Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

You opinion on Terrain 'features': Roads, rivers, rail etc

This topic is 5436 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Okay, getting close to doing some actual field testing of some code, things are coming together. Now there''s a general concept and theory question ... perhaps a questions of ''coding practice'': If I have terrain for grassland, trees and the likes ... how should I represent villages, towns, roads, rail and rivers? I have considered both making terrain tiles with each, but the sheer amount of tiles required would be stupid, so I guess I should be drawing the roads over the tiles after they have been rendered using another tileset. If I do this for roads, rail and rivers, what about villages/settlements/fortifications and other terrain features? This could be taken further ... draw grassland and then draw the trees on top. What is the common pratice in this regard? What is the accepted standard? (if there is one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
I think there are two things you can do:
- Make several tiles maps, and draw them on top of each other, like layers. I think that''s the way you are talking about, and it will get the job done.
- You can also make an dinamic array of objects, and check them if they are on the screen, if they are, then draw them.

The first method is good for lots of objects that don''t move, like trees, roads, rivers, these things you want to make. The second one is better for moving things like monsters, etc (it will be harder to code, but more efficient). Of course you can use them both.

Well, yes, this is pretty much ''standard'', this is why tranparency is for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites