Editor help section

[fabi]

1) can define a side only if you create a scenario and not a map, BUT random map generator works only creating a map and not available when creating scenario.

Yes, this sounds like a missing feature.
Please report it at http://bugs.wesnoth.org.

So... if an user want to manage also "scenario tools" generating a random map, simply can't (or it is not so clear how to do it).
Currently, the only way to perform the action seems to me this one:
- create random map
- save random map
- create a new scenario with an empty map with the same size of the generated map
- save scenario
- apply manually the random map generated at steps 1 and 2 and save again the scenario
- and finally open the scenario in order to be allowed to use new scenario benefits

- create random map
- save random map as scenario
- load the saved scenario

The last point should not be necessary but another bug seems to deny the switch to scenario mode after a "Save as Scenario".

(not: imho I was comfortable with the old-style... where map and scenario where well distinguished, but the new tools can be comfortable for some operations).

"old-style", does it refer to the two files solution of some development versions or the 1.10 behavior?

The Area defining is not intuitive. It is not clear if you must select terrain tiles before defining Area or not (I assume the answer should be "yes") and however it seems not possible to select-deselect areas... perhaps allowing users to verify somehow if the area selection matches its own desire should be a nice improvements for the future.

Let me check the current state again and see if there is any bug. One should be able to select the areas in the menu which also selects the contained hex tiles.

The other things seems, until now, seems enough clear to use, but I'll write here any other reports that can be (I hope) an helpful point.

Yes, thank you very much.

[Nobun]

"old-style", does it refer to the two files solution of some development versions or the 1.10 behavior?

You are right.
I did the report starting by a wrong assumption. I verified today that I misunderstood something.
I thought that, starting from 1.12, the old map format would be changed... no more "usage=map" like today, but only a map tag, that could be used in a scenario. And the editor, in the future, would support only scenario + map together (with new map format)...

This wrong assumption cames from a topic I read here in the past (don't remember where) -> I understood that, from 1.14 version, the old maps wouldn't be supported anymore and I read a sort of suggestion to use 1.12 version to save all old maps in the new format.

So I thought that the plans for the future tends to erase the distintion between scenarios and maps.

But, checking the map and scenario sources, I think no particular changes in format. Also scenario saved by editor contains the map data in the classic way (even if they are written directly in the scenario itself and not splitted using macro_file_call).

----

When I said "old style" I was thinking about "two file solution"... separating scenario and map in two files can have some benefits:
1) (for me) easier WML debugging
2) chance to use the same map for different scenarios
(for example I used this feature in my - never published and incomplete - campaign. There is a place where you see what your future enemy is saying while you are travelling. So there are various "scenario tales" in the same map)

#######################################

Note: I cannot access gna to report anything.

However I have a suggestion that can make a thing clearer for a used
In the editor replace "open map file" with "open map or scenario file", since editor is able to open both with that option (and since there is not a "open scenario file", that would be a useless duplicate)

[fabi]

You are right.
I did the report starting by a wrong assumption. I verified today that I misunderstood something.
I thought that, starting from 1.12, the old map format would be changed... no more "usage=map" like today, but only a map tag, that could be used in a scenario. And the editor, in the future, would support only scenario + map together (with new map format)...

This wrong assumption came from a topic I read here in the past (don't remember where) -> I understood that, from 1.14 version, the old maps wouldn't be supported anymore and I read a sort of suggestion to use 1.12 version to save all old maps in the new format.

The (< 1.12) engine enforces the presence of usage= and border_size= but ignores them later.
Thus 1.12 no longer requires them but the editor still writes them.
The 1.14 editor will no longer write the named attributes but 1.14 will still be able to load maps including them.
1.16 is the first version that will not write nor read the old map format.

So I thought that the plans for the future tends to erase the distinction between scenarios and maps.

No, not really.
At least the distinction between a file that is generated by the engine and a handwritten file is not going to be removed.
It's in general a bad idea to edit generated files.

But, checking the map and scenario sources, I think no particular changes in format. Also scenario saved by editor contains the map data in the classic way (even if they are written directly in the scenario itself and not splitted using macro_file_call).

Yes, there is no change to the map format done so far.

When I said "old style" I was thinking about "two file solution"... separating scenario and map in two files can have some benefits:
1) (for me) easier WML debugging
2) chance to use the same map for different scenarios
(for example I used this feature in my - never published and incomplete - campaign. There is a place where you see what your future enemy is saying while you are travelling. So there are various "scenario tales" in the same map)

1) Please explain why 2 files is easier to debug (for you).
2) Yes, the "Legend of Wesmere" (which I maintain) also reuses several maps.
The problem with splitting the data into more than one file is related to the loading procedure.
How shall the editor handle maps which are spread over several directories?
What if they don't follow a naming scheme?
Multiple loading dialogs?

Note: I cannot access gna to report anything.

So?
May I ask what the problem is?

However I have a suggestion that can make a thing clearer for a used
In the editor replace "open map file" with "open map or scenario file", since editor is able to open both with that option (and since there is not a "open scenario file", that would be a useless duplicate)

Good catch.
Many Thanks.

[Nobun]

It's in general a bad idea to edit generated files.

Yes I agree... sometimes I edit generated files (I mean, outside wesnoth) but usually only when I really knowing what I am doing and if I have good reasons to do it

1) Please explain why 2 files is easier to debug (for you).

Well... surely I am a strange person
The terrain code list of a map creates in my file view a sort of breakpoint that make the file non-continous to read.
And, in general, I have my own approaches that makes me easier to separate things.
For example (even if it is out-of-topic) sometimes I use WML macros like sub-functions (sometime this allow a more flexible code and reduce the actual amount of linecodes).
But in general... the less line of code I read, than easier to find the problem... and the map surely not contains any error (thank of the editor) so it is vaste of time to see where the map data starts and where ends.
But as I said... it is only a personal attitude

How shall the editor handle maps which are spread over several directories?
What if they don't follow a naming scheme?
Multiple loading dialogs?

Well... I thought (about loading, not creating - obliouvsly) you can simply call the filename "linked" in cfg file
{~add-ons/SOMETHING/DIR/map.map} should do the trick
But obliouvsly is not a priority. The important thing is that the editor, when will become even more powerful, will be user-friendly like it was until 1.10 and not too much complex to understand. Till now is good enough.
And users, if they want, could continue to use the editor also to open/create a "simple" map (not a scenario)

Note: I cannot access gna to report anything.

May I ask what the problem is?

The page say something like "You cannot trust on this connection. Impossible to verify the security of the link" (the translation is not 100% correct, but I should explained enough well

However I have a suggestion that can make a thing clearer for a used
In the editor replace "open map file" with "open map or scenario file", since editor is able to open both with that option (and since there is not a "open scenario file", that would be a useless duplicate)

Good catch.
Many Thanks.

You're wellcome