Revisiting an old project

[Cernel]

@Hepps The case of the plane is in a way the opposite of the case of the pike, as (aside from putting a flag there) you would have the mostly transparent part of the image on the lower part, instead. If you would draw it from lower-left, and have the placement taylored for other smaller images, then you would have the issue of the plane itself overlapping some land unit image above it, while in the case of the pike that is what you would want to happen.

[Cernel]

@Hepps said in Revisiting an old project:

@Cernel said in Revisiting an old project:
(default can stay random as it is).

Placements are not random. They are ordered.

What I was saying is that in your example like this:

currently, for example, the chariot can 50% end up overlapping the axeman, thus, to be sure such a situation to look like you presented it (with the images drawn lower appearing in front of those drawn higher), you would need to add an option so that images having a bigger Y placement coordinate stay above the other ones.

[Hepps]

@Cernel No the front row of units will always remain in front of the back row units if you do your placements manually and with a plan.

[Cernel]

@Hepps said in Revisiting an old project:

@Cernel No the front row of units will always remain in front of the back row units if you do your placements manually and with a plan.

Well, no. You can test it: there is no way you can currently assure the "front row" of units (meaning the units with the higher Y coordinates (which means drawn lower)) to stay and remain "in front" of the others.

To answer you clearly: you are correct that what placement spots are used first is ordered, but, when images happen to overlap, what overlaps what is purely random (and this can stay as default, if a way to set this gets made).

Alternatively to having the higher Y or X to overlap, you could, instead, have a rule that images in the first placement stay above the other ones and, then, be sure to have the spots where you currently see the archer, slinger, archer, axeman before the other ones. Anyways, that it is not how it currently works, and I'd rather go for the solution of a setting of overlapping based on the Y or X coordinates, so that you are not obliged to have all bigger Y placements first or vice versa.

[Cernel]

@Hepps You can easily test it this way: take "World At War" and set the "Unit Size" at 100%. Then look at the Infantry and the Tank in East Prussia. Then keep selecting and deselecting "Show Units". You will have a 50% probabylity of the Infantry appearing "in front" of the Tank and a 50% probability of the Tank appearing being in place of the head of the Infantry.

[Cernel]

@Hepps To be clear, what I meant was not that the matter was unimportant, but that I have the (maybe wrong) perception that I think chances are that we can talk about such things a lot but nobody able to do stuff is interested (but all good). If you want, probably we should move this to a specific feature request. My main advice was to totally forget about it for this project (as I assume you will finish it in a few days), and just accept to have a short "sarissa", not to delay it waiting for something that I doubt is going to happen.

[Hepps]

Insomnia pays dividends once more.

Put in a few of the old ones just to see the difference.

[Cernel]

@Hepps Nice, but I think I would expect either the warelephant to have some more shadow at its feet or the hoplite to have less, relatively. Let us know what the new images are representing or are inspired to, like the hoplite here.
On the hoplite of Macedonia and Seleucid I think they should be similar (not sure), both representing the main guy of the phalanx (not a Greek hoplite), as said.

[redrum]

@Hepps Aren't you supposed to be working on GD? New units look much nicer and makes you realize how terrible the existing ones are

[Cernel]

If you upload here the full set, once you finish (like in a zipped units folder), I will update the 270BC Variants (if you want, I can also push the changes for 270BC). I guess you will be done with this in a couple days.

[Cernel]

I'll flip, or something, the images to have the flags all on the left for the 270BC Variants; what to accept for 270BC is up to @redrum and whoever other repository admins, of course.
I also prefer all the guys holding the weapon with their right hand (tho in a map I'm making a lot don't), but I'm less strong on this than the above.

[Hepps]

@Cernel If you like Cernel, you can just do all the units. I'll find something else to be distracted with.

[Hepps]

@redrum I am supposed to be... but I'm going through a bit of a burn-out period. Just wanted to do some stuff unrelated to GD.

[Frostion]

@Hepps Hehe. I know that feeling. It actually helps to do something totally different for a while, and then one can return to the old work with a fresh mind I get a "burn out" when having to do all the tedious stuff, like placements and and moving around PU location. It's so boring that I can literally fall asleep in front of the screen.

[CrazyG]

@Frostion
Funny, I actually feel asleep this afternoon setting PU values

[Cernel]

@Hepps said in Revisiting an old project:

@Cernel If you like Cernel, you can just do all the units. I'll find something else to be distracted with.

It's no problem for me to stop talking in this thread, if you find me too assertive or anyway annoying; you just have to ask.
Good luck with this project. I'll then wait for the final result and consider if to use it for 270BC Variants or not (I'm quite sure I will, maybe with a very few changes).

[Hepps]

As an added bonus....

[prastle]

@Hepps DEM BOATS! @Hepps solves the color blindness

[Hepps]

@prastle Well a formal battleship seemed even more out of place than a long boat.

[Hepps]

Started on the nations boats. They will all have accent colours and flags on the mast that match the national colour as well as the national symbol on the main sail.