Difference between revisions of "Talk:Map format"
(→Versioning) |
(→Level header) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
2) Do we need to keep reference to json file with terrain? Maybe use same name as level, e.g. "surface.json" to avoid inconsistencies in naming? | 2) Do we need to keep reference to json file with terrain? Maybe use same name as level, e.g. "surface.json" to avoid inconsistencies in naming? | ||
: We are already using this type of indirection in mod configs, kinda standard. --[[User:AVS|AVS]] ([[User talk:AVS|talk]]) 03:13, 3 July 2015 (CEST) | : We are already using this type of indirection in mod configs, kinda standard. --[[User:AVS|AVS]] ([[User talk:AVS|talk]]) 03:13, 3 July 2015 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: That's mostly because mods have complex filesystem and may add multiple objects or modify existing. If we were to put (for example) all data associated with one object like creature into one archive like we're going with maps I would prefer to use fixed names within that archive as well. So IMO there is no need for configurable names within map archive. [[User:Ivan|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Ivan|talk]]) 21:03, 3 July 2015 (CEST) | ||
3) "depth" - rename to generic "index"? After all, maps with more are not necessarily stacked on top of each other - they can represent different parts of world as well. | 3) "depth" - rename to generic "index"? After all, maps with more are not necessarily stacked on top of each other - they can represent different parts of world as well. | ||
Revision as of 19:03, 3 July 2015
Versioning
Right now there are three fields that describe map version: format version, format revision, engine version.
Suggestion: remove redundant engine version & possibly - rename version+revision to major version + minor version (more logical names from my point of view)
Level header
1) Any actual reason to split map objects by level? Perhaps keep them in one file instead of per-level?
2) Do we need to keep reference to json file with terrain? Maybe use same name as level, e.g. "surface.json" to avoid inconsistencies in naming?
- We are already using this type of indirection in mod configs, kinda standard. --AVS (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2015 (CEST)
- That's mostly because mods have complex filesystem and may add multiple objects or modify existing. If we were to put (for example) all data associated with one object like creature into one archive like we're going with maps I would prefer to use fixed names within that archive as well. So IMO there is no need for configurable names within map archive. Ivan (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2015 (CEST)
3) "depth" - rename to generic "index"? After all, maps with more are not necessarily stacked on top of each other - they can represent different parts of world as well.
Terrain
[F][flags as uint8] Perhaps they should be coded as part of terrain/road/river descriptions? E.g.
_ no rotation (use space instead?) - left-right flip | top-bottom flip + both directions Example: wt34+pc3-
- Nice idea, but there are some other flag bits except rotation. "coastal bit" and may few more. Should we use them? --AVS (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2015 (CEST)
Othervice looks great. And nice idea with using logical expressions for allowed objects. Haven't thought about it before :)
