Dyeing/Colorizing Unit Images

Cernel

@LaFayette said in Dyeing/Colorizing Unit Images:

With regards to coupling, I've also been wondering if the 'ignore' of coloring and image flipping should be decoupled. Is it always the case that any unit where we want to ignore coloring, we will also always want to ignore image flipping? In other words, should a map maker be allowed to say "flip this image, but do not color it".

The cost of enabling that is likely duplication, ie:
units.color.ignore=factory,fighter
units.color.flip.ignore=factory,fighter
But the above would allow for something like the following where, for example, 'fighters' are colored but not rotated:
units.color.ignore=factory
units.color.flip.ignore=factory,fighter

I believe that ignoring units for colourization should not effect flipping.
I would not have an option for ignoring units for flipping.

redrum

I've renamed the properties to use "units.transform" instead of "units.color" prefix:

units.transform.color.Germans=FF0000
units.transform.flip.Germans=true
units.transform.color.Russians=00BBBB
units.transform.brightness.Russians=25
units.transform.color.British=00FF00
units.transform.ignore=factory,fighter

@Cernel The ignore needs to apply to flip as well as generally the units you ignore will either be things like factory which appear exactly the same for all nations (not flipped like the rest) or will be damaged BB or AA radar which you'll already manually colorize/flip if you want them to be ignored (wouldn't want to flip them back). I don't think there is really a use in TripleA to be flipping images and not coloring them which is why they share a single ignore unit list. Remember this isn't meant to be an image editing program just give users and map makers the common functions that they would need if creating a shared unit set.

Cernel

@redrum Personally, if I would make an Axis vs Allies game, with Axis all facing a side and Allies all facing another side, and I would have something like a capturable emplacement or bunker (a combat infrastructure), I would have that unit too being one the flipped version of the other alliance, like all other units, while, as long as they don't move and always belong to the territory owner, I would leave them generically colourized the same way for everyone. For consistency, I would go the same way with factories, even if they would be non combat infrastructures, but I see that currently in assets the factories are all always the same, no matter where the other units appear to be facing. However, I believe having no colourization is not related to being a non combat units (as if you have mobile factories that can go in allied territories, you need to tell them apart), but to always belonging to the territory owner where the units is, which means being an infrastructure, and currently infrastructures can be combat units too, while this was not the case when Classic and Revised were made.

Cernel

@redrum said in Dyeing/Colorizing Unit Images:

@Cernel The ignore needs to apply to flip as well as generally the units you ignore will either be things like factory which appear exactly the same for all nations (not flipped like the rest) or will be damaged BB or AA radar which you'll already manually colorize/flip if you want them to be ignored (wouldn't want to flip them back).

I really would go the same way with such things. If I'm colourizing a unit, I would colourize the same way also his damaged or tech versions (that is why I would not colourize units that have any sub-versions of the same being not monocolour, even if the basic unit is). Besides, elements that are beyond this scheme should rather really be icons that the program overlays.

On this matter, it should be decided if calling "battleship" will call "battleship_hit" and "battleship_r" too, as well as if calling "aaGun" will call "aaGun_r", "rockets" and "rockets_r" too, as well as if calling "fighter" will call "fighter_lr" and "fighter_jp" and "fighter_lr_jp" too etc.. I think all those cases if you are calling the basic unit, all the related damaged or tech variants should be called too. So, for example, if I exclude "bomber", then "bomber_lr", "bomber_hb" and "bomber_lr_hb" should be excluded the same way, as well.

redrum

@Cernel Well looking at just about every existing map... it appears no one else agrees with flipping factories and similar units. I think the part you are missing is that the units that generally aren't colored/flipped are 0 movement capturable units which generally represent some sort of building/fortification/etc that it makes more sense for them to never "move" or change orientation as they are just being captured.

Even look at TWW (probably the best map from a graphical standpoint) which has a bunch of these types of units (barracks, factory, rails, airbases, etc) and you'll see they all are uncolored and face the same direction for all nations.

Cernel

@redrum Maybe I'm used to 270BC that when you capture a city it immediately becomes a completely different city.:grinning_squinting_face:

Cernel

@redrum Quick question: currently, if "factory" is excluded, are "factory_hit", "factory_it" and "factory_it_hit" excluded too?

Cernel

@redrum said in Dyeing/Colorizing Unit Images:

I've renamed the properties to use "units.transform" instead of "units.color" prefix:
units.transform.color.Germans=FF0000
units.transform.flip.Germans=true
units.transform.color.Russians=00BBBB
units.transform.brightness.Russians=25
units.transform.color.British=00FF00
units.transform.ignore=factory,fighter
@Cernel The ignore needs to apply to flip as well as generally the units you ignore will either be things like factory which appear exactly the same for all nations (not flipped like the rest) or will be damaged BB or AA radar which you'll already manually colorize/flip if you want them to be ignored (wouldn't want to flip them back). I don't think there is really a use in TripleA to be flipping images and not coloring them which is why they share a single ignore unit list. Remember this isn't meant to be an image editing program just give users and map makers the common functions that they would need if creating a shared unit set.

In GIMP "transform" means those things like rotating etc., not changing colours, but of course this is just a nomenclature. For coherency with "flip", I suppose the other one should be called "colorize" instead of "color", but, then, it would be not coherent with "brightness", instead (tho this is the same in GIMP too). Maybe it should be rather called "hs", or something hinting that it is changing only the hue and saturation, not sure.

redrum

@Cernel Yes, currently it checks the actual unit name against the ignore list not the specific image. So will ignore transforming for all the unit's various images (_hit, _lr, _it, etc). I figured that probably makes more sense but I'm open if folks feel they would want ignore to list each specific image for a unit.

Well, "color" fits better with "brightness" and "color" is used in other areas of the map.properties. "flip" is probably the one that's a bit questionable but I think that was the most straightforward name I could think of.

LaFayette

Flip & coloring should be completely independent IMO. We can add a 'flip' ignore later I suppose, so not critical. If it comes to that, I just hope that map makers will request the feature before they add more unit images to work around it.

I've pondered a bit if unit.transform.mirror.image=true would be any better, but does not necessarily seem so. I think the only thing missing or unclear about 'flip' is that it's a horizontal flip. There can be multiple types of flip, color, orientation, and for orientation multiple kinds.

Using the value 'horizontal' could potentially add clarity, eg:

units.transform.flip.Germans=horizontal

The fact that there is no vertical is fine, it's an unsupported configuration that we could add in if needed. That would be a good route to leave open, if we did start allowing a vertical flip, for whatever reason, we wouldn't need an additional property (which would make the property naming even trickier).

redrum

@LaFayette I thought about including something about horizontal so that later on vertical flipping could be added more easily. I just couldn't come up with any case where I would want to flip unit images vertically. If someone can think of something then I'm fine adjusting the property.

LaFayette

@redrum I don't think there will be a case for it TBH, so it'd mostly just be for clarity IMO

redrum

PR is now merged. Feel free to give it a try in the pre-release and provide feedback!

wc_sumpton

@redrum
Trying this out on 'Invasion_USA'. If I understand how the search of the image works it should be 'nation folder to units folder to images included with TripleA'

Under the units folder I have only the 'Americans' folder the other nations share the other units. The 'Americans' also share the 'infantry' unit so no 'infantry.prg' in the 'Americans' folder.

When I run the game the 'Invaders' do share the same units, but the 'Americans' infantry seems to be coming from the TripleA resources.

If you have time could you check the search order, everything else works great.
:thumbs_up_medium-light_skin_tone: :thumbs_up_medium-light_skin_tone:

Cheers...

redrum

@wc_sumpton That's correct. It should be first the folders in the map zip (nation, then shared) then the folders in TripleA engine assets (nation, then shared). If you share the map zip then I can take a look.

ubernaut

not sure why but for some reason i thought triplea was already doing this.

Cernel

@redrum I suggest the feature as default applying only to the units in main folder, not to any of the ones in the player's folder.

For example, if a player would have some called units in its own folder and some in main folder and you set units.transform.flip or units.transform.color, only the units in main folder would be flipped or colourized, while no changes would be made on the ones in the player's folder. I think it would make the most sense, this way.