Report, edit, etc...Posted by SI on 2005-02-09 at 12:36:01
should I reimplement square and rectangular brushes for terrain or should I allow freely sizeable brushes (this is for the base terrain types only)
and post why
and post why
Report, edit, etc...Posted by chuiu on 2005-02-09 at 15:03:43
Custom x/y size. This gives the person using them a lot of freedom in adding terrain. I can tell you already the fact starforge lets me do stuff like 1,20 or 3,4, etc has decreased the amount of time it takes to make/modify terrain in a map by a lot.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lisk on 2005-02-09 at 16:57:55
same as above, just make it faster than SF 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SI on 2005-02-09 at 17:22:13
only thing in scmdraft that is slow that I know of is the terrain index and that has been fixed.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (U)Bolt_Head on 2005-02-13 at 06:43:49
Custom sizes. I like to do things like a 64x2 brush for making a border around a map, and things like that.
That and it just allows more freedom oviously.
That and it just allows more freedom oviously.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2005-02-13 at 09:34:27
Custom X/Y
That way i could easily copy/paste terrain if you implement a Custom Tile thing like in SF.
That way i could easily copy/paste terrain if you implement a Custom Tile thing like in SF.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Haplo on 2005-02-19 at 02:24:14
I suggest this:
Rectangular, by default, is square. You can enter custom x,y size, however, but when doing so, + and - increase it proportionally.
IE
1x1 (+) makes 2x2
while
2x3 (+) makes 4x6
that way you can retain the nice + and - brush size changing while still allowing custom brush sizes.
Rectangular, by default, is square. You can enter custom x,y size, however, but when doing so, + and - increase it proportionally.
IE
1x1 (+) makes 2x2
while
2x3 (+) makes 4x6
that way you can retain the nice + and - brush size changing while still allowing custom brush sizes.