On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 03:59:59PM -0500, Kizul Emeraldfire wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:31, James Paige <[email protected]> > > That is something we want to allow in the future, but this plan seemed > quick and easy, whereas user-defined sizes is harder, and will take more > time to get right. > --- > James > > Ahh, I see. > > Hrm. Well, I WAS going to ask if it be too hard to implement 20x30 as an > additional (non-user-defined) size (like old NES/SNES games with big > sprites, it'd be one-and-a-half tiles tall instead of just one, or two > full ones * I think Dragon Quest VI (for the Super Famicom), among other > games, uses sprites of similar ratios for the main heroes and NPCs), but > then I got to thinking about it and, since they'd be one-and-a-half tiles > tall, moving in one-tile steps would be a tad strange; they probably > wouldn't mesh up with the walls right in areas.
Well, with 32x40 you could just draw your sprites at 20x30. Nothing would force you to use the extra pixels around the edge. And walls would not matter. For this plan, all NPCs would still act like they were 20x20 for purposes of walls and movement regardless of what their actual size is. > So, instead: when you guys DO get around to implementing arbitrary, > user-defined sprite-sizes, any chance of an arbitrary, user-defined 'step' > (defined in pixels; defaulted to '20') as well? :) On the wiki there is a "Plan for non tile-based walking" that covers that. Also the idea of tilemap sizes other than 20x20 is not crazy (although it is still very far in the future) --- James _______________________________________________ Ohrrpgce mailing list [email protected] http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
