Iso vs. overhead tileset and topology

Contribute, display and discuss art and tilesets for use in Freeciv here.
User avatar
Corbeau
Elite
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:13 pm

Iso vs. overhead tileset and topology

Postby Corbeau » Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:58 pm

It was just stated in one of the chat channels that from 2.6 onwards (including 2.6) it is not possible to choose a overhead tileset if the map is set to isometric topology, and the other way round, meaning you will be forced to use the tileset family according to the map. Meaning, if people preferring isometric view and people preferring overhead view want to play the game together, they won't all be able to choose their preferred view but will have to agree on the same one for everybody.

Is this correct?

Wahazar
Hardened
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:49 pm

Re: Iso vs. overhead tileset and topology

Postby Wahazar » Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:10 pm

Probably it was done to prevent hex topology on cubic topology server or whatever, but it should be restricted to such case.
Another idea: server options with accepted client topologies.

User avatar
Caedo
Elite
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:21 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Iso vs. overhead tileset and topology

Postby Caedo » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:17 pm

I'm willing to believe that originally, it was simply the realization that there are four map topologies and four tileset topologies, and the idea to automatically make the client select a fitting tileset, without the additional realization that sometimes, an "unfitting" tileset might be preferred. That is to say, it probably wasn't specifically done with any particular goal in mind, but likely just a "this would be nice to have".

Apart from that, to answer the original question: No, it is not entirely correct. It's still quite possible to use a tileset with a different topology. If you check your 2.6 client's settings, you'll find that there are four combo boxes for the four different topologies, with each one's drop-down menu containing only the tilesets of that topology. However, it is possible to simply type out the name of another tileset, even one that is not in the drop-down menu, in order to use an "unfitting" tileset.
In other words, there isn't really any problem at all.
~S.C. L.

Hans Lemurson
Veteran
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:25 pm

Re: Iso vs. overhead tileset and topology

Postby Hans Lemurson » Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:38 am

Caedo wrote:I'm willing to believe that originally, it was simply the realization that there are four map topologies and four tileset topologies, and the idea to automatically make the client select a fitting tileset, without the additional realization that sometimes, an "unfitting" tileset might be preferred. That is to say, it probably wasn't specifically done with any particular goal in mind, but likely just a "this would be nice to have".

Apart from that, to answer the original question: No, it is not entirely correct. It's still quite possible to use a tileset with a different topology. If you check your 2.6 client's settings, you'll find that there are four combo boxes for the four different topologies, with each one's drop-down menu containing only the tilesets of that topology. However, it is possible to simply type out the name of another tileset, even one that is not in the drop-down menu, in order to use an "unfitting" tileset.
In other words, there isn't really any problem at all.
:lol:

So what you're saying is that people (who have a hard time wrapping their heads around the concept of middle-clicks as an essential part of the UI) just have to figure out that typing into drop-down menus is not only a valid input, but that it will accept items not on its list? :?

Sure, I guess it's technically a fully-implemented feature!
Wishes he could convert Civ2's scenarios to FreeCiv...
But instead, he made his own tileset variants, RoundSquare and Sextant-enHANSed, and refuses to play on anything else. Check them out!

cazfi
Elite
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Iso vs. overhead tileset and topology

Postby cazfi » Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:49 am

Caedo wrote:That is to say, it probably wasn't specifically done with any particular goal in mind, but likely just a "this would be nice to have".

The reason were the countless bug reports about weird behaviors that were actually caused by user having incompatible map topology and tileset. It seemed that average newbie didn't realize that it's not enough to just select ones tileset, but one needed also to make something called a server setting of topology to match.

cazfi
Elite
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Iso vs. overhead tileset and topology

Postby cazfi » Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:01 am

Currently supported way to override topology -> tileset matching is to give tileset with client commandline option --tiles. Such an tileset gets always used (or client errors out if it cannot be used). 2.6.0 has some bugs in this, though (fixed in S2_6 development version)
We are looking into ways to improve all this.

User avatar
Caedo
Elite
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:21 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Iso vs. overhead tileset and topology

Postby Caedo » Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:58 am

I believe the only problem that can arise from mismatched tileset and game topology are on the square/hex side of things. Iso/overhead mismatch isn't even noticeable, except on the world borders.
~S.C. L.

User avatar
Corbeau
Elite
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:13 pm

Re: Iso vs. overhead tileset and topology

Postby Corbeau » Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:22 am

Hans Lemurson wrote:
Caedo wrote:I'm willing to believe that originally, it was simply the realization that there are four map topologies and four tileset topologies, and the idea to automatically make the client select a fitting tileset, without the additional realization that sometimes, an "unfitting" tileset might be preferred. That is to say, it probably wasn't specifically done with any particular goal in mind, but likely just a "this would be nice to have".

Apart from that, to answer the original question: No, it is not entirely correct. It's still quite possible to use a tileset with a different topology. If you check your 2.6 client's settings, you'll find that there are four combo boxes for the four different topologies, with each one's drop-down menu containing only the tilesets of that topology. However, it is possible to simply type out the name of another tileset, even one that is not in the drop-down menu, in order to use an "unfitting" tileset.
In other words, there isn't really any problem at all.
:lol:

So what you're saying is that people (who have a hard time wrapping their heads around the concept of middle-clicks as an essential part of the UI) just have to figure out that typing into drop-down menus is not only a valid input, but that it will accept items not on its list? :?

Sure, I guess it's technically a fully-implemented feature!


Actually, Cazfi's explanation makes perfect sense. If you are a noob who doesn't know what you're doing, this prevents you from having a short circuit somewhere (namely, mismatched topology and tileset). If you are not a noob and know some basics, then this shouldn't be difficult to understand and use.

Hans Lemurson
Veteran
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:25 pm

Re: Iso vs. overhead tileset and topology

Postby Hans Lemurson » Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:07 pm

It's better than being impossible, definitely.
Wishes he could convert Civ2's scenarios to FreeCiv...
But instead, he made his own tileset variants, RoundSquare and Sextant-enHANSed, and refuses to play on anything else. Check them out!

cazfi
Elite
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Iso vs. overhead tileset and topology

Postby cazfi » Sun Sep 30, 2018 12:58 pm

I just submitted a patch to combine "Overhead" and "Iso" tileset settings in freeciv-3.0. Unfortunately we cannot do that in S2_6, so one needs to wait that particular improvement to the situation for some time. Feature #776792