Course with regard to new Landscape

[sdog]

With Kieron Green's new landscapes comming sooner or later, it would be good to know what the plan for pak128 is.

The landscape patch will allow two different tile heights, and thus also slopes. The pak can decide wether to have half-heigt and single height, or single-height and double height.*

If a pak-set does not provide appropriate tiles, the game remains as is, with only one tile height.

Thus there are three options. All have their merits. No change does not require additional work.

Half-height & single height is graphically most pleasing, but no bridges or tunnels are allowed to start from a half-height slope. This is probably confusing for the players. (pak64 decides for this as far as i know)

Double & single height is less graphically pleasing, but causes less confusion with building bridges.


There are also some consequences for game-play. If for a certain height slope is no way graphic available for that pak-set no way can be built. This allows the pak authors for example to force canals to be built only over half-step slopes.


* half-height means a conversion factor 2, where the recent slopes become the new double height slopes, while a new single height has to be provided.

This patch fixes support for double heights in simutrans. Existing saved games can be loaded, and will be automatically converted based on a new entry in a pakset simuconf.tab "height_conversion_factor". This can be either 1, converting existing slopes to new single slopes or 2, converting existing slopes to new double slopes. This conversion factor also alters gameplay (see below). New and converted saved games will be saved as simutrans "version 112". This is only a temporary measure, and until (if) this patch is incorporated into trunk this is liable to change.

[kierongreen]

For existing paks which have a tile height of 16 (most, including pak128) there are 2 options - conversion factor 2 you end up with half height and normal height, or pak conversion factor 1 with normal height and double height slopes. pak128.Britain is using conversion factor 2, pak64 conversion factor 1 (probably). Not sure where you are getting your third option from.

Bridges should be able to start from either height slope, if they can't that's a bug (which I have some evidence for). Tunnels can only start from "normal" height slopes.

[sdog]

Third option: Not doing anything at all.


Thank you Kieron, for reading the posting and writing correcting remarks. I was far from certain if i covered it appropriately.

[Sarlock]

I certainly like the look of half height tiles, it smooths out the altitude variations a lot more.

Does this patch change the total number of Z-axis altitudes available?  Meaning: If we have 20 maximum heights available with a water level of -10 (and 4 underwater = 24 total Z values), would there still be 20 maximum heights which would then make the maximum altitude on the map equal to 10 "normal" height tiles?  I like the look but I am a little concerned that this will end up making maps a bit too flat.  I haven't played with the patch yet to investigate this myself.

[kierongreen]

Doing nothing is not an option once the patch is in trunk - the "doing nothing" option is to have normal and double height slopes. To players the only difference from now will then be that there can be double height slopes which cannot have ways built on them. If you want half height slopes you can reuse the lightmaps from pak128.Britain, but will need half height versions of all ways. If you go for double heights then there are no new way images required, but you will need to draw new lightmaps. For either option grid, marker and wall images will be required.

[VS]

It's a tie... I would be for 8/16, Fabio for 16/32. Dunno what to say now...

[Zeno]

I would go for normal height and half-height. I don't have a clue on the matching numbers though...

[VS]

Zeno: The lower ones

I just realized! To clarify why Fabio is so important - he drew all the new ways and would likely have to remake them for half height, then...

[Sarlock]

Which would be a huge, huge job...
I'm happy with either direction... half height gives more options for gradual railroad grades but double height makes for great looking mountainous terrain.

[Fabio]

As I suggested elsewhere, I believe we should make some tests to see the real impact on ways etc...
Now I fear a huge mayhem, but maybe seeing it in game I can understand better what actually changes.

Additionally, I would really like to restrict railways, canals, and possibly autobahns to the lower height only, while roads, trams, narrow gauge, schwebebahn would have both heights. If we go normal&half, I would make a compatibility pak with both heights and implement this restriction.

[sdog]

I thought of half heights mostly because of Fabio's new buildings. They would benefit from the terrain steps being more in scale.

Additionally, I would really like to restrict railways, canals, and possibly autobahns to the lower height only, while roads, trams, narrow gauge, schwebebahn would have both heights. If we go normal&half, I would make a compatibility pak with both heights and implement this restriction.

Thats most reasonable. Perhaps restrict elevated ways too low slopes too?

[Fabio]

Meaning all elevated restricted to the lowest? It surely makes sense, although there would be just few elevated to need this restriction, and urban elevated roads would look good to me also with steeper slopes.

[greenling]

I got a scratching in my head by this qustion.

[HDomos]

Meaning all elevated restricted to the lowest? It surely makes sense, although there would be just few elevated to need this restriction, and urban elevated roads would look good to me also with steeper slopes.

But the player have to know which way he can and wich he can't build on steep slopes before he start to build it... Some tooltip or something in the icon

[sdog]

I don't think players need to know it before. They'll find out by trial and error and understand the pattern.