i thought it'd be the other way around. fill on the bottom and detail on top of that with transparent open areas to see the fill color thru.

Kjeld wrote:

weathertop wrote: so multiple layers for detail could be a really good thing:

bottom fill layer
detail layer on top of that that has the texture
detail layer on top of that that has terrain pieces (mtns, forests)
detail layer on top of that that has borders
detail layer on top of that that has title, rules, etc...

True, but that layering happens in whatever graphics editor the board designer is using. By the time you see the image on a WarGear gameboard, those layers have been compressed into the final image you see. Since those details do not change during gameplay (the mountains, trees, icons, and text all stay right where they are), there is no reason to preserve layers as separate images on the server.

The reason two layers are required for this type of overlay-fill gameboard is that the fill color has to change in accordance with what's happening in the game. Thus there has to be a layer that can be changed on the fly (the semi-transparent fill layer), without disturbing the underlying static detail layer.

Yeah, I think my average map has around 20 layers just before it gets flattened into the one picture you see when you play. And that's after a lot of them have been finalized and consolidated. Probably go through about 30 distinct layers as I change things and perform/combine different effects. I expect that to be the case regardless of image editor.

Kjeld wrote:

tom wrote: The top layer will be the the Board image, then the filled territories sit behind the board image (i.e. visible through the transparent areas).

Tom, I don't quite get the logic behind doing it this way. Could you please explain?

From a board designer perspective, it would be more straightforward to upload two fully opaque images (the detail layer and the overlay layer).

The detail layer would contain all the 'character' for the map - text, borders, texture, background decoration, etc. The overlay layer would simply contain uniformly-filled areas (representing individual territories) separated by full transparency.

On the site, the flash player would draw the detail layer on the bottom, fill and draw the overlay layer on top, and then apply a semi-transparency to the overlay layer such that the texture will show through. It seems that this shouldn't be too difficult, as it's very similar to what happens already with your transparency slider on the board designer -- except that instead of applying the transparency to the main map, you would apply it to the territories (to carry on the analogy, the little circles in the board designer).

This seems far simpler from a board-designer perspective than the system you are proposing, which requires application of transparency to various areas of the actual .png file, which might confuse a lot more people. If anyone needs to see visual examples of what I'm talking about in order for it to make sense, please let me know -- I'd be happy to oblige.

I prefer the transparency on top and fill on the bottom because it allows me to vary the transparency across a fill -- perhaps make the edges darker and lighten towards the middle.

If you do two opaque layers, I imagine you will lose this control.

Cramchakle wrote:

I prefer the transparency on top and fill on the bottom because it allows me to vary the transparency across a fill -- perhaps make the edges darker and lighten towards the middle.

If you do two opaque layers, I imagine you will lose this control.

Ok, I see what you mean. With my suggestion, you would have to be satisfied with a uniform transparency. Now that you mention it, I can see the advantage to having control over the distribution of transparency.

Also, I suppose that with this method, novice mapmakers who aren't familiar yet with the nuances of transparency and layers could just upload the bottom fill layer and use it like an old-school fill-mode map with no top detail layer.

I rescind my earlier opinion.

If anyone fancies knocking up a test pair of images using the above principles just to check the theory out that would be very helpful :)

It would be good to see how it works in practice with a real board design.

[email protected]

Tom, I just sent you an example pair of images.

Kjeld wrote: Tom, I just sent you an example pair of images.

hoarder! share the love

This is a slightly related issue so I'll put it in here.

If we're able to upload two separate image files, what will the thumbnail preview look like?

I'd like to put in my two cents and please ask for the ability to upload our own thumbnail preview images. Yes, I know it makes things a bit more complicated, but sometimes even though the colors of a board look good in the full-screen version, they look harsh and bad in the shrunk-down version.

Put together, it would look something like this:

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/560

This one is not uber-fancy, but we needed an example, so I figured it will do.

HAHA, theres going to be some serious good-looking maps with this.

oh and BTW i'm afraid of that board. brings back texas memories! eeef can you imagine texas as a hordes map?

Great stuff got your email thanks Kjeld.

Tom, I'm not sure what the designer plans were but I think it should always display the fill-image and then you'd be able to have the upper (screen, mask, overlay, whatever you want to call it) layer connected to the transparency slider.

Yes I need to have a play around with that, would definitely want to be able to see the fill below the board area.

Um... for the record, I thought it would work best with the fill layer on the bottom, with the optional ability to enable a detail layer on top with adjustable transparency.

But I'm way out of my league in this thread so I just wanted to add my support for the idea, one data point on execution, and now I'll get out of the way again and let all you graphic design geniuses hammer out the rest of the details.

EDIT: Also, Kjeld's example Africa map is precisely what I envisioned when Toaster and 11's started talking about this idea.

I'm in awe at how fast this community moves.

My initial thought was having the fill-mode layer on the bottom with the static detail map across the top. This way you could make transparent 'holes' in your detail layer to see the fill color shown through, and you could be relatively sloppy with your fill move areas... like they wouldn't have to be exact.

Then if you wanted you could apply an overall alpha transparency to the top image so that the fill mode could bleed through into the details.. you'd have to be accurate with your fills in that case, but it would have the advantage that the player fill colors would remain full alpha and not be washed out, it would be your detail map that would be slightly washed out.

Then again a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I just don't know enough about the graphics side of things even though I know most of the terminology. Is it possible to set multiple alpha settings in different areas on the same image?

Anyway I'm just rambling, that Africa map already looks frickin' sweet. Keep on keepin' on and all that.

Before:
http://www.wargear.net/games/player/8946

After:
http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/574/Board

This will be a very good thing.