New 640x480 layout - 640_square

[manikus]

Thanks to Dinonykos for getting me thinking about adapting a version of my square viewport style to the 640x480 resolution.

I put together a small design that has the new files you need along with an updated config.txt file.

The design is usable in .914 of DC. Included are template horizontal and vertical border, template viewport frame, template wall and template backdrop. As well are 3 sample small pics and a sample sprite.

All current icons, cursors, big pics and spell and item graphics will continue to work.

Just a reminder, you need to back up the config.txt file in your base DC folder, then copy the config.txt file in this design and paste it into the base folder before starting the editor.

[Uatu]

Hmm, I like it! Looks like the main "window" is now 264 x 264 (bigger than the default 176 x 211) - I have to confess that a square does seem easier to draw walls and such for, as it is rather intuitive.

The red wall is also nice Simple, but does the job very well!

It would be easy to adapt much of my small pics to the new size, but some things (like frames and walls) would require a lot more work.

[manikus]

You can convert walls easier than you think. Frames adapt relatively easy, with the viewport being the hardest.

I picked 264x264 so I could steal the wall info from 800x600, but you could do a smaller viewport, too. If you wanted something in particular, Uatu, I could give it a shot.

I may try and make a hyper wall template for this size, if anyone actually would use it, else I have other experimenting to do.

I was thinking about doing a 512x512 viewport for the 1024 resolution, just to complete the set.

[Uatu]

Yeah, I was thinking about the viewport, mainly

Why does 800 x 600 convert to 264 x 264 easily?

[Dinonykos]

Oh man! You are the "graphical incubus" of DC, Manikus, you know that?!

I like the screenshots very, very much.
But I guess I must not succumb to the temptation of using this option until Helmetlands is finished. While some of my walls may easily be changed to squares (without showing too much bias), others would definitely look strange. Not to speak of the tons of small pics I have drawn for the 176x211 size.

I am thinking about doing more Uatu-like art for a totally different setting (probably similar to the classic Dungeons and Dragons stuff), maybe I would change to the square viewport, then.
However, once I do that, I could as well change to a higher resolution (probably 800x600).

Still, nice job, Manikus. I will definitely check out in February how mich effort it would be to change my stuff. I am still not totally sure...

Originally Posted by Uatu Yeah, I was thinking about the viewport, mainly Why does 800 x 600 convert to 264 x 264 easily?

Good question. I also miss the factor that links 640, 800 and 1024 with 264, ?, and 512... How big is your square viewport in the 800x600 resolution?

Edit: I just checked, 352, correct?

[Dinonykos]

Halt!



Does that mean that big pics should be 608x264 in your setting? This can of course also be changed, but in your screenshot, it is that way, is it not?

[manikus]

Big pics: If you want them to fit in the frames (not cover up the middle horizontal frame), the should be 608x264, but they can still be 608x288. They can actually be up to 612 and not cover the frames...there was some bad math that occurred at the very beginning, that or the love of black lines around the big pic.

Resoltions:
Current 640 - the viewport supports images 176 wide.
Current 800 - the viewport supports images 264 wide.
Current 1024 - the viewport supports images 352 wide.
640 square - the viewport supports images 264 wide.
800 square - the viewport supports images 352 wide.
1024 square (proposed) - the viewport supports images 512 wide. (It should only be 412 if following the mathematical trend, but 512 will fit.)

It is a lot of work to change over, don't let me mislead you otherwise. But, with that being said I think the work of creating walls is easier for a square viewport than the rectangular one. Backdrops are the easiest, as you technically don't have to change them, they will stetch or shrink to fit the viewport.

For anyone interested in converting FRUA art, it will be easier, though I have not figured out the wall coordinates for the FRUA wall format. I think folks should be using tall or hyper walls anyway.

If anyone is interested, the shaded red wall was made with the template and a dhading layer that is a layered file in Paint Shop Pro format. I would be more than happy to attach that if anyone is interested. I did the backdrop the same way, but forgot to save it as layered file. D'oh!

[Uatu]

Hmmm... A shaded layer does sound like a good idea to make walls quickly! (I will have to think about that one At this moment, my walls do not darken as they go further away anyway, but...)

[manikus]

The whole shading thing is as much about atmosphere as about realism. If you are showing a brighter/day time place, it doesn't necessarily need to be shaded. But, if you're in a dungeon with a pretty quick fall-off rate for the light, you might want the walls to shade quite heavily at farther distances.

You should make yourself some shade wall overlays. Then you can make your walls as you have been and apply the light or dark (or whatever) overlay as needed for your design.

All of this reminds me that I would like to be able to load a night-time wall just like I can a night-time backdrop. Bright daytime walls without shading do not look so appropriate over a night-time backdrop.

[Dinonykos]

Originally Posted by manikus Resoltions: 640 square - the viewport supports images 264 wide. 800 square - the viewport supports images 253 wide. 1024 square (proposed) - the viewport supports images 512 wide. (It should only be 412 if following the mathematical trend, but 512 will fit.)

800: 352, as I mentioned avove, no? Would make no sense otherwise...