Comment on Eleazar's Terrain Improvements or other threads

[Gambit]

It was explained to me that ford and swamp already use overlay images, so we can't place other overlay terrain on them.

[zookeeper]

Actually it's not a problem at all and it's fixed now.

[Eleazar]

What I wanted to point out wasn't the red shining but the hex-silhouette that was made more easy to spot with the red shining. It's still there.

Yeah, that one requires a reworking of the lava chasm, something i'd like to do, but may not get around to.

Is it possible to make the smoke optional as embellishment?

Yes, but someone else must make it.

Just one point about the fords graphic.. and I appreciate all the hard work you've put in on these. However.. the old graphic I felt gave teh appearance of swift running water, over shallow rocks, much like a river ford would be. Almost like rapids. This was a function of the white highlights. Perhaps there is room for the old and the new? One as river rapids, the other as a shallow muddy water

Yes the old ones did look more like a rapids, and it also looked a lot like the "reef". Rapids and fords are generally not the same thing at all, and you should not expect rapids to be a good place to cross a river on foot. For these reasons and to make the difference with the reef obvious i changed the appearance of the ford.


A Cloud points out there are a ton of complications to making highly detailed rivers. We're just not going there right now.

The volcano is amazing! The smoke is also amazing, especially if it were animated. The pool of lava, though, seems a long way down inside and very large. I'm sure my geology textbook would have something about internal collapse etc.

NB: is the lava going to be animated to bubble and spit etc?

WINR
Wesnoth Lava has never matched real-world lava. Lava is not static enough to build castles next to it or bridges over it, as often happen on underground maps. The divergence from reality is purposeful.

As for animations, if someone does quality animations of between 5 and 10 frames, i'll add them.

It was explained to me that ford and swamp already use overlay images, so we can't place other overlay terrain on them.

I might have said that elsewhere. To be precise, the ford/quagmire are created by a different layer, which could be called an "overlay". But in our two-layer map system, "ford" is defined with only the bottom layer, so technically the top layer is free, and any top layer terrain can be added there. Weather it actually shows up depends on complicated terrain drawing/layering rules. Though i haven't looked at this issue much and it probably can be easily fixed in several instances.

[matthiaskrgr]

Why is the sw shadow of the wooden castle so much bigger than the one of stone castles? They seem to have the same hight.

[Eleazar]

Why is the sw shadow of the wooden castle so much bigger than the one of stone castles? They seem to have the same hight.

Because it's drawn at the wrong angle.

[matthiaskrgr]

At you shot in the restricted thread, I think I found two more things:

One mysterious line and the bridge overlaying the castle which makes it looking like the bridge directly offers invaders way into the castle, thus the castle-walls are futile.

[Eleazar]

At you shot in the restricted thread, I think I found two more things:

One mysterious line and the bridge overlaying the castle which makes it looking like the bridge directly offers invaders way into the castle, thus the castle-walls are futile.

Since the graphics weren't made to fit with each other there are going to be tons of little glitches with mixed castles. That one is, i think a shadow that doesn't line up. I have no intention of revamping most of those 600 little PNGS. Keeps mesh with each other really badly in most cases.

This is all use at your own risk. Short of a castle combo (where at least one member isn't a keep) where the walls don't connect, or extra walls are drawn, i'm very unlikely to fix anything

[matthiaskrgr]

I think there are some images assigned to the keep that are from the sand castle.

Edit: also reproducible with elven keep, the snowy keep of the orcs and the sand castle keeps.

Edit2: the normal paved cave wall and the one with the nicely animated torch look the same at the editor selection menu. I think the torch should be displayed there as well.

Edit3: all stone bridges only overlay the current terrain (bridge over water/wood/lava/grass etc) only the se-nw and sw-ne cave bridges do not

[Eleazar]

I think there are some images assigned to the keep that are from the sand castle.

Edit: also reproducible with elven keep, the snowy keep of the orcs and the sand castle keeps.

Edit2: the normal paved cave wall and the one with the nicely animated torch look the same at the editor selection menu. I think the torch should be displayed there as well.

Edit3: all stone bridges only overlay the current terrain (bridge over water/wood/lava/grass etc) only the se-nw and sw-ne cave bridges do not

Yeah we discovered the mulit-keep issues. Should be fixed now.

[matthiaskrgr]

The volcanoes still miss transition to water.
There is something strange with the rock base (see circles).
Mountains put into water that have no mountain north to them always look the same and are very small. I think the hill-terrain in the background of these mountains looks strange.

[Captain_Wrathbow]

Well, my only (literally, only) disappointment with all the terrain changes and additions in 1.9 was the water-to-land transitions. It seems that sand is the only "gradual" transition, everything else is this rocky cliff-edge-looking thing. I can't always put sand next to my water, and in some cases the rocky precipice just doesn't look right.
I'm sure there's a reason for this, (and I'd be interested in hearing it) but I would still prefer to have the option of using other "gradual" land-to-water transitions.

[matthiaskrgr]

When I combine normal stone bridge and cave bridge, it looks horrible .
Also I think there is a very little glitch when nw-se cave bridges are combined.

[Captain_Wrathbow]

Come on dude, you have to at least use some common sense. When in the world, in an actual map, are you going to have that long of a bridge, alternating between stone and paved? It just wouldn't happen, so there's no need to perfect the transition.
[/peanut_gallery_argument]

[doofus-01]

Well, my only (literally, only) disappointment with all the terrain changes and additions in 1.9 was the water-to-land transitions. It seems that sand is the only "gradual" transition, everything else is this rocky cliff-edge-looking thing. I can't always put sand next to my water, and in some cases the rocky precipice just doesn't look right.
I'm sure there's a reason for this, (and I'd be interested in hearing it) but I would still prefer to have the option of using other "gradual" land-to-water transitions.

The animated water makes it difficult to have a wide range of transitions. As you trace along the coast, alternating between "gradual" and "rocky" transitions, the lapping waves have to make sense. I think Eleazar is still working it out.

Keep in mind that transitions are a pain, animated transitions must be even worse.

[Captain_Wrathbow]

Mmm, makes sense. I have to admit that for the moment I had forgotten about lapping waves and animated water, because I have terrain-anims disabled. (because of the lag)
I see that there's a good reason for it, but I still don't like the overabundance of rocky-ness. Oh well. I can deal with it.