97 replies to this topic

[kalez]

.

Edited by kalez, 17 January 2013 - 06:48 AM.

[Luchino]

It really depends on how much detail you want to add to your maps. Since I personally don't own Ace, I can't say anything about the extent of its mapping capabilites ( my trial expired ages ago ) but I do know that there is now a lot more flexibility with mapping, unlike VX.

[Holder]

I don't think so, I mean it was the reason I never got into VX, it seemed too much of a faff as a work around. As long as I can create tiles which work within the editor and are flexible enough to work with then it'll be fine with me.

The only think I don't think I'll be doing is using the autotiles for mountains/houses. I like to have a flat and two diagonal tiles for mountains and some slopes. Basically I hope to have a result similar to what I was working on for XP:

Spoiler

[Shaz]

I thought parallaxing was a solution to the limited number of layers in VX. Ace still has the same number of layers, and when you place tiles, they still have that square, grid look. Parallaxing overcomes that. You can get around the square mountain look by using Tile B-E instead, but then you can't put anything on them without resorting to events (an undesirable method imo, for several reasons). I've always liked the parallaxed maps in the screenshots thread, where things are placed a little more haphazardly and overlapped than the editor normally allows.

[Celianna]

People don't only parallax because of the limited tileset, but also to have unlimited creative freedom. I for example, draw directly on the map if I need a specific tile. Plus I add nice lightning effects, and clutter my maps with little details.

This map would not be possible without parallaxing:

Spoiler

So yeah, still lots of reasons to parallax.

[kalez]

.

Edited by kalez, 17 January 2013 - 06:49 AM.

[Celianna]

Then you're just making it harder for yourself though, might as well parallax it straight away, instead of doing the tedious work of making everything into a tileset (which you'll have to do with an image editing program either way). Not to mention the light effects and shadows cannot be made with tilesets.

[Lunara]

I honestly don't think parallax mapping should be thought of as highly as it currently is. While, yes, parallaxing makes maps look pretty, it takes too much time, much more time than really needed. Not only that, but parallax mapping is for those who are graphically inclined. If you know enough about graphics programs to put together a parallax map, you should also know enough to put tilesets together by yourself. And after putting your parallax map into VX or Ace, you still need to add on the passability, which will be harder to do in Ace, since the passability switch is now in the database, so you'll have to constantly switch back to the database to see which blank tile does what. If the pieces were just put into a tileset, you could still make alike maps(indoor houses and shops, for example) that are still unique, without the hassle of making several pictures.

Parallax mapping is an okay work-around for VX, but for Ace, it's pretty much pointless, due to the unlimited tileset options. Honestly, in the long run, putting together a tileset will save you the most time.

[Celianna]

^You obviously haven't made your own tileset then. Took me two months.

And the passage settings, those are even easier with Ace's 4-way directional settings, which is awesome. I don't see in any way how this is suddenly harder to do?

Parallaxing is just another way of making a map, directly into an image editing program. Unlimited tilesets doesn't mean it's not needed anymore.

[kalez]

.

Edited by kalez, 17 January 2013 - 06:49 AM.

[Lunara]

@Celianna No, I haven't made a tileset, because tiles aren't something I'm good at. And that's sort of my point. You might have missed this part of my post:

parallax mapping is for those who are graphically inclined

I make sprites, not tiles. Not parallax maps. Parallaxing is fine for people like you, because you are obviously used to it, but I, myself, will not do it. I see it as a waste of time and effort on my part.

[prexus]

I honestly don't think parallax mapping should be thought of as highly as it currently is. While, yes, parallaxing makes maps look pretty, it takes too much time, much more time than really needed. Not only that, but parallax mapping is for those who are graphically inclined. If you know enough about graphics programs to put together a parallax map, you should also know enough to put tilesets together by yourself. And after putting your parallax map into VX or Ace, you still need to add on the passability, which will be harder to do in Ace, since the passability switch is now in the database, so you'll have to constantly switch back to the database to see which blank tile does what. If the pieces were just put into a tileset, you could still make alike maps(indoor houses and shops, for example) that are still unique, without the hassle of making several pictures.

Parallax mapping is an okay work-around for VX, but for Ace, it's pretty much pointless, due to the unlimited tileset options. Honestly, in the long run, putting together a tileset will save you the most time.

I don't normally like ganging up on people (and I expect a few people will rip this post apart) but I am getting in on this early.

Parallax Mapping isn't even comparable to making your own tileset, if you are talking about spriting one from scratch. I don't think this needs further explanation.
If you were talking about making 'clustered' tiles, yeah it's the same, sort of. But vxAce still has a limited amount of tiles per map. I don't want to be wasting tiles on clustered up stuff, when I could be using them for something else.

With the vxAce RTP, you don't really need to Parallax map, for sure. There is only so much you can do with those tiles, and they will look blocky whether you parallax them or place them in the tile editor. But when you are using large tilesets, like tiles from RMXP or Celianna's tilesets, you can't even come close to achieving good quality mapping without Parallax tiles, or wasting two or three pages of "B-E" layer tiles on just clustered trees.

Parallax Mapping was a great work-around for RMVX's limited tiles, for sure. But it's primary use in VX was having more layers, which is still an issue in vxAce and something you need Parallax mapping to overcome.

Also, if you are having an issue setting passability when parallax mapping, it's real simple. There are two ways to make it dirt-fucking-easy to do. A) Make a "Tile E" tileset that graphically draws what the passability settings for the tile are. Like, an "x" for impassable, or an arrow down and left for a tile where you can only move down or left. Then you simply replace that tileset with a blank one when you are done. Or, you use Yanfly's Region Passability script and just draw a region all over the areas you don't want the player walking on.

TL;DR: Parallax Mapping is still just as useful as it was in VX. It gives you more than 2 layers, and makes it possible to make beautiful and complex maps without wasting tons of tiles on 'clumped' tiles; and setting Passability is fucking easy as hell.

Edited by prexus, 09 April 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[kalez]

.

Edited by kalez, 17 January 2013 - 06:49 AM.

[prexus]

Alright.

Go download Celianna's tilesets and make this map, exactly.



You can ignore having to copy the roof, since I made that myself.

If you have to make edits to the tileset, be my guest, but post them as well. So we can all laugh at it.

[Celianna]

that is because you were limited in VX (im assuming it was VX). i could take one of your rooms and put it as is in a tileset. no extra effort. (well, maybe just a bit if its an oddly shaped room )

I don't think you're getting the point here ... You'll have to edit the tiles into what I have on my map right now, in another program outside of RPG Maker - and then set it all up, then export it back into a tileset. And I'm wondering; why? You're already doing the editing in the image editing program, so why not make a parallax map out of it already? Turning it into a tileset seems like an extra unnecessary step.

p.s. and lighting and shadows count as an effect, which imo, doesnt count as "parallax mapping". mapping = items / tiles, effects = glows / shadows

Yeah it counts, it's still all done on the parallax map.

I find it really hard to believe that if we both had the same tile pieces that i could not manage the same map with a tileset with the same amount of effort.

I'm pretty sure you'd waste more time than if I were to parallax it it, while you were to do the same process as I am - except turn it into a tileset as well, which requires more time.

@Lunara: those less graphically inclined still do parallax their maps. You don't need to be a tileset creator to make parallax maps. It's whatever you prefer, really.

[Ihsorak]

@kalez
Have the most absolutively fun time making events and tiles for overlapping trees instead of pasting them into layers. :\
I'm not sure why there needs to be a distinction between shadows/lighting and the rest of mapping.

Edited by Ihsorak, 09 April 2012 - 06:07 PM.

[kalez]

.

Edited by kalez, 17 January 2013 - 06:49 AM.

[prexus]

Way to copy and paste the image into your editor. You have the DOOR drawn on the map.

Not to mention the fact you have my same mapping error (the shadows where the house makes a 90' turn) and my roof tiles.

Copy/pasting the map into the tileset and drawing it on the map doesn't count. That isn't any easier than parallax mapping.

Edited by prexus, 09 April 2012 - 06:21 PM.

[kalez]

.

Edited by kalez, 17 January 2013 - 06:49 AM.

[Celianna]

What a roundabout way of parallax mapping.

You're not using tileset mapping. You're using pre-configured tiles made specifically for that map - that was done in an image editing program. You would not be able to make the same map without fiddling with the tiles outside of RPG Maker, which is essentially, part of 'parallax mapping'.

Hey, I have doors that open =/