[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Where can I get that Great Tileset?

[Erik Sigra <freeciv@xxxxxxx>]

Thue wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:41:52 Erik Sigra wrote:
> > Thue wrote:
> > > Yes, it would be nice to have it just like civ 2. But as jjm pointed out,
> a
> > > client with a tilted map could be a middle step.
> > > For numbering the tiles for a civ 2 map I would prefer the pattern shown 
> > > in
> the
> > > attached file, as it would make tile iterating more intuitive. (though I
> don't
> > > have actual experience with either pattern.)
> > > Note that, as I have remarked in freeciv_hackers_guide.txt, it would be
> very
> > > nice if people would use macros or specialized functions for iterating on
> the map,
> > > because it would then be relatively easy to convert the server to a new
> tile
> > > pattern (or it could be a run-time configuration.)
> >
> > I have looked at your numbering pattern/scheme and tried to grasp it. I
> > found it to have both advantages and disadvantages compared to the
> > Civilisation 2 Style. Now I think I understand what you ment when you
> > said:
> >
> > > Hmm; instead of mangling the isometric view and having a normal civ1-style
> view
> > > you could make the isometric view civ2-style and have a mangled civ1-style
> > > view...
> > >
> > > just a thought
> > >
> > > -Thue
> 
> heh. It shouldn't be a guessing contest, you could have asked for in depth
> comments :). Btw, your diagrams indicate you understood it correctly.
> 
> > I have attached my observations. Would you please read it through,
> > confirm/correct my statements and complete with important things I have
> > forgotten? I really want to understand it fully. I think others are
> > interested too.
> >
> > > > > -Thue
> > > >
> > > > -Erik
> > >
> > > -Thue
> >
> > -Erik
> > Civilisation 2 Style:
> > =====================
> >
> > Can be wrapped in 2 dimesions if y is odd.
> 
> Note that that is also true for my system. We are displaying the same thing, 
> it
> is just the numbering that varies.
> 
> > [diagrams]
> 
> > Thue Style:
> > ===========
> >
> > x must equal y.
> 
> No, x and y are independent, as you can fx see in my own example (6x7).
> 
> > Can be wrapped in 2 dimensions although y wrapping would be somewhat strange
> strange.
> 
> Actually it would be very simple I think. Just a normal overview map wrapped 
> in
> two dimensions and rotated 45 degrees.
> 
> > [very informative diagrams which I had been to lazy to make myself]
> 
> I prefer my solution because it preserves the planar assosiation between 
> tiles.
> Very little would have to be changed in the server.
> Also, actually using the tiles would be easier because of the planar
> associations (IMO).
> 
> But note that you diverted from my original drawing on a point: you modulused
> the x values with the map xsize. You shouldn't do that! Take fx the tile (4, 
> 1)
> and go -1 in the x direction. That will give the tile (3,1). That would be 
> beyond
> the map, and with my numbering there would not be any tile with those
> coordinates, and the tile could easily be tested for existance. That is not 
> possible with
> your modulused numbering, which is a fatal flaw.

I renumbered it the way I did because I thought that every coordinate[0
.. x(max)][0 .. y(max)] must represent 1 and only 1 tile. I thought this
could make computation easier (for example things like map_adjust_x).
That led me to the conclusion that x(max) must equal y(max) (with this
system). (Is this correct?)

With your system, x(max) and y(max) could be different, but there would
be coordinates in the array that does not represent tiles (you mentioned
(3, 1)). As far as I can understand, this means that up to half of the
array would be wasted memory space (since an unused array element can't
be made to take up less memory than a used one)! (Right?) This would
then halve the maximal map size a user could play with, with every given
amount of memory.

> When you think my numbering scheme is confusing just tilt your head 45 degrees
> :)
> 
> -Thue

-Erik