AuthorTopic: Non-standard tile sizes  (Read 1637 times)

Offline r4c7

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Non-standard tile sizes

on: March 26, 2016, 02:31:14 am
I'm just wondering, has anyone experimented with tile sizes? One thing that bothers me about 16x16 tiles is that you can't put a line straight down the middle. You also can't divide it evenly into threes or draw diagonal lines from all corners without making an awkward 4 by 4 shape. Being able to divide in half is also extremely helpful and a double line doesn't matter as much with larger tile sizes, probably not at all with 64x64+. I made a diagram showing things, even though it probably doesn't really mean much.

I drew the separations for the ones I found interesting plus the standard 16x16 and 32x32: 27x27, 24x24, 15x15, 12x12, and 9x9. They may not completely make sense, but I think it helps illustrate the ways you can separate them. I could say in theory that 24x24 is probably better than 16x16, but I haven't tested it, so I was wondering if anyone else has any insight.

Offline Gil

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1543
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Too square to be hip
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/475.htm
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio

Re: Non-standard tile sizes

Reply #1 on: March 26, 2016, 03:14:11 am
The problem is areas where you are still restricted to using textures that are powers of two (such as WebGL, aka fast HTML5 games). I guess your tilesheet could just have a border of a few pixels that aren't used though. It's an interesting experiment.

Offline Ai

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1057
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • finti
    • http://pixeljoint.com/pixels/profile.asp?id=1996
    • finticemo
    • View Profile

Re: Non-standard tile sizes

Reply #2 on: March 26, 2016, 06:53:57 am
If you're not using an integer power of 2, an average of two powers of two is next best IMO, eg 8,16 -> 12; 16,32 -> 24; 32, 64 -> 48.
These have the advantage of being divisible evenly in two, three, four and six.

However, what Gil said is a major reason why people tend to opt for the simpler power-of-two sizes.

I don't regard odd sizes eg 27x27 as serious options, as not being able to allocate exact halves/quarters is a major disadvantage IMO. You seem to be viewing 27x27 as an advantage because after drawing the divider, you have an even number (26) of pixels to allocate. This is usually solved fairly simply though, by just not having an explicit dividing line - consider a checkerboard pattern like

Code: [Select]
#.
.#
, it achieves the division simply by change of color.
This doesn't solve all cases, but if you can be specific about exactly what you're thinking about doing, there are probably solutions.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 07:02:24 am by Ai »
If you insist on being pessimistic about your own abilities, consider also being pessimistic about the accuracy of that pessimistic judgement.

Offline Gil

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1543
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Too square to be hip
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/475.htm
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio

Re: Non-standard tile sizes

Reply #3 on: March 26, 2016, 04:12:34 pm
Eh, the real issue here is that if you use an odd width, suddenly you run into issues doing simple stuff like a checkerboard, but if you take an even width, you start to have issues with doors, windows, etc. From experience, I think even width is the least evil to work with. Although, sure, I'd love to create a tileset with odd numbered tiles, to see what that's like. I suspect both are equally terrible, sometimes pixel art just works against you and you have to manage that.