When two mobs occupy the same turf, one with a density and one without, can it be made so the one without is always drawn on top of the one with the density?
I'm noticing that as regular mobs (dense) walk underneath my flying mobs (not dense), they get drawn on top of the flying one, when they should be underneath it.
-AbyssDragon
ID:138255
 Dec 14 2000, 7:05 pm
|
|
On 12/14/00 11:01 pm Zilal wrote:
On 12/14/00 10:05 pm AbyssDragon wrote: If that's ever got onto the list, I think they intentionally removed it! =) But since it was my request, I'm fully-supportive of re-requesting ;-) So... as a re-request, here goes. What we need is an elevation var for all atomic objects. It determines the drawing order of icons based on the largeness of the value. By default, areas have 1 for elevation, turfs have 2 for elevation, objs have 3 for elevation, and mobs have 4 for elevation. All objects with the same elevation value are displayed in order as it goes along. Otherwise the larger elevation values supersede the smaller ones. There. It's been re-requested. =) | |
What we need is an elevation var for all atomic objects. It determines the drawing order of icons based on the largeness of the value. This would be nice to see eventually. But I'd prefer the variable be named "layer" instead of "elevation," to avoid confusion with terrain attributes. | |
On 12/15/00 5:26 am Guy T. wrote:
What we need is an elevation var for all atomic objects. It determines the drawing order of icons based on the largeness of the value. Spuzzum concedes, not defeat, but agreement. =) | |
Last night I was feeling the need for a diversion from my slate of bug hunting, so I granted your request for an elevation var! It'll be in the next release. I happened to call it "elevation", but now that I read this thread in the forum, I see there is a counter-proposal for "layer". I like that. It will be so. --Dan | |
On 12/16/00 7:53 am Dan wrote:
Last night I was feeling the need for a diversion from my slate of bug hunting, so I granted your request for an elevation var! It'll be in the next release. Uh oh, new implementation! Well I'll leave it for Dantom to slug that one out and I'll ask an implementation question... Does the layer setting apply against everything on the turf, or against the subset that the object/mob belongs to? In other words, am I just saying that mob A should be drawn above mob B, or am I able to say that obj C should be drawn above mob B? Just curious. | |
On 12/16/00 11:26 am Deadron wrote:
Does the layer setting apply against everything on the turf, or against the subset that the object/mob belongs to? Since Dan hasn't answered, I will unhelpfully outline my own vision for the layering system. The setting would apply against everything on a turf. As Spuzzum said, areas would have a default layer of 1, turfs of 2, objs of 3, and mobs of 4. If you wanted to make an obj appear above all the mobs, you could give it a layer=5. If you only wanted it to appear above all the objs, you could give it layer=3.5. Z | |
Z has it right. The "layer" is used at the last stage before drawing. I take the list of visible objects and sort them by layer. This way, your turf could have a projection (like an archway) that appears above the hapless pedestrians who walk through (hapless because they can't see the pit full of jagged spikes). You could do this before with image(), but this is much more efficient, easy to use, and flexible, when you want the resulting image to be seen by the whole world. Ideally, I'd like image() to be used only when one needs to control on an individual basis who can see the image. --Dan | |
You could do this before with image(), but this is much more efficient, easy to use, and flexible, when you want the resulting image to be seen by the whole world. Ideally, I'd like image() to be used only when one needs to control on an individual basis who can see the image. This is great news! Great timing, too, for my current plans. Thanks! | |
Last night I was feeling the need for a diversion from my slate of bug hunting, so I granted your request for an elevation var! It'll be in the next release. Dan, you're the best. The bestest best of the bestest of the best. And yes, that doesn't make sense. =) Two things about that banner up there... 1) The alt attribute seems to contain what the alignment attribute should. 2) Cool! | |
I think this is the perfect reason to request "elevation" again!
Z