To be most sincere, the way I see it - top-down perspective in a turn-based enviroment is a roguelike, end discussion; if there’s a need to skew it all the way into isometry and have some basic tiles, character/monster images and basic effects/lighting - you’re moving into the realm of tabletop installment on a PC. Doing it like Heroes of M&M battle-mode, where animated sprites are common and open-source is a long-before-seen fact is just frosting, lollypops and icecream.
Guess I was understood as I was implying there’s a need for an artist with this project; coffeebreaks in particular care little about such prospects in general. However, the overall idea found in this thread is very perceptive and appealing to most classic gamers.
Notice how edges mismatch common (generic) principle to application of isometry, if you’re trying to evoke some depth perception to the screen. Then imagine screen resolutions, fullscreen and widescreen, and you’ve stripped the majority of the issue to the core.
I have no idea what the last page of this was about, but the first post and the pictures look amazing.
Thanks secretfire… both for the appreciating the sprite work and reassuring me I wasn’t only one staring at that sentence and failing to comprehend.
[quote=“vultures, post:22, topic:5772”]Notice how edges mismatch common (generic) principle to application of isometry[/quote] Any chance i can get an explanation of what you mean here, vultures?
I second that
The first thing I thought when I saw that first picture you posted was:
Cataclysm: DDA In EarthBound
THIS IS AWESOME
Seriously, an isometric tileset in a graphic style similar to one of the greatest RPGs of all time (Seriously, FF7 wishes it was HALF as badass as EarthBound was) would be absolutely incredible. We could even make an extra mod for it, that has hostile Starmen, Zombie Age Retro Hippies, cars that attack you, and of course a faction of Mister Saturns. It would be epic.
I’m always a big fan of multiple tileset options in games. I usually find one I like best and stick with it forever, but the more ‘different’ ones (not just minor reskins that all end up looking the same, but ones with actual ‘themes’) is always good in my book.
That being said … I like the walls/door/etc pseudo-iso of it all, BUT, have you worked out potential issues with character angle? Your little dude looks like he is laying down (is he?). Having a nice 3d’ish world with 2d sprites sliding around like chess pieces would be sad 
Having the walls look “fake 3d” might work because Cata has data for the map tiles (corners, outside-vs-inside, etc), but do characters/monsters/etc have directional-facing data? i.e. Does code currently track that I went from North to South, and therefore I should look like I’m facing South? Would it be hard to wing-it?
Yeah, what he said, too. ^
Any chance i can get an explanation of what you mean here, vultures?
Guess I was understood as I was implying there's a need for an artist with this project; coffeebreaks in particular care little about such prospects in general. However, the overall idea found in this thread is very perceptive and appealing to most classic gamers.Lemme put it in a few pointers: -RL lovers rarely judge the book by its covers; -Your idea is beforeseen yet great; -Using plain (generic) isometry with a dungeon, adventure and survival game would look nothing but sad; -Having an artist to dedicate most of his sole efforts into designing a CataDDA world is most likely not gonna happen.
Are we k00l? 
[quote=“vultures, post:28, topic:5772”]
Any chance i can get an explanation of what you mean here, vultures?
Guess I was understood as I was implying there's a need for an artist with this project; coffeebreaks in particular care little about such prospects in general. However, the overall idea found in this thread is very perceptive and appealing to most classic gamers.Lemme put it in a few pointers: -RL lovers rarely judge the book by its covers; -Your idea is beforeseen yet great; -Using plain (generic) isometry with a dungeon, adventure and survival game would look nothing but sad; -Having an artist to dedicate most of his sole efforts into designing a CataDDA world is most likely not gonna happen.
Are we k00l? :)[/quote]
you are saying he shouldn’t even try to see about this happening because normal RL players wouldn’t care?? Or what point are you making here cause i don’t see it. If this happened i’d love it and i’m a RL lover… something like this wouldn’t look “sad” to me, id enjoy playing Cata in an isometric view. So if you are speaking for the general crowd then maybe you should ensure the general crowd actually feels that way? Besides Isn’t Cata breaking away from the generic RL tendencies that lead to such a small group of players for so long? Why wouldn’t having something like this there for players to enjoy who are not into 2d games, i mean i’ve had probably 10 friends over the past 2 years that couldn’t get into cata because their brain just didn’t work with full top down 2d graphics, while that’s what this still is it also adds depth which helps set the illusion.
People did this for dwarf fortress so i really dont see what is so un doable about this idea, people obviously want the isometric view, if you dont believe it check out how much the isometric setup for DF is really praised by many of its users…
Yeah, this was done for DF, DF players love it. If something isometric could be done for CATA, Cata players would also love it. I don’t think isometric is ‘sad’ compared to ASCII (I never play on ASCII, I always use a tileset, I wouldn’t dream of playing ASCII unless I had no other choice, I’ve been playing DF for 6 or 7 years and I don’t use ASCII), and I don’t think…as is implied above…modern art is necessary.
So I fully support the original poster and applaud any efforts in this regard.
The character (turned sideways) and the sprite he is on top of (a bed) both come from Coleen’s Tileset. (which is frankly pretty amazing) The walls and the windows/doors in them are my work, and the floor is just a horrid shade of pink as produced by MS Paint :-p So is he laying down? Yes. Hopefully that’s EXACTLY what he looks like he is meant to be doing
Have i worked out issues with character angle? No. And you are right to note that there will be some… the character icon from Coleen’s set looked a little wierd inside the house, ( why i had him laying down) a slightly isometric version will probably need to be done. Put simply, there isn’t one yet because there isn’t a complete tileset yet, that one was still just an experiment
@Vultures >> I think one of the things we can both agree on here, is that one of the cool things about Cataclysm DDA is that gives you choice… You can use a tileset, and if you want to, (and if you want to you have SEVERAL choices), and just as importantly it doesn’t Force you to use a tileset… If you love ASCII you can use it, but hopefully no-one is stuck with an interface they don’t like
Also, one last question… How many different materials are there for houses at the moment in C:DDA? Is there only wood and stone? (something i will need to, as each would have a different tileset)
you are saying he shouldn't even try to see about this happening because normal RL players wouldn't care?? Or what point are you making here cause i don't see it. If this happened i'd love it and i'm a RL lover... something like this wouldn't look "sad" to me, id enjoy playing Cata in an isometric view. So if you are speaking for the general crowd then maybe you should ensure the general crowd actually feels that way? Besides Isn't Cata breaking away from the generic RL tendencies that lead to such a small group of players for so long? Why wouldn't having something like this there for players to enjoy who are not into 2d games, i mean i've had probably 10 friends over the past 2 years that couldn't get into cata because their brain just didn't work with full top down 2d graphics, while that's what this still is it also adds depth which helps set the illusion.People did this for dwarf fortress so i really dont see what is so un doable about this idea, people obviously want the isometric view, if you dont believe it check out how much the isometric setup for DF is really praised by many of its users…
You misunderstood me by a mile.
There’s a certain freedom to adapt any idea to this project, as anyone could understand by now. In fact, you’re judging me in the process simply cuz there’s no proven point to suggesting an isometric port, or a viewport to be precise. Even if your efforts are widely supported, you’ll be participating in an even bigger effort to supply a tileset for CataDDA; the range between a .PNG set and a perspective change, refined with some artist’s gfx contribution is as big as it gets.
Also, there’s no point in calling me out for naming “sad” one thing or another, moreso if you haven’t read my complete post. I think you should continue supporting this idea - no matter what others think of 16-bit tradeoffs; just don’t snap at me like there’s something to take over in the process.
[quote=“vultures, post:32, topic:5772”]
you are saying he shouldn’t even try to see about this happening because normal RL players wouldn’t care?? Or what point are you making here cause i don’t see it. If this happened i’d love it and i’m a RL lover… something like this wouldn’t look “sad” to me, id enjoy playing Cata in an isometric view. So if you are speaking for the general crowd then maybe you should ensure the general crowd actually feels that way? Besides Isn’t Cata breaking away from the generic RL tendencies that lead to such a small group of players for so long? Why wouldn’t having something like this there for players to enjoy who are not into 2d games, i mean i’ve had probably 10 friends over the past 2 years that couldn’t get into cata because their brain just didn’t work with full top down 2d graphics, while that’s what this still is it also adds depth which helps set the illusion.People did this for dwarf fortress so i really dont see what is so un doable about this idea, people obviously want the isometric view, if you dont believe it check out how much the isometric setup for DF is really praised by many of its users…
You misunderstood me by a mile.
There’s a certain freedom to adapt any idea to this project, as anyone could understand by now. In fact, you’re judging me in the process simply cuz there’s no proven point to suggesting an isometric port, or a viewport to be precise. Even if your efforts are widely supported, you’ll be participating in an even bigger effort to supply a tileset for CataDDA; the range between a .PNG set and a perspective change, refined with some artist’s gfx contribution is as big as it gets.
Also, there’s no point in calling me out for naming “sad” one thing or another, moreso if you haven’t read my complete post. I think you should continue supporting this idea - no matter what others think of 16-bit tradeoffs; just don’t snap at me like there’s something to take over in the process.[/quote]
My apologies I did not intend to come off that way, I believe i wrote that on a very very off day, nonetheless no excuse to snap at you.
Vultures has a point… a full shift to isometric would mean basically a full rewrite of both the graphics engine, a rewrite of the FULL tileset and probably a change in the keys involved in moving. That’s like… a 9-to-5 a day, 6 to 12 month kind of job!
Fortunately that was never what i was suggesting: that was why i so quickly changed the title to ‘Psuedo-Isometric’… It’s not a change to the system, just a tileset, still using the current square system… making it technically compatible with any other 32x32 tileset (Therefore we can use existing monster tiles meaning the workload isn’t ridiculous, since only the buildings need new tiles, but a slightly more perspective player tile is probably a good idea to look less out of place)
Yea, as far as the engine is concerned we’ll only need to add a few small tweaks to get the desired facing information,
Player facing would also be pretty simple, just track last tile (which we do already for other reasons).
The full list of walls is in data/json/terrain.json, but here’s a summary (variations in parens)
log(half, chipped, damaged), pallisade, wood(half, chipped, broken), “wall”, concrete, metal, glass(reinforced, alarmed), paper, root, wax, fungal, red, white, blue, green, yellow, purple, rock(half).
Cough! Gag! …Well i just bit off more than i expected to chew 
No matter, but i better clarify a few things to make sure that i’m thinking the same thing as everyone else lest i draw up a set of sprites that is completely wrong at some point
Variations:
Half - Only half built?
Chipped - Damaged but not penetrated (scuffs, scrapes, etc… EXAMPLE: with plasterboard, if it had holes in one side of plasterboard but not the other)
Damaged - Heavily damaged, but not completely destroyed (Still structurally intact, and inhibiting movement… but only just EXAMPLE: a plasterboard wall, several GIANT holes, you can see from the inside to the outside, but the wood frame prevents most things being able to crawl through, but not stopping them possibly reaching through)
Wall types:
Concrete: I think we can all agree this should probably have a slight texture to it, but otherwise look quite featureless.
Wood wall: I’m thinking like the example i did above, visible planks of wood on the outside, painted on the inside.
“Wall”: Hmm. Old fashioned horse hair plaster over lath? Modern drywall/plasterboard?
Log: Is this the stereotypical layered log & sod style cabin? where the logs are laid in an alternating fashion so they interlock at the corners and then… clay or something is used to fill in the gaps?
Pallisade: Sharpened logs embedded upright in the ground. But some have a raised walkway, should that be visible?
Metal: I’m assuming this should probably look like a bunker wall, possibly made by bolting several thick layers of steel together
Glass: I’m assuming regular glass walls should be giant sheets for maximum visibility, whereas reinforced ones are probably composed of four smaller ones held in place by a solid metal scaffolding… Do people think there should be a difference in tint between regular glass walls and reinforced ones? And should alarmed ones be obvious?
Paper: This is the japanese paper dividing wall?
Root, Wax, Fungal: Not entirely sure about these, but my guess is specialty monster lairs, which would imply organic, curved looking walls that look either like they have been burrowed or grown.
red/white/blue/green/yellow/purple: …Painted walls? Which material should these most resemble, based on how hard they are to damage? (or what type of wall is used to create them?)
Rock: I’m torn on this one… Because i think it is probably meant to cover both caves and mines and each have a distinct look.
Yea, it’s quite a lot.
[quote=“Ice-o-metric, post:36, topic:5772”]Variations:
Half - Only half built?
Chipped - Damaged but not penetrated (scuffs, scrapes, etc… EXAMPLE: with plasterboard, if it had holes in one side of plasterboard but not the other)
Damaged - Heavily damaged, but not completely destroyed (Still structurally intact, and inhibiting movement… but only just EXAMPLE: a plasterboard wall, several GIANT holes, you can see from the inside to the outside, but the wood frame prevents most things being able to crawl through, but not stopping them possibly reaching through)[/quote]
Pretty dead-on with all of those.
[quote=“Ice-o-metric, post:36, topic:5772”]Wall types:
Concrete: I think we can all agree this should probably have a slight texture to it, but otherwise look quite featureless.
Wood wall: I’m thinking like the example i did above, visible planks of wood on the outside, painted on the inside.
“Wall”: Hmm. Old fashioned horse hair plaster over lath? Modern drywall/plasterboard?[/quote]
I’d say drywall for interior and vinyl siding for external.
Yea, “log cabin”.
Just the wall.
[quote=“Ice-o-metric, post:36, topic:5772”]Metal: I’m assuming this should probably look like a bunker wall, possibly made by bolting several thick layers of steel together
Glass: I’m assuming regular glass walls should be giant sheets for maximum visibility, whereas reinforced ones are probably composed of four smaller ones held in place by a solid metal scaffolding… Do people think there should be a difference in tint between regular glass walls and reinforced ones? And should alarmed ones be obvious?[/quote]
Visible reinforcement would be good, I’m torn on the alarm thing, they are visible IRL, so I’m leaning toward some hint at least.
Oh yea, that’s totally not obvious, it’s actually a wasp nest.
Yep. Root is just what it sounds like, a cave system completely surrounded by roots, fungal is giant mushroom walls, and wax is beehives.
Painted, and I’d go with the same drywall/vynl divide as the vanilla wall.
It wouldn’t be that hard to make a mine wall and apply it where appropriate.
WORK IN PROGRESS TIME!!!
Seen above, my first attempt at Pallisade Walls, Glass walls, Reinforced glass walls, and Fungal walls
At this point I’m just trying to get the shape and color correct, so i’d like everyone’s opinion on if anything needs to be changed before i use these as the basis for a more detailed textured version
Opinions anyone?
Palisade looks ok, perhaps give reinforced glass a grayish tint? and make normal glass less bluish at the same time…
I’m not seeing fungal walls, it may be because i’ve never seen them in real life ;-|
opinions don’t matter,
eai
… The day someone makes an isometric tileset, is the day when Cataclysm: Dark Days surpass in all aspects Project Zomboid.