Right, I did actually take a kind of perspective into account. I 
vaguely remember that Ben and I had discussed using a perspective where 
you distances along the top of objects are of the same length as 
vertical ones, so you're effectively looking at the world from a 45 
degree angle.

For my tiles which are meant to be square if seen from above, that 
would mean that my gfx should be about 0.707 x their width (if I 
haven't completely forgotten my trigonometry).

Unfortunately I wasn't thinking about that when I made the tiles so I 
just squished them so that they were twice as wide as they are high. If 
they are supposed to be square this would mean you're looking at them 
from a 26.something degree angle (I can't find the scrap of paper with 
my calculations)... actually I've just realised I got that one wrong - 
I confused width and height. Whoops!

Either way my perspective isn't very good and 45 degrees looks nicer 
overall IMO. However, from a gfx point of view I'm not sure if it's so 
good. When designing rooms or buildings or tiles it's nice if the 
dimensions on the ground are in some simple proportion. Then tiles can 
have dimensions of 2:3 or something like that rather than 1:0.707 which 
would give akward lenghts of pixels. Height on the other hand is not so 
important because I doubt you'll need objects where height is in a 
simple proportion to width.

I've just done a few calculations and I recon 41.81... degrees is the 
best way to go. That way, if I'm not mistaken, distances away along the 
ground away from the viewer are 2/3 x the width (so my 'square' tiles 
would be 30x20 pixels for example). The same distance vertically is 
0.745... times the width which is rather conveniently pretty much 3/4!

I hope that all makes sense to you (and is actually correct). If so I 
propose using 41.81 degrees as the angle from which the adonthell world 
is viewed! :)

Luckily it's easy enough for me to change my gfx since I have 'flat' 
originals.


> > > So that's been a great job once again. Really glad that at least 
one
> > > artist is back and working :). Wanna see more!!! :)

Hey, LanarBlade is there too! :)


         -James