[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Isometric view

[Thue Janus Kristensen <thue@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2000, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 03:37:22PM +0200, Thue Janus Kristensen wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Apr 2000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > > I still think we could use a client just like the Civ2 in that
> > > screenshot, without changing any server code.
> > > 
> > > Populous, for example, used a sqaure map that they rotated 45 degrees
> > > for a nice isometric effect.
> > > 
> > > Jules
> > 
> > I still think that the civ 2 way would look/feel nicer. But yes, for
> > compatability the simple tilting is best.
> 
> Just to really hammer this into my thick skull: the only two
> differences are the shape of the map and the location of the poles?
> 
> #######       #
> #######      ###
> #######     #####
> #######      ###
> #######       #
> 
> (as seen from an old client; from a new client the left one would
> appear 'diamond' shaped while the right one would seem square).
> 
> > 
> > Maybe if we have to make freeciv incompatible with earlier versions at some
> > point we could change it to the civ 2 way.
> 
> It could be a server option.  And old clients could connect to new
> servers, given minimal code changes to deal with a non-parallel square 
> map (a so-called 'diamond').
> 
> So we'd have two choices:
> 
> 1) old-style map, which appears rectangular to the old-style clients
>    and slightly 'skewed' to new-style
> 
> 2) new-style map, which appears a slightly more natural shape to
>    new-style, and 'diamond-like' to the old style.
> 
> Doesn't sound like a very big issue to me.
> 
> Jules

No - look again at the civ 2 screenshot. the map is arranged with the x rows
going at at angle of 30 degrees. If you fx have a 3x3 map as now in freeciv it
looks like

(0,0) (0,1) (0,2)
(1,0) (1,1) (1,2)
(2,0) (2,1) (2,2)

in the tilted view it would be 

        (0,0)
    (1,0) (0,1)
 (2,0) (1,1) (0,2)
    (2,1) (1,2)
        (2,2)

But the civ2 way is (except that the tile would be numbered differenty to make
the old server code compatible. if they were numbered as below it would mean
that fx (2,1) shared a corner with (0,0))

        (0,0) (0,1) (0,2)
    (1,0) (1,1) (1,2)
(2,0) (2,1) (2,2)

If you look a little you can see that methods 1) & 2) are compatible with each
other, while 3) is it's own pattern.

-Thue