[Top][All Lists]

 From: Kai Sterker Subject: Re: [Adonthell-artwork] Angle questions... Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 00:02:07 +0200

```On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:03 PM, James Nash <address@hidden> wrote:

Okay, I'm not able to answer that thoroughly now, so I'll leave just a
few remarks.

The article about the angles is mostly what you wrote initially, with
the added bits that you stumbled across :-). Might be out of date and
not reflect more recent discussion we had, however.

The graphics Ingo did are supposed be used with a resolution of
1024x768. I haven't yet tried how performance will be, and we may need
to switch to OpenGL for rendering, so that work will be offloaded to
the GPU.

As far as the angle and all that goes, best to hook up with arikel and
figure something out that is consistent and easy to handle :-)

Kai

> I was looking at the http://adonthell.berlios.de/doc/index.php/Graphics:Angle
> documentation to remind myself about the proportions for our graphics and I'm
> a little confused by 64x48 floor tile mentioned at the bottom.
>
> According to the maths described above it, the height of graphics that depict
> flat surfaces in the game corresponds to the z' dimension which is about 2/3.
> At a width of 64 pixels it would therefore be roughly 43 pixels high. The 48
> pixel height is exactly 3/4 which would correspond to the y' dimension, i.e.
> a vertical surface facing the player.
>
> The suggested 64x48 basic tile size therefore seems wrong for the "floor" of
> a map - it what we should be using for "walls" if you know what I mean.
>
> I had a look in the archives to see what was proposed before. I found this
> old mail from myself
> which suggests a 30 degree viewing angle and therefore has totally different
> z' and y' scaling factors to what the wiki page says (as that describes a
> 41.8 degree angle).
>
>
> Was there a decision at some point to change the angle and scaling factors
> and the wiki is out of date? Or is 64x48 actually wrong?
>
>
> FWIW, I do like the angle and scaling described on the wiki as 3/4 and 2/3
> are nice simple figures to remember and work with. However, 64pixels won't
> cleanly divide into 2/3s. Perhaps 48 pixels as a basic tile width would be a
> better choice.
>
> If we assume a rough scale of 1m along the X-axis in the game world = 48
> pixels, then a 1m x 1m x 1m cube would be 48 pixels wide, 36 (48 * 3/4)
> pixels high and 32 (48 * 2/3) pixels deep. You're basic floor tile would
> therefore be 48 x 32 pixels.
>
> Assuming we're still aiming for a 640x480 screen resolution then these seem
> like reasonable sizes. Taking the 1m cube scale from above, that equates to
> something like 13.333m width x 13.333m depth of floor space being visible
> onscreen. My gut feeling is that's enough to give players a decent amount of
> visibility - I'll try to cook up some mock screenshots though to try it out.
>
> Cheers!
>
>        - James
> _______________________________________________