Well, I made a tile engine too, then I also made a isometric engine. The reason people use isometric(diamond tile) engines is because you can make building, walls, and doors. People choose the isometric engine mainly because it allows you to have 3d looks without being 3d. Sure you could make a tile engine(square) that looks 3d, but with isometric engine it's much easier to make a tile engine to look 3d without it being 3d. I made a isometric engine, because I liked the ability to make walls, and doors. It's pretty cool.

The drawbacks of an isometric engine are there are some tricky equations for getting the mouse coords, and sprite coords. If you want to make a game with walls and stuff, like Diablo2, or Swat2, or Command&Conquer2 then use an isometric engine. If not, then just use a regular square tile engine. Some games that use a square tile engine, are StarCraft, WarCraft2, Command&Conquer1.

Most new games choose isometric engines because the user likes them better, mainly because they have a more 3d look.

In the end, it's your choice!

Later,

email - datisme@notme.com
Da_KiD

PENGU PENGU is a really really shitty Band!

So, then wouldn't it be just as easy (if not easier) to use square tiles for the landsape, then use isometric tiles for the buildings, walls, etc?

Depends on the view. If you want a view with walls and buildings isometric is easier because the tiles overlap. Look at a game like Diablo2, or Gangsters. The tiles overlap which allow you to stack tiles which make the game look more 3d. Try making a wall in a top-view square tile engine. It is quite different.

Right now, I'm programming an isometric engine because I think the view is a hell of a lot better, but that's my opinion.

Ask others on the board too

Latez,

email - datisme@notme.com
Da_KiD

What I meant was wouldn't it be easy enough to just blt the entire base layer (landscape) using plain ol' square tiles, (since they fill the entire display area anywyas, why bother caclulating all the offset crap required to properly draw them iso shaped, plus you wouldn't have to bother with transperancy, etc.) then you could use iso tiles for all the rest of the layers.

Wouldn't this be a little faster? I dunno, maybe I'm just clueless here, but this seems logical, and a lot more simple to me.

You could then draw the base layer fairly quickly, and then ignore it. After all, everything you interact with is on layers 1 (assuming base = 0) and above, no?

The classes I've designed work like this, so far. I have (or will when I'm done) a BaseTile class that draws itself, then I have a sprite class for the rest of the layers. This way the bottom layer is really simple to draw.

What I'm not sure about this though, is will this make calculating the placement of the top layers (walls, doors, sprites, etc.) more complicated. I was assuming I could just line them up using the same X, Y coords passed to the base tile. Could this work, or should I just forget it and make all the layers iso?

I agree with you, in that iso views are alot better looking, so....

[This message has been edited by Stark (edited October 15, 1999).]

Using squared tiles for the terrain and then using isometric buildings and walls will provide some mixed results (i.e. Hatfield & McCoys). The main point for using diamond tiles are for actual terrain, like hills and slopes (SimCity 2000).

Yea, that's a good idea. Some people like the isometric diamond shape map look better, but it all depends on the game. I've made sqaure tile engines, and I've started an isometric one and I think it looks pretty good. I think you learn a lot about making tile-type engine games when making an isometric game, because the tiles are not all square.

Take a lot at the game Commandos or Gangsters, those games look amazing! The graphics awesome. If you tried to make that kind of game with a square tile engine, it may work but I think that with isometric tiles, it's better to stick with what you start with. Meaning that make a base layer out of isometric tiles and then make a building layer out of isometric tiles. It also depends on the style of isometric you choose.

The 3 main types are staggered, diagonal, and slide.

Staggered is an isometric engine where you blt the tiles, staggered every other row.

Diagonal, is an isometric engine where you blt the tiles in a diamond shape map.

I forgot what the slide style was, but I know not alot of ppl use it.

Latez,

email - datisme@notme.com
Da_KiD

I tend to agree with stark - Diamond shaped tiles are absoultely useless - They suck from a performance perspective (color keying, redundant blitting, wasted space, need I say more), they're difficult to align and even worse to create... I tried it and ditched it in favor of square tiles - the view is still isometric, this has really nothing to do with the shape of the tiles...

Take a look if you wish:
http://www.image.dk/~noshit/scrshots.html

/Niels

Hey Niels, there's sure some large spaces in those screenshots. And try making a SimCity2000 type game with square tiles. You're just giving up too easily. SC2000 had a isometric engine in high rez running with 32 fps on a 486-SX (my old specs). That's pretty damn good.

[This message has been edited by Ðragun (edited October 16, 1999).]

So what's the 'conclusion' here? Use squared tiles, but have the sprites in isometric view? Will this affect the movement of the role? So how about the "height" and "depth" effect like Sim2000?

So what's the 'conclusion' here? Use squared tiles, but have the sprites in isometric view? Will this affect the movement of the role? So how about the "height" and "depth" effect like Sim2000?