Kai and I chatted about this on IRC the other day, but for the benefit of this
Basically, at a minimum, there is no need to provide separate T and X models
(which combine the appropriate corner pieces) since these can be composed out
of the corner models. However, for the convenience of map designers it's a good
idea to make them.
This then lead into a discussion about adding some functionality to allow
grouping of models in the tools. T & X shaped wall pieces could then be a model
group of the relevant corner models. This sort of thing would also be useful
when moving groups of models (like a house) around on a map.
As for naming, I suppose the existing scheme can still be used for such pieces.
For example, a T piece consisting of the ins-IBL & ins-IBR pieces would become
a ins-IBx. An X piece consisting of all the corners could then be ins-Ixx.
With that settled, I've gone ahead and made a set of template gfx & models for
both inside & outside walls. These are in wastesedge repo here:
There's a README.txt in the respective gfx directories with some instructions.
I'll also refer to these when I get around to updating the wiki.
I then moved on to breaking up my existing wall gfx into inside & outside
graphics. This is now mostly done and in the repo. The main exception is the
roof gfx which I'll get on to soon.
On 3 May 2011, at 21:44, Kai Sterker wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:34 PM, James Nash <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You can create all the T's and X's using combinations of the corner parts.
>> For example, using the 4 ins-I** corners, I can make a central X like so:
>> Similarly, by combining ins-I** and ins-O** you could also create L shapes
>> if required.
> Okay, got it. I wasn't certain whether all the sizes would match up
> correctly, i.e. that two corners and a straight that make a T have the
> same length and depth as an "ordinary" straight. But it seems you
> really got your stuff worked out :-).
> So this would cover the actual graphics, but it would be a little bit
> different for the models, as they are exactly the combinations you
> describe above. Any idea for those, yet? Although I'm pretty certain
> you'll come up with something equally simple and elegant :-). Or at
> least consistent.
Adonthell-artwork mailing list