Title: DO: sprite format for different unit types Post by: cuthalion on April 20, 2015, 09:29:40 PM as far as I remember there was a strict set of rules for different unit type sprites.
Infantry should have format 3-3-5 or 3-3-3 (charge, regular move, fighting). Cavalry should have 5-4-3. And whether a unit is a cavalry or not was defined not by 'unit type' but by armor type of that unit. if it had 'mounted armor' then it should have 5-4-3 sprite format and therefore sprites for it should have substituted one of existing cavalry models - gladly, there are quite an amount of extra cavalry slots: Carlson, Knights of the Realm, Grail Knights, special sprite for Morgan Bernhardt etc etc. If a unit type was 'cavalry' but armor was not 'mounted armor', it should have behaved like a regular infantry sprite-wise, using 3-3-3 format. I used that for goblin wolfriders. Not sure whether or not wolfriders kept cavalry type bonus or not. So the question: There is a new solution that I heard of but not used or figured out how to use myself yet. Are all those new sprite slots fully editable? Can I define myself whether I want a slot to be archer, infantry, cavalry wizard or monster one? or chariot? And is 5-4-3 format still a must for cavalry even though I may use a new slot instead of overwriting existing one? Title: Re: DO: sprite format for different unit types Post by: aqrit on April 21, 2015, 06:50:37 AM One can select
Archer, infantry, cavalry, wizard, etc. but can't currently edit the fine attributes of those built-in types. or to say it a slightly different way: The table that (I assume) contains the number of frames for a unit is not currently editable/extendable. Instead one would specify an index into that table to use an already existing unit/animation type. The existing types are listed in mattressses' post here (http://forum.dark-omen.org/2d-sprites/adding-more-sprites-to-dark-omen-t1214.0.html;msg12433#msg12433) Title: Re: DO: sprite format for different unit types Post by: cuthalion on April 21, 2015, 08:29:17 AM I see. Well it is more than enough as it is now :)
|