Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: December 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#2408) Problem with diagonal roads and rails
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#2408) Problem with diagonal roads and rails

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: thue@xxxxxxx, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#2408) Problem with diagonal roads and rails
From: "Jason Short via RT" <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:27:46 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[guest - Sun Dec 15 15:45:06 2002]:

> [jdorje - Sat Dec 14 09:59:32 2002]:
> 
> > [guest - Fri Dec 13 15:41:03 2002]:

> > > You also need to split the fill_road_corner_sprites function up into
> > > 2.
> > > As it is now there is a problem when a diagonal road crosses a
> > > diagonal
> > > rail. In that case the road corners need to be drawn below the rail
> > > diagonals, but the rail corners need to be drawn above the road
> > > diagonals. The solution would be to make fill_road_corner_sprites and
> > > put it just before the rail drawing, and make fill_rail_corner_sprites
> > > and put that just after the rail drawing.
> > 
> > Ugh, yes.  This would require a restructuring of that part of the
> > tilespec code.  I'm not quite ready for that, so instead here's a patch
> > that simply doesn't draw road corners at all (it draws rail corners, in
> > iso and non-iso view).
> 
> Wouldn't it be quite simple to do it as i described?

I am confused by the difference between the iso and non-iso cases here.
 Is there any functional difference in the two?  It doesn't look like
the iso case checks for draw_dialogal_roads.

But, despite this difference I guess it is simple enough to find the
right spot to insert the function.

This also indicates this function needs to check for
draw_diagonal_roads.  But since this option only has an effect in
isometric mode...

jason



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