ID:157515
 
Don't suppose it would be easy to set the isometric map so that it is the standard square shape, without manually having to create a larger map, and block off the areas that I don't want?
Isometric games should be left Isometric.... if you try to make it into a normal game it would be even more confusing 0_0.
In response to Darkjohn66
What I mean is more of a map like this, which is pretty common in isometric:

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w174/MikeHart66/ isometric_01.png?t=1266978257

It seems to fit more when using things such as war maps, and RPG style maps. But to do a map like this in byond that is 300x300, i would almost have to make it 1000x1000 (sorry didn't do exact math). I don't know much about bandwidth and stuff but it seems like it would take up more than it should making it that much bigger.
In response to Pirion
I agree, the diamond shape makes too much waste, but I do not believe that is is possible within Byond. It's not truely isometric, but just emulating it. At it's base, it's still just the square being displayed differently. To do this the whole coordinate system would have to be changed and how the map is made and functions would have to have a complete overhaul. I think it may be too much of a project for something that can be fixed with just some extra space.
In response to Redslash
Isometric tiles are squares, only rotated 45 degrees and tilted slightly. BYOND is no more faking isometry than your graphics card is faking 3D.
In response to Pirion
Just lopping off the corners of a standard isometric map should be sufficient. You are vastly overestimating the size required for this: the area would merely be doubled (take a square of paper and fold the four corners to the middle, and you'll see), so you only have to increase the size of the edges by sqrt(2), or about 1.5 times. So, a 300x300 "square" map would be the center chunk of a 425x425 map.
In response to Garthor
I meant it's working off the square shape. It's not an isometric system, but a square system being converted into an isometric view. An isometric engine would act differently than Byond does, and thus Byond is emulating an Isometric system. I am sorry if I implied that it was not isometric, as I meant it was not a proper isometric system.
In response to Redslash
How, exactly, would an isometric engine act differently?
In response to Garthor
The map coordinate system, like I mentioned, and a lot of the layering system would need to be changed. The way Byond handles big icons does not work well for isometric applications, so that would need some tweaking. I can't really get into specifics as I have not programmed an isometric engine before, nor do I know of Byond's inner-workings. If you have insight into the issue, please share with us your knowledge. I am always happy to be proved wrong.
In response to Redslash
In an incredibly pedantic sense, yeah, BYOND in isometric mode isn't displaying an isometric map, because the different axes have different lengths. But it's certainly an axonometric projection. I assure you no 'fakery' or 'emulation' is going on.
In response to Redslash
There is nothing wrong with the coordinate system. I have no idea where you are getting this from. One point is labeled (1,1), and the coordinates increase linearly with respect to two perpendicular directions. That is a rather standard coordinate system. If you think that the image linked earlier is "correct", then I challenge you to tell me which tile is (1,1) on that. Then, which tiles are (1,2) and (2,1)?

There is also nothing wrong with big icons in this regard that I am aware of. Perhaps you can be more specific?
In response to Jp
OK, I wasn't really thinking about that when I said it. What I have been trying to say is that to make a map with boundries similar to the one in the picture posted earlier you would need a more specific system. In a system like this the map boundaries could be better shaped instead of Byond's default square shape. Byond is meant to be highly versatile and does a great job at it, but in turn it cannot achieve some of the specific aspects of some games, such as changing camera bounds to odd shapes, without more work than necessary. Just as it was very hard to do isometrics before an update, and is very hard to do first person perspectives.
In response to Garthor
Generally I think of the lower left corner of the map as 1,1. A map system like that would have 1,1 be in the lower left and 1,2 would be the spot just touching it's right corner. 2,1 would be the tile touching it's upper right edge. This may not be accurate but in my mind thats how it works.
Also I have had quite a few issues with isometrics and big tiles so far. I ripped the FF12 Revenant Wings for testing large sprites and when one oddly shaped sprite would walk under another oddly shaped sprite, it would cause issues where the character's sprite appeared under the turf below him and then above the big tile next to him. This is where my statement that Byond's isometric is simple a camera trick comes from. An isometric system would have better layering that made sure that icons aboe the player stayed above the player, and icons below the player, stayed below them.

I'll try to upload a demo of what I'm talking about, but I lost that file a little while ago cleaning my computer out.
In response to Redslash
Isometric projections prior to the update weren't so much /hard/ as they were /slow/. Probably ~3 or 4 people wrote them up at some point, including me. And I'm hardly the best DM programmer in the world.

There are some things that BYOND can't do easily, it's true. I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not it's a 'true' isometric system, though.

(And some of those limitations aren't ever going to change - first-person is /difficult/. 3D engines are actually reasonably hard to do properly.

That said, I imagine BYOND could get to a point at which Doom-style 2.5D games are possible. I know there were some plans for a client-side control programmers could scribble on at will a while ago, and they still might be under consideration)
In response to Redslash
Isometric is a camera trick. It's a clever way of abusing the way human depth perception works to fake a third dimension where there is none. It has a number of interesting failure modes

The BYOND implementation has some layering issues. You can deal with them if you're careful. Most of them are documented, AFAIK.

The issue of making sure that objects 'above' and 'below' the player are drawn in the correct order is actually a lot harder than you'd think.
In response to Jp
thats what I mean though. Byond is not specialized for isometric views. A specialized system can... well.. fake it better I guess.

Anyway, I found the icons files and it was easy to recreate. heres a demo of the glitch I was having.
http://www.byond.com/developer/Redslash/MapGlitch

[Edit: apologizes] Ok, we got a bit off topic due to my weird thought process lumping together a lot of other stuff into the same issue. On-Topic, Recreating the camera bounds would more work than necessary and I think we all agree on the fact. Off-Topic, I think an isometric system would act a lot differently than byond's system. Its a personal thing and I may be wrong. Lastly, I am sorry for fighting on the Internet, I will try avoid it in the future.
In response to Redslash
This is documented:

"In isometric mode, layering is affected by the "distance" between the atom and the viewer, so putting a regular-sized icon and part of a big icon on the same tile could cause layering oddities. Tiles that are covered by a big icon will tend to be drawn behind the big icon as mentioned above. For this reason, any atoms whose icons cover more than one tile (the extra height of an isometric icon doesn't count) should always be dense, and you should block movement onto any tile covered by them."
In response to Garthor
It seems I greatly overestamted the required space, witch doesnt seem so bad at that size. Thanks