I have some turfs (grass, ground, wall, etc.) and one turf with a flower image. I am trying, by the map editor, to place the flower-turf on top of the other turfs but when I click, that will erase the previous turf and place the flower all alone. Is there a way to make it so when I place the flower-tuf on top of the other turfs to not erase them but to be placed above them? I could make new turfs but that would wast a lot of time...
Thanks
Nov 29 2015, 12:15 pm
Best response
|
|
FKI
 |
Open the map editor and go to Options -> Click Behavior.... Alternatively, you can use CTRL + left-click (which will enforce the click behavior you are not using).
|
Also, I forgot to say that if it's just a flower by itself, it should probably be a /obj at the very least. Turf types should be reserved for terrain and the like (grass, dirt, or a stone path).
| |
I disagree that it should be an obj, objs should be reserved for things that are interact-able, whereas a common flower on the ground doesn't need the extra overhead from the extra vars and procs that an obj has.
| |
Rushnut said:
[..] whereas a common flower on the ground doesn't need the extra overhead from the extra vars and procs that an obj has. Pretty sure this "extra overhead from the extra vars and procs" you speak of is hardly an issue. Variables don't use any memory unless they are used, so the six or so extra variables don't make much a difference. DM Guide reads: The simplest difference between them is the order in which they appear on the map. Areas are drawn in the first layer. The icon of an area is often simply a solid background color. Turfs are drawn on top of areas; these usually represent some type of terrain like grass, roads, or walls. Objs are drawn next, and might stand for items such as swords or cookies. [...] My reasoning is based on logic and the DM Guide supports that. If the flowers were part of a grass tile (taking up the whole tile), then I would agree that a turf should be used. A lone flower isn't of itself however and isn't something you inherently walk on; it's a product of the terrain that produces it. Let's say your advice is taken and people implement single flowers as turfs. Logical workflow says that they would place the grass first, following with the flower turf. This means the flower turf (which, again, is a single flower, not a full tile) is going to adopt the grass below it as an underlay, therefore marking that specific location as "the flower". This makes zero sense. Most will see the grass first and then the props; anyone playing the game will identify the tile as a grass tile with flowers. Ideally though, unless the flowers themselves require interaction, I'd probably have the flowers as simple variations in the grass tiles, that way you are placing one thing. But never would single flowers be a turf. | |
There's nothing wrong with using objects here, especially since the object limit was increased to be less restrictive.
The overhead would be minimal at most, if the object doesn't have a lot going on; it also opens up a lot of doors if you do end up wanting to interact with the flower. Plus, it's probably better to keep control over the grass and the flower independent of each other for the sake of being able to do more aesthetically and functionally. The overhead from turfs might even actually be higher due to Enter()/Exit() and whatnot, plus the forced usage of the underlays list caused by placing the flower turf on the grass turf. But like I said, any difference is gonna be minimal. | |
Generally, it's better to avoid trying to force multiple turfs.
Heres the rule of thumb, if the icon doesn't take up the entire tile, with no transparency, it shouldn't be a turf. Turfs are mainly suppose to be the "base" icon that everything else is transparent over. | |
Thanks all for the replies! One last question would be, if I decide to make flower an object, how can I add it on top of the grass turf? Like the same way like it was a turf (except now it appears under obj)?
| |