The Mana World Forums

Yep, I'm still working on it ;)
Release note: http://mruk.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/bl ... leset-004/

Still looking good

bump

kr0n05931 wrote:bump

bump what?
Do you wish to play around a bit with those tiles? You can always clone tmwart repository. Source files are also licensed under GPL2 ;D

http://gitorious.org/tmwart/mainline/tr ... /New-walls

Anyway, I'm still working on it. Recently I updated port-town-addons - this is a collection of wooden bowls (plant pots) - see attachment.

First off, let me say that this tileset is truly lovely, I think it is the best isometric castle tileset in existence, bar none.

It would be even lovelier, if it allowed diagonal walls, so I tried to make some. What do you think?

Here is another piece:

Arbiter Bestiarum wrote:First off, let me say that this tileset is truly lovely, I think it is the best isometric castle tileset in existence, bar none.

It would be even lovelier, if it allowed diagonal walls, so I tried to make some. What do you think?

isometric? for me that isn't isometric.

Yeah, you are right, what I really mean is not "isometric" but "orthographic projection" but few people know that term and most use isometric instead.

Anyway, what I am talking about is rendering styles where parallel lines are always rendered as parallel lines (no vanishing points) and vertical lines are always rendered as vertical lines. Examples are games such as Diablo I and II, Age of empires I and II, Homm III, and, of course, TMW.

He didn't even make them tilesets i don't believe, I've found that tileset when i was mapping before.

Arbiter Bestiarum wrote:First off, let me say that this tileset is truly lovely, I think it is the best isometric castle tileset in existence, bar none.

It would be even lovelier, if it allowed diagonal walls, so I tried to make some. What do you think?

It's not lovely. It's UNFINISHED ;D
It's not isometric. It's ORTHOGONAL.

Indeed. That kind of wall will be useful in mapping process. But you forgot about shading and proper lighting. Making good diagonal wall isn't just geometric pixel translation. You have to remember about perspective. Some people might already noticed that wall in this perspective has different pixel weight in vertical and horizontal plane.

Because of some perspective and lighting issues I can not accept your contribution. But general idea is nice.
Anyway I check forums daily so keep posting random ideas, they are all appreciated.

Arbiter Bestiarum wrote:Yeah, you are right, what I really mean is not "isometric" but "orthographic projection" but few people know that term and most use isometric instead.

Fun fact: Almost all works of pixel art which claim to be isometric use in fact a dimetric projection.

i wrote: It's not lovely. It's UNFINISHED ;D

Of course. Linux is unfinished too, but I hear some people are using it already.

i wrote: It's not isometric. It's ORTHOGONAL.

Silly me

i wrote: Indeed. That kind of wall will be useful in mapping process. But you forgot about shading and proper lighting. Making good diagonal wall isn't just geometric pixel translation. You have to remember about perspective.

I tried quite hard. What's wrong with the perspective?

i wrote: Some people might already noticed that wall in this perspective has different pixel weight in vertical and horizontal plane.

You are going over my head. What does pixel weight mean?

i wrote: Because of some perspective and lighting issues I can not accept your contribution. But general idea is nice.

So it's a case of hopeless? Or can you point out more specifically (and preferably in newbie's terms) what should be improved? I can see that the lighting along the edges of the bricks needs some work but other than that I'm not sure.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback!

Arbiter Bestiarum wrote:I tried quite hard. What's wrong with the perspective?

Notice that the angle of wall isn't 45 degrees.

Arbiter Bestiarum wrote:You are going over my head. What does pixel weight mean?

That means that vertical wall is 22px tall while horizontal have only 16px (~~ 22px x 70%). In fact they are the same wall. That's the way the perspective works.

Yes, I noticed that the horizontal walls are 22 and the vertical ones are 16 pixel wide. From that I guessed that you use a ratio of 4:3 and made the diagonal walls accordingly. If you look more closely at the diagonals, you will find that that they go 3 steps up for each 4 steps sideways.

So, I think the perspective is correct, at least as far as the angle of the wall goes.

It is necessary to use a ratio with small numbers such as 4:3 (rather, than, say, 11:8) or it will not be possible to subdivide the wall into repeating tiles. As it stands, the wall can be divided into tiles sized 43x32. If multiples of 32 are required, you have cut one pixel off the side and settle for 128*160, but then you cannot vary the height or length of the wall.

We use a perspective that is 45 degrees. So the ratio 4:3 is correct. Draw a box 40 pixels wide and 30 pixels tall. Then draw a diagonal. That gives the right perspective for the base/top/....