[EO] Tilesets

[Zetasis]

I think I have found a bug when using more the one tile sheet. You can not switch between tile sheets with out the map images getting switch as well. Say I use a grass tile from the first 32x32 square on Tiles1 and but wanted to make a tree from Tiles2, well when I switch to Tiles2 the grass tile gets replaced by what ever is in its location as Tiles1(in this case the first 32x32 square).

I'm not sure if this was intentional but I would assume not as this is annoying and very frustrating.  :cry:

This also is the same for all previous releases of EO. I have gone back and checked.

[emblem]

That is indeed a feature of EO. It's the proper way to use tilesets and it keeps memory usage to a minimum.

Just have all inside tiles on one set, all outside tiles on another, etc.

[Anna Comnena]

@Tylian!:

> That is indeed a feature of EO. It's the proper way to use tilesets and it keeps memory usage to a minimum.
>
> Just have all inside tiles on one set, all outside tiles on another, etc.

Sweet so it removes the point of having dynamic amounts of tilesets… since you have to load up the individual tilesheet images full of content. Might as well just fix the amount to 10 then and have the massive sheets like Eclipse then.

[emblem]

That could work, put the whole point of the feature is so that you don't load 500mb of images into memory at once, even though you're only using 200mb of it.

[Robin]

@Anna:

> Sweet so it removes the point of having dynamic amounts of tilesets… since you have to load up the individual tilesheet images full of content. Might as well just fix the amount to 10 then and have the massive sheets like Eclipse then.

It's just how people around Eclipse do stuff. They're going to make huge tilesets no matter what I tell them, so I simply kept this feature as it was, that way they can only rape a user's memory with _one_ giant tileset, instead of ten.

Besides that, programming it so each layer can have it's own tileset pretty much doubles the size of maps in memory.

[Zetasis]

Well I guess I see why you would do it that way. I just wasn't sure if that was intentional or not is all. Just means more work for me but ehh, its worth it.

[Robin]

@Zetasis:

> Well I guess I see why you would do it that way. I just wasn't sure if that was intentional or not is all. Just means more work for me but ehh, its worth it.

The features I create aren't there to save you time, they're there to make your game access and use computer resources responsibly, run smooth and feel good.

Designing each tileset is something everyone should do. Dumping 500mB of RMXP tilesets into your project isn't going to do anyone any good.

[Niko]

I like this idea and plan on using EO very soon.

[Mellico]

Sorry I dont think this is relivent but I'll give it a shot. Are you talking about when you use the original tiles at first and then you edit the tile set?

[Robin]

@Mellico:

> Sorry I dont think this is relivent but I'll give it a shot. Are you talking about when you use the original tiles at first and then you edit the tile set?

The question has already been answered.

[Harris6310]

Pretty cool feature. And it will stop noobs from mixing tilesets.

[Jaiden]

I still can't decide if I like this idea or not. Obviously it's staying because it is more RAM efficient, but I've always enjoyed organizing my tilesheets with separate sets.

A crazy idea, but maybe there is some way to put labels on a large sheet so you can move to that label in the editor. That way if you have a very large sheet you can easily move about different tile groups.

[Lukin]

I like this feature. Since whenever I do a tileset, I base it on the actual map, for example grass and dirt will go with the forest tileset, while houses, stone tiles etc will go in a town tileset, the game I work for does the same.

[Anna Comnena]

@Lukin:

> I like this feature. Since whenever I do a tileset, I base it on the actual map, for example grass and dirt will go with the forest tileset, while houses, stone tiles etc will go in a town tileset, the game I work for does the same.

What if you want a stone cottage out on a forest map?

[Lukin]

@Anna:

> @Lukin:
>
> > I like this feature. Since whenever I do a tileset, I base it on the actual map, for example grass and dirt will go with the forest tileset, while houses, stone tiles etc will go in a town tileset, the game I work for does the same.
>
> What if you want a stone cottage out on a forest map?

If a stone cottage should be in a forest map, it would be in the forest tileset, I rather not reuse graphics.

[Anna Comnena]

But if you want to have a similar house in a nearby town map, you'll need the tiles in both tilesheets, so you'll have duplicate graphics anyway.

[zidsal]

@Anna:

> But if you want to have a similar house in a nearby town map, you'll need the tiles in both tilesheets, so you'll have duplicate graphics anyway.

Then theres not much you can do about it then to duplicate the tiles. Anyway if you're going along the lines that you shouldn't duplicate the same tiles in different tilesets because its a waste of space then I'll think you find that this method saves alot more space then if you were to have mutiple tilesets.

[Lukin]

@Anna:

> But if you want to have a similar house in a nearby town map, you'll need the tiles in both tilesheets, so you'll have duplicate graphics anyway.

As I said, I don't reuse tiles, and if it would be something that looks similar, it will not look the same obviously. :P

[Anna Comnena]

@Lukin:

> @Anna:
>
> > But if you want to have a similar house in a nearby town map, you'll need the tiles in both tilesheets, so you'll have duplicate graphics anyway.
>
> As I said, I don't reuse tiles, and if it would be something that looks similar, it will not look the same obviously. :P

Slight recolors are the same as reusing tiles. Ok back on topic I mean I'm not arguing against this system I'm just pointing out that it does still have a flaw.