[CuteGod] Discontinued

Post by **kv83** » Tue 17 Jul, 2007 10:55 pm

Yeah, i'm trying my hands on the prototyping challenge of the site I posted some weeks ago in pixal art;
http://lostgarden.com/2007/05/cutegod-p ... lenge.html

After two hours of programming I got a nice random-based map with dynamic generated shadows

I'm programming in C# with XNA. Just thought some of you might find this intresting. Don't know whether I'll ever see it as a real project, but thought it might be cool to get me starting with XNA

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Wed 18 Jul, 2007 1:11 am

Looking pretty sweet so far kv83, im just having a little truble following the perspective. The heights seem a little out of whack?

EDIT - This would make a cool calc game

.

anykey · Post by **anykey** » Wed 18 Jul, 2007 5:18 am

yeah...close, but the height is a little out of whack.
nice, though.

Post by **kv83** » Wed 18 Jul, 2007 7:48 am

Yeah, i played a little with hight already. Can't get it really to work though. Maybe i'll try something else later this evening

Post by **Dwedit** » Wed 18 Jul, 2007 10:36 am

Horizontal distance between tiles should be 100, vertical distance (same level) should be 80. Each time you go up or down a level, should add or subtract 40 pixels.
These tiles are drawn spaced too far vertically.

Post by **kv83** » Wed 18 Jul, 2007 10:37 am

I have the 100 and 40, however... 80 feeled akward, so I used 85, which looked less akward. i'll post a picture this evening with 80

Post by **benryves** » Wed 18 Jul, 2007 10:45 am

Looking cool, though I agree with the comments on the slightly strange heights.

Are you only using XNA's limited class library?

Post by **kv83** » Wed 18 Jul, 2007 3:18 pm

Define limited?

Post by **kv83** » Wed 18 Jul, 2007 8:39 pm

Ok. I changed the height to 80. The result;

Is this better?

Super Speler · Post by **Super Speler** » Wed 18 Jul, 2007 8:59 pm

Sort of, however when overlapping with the row behind it is ugly. It would look much better in an isometric view.

Post by **kv83** » Wed 18 Jul, 2007 10:05 pm

I don't have isometric tiles, and I don't plan to make them... so that's propably not an option

thanks though

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Thu 19 Jul, 2007 1:19 am

Ok, yeah thats looking right now kv83. Did you ever think about a calc version?

.

Post by **kv83** » Thu 19 Jul, 2007 8:14 am

kv83 wrote:I don't have isometric tiles, and I don't plan to make them... so that's propably not an option thanks though

Heh. Even though I said I don't plan to make them I got around to actually make some;

Comments are appreciated of course

tr1p1ea wrote:Did you ever think about a calc version?

Nope. Feel free to use the concept. It isn't even mine concept

. I'm not really into ASM atm. Maybe sometime in the future again.

coelurus · Post by **coelurus** » Thu 19 Jul, 2007 8:20 am

I prefer it when the tiles are not "synced", looks too planned and thought out as it is now

Cute.

Post by **kv83** » Thu 19 Jul, 2007 8:49 am

Can you define "synced"? Do you mean the pattern on the cubes itself? Or am I missing something here?