Skip to content

HUGE Tileset Modifications + Atlas reorganization#316

Open
ZenithC7 wants to merge 2 commits intoravignir:masterfrom
ZenithC7:pr316
Open

HUGE Tileset Modifications + Atlas reorganization#316
ZenithC7 wants to merge 2 commits intoravignir:masterfrom
ZenithC7:pr316

Conversation

@ZenithC7
Copy link
Contributor

HexaRealm:

  1. Added a bunch of tiles for compatibility (Coral, Rubber, etc.)
  2. Standardized tile sizes to 64 x 56 (or somewhere close to that)

5Hex:

  1. Standardized tile sizes to 120 x 105/111/114
  2. Added a bunch of tiles for compatibility (Rubber, Coconut, etc.)
  3. Modified tile skins to newer versions (Jade+Mine, Cocoa, etc.)

Images and Atlas

  1. Splitting Images folder to 4 sections for smoother performance:
    • Images/Tilesets
    • Images.Constructions which contains ImprovementIcons and BuildingIcons
    • Images.Icons which contains NationIcons, PolicyIcons, ResourceIcons and TechIcons
    • Images.Units which contains UnitIcons and UnitPromotionIcons
  2. Downscaled all icons above 100x100 px to 100x100 px or 50x50 px`, accordingly. This helps to:
    • standardize dimensions to a hard limit of 100x100
    • avoid generating extra .png files for one atlas
      • 26 of 400x400 px icons occupy one whole atlas png
      • while 380 of 100x100 px icons occupy one atlas png

@ZenithC7
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tiles that need reworking for 5Hex:

image

Tiles that need reworking for HexaRealm:

image

@SeventhM
Copy link
Collaborator

Hmm... I don't want to be mean or anything, but can this get split into multiple PRs? One for splitting the folders (I'll need to do that eventually anyways), one for adding new images, and one for resizing existing ones. I say that for 2 main reasons

  1. It's nearly impossible to follow what's actually being adjusted here
  2. I'm somewhat curious on what the need is on standardizing on image sizes. If we're in a position where it's necessary to avoid having too many atlases for a given category, then that's fair, but something about this standardization screams to me as premature optimization, to which I would much rather have full documentation on what's changing and why before going down the rabbit hole of wondering if this would lead to losses in quality

@ZenithC7
Copy link
Contributor Author

ZenithC7 commented Aug 11, 2025

Will do, but I will split the PR into two.

  1. Resizing icons
    → Resizing to 100x100 / 50x50
    → inverting color of Llanerro unit icon to white

The icon size rescaling was done in batch via PowerToys Image Rescaler (for pngs) and PowerRename (regex).

Its purpose is to minimize atlas space usage, since some icons were designed at 200x200 or 400x400 (but sometimes follow 100x100 resolution). I believe this wouldn't affect quality that much because it's a mono colored icon, it only really gets displayed in a very small area so the edge seam changes won't be that visible. Plus the base game uses 100x100.

  1. Tileset changes
    → Hexarealm tileset changes (and resizing)
    → 5Hex tileset changes (and resizing)

As for this topic, the resizing was done to remove overlay bleeds. 5Hex has a 120x105 tile size, but the only visible parts are the 80x76 hexagon in the center, the outskirts are used for blending.

If the tile size in the mod folder is already 80x76, then the game will rescale it back to 120x105, thus creating edge bleeds (edges of the tile overlay gets printed on neighboring tiles), which makes it look incredibly messy.

So I manually rescaled it back to 120x105 by adding blank padding to the images using ibisPaint rescale canvas feature. Upscaling won't cause losses in quality. And while doing so, I also modified little bits on the image itself (so I cannot seperate the resizing part to a seperate PR).

I will leave the easy part (moving folders) for you, because GitHub diffs suck so bad when moving folders with files.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants