Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > Vanilla

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 27, 2009, 08:39   #171
Rizwan
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 292
Rizwan is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerDiver View Post
This is about the advantage of hexes over squares. In a hex map, two adjacent tiles share a vertex iff [if and only if] they share an edge. In a square map, it is possible to share only a vertex.

In the current system, diagonally adjacent #'s are assumed not to touch. Changing that would be a big deal.

If you really want to change this, you should widen the discussion to include switching to a hex map where there is no problem, by design.
So in Angband
Code:
   #           and         #
  #                        #
are treated differently? It seems weird that in the case of vertical or horizontal walls we assume they touch with no gap in between but if you have diagonals then they don't touch. If we put two bricks together in the manner shown on the left then we cannot see through the edge that is touching .
And your diamond representation will not change this?
DFOV mentions polygons right? So could we use hexes instead of diamonds and not have it be a big deal?
Rizwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27, 2009, 09:10   #172
Pete Mack
Prophet
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,698
Donated: $40
Pete Mack is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rizwan View Post
So in Angband
Code:
   #           and         #
  #                        #
are treated differently? It seems weird that in the case of vertical or horizontal walls we assume they touch with no gap in between but if you have diagonals then they don't touch. If we put two bricks together in the manner shown on the left then we cannot see through the edge that is touching .
And your diamond representation will not change this?
DFOV mentions polygons right? So could we use hexes instead of diamonds and not have it be a big deal?

They are certainly treated differently. Surely you recognize the difference between
Code:
#####################
# # # # # # # # # # #
## # # # # # # # # ##
# # # # # # # # # # #
## # # # # # # # # ##
# # # # # # # # # # #
#####################
and
Code:
#####################
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # # 
# # # # # # # # # # # 
# # # # # # # # # # # 
# # # # # # # # # # # 
#####################
Pete Mack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29, 2009, 05:39   #173
Rizwan
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 292
Rizwan is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Mack View Post
They are certainly treated differently. Surely you recognize the difference between
Code:
#####################
# # # # # # # # # # #
## # # # # # # # # ##
# # # # # # # # # # #
## # # # # # # # # ##
# # # # # # # # # # #
#####################
and
Code:
#####################
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # # 
# # # # # # # # # # # 
# # # # # # # # # # # 
# # # # # # # # # # # 
#####################
You know you are right but somehow I always thought there was more of a space between those walls. Just shows you that you can play Angband for umpteen years and still not see whats right in front of you. Now that I know there is no space between those wall sits going to bug me whenever I enter into such a room. Thanks Pete
So if you can walk between the ones on top then you should also be able to walk between the ones on the bottom because the # representation visually fools you into believing that there is space there. Maybe the solid wall configuration would help? I still say that @ should not be able to see or walk thorough the pillars shown in the top view.

Last edited by Rizwan; June 29, 2009 at 05:47.
Rizwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29, 2009, 09:01   #174
zaimoni
Knight
 
zaimoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 590
zaimoni is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerDiver View Post
You are agreeing with me. In order to add the property of symmetry, you have to remove the property that an interior square can see the wall.
Actually, the current implementation would have to choose between losing strict conical shadows [logical-or symmetrization; the one-off corrector guarantees this] and interior square can see the wall [logical-and symmetrization].

I find it credible that logical-and symmetrization must lose any pre-existing property that an interior square can see the wall. Both Zaiband's algorithm, and V's current LOS painter, attained that only by messing with the angles that would be needed to calculate Permissive Field of View (and in both cases worked with rational tangents of those angles, rather than directly).

Logical-and symmetrization may well be required to lose the lines that enable the LOS, but it's not obvious. Sketching a naive rigorous demonstration is quick (short paragraph), but that sketch suggests it will be more than a couple of paragraphs if it exists.

Logical-or symmetrization: it should be possible to prove squelching of conical shadows on logical-or symmetrization just from an interior square seeing all walls bounding the room.
zaimoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29, 2009, 09:18   #175
PaulBlay
Knight
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 657
PaulBlay is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Mack View Post
They are certainly treated differently. Surely you recognize the difference between [figA] and [figB]
They are treated differently, but they don't necessarily have to be treated differently.

How about a system where

Code:
#####################
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # #
#####################
is identical to

Code:
      #####################
     # # # # # # # # # # #
    # # # # # # # # # # #
   # # # # # # # # # # #
  # # # # # # # # # # #
 # # # # # # # # # # #
#####################
?
__________________
Currently turning (Angband) Japanese.
PaulBlay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1, 2009, 11:17   #176
flight2q
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7
flight2q is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Mack View Post
As I said, albeit very unclearly, I think that using permissive FOV for visibility but limited FOV for targetting is a good idea; it's very much in line with the current angband model.
+1

Just want to get my vote in while you guys continue to discuss.

While I'm here, but less important... I think visibility should be symmetrical. Targetability doesn't need to be symmetrical, but the exceptions should be simple and memorable, and not depend on the terrain occupied by either party.
flight2q is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1, 2009, 19:41   #177
PowerDiver
Prophet
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,712
PowerDiver is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulBlay View Post
They are treated differently, but they don't necessarily have to be treated differently.

How about a system where

Code:
#####################
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # #
#####################
is identical to

Code:
      #####################
     # # # # # # # # # # #
    # # # # # # # # # # #
   # # # # # # # # # # #
  # # # # # # # # # # #
 # # # # # # # # # # #
#####################
?
Those two *have* to be treated differently. If the #'s touch in both, the second room contains a set of disconnected spaces. If they do not touch in either, there is no way to step between them in the first diagram when you are restricted to only step to an empty adjacent tile.

If you want to treat them similarly, the right way is to go to a hex map, and then you can alternate solid diagonal walls with connected diagonal spaces. There is a reason some wargamers made the switch to hex maps decades ago.

The DFOV model, i.e. the everything is diamonds model, explains the difference consistently in that diagonally adjacent diamonds do not touch but horiz/vert adjacent diamonds do touch. When I reformulate my suggestion, the second room will be impossible in my model, thus removing any consistency issues.

editing: Oh, I see now, you want an asymmetric system where #'s are adjacent to the NE but not to the SE. It will take some time to think that through.
PowerDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1, 2009, 20:13   #178
Atarlost
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 441
Atarlost is on a distinguished road
You can't use a hex map without abandoning ascii representation because ascii charachters form a rectiliniar grid. That wouldn't be a true roguelike by the narrowest defenition anymore and would be completely inappropriate for vanilla Angband. It would be such a radical change that I would argue it goes beyond even variant territory.
__________________
One Ring to rule them all. One Ring to bind them.
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness interrupt the movie.
Atarlost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1, 2009, 20:26   #179
Marble Dice
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Columbia, MO. USA
Posts: 405
Marble Dice is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atarlost View Post
You can't use a hex map without abandoning ascii representation because ascii charachters form a rectiliniar grid. That wouldn't be a true roguelike by the narrowest defenition anymore and would be completely inappropriate for vanilla Angband. It would be such a radical change that I would argue it goes beyond even variant territory.
Now I'm not saying Vanilla Angband should switch to a hex map, but it wouldn't be that hard:

Code:
# # # # # # # # # # #
 # # # . . . . . . . #
# # # # . @ . . . . #
 # # # . . . . . . . #
. . . + . . . > . . #
 # # # . k . . . . . #
# # # # . . . . . . #
 # # # . . . . . . . #
# # # # # # # # # # #
Hexband, anyone?
Marble Dice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1, 2009, 21:11   #180
zaimoni
Knight
 
zaimoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 590
zaimoni is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atarlost View Post
You can't use a hex map without abandoning ascii representation because ascii charachters form a rectiliniar grid.
No, double-tiling works just fine. Read below as "one o and one @"
Code:
##oo#####
 ##..####
####@@##
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atarlost View Post
That wouldn't be a true roguelike by the narrowest defenition anymore and would be completely inappropriate for vanilla Angband. It would be such a radical change that I would argue it goes beyond even variant territory.
Agreed.
zaimoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
feature request - disturb on reverse LOS PowerDiver Vanilla 2 May 18, 2009 06:46


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:06.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.