Ryandor.com

I have been considering how to start the update to Map Generator (codewise, not data. For data one gets to bug Stormcrow *grin*).

There are some interesting points people have suggested, that I am trying to factor.

Lets start with the basic input. Does it make sense to keep with a two indexed file approach? And if it does, should the second image (altitude) just be a grayscale?

Random art is currently integrated as part of the terrain. Should it be instead an overlay image, they contains this information , for consideration? Decouple it totally from the base terrain?

Structures and Multi's. The multi editor allows one to group any collection of art tiles into a file, relative to a reference altitude. Should this be an overlay as well, to let radar representations of these artworks be placed on the map, and inputted for generation. A different overlay, or perhaps the same overlay (this would not be manipulated in a seperate program, but a WorldMaker program).

Right now the same program generates the initial terrain, altitude,and map. Would it make more sense as seperate programs (or at least generation)?

What level of control should be allowed on these functions? Should the program allow for the update of a pallette to an existing file (if a terrain/altitude entry is added after initial creation of the bmps)? Should generation always be the entire image?

What represnetation if any should it have? Right now it does not display the bmp images. Should it? Should it put grid lines for block boundaries?

About to be on work again for a month stuck in Denver, but I may find a day or two to start coding.

I think it should stay indexed color because it can be hard to tell the difference on what terrain you are actually raising, especially if you have forest and grass and you want only change the altitude on one terrain. I know dian is actually making a multi color atltitude index file now, so we can tell the difference between all the terrains.



I think this might add a bit of confusion or extra work, its easy enough to make a new terrain with no art tiles instead of make a whole new image to support art.



Whoa I kind didnt understand much of that, but I think what your saying is should the multi editor place the items into the terrain with the multi editor? If thats what your saying then yes that would be awsome.



Having everything in one program to me is good because its easier to just use one program that deals with the same map generation instead of opening 2 others to generate a terrain and altitude image.



If the pallatte updated itself that would be good because to add a new terrains means to make a altitude color table and to change the color table on your map if you are using a map with a new terrain. If i could generate sections of my map that would be amazing, the only thing i see myself using this a lot on is if i want to add dungeons later on, but then poses the question, how I update 1 peice of my map onto my already created map0.mul file?



It seems like it may be unnecessary for it to display images when you load them or whatever. I mean it would be really cool because I suppose you could see what image you have loaded.

_________________
Shadow of the Void
http://24.147.205.228/mxBB/index.php

I'm not really too picky one way or the other on alot of those issues, but dont change any of that stuff unless your gonna have a converter for old mapgen maps or i'll kill. There needs to be a color for yew forests. Any kind of algorithym that could search out potentially ugly transitions in your .bmp and fix them would be awsome, a HUGE amount of time gets spent just filling in little 1 pixel areas.

just my two cents. if you need it punt I have a big map0 bmp with tons of detail, almost every terrain type used and hundreds of hours of work put into, you could use as a test map maybe? just ask.

_________________
contact via aim ashestodust

yes, any changes I would do a convertor. I will think about your map when I am ready to test things.

One thing that delays me, is I dont have the map editor working in OS X. So, I can't really view completed maps at the moment. (it does, if I am on my intel Mac laptop, but doesn't on my G5 iMac (endian isn't handled)).

Hi

I like the old dragon 9+ program myself, 1 image. I know it limits the range of alltitude one can use but I like the ez of being able to tell exatly were everything is. I rewrote the terrain and altitude XML's close but not exatly like dragon 9+ with some of my own tastes added.

Unfotunetly I have a terrain map AND an altitude map that come out looking EXATLY the same. personaly, and I mean this with no disrespect Dragon is and always will be my favorite mapping program....

BUT I love the coast lines in Map Gen 2, MAN THEY ROCK!!! So i'm taking the best of both programs (kinda) and makin my own. Oh and compile times BIG diffrence.

But hey Im no programer so I'll be happy with what ever is out there as long as I can make my own maps

I'd have to agree with the use of 1 map, i loved that a lot. It was so easy to do stuff.

_________________
Shadow of the Void
http://24.147.205.228/mxBB/index.php

I don't agree with the 1 imagething, 2 maps are way more powerfull. I have huge z height ranges, my sea is at z -80 and my mountains go up to 250... this means the only way to create my map is with 2 images, one for height and one for terrain. So... I'd like map generator to maintain the 2 image apporach. This told... I'll commeanswer punt's questions.
1) I like the fact that the height map is colored and not greyscale, it lets me have a general idea of which kind of terrain I'm raising or lowering. But greyscale would let us have even wider ranges. I'd go for greyscale only if you can provide us an handy way to see what we are doing. I have an idea about this: give, together with the tool, a photoshop action (and the same for other tools) which can save two indexed bitmaps from a psd project file which has 2 layers. This lets us work with a 2 layers project which has both terrain and altitude and just hit a button to create the two bitmaps when we want to convert them to muls.
2) I proposed a third bitmap for random many months ago. Unless it raises too much the ram usage, I'd like to have it. I think it has both advantages and disadvantages. A disadvantage is that usually random art is bound to terrain type, so whenever you change a terrain in a tile, you have to change the randomart image too. The main advantages is that you can mix random art in a terrain area more freely and that you can see better the terrain types because you require less colors if you don't have different versions of the same terrain for each randomart set. In short, I'd say: add the third bitmap
3) Honestly I never used your multi editor, so I'm not sure I can understand what you're talking about.
4) Not sure about the consequences of this, could you please clarify them?
5) The ability to generate only a part of a map would be AWESOME. And I'll say more: the ability to generate only a part of ANY SHAPE of a map would give us an immense power. The power to create a piace of map, start building towns on it and in the menwhile create another piece of map. This would be a great improvement in a world development cycle for a lot of projects. So here is what I'd like to have: An additional bitmap which defines what portions of a map must be generated and added to an existing map.mul and statics.mul. Now about the update of the palette: yes, it's absolutely useful
6) Honestly I see no foundamental use in the representation of the bmp images, but it would indeed be a nice plus. If you add it, indeed grid lines for block boundaries would be interesting since many things are related to blocks. For example POL emulator has a system of config-defined regions which can have onenter and onleave scripts attached to them. These regions must have their boundaries on blocks boundaries (for performance reasons). This is just one of the possible uses.

And now I want to add a thing you didn't ask I know I already told this many times, but I'll try again: I'd love to have an additional bitmap completely dedicated to the placement of static items. This would be a very very powerfull way to add caves to a map without having to mess with the mountain and to care about editing the caves transitions, which can't handle caves under a moutnain with an height different from the standard height wihtout lowering the mountain. And there are other uses, not only cave drawing: one can draw some large static floors of other static structures which are far more easy to draw in a bitmap rather than being placed in game. I'd really love to see this feature in new Map Generator, if one doesn't need it you can make the use of the additional bitmap an option