forums.smartfoxserver.com

Hello,

I read the current OpenSpace docs, I saw you have 2 solutions for Placing large 2D elements in the 3D space:
1. Tile-based approach
2. Skin separation approach

I wanted to suggest an easier appriach, instead of applying the large 2D element to 1 tile, why don`t you make the option to apply the large 2D element to group of tiles (all the tiles beneath the 2D element) and it then the depths / walkability of the 2D element is handled automatically as if it is 3D?

I'm not sure I got exactly what you mean, but I suggest you to draw an isometric grid on a sheet of paper and test your solution simulating the avatar movement around the object. You will see that wrong overlappings will occur unless you adopt one of the proposed approaches.
Anyway if you can provide some example images, we will be glad to discuss this further.

can I attach a picture to my post? if not please give me the email I can send you my demonstration to.

You can post a link to an image hosted somewhere else. Otherwise click on the "Contact us" button on the OpenSpace website.

You can post a link to an image hosted somewhere else

I feel stupid not to figure that out

so I have 2 figures to show:

figure 1:
in this figure I want to indicate creating a tile that references the element and marking all the tiles that will be occupied by a large 2D element as of that specific 2D element tile, in this approach there should be an extra property that is added to only one of the element tiles to indicate that this tile will be using for positioning the element (only using for view) and then the engine now knows the tiles occupied by an element it should internally calculate when is the avator infront of the element and when it`ll be behind it. I`m just proposing the idea, the implementation can vary. Do you think this is reasonable? or am I forgetting something?
figure 1 url: http://ts-test.com/badri/web/fig1.jpg

figure 2:
actually this is just a question, I just think sorting the tiles as in this figure makes more sense to me ( putting the things near the camea on higher tiles). Do you think it has any advantage sorting the tiles this way?
figure2 url: http://ts-test.com/badri/web/fig2.jpg

figure 1:
in this figure I want to indicate creating a tile that references the element and marking all the tiles that will be occupied by a large 2D element as of that specific 2D element tile, in this approach there should be an extra property that is added to only one of the element tiles to indicate that this tile will be using for positioning the element (only using for view) and then the engine now knows the tiles occupied by an element it should internally calculate when is the avator infront of the element and when it`ll be behind it. I`m just proposing the idea, the implementation can vary. Do you think this is reasonable? or am I forgetting something?

OpenSpace has a different approach than the usual one you can find in a number of online tutorials (for example Tonypa's ones) in handling the tiles and avatars depths. The reason is that we wanted to offer an innovative engine supporting elevation with overpasses and bridges. Your approach would be good for an engine not allowing avatars to move on different overlapping levels.

actually this is just a question, I just think sorting the tiles as in this figure makes more sense to me ( putting the things near the camea on higher tiles). Do you think it has any advantage sorting the tiles this way?

Yes, that seems more natural, but... with that kind of sorting it would be impossible to use the "skin separation" approach. Try reasoning on your picture considering objects with a large isometric width and a small isometric height, and viceversa.

I read the Open Space Editor PDF today and found the discussion of working with large 2D objects a bit confusing...though this topic has helped me understand. I'm just wondering why you can't make all the tiles inside the house in the example non-walkable and assign the 2D art to a tile so that it is behind that line.

Guessing there is a good reason why my idea won't work since it seems like too simple a workaround, but would like to hear if this could be used in some instances.

Thanks!

You can test by yourself. If you make the avatar walk around the house, you will see that on some tiles it will be in front of the house, while it should be behind.
Of course there could be some cases in which the avatar is not allowed to to do this, and then you could have all the graphics on a single tile. It is up to you to evaluate where you need to split large objects on two or more tiles.