Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: October 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Tile drawingorder
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Tile drawingorder

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Tile drawingorder
From: Bert Buchholz <bertbuchholz@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:23:00 +0200

On 11.10 18:40, Raimar Falke wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 01:08:12AM +0200, Bert Buchholz wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > I made a patch that solves (?) some problems with the gui, that I think
> > were problems, here a description of the patch:
> > 
> > Tile drawingorder change (v.1) (against cvs-Oct-07-01):
> > 
> > - Farmland/irrigation are now drawn before rivers and specials to keep
> >   rivers and specials visible which were covered partially by irrigation
> >   and completely by farmland, so that they were virtually invisible.
> > 
> > - Now it looks as if a river is flowing through farmland and the
> >   specials (if any) are on top of irrigation/farmland => visible.
> > 
> > - I think this increases the overview quite effectively, because you
> >   don't have to turn off certain drawing-stuff just to see what's under
> >   it or click with the middle-button on it.
> > 
> > 
> > I hope this is understandable. To make it absolutely clear, I uploaded
> > two screenshots (~24k each) into ftp://ftp.freeciv.org/pub/freeciv/incoming/
> > 
> > 1) drawingorder_nopatch.jpeg   No patch applied
> > 2) drawingorder_patch.jpeg     Patch applied, important parts marked
> >                                with red arrows :-)
> >
> > I think, the diff is rather obvious. If you have comments, rejections
> > etc. pp. and stuff the like, please tell me. BTW: Daniel Speyer's
> > approach was okay (see "[gtk+iso] Farmland covering tile" from some days
> > ago), but I think my way is the better [tm] one, even though probably far
> > from perfect or anything. Dunno.
> I added some docu and omitted the non-iso changes. I don't see a flaw
> in the current ordering for non-iso. Comments?

non-iso changes? You mean this part?

@@ -1417,6 +1425,11 @@
     if(tspecial_east&S_RIVER || ttype_east==T_RIVER)
       *sprs++ = sprites.tx.river_outlet[DIR_EAST];
   }
+
+  if(tspecial & S_IRRIGATION && draw_irrigation) {

[ ... ]

-    if(tspecial & S_FARMLAND) *sprs++=sprites.tx.farmland;
-    else *sprs++=sprites.tx.irrigation;
   }

   if(((tspecial & S_ROAD) || (tspecial & S_RAILROAD)) && draw_roads_rails) {

Yes, that was not necessary, sorry. Seemingly, I sent my patch without
having diff'ed it after I made further changes (like taking this part
out). I think, non-iso worked well anyway, even though my patch didn't
change this. :-)

Anyway, nice docu. It would be nice if someone comitted it, so that I
can clean my hd up again. ;-)

Bert


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]