[Freeciv-Dev] Re: RFC: 8-topology system

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:41:00PM -0400, Jason Dorje Short wrote:
> "Miguel Farah F." wrote:
> > 
> >  Jason Dorje Short [16/10/2001 19:23] dijo/said:
> > >Raimar Falke wrote:
> > >[...]
> > >> > - shape: 0 for rectangle; no other valid values yet.
> > >>
> > >> 1 for a ellipse
> > >>
> > >> I think that another shape is good. This may be of no real use but it
> > >> allows use to test the code. And a non-isometric ellipse has the
> > >> semantics of most north <=> y=0. Also such an ellipse will also have
> > >> non-real tiles in the rectangular xsize*ysize.
> > >
> > >Yes, the purpose of the field is to allow other shapes :-).  A hexagon
> > >and a triangle were also mentioned (although the triangle has problems
> > >if it wraps).  My only worry is that the (width, height) dimensions
> > 
> > We could implement a diamond (or lozenge? I'm unsure of the right word
> > ("rombo" in spanish)) instead of a triangle:
> > 
> >      rectangle                    diamond
> > 
> >    #############                     C
> >    #############                    ###
> >    #############                   #####
> >    #############                  #######
> >    #############                 A#######B
> >    #############                  #######
> >    #############                   #####
> >    #############                    ###
> >    #############                     #
> > 
> > 
> > This solves the wrapping problem easily.
> 
> A diamond is the same as an iso-rectangle.  In fact, the diamond above
> is equivalent to a 9x9 iso-rectangle as defined at the start of this
> thread.

But the wrapping can be done different. The diamond would wrap A-B the
iso-rectangle would wrap A-C.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Of course, someone who knows more about this will correct me if I'm
  wrong, and someone who knows less will correct me if I'm right."
    -- David Palmer (palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)