Topic: To all map creators; Terrain menu
kaputtnik
Topic Opener
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 2550 OS: Archlinux Version: current master  One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2015-04-09, 20:56
Small Icons with tooltips are a good way i think. But i don't want to work on this further until we have finished the tests and have the real number of trees and "growability values" per soil/terrain. (i don't have a english term for "growability", sorry). @einstein13: Is this the test scenario to get the right values you need? 
Top
Quote
|
einstein13
Joined: 2013-07-29, 00:01
Posts: 1116 One Elder of Players Location: Poland |
Posted at: 2015-04-09, 23:42
Yes it is. Probably you want to name the scenarion map before saving. Names like "aspen" or "liana tree". I don't know if map name is shown on single player loading map window. einstein13
Top
Quote
|
|
kaputtnik
Topic Opener
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 2550 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2015-04-13, 19:08
Nearly all counts are made... I leave Larch, Spruce, Alder and Aspen for you to count. All the rest is counted. I used a "Desktop ruler" (f.e.) which helps counting a lot because with a horizontal/vertical ruler it is much easier to count how many trees are in a row or in a column. This could also be done with another window on your desktop. The terrain/soil "Swamp" was missing. I did not add it to the map, but edited the map to better distuingish the biomes (Summer/Blackland/Winter/Desert). I hope this will help you....
Top
Quote
|
|
einstein13
Joined: 2013-07-29, 00:01
Posts: 1116 One Elder of Players Location: Poland |
Posted at: 2015-04-19, 16:30
Thanks to kaputtnik work!!! Really thank you!!! finally I managed to complete all the test and show the results: http://student.agh.edu.pl/~rak/widelands/files/TreesModel-explanation/data0.03.pdf first page is how many trees (over 127 trees) survived on which terrain type. Second page shows percentage of alive trees with colors. The colors of terrain/ tree type shows the best fit color. So if the terrain is dense red- the terrain is definatelly barren. If dense green- there is at least one specie of tree which is good to grow there. Third page of the pdf shows the legend for the second page Last page is the list of exact results from here: https://wl.widelands.org/forum/topic/1686/?page=5#post-13116 I coloured them according to the legend above Thank you, kaputtnik, one more time! einstein13
Top
Quote
|
|
king_of_nowhere
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1668 One Elder of Players |
Posted at: 2015-04-19, 17:18
am I the only one to find ironic that the plant that best grows on tundra is a palm?
Top
Quote
|
|
kaputtnik
Topic Opener
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 2550 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2015-04-19, 20:02
I act only to the premiss: There is nothing good, except you do it...
No... And on mountains nearly nothing grows... But i hope einstein13 used this to make the terrains affinitys better and in the end we will have some words instead of 3 values to each terrain. So we can work on a modified terrain menu further. Again my opinion: With one world there is a need to make the mapmaker aware of the tree affinitys in the terrain menu (or use another implementation of placing trees). Edited: 2015-04-19, 20:03
Top
Quote
|
|
kaputtnik
Topic Opener
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 2550 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2015-07-27, 22:43
Back to topic: I think the best would be to leave the current state of the terrain menu.... with some modifications The main problem is currently to get an association from terrain <-> tree for the mapmaker. There are two menus which are involved to this:
If we look at the immovable menu with trees, we could see that there is no conclusion between tree and Biome (except the "Wasteland trees"). So my first proposal is to change the tooltips for this menu into something like "Summer trees", "Winter trees", Desert trees" and "Wasteland trees". Doing so would give the mapmaker a chance to get an idea of which tree he will choose to place. For the terrain menu it is ok to separate this into the "biomes". So we have a conclusion between terrain menu and immovable (tree) menu. But why we should difference water terrains between the biomes? Or why we should difference acid terrains (where nothing will grow or grow bad)? Wouldn't it be better to make extra tabs to those terrains, where trees doesn't grow (good)?
Top
Quote
|
GunChleoc
Joined: 2013-10-07, 15:56
Posts: 3317 One Elder of Players Location: RenderedRect |
Posted at: 2015-07-28, 08:53
If there is indeed a correspondence, I think this is a good idea.
The way it is now, terrains in one tab will fit each other visually. Also, there are icons and a tooltip to tell the editor which terrains are completely treeless. I think the user might have to switch tabs more often. Of course, I don't use the editor myself, so we would need more opinions from map makers here. Busy indexing nil values
Top
Quote
|
|
einstein13
Joined: 2013-07-29, 00:01
Posts: 1116 One Elder of Players Location: Poland |
Posted at: 2015-07-28, 10:11
I used to the layout as it is now. When I was making my last map (the Nile), I used simple tables that are now published... by me (with help of kaputtnik). I was deciding there what is the best solution for terrain types according to biome I've chosen. I understand that some people want to choose biome after making a map, but that is completely different way of making maps. Also it is very hard to decide "which terrains should be on <<acid>> tab". For me water should stay on biome parts, because its texture looks a bit odd with some terrains from other biomes (for example light desert water next to dark ignecious rocks from wasteland). einstein13
Top
Quote
|
|
kaputtnik
Topic Opener
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 2550 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2015-07-28, 18:53
That's not the point. My opinion is to make the editor as understandable as it could be. Mainly related to the tree problem. Your published table may(!) help a bit, but in my mind its unacceptable to new players of widelands who want to make a map. Sorry. You also should consider that there are players who don't have your IQ and just want to have fun with widelands. For a mapmaker there could also be other things important than creating a strategical map (beside: i like your nile map). I want to create nice looking maps (which are also playable). Something like this:
You see there are all water terrains used, and mountain terrains from different "biomes". I think this would make a map much interesting. Maybe widelands isn't the right game for making nice maps.... but if making nice maps is a goal to widelands, this should be reflected in the editor without switching the tabs too much while making a map.
Top
Quote
|
