Jump to content
New account registrations are disabed. This website is now an archive. Read more here.
Jesse66126

VX Ace needed more features.

Recommended Posts

Could someone kindly exsplain to me what "parallax Mapping" is?

 

Uh I don't know if you saw this but, look here:

 

Well the method is parallax mapping, here's a link to what I'm talking about: http://www.amaranthi...=17713&forum=28

 

and here's a script by modern algbra: http://rmrk.net/inde...ic,44635.0.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, well I like being different. Since there's a lot of RMVXAce bashing going on, I'mma step in.

 

1. RMVXAce mapping:

Yes, It's not the best. But, there actually ARE 3 layers plus events, plus regions, plus shadows.

Layer 1 = columns 1-4 in 'A'.

Layer 2 (or "embellishment" tiles) = columns 5-8 in 'A'

Layer 3 = 'B'+

Event Layer = can be used for tiles too, and is *technically* unlimited layering with clever use of events (read: NO SCRIPTING NECESSARY)

Region Layer = not really useful for mapping

Shadow Layer = free drawing pen tool, draws shadows on layers 1 and 2?

 

The only difference, and the reason it feels like there are less layers, is because the editor now automatically handles the layering rather than in RMXP where you have to do all the work.

 

Annoying? yes. Less layers than rmxp? no.

 

Also, in the mapping, you can specify MULTIPLE tilesets for ONE tileset. Mixing and Matching is allowed (upto 4 tilesets)

 

Also, in reality, i think regardless of which maker is being used parallax mapping SHOULD be utilized. It may be more work, but the maps look MUCH nicer.

 

(In real reality, I would actually advise a combination of parallax mapping, and using scripts to render only visible parts of the map. RPGxx's mapping system currently renders the ENTIRE MAP which is nasty resource hogging IMO, but not everyone is a scripter, so I understand not doing this)

 

2. RMVXAce Database:

I think, the database has the largest, and greatest rehaul.

With the new implementation of "features" and "effects" we are starting to see Enterbrain think about developing modular aspects to the editor and achieving a higher level of abstraction within the data classes themselves. Plus, you can create unique damage formulas without scripting? Beautiful.

 

3. RMVXAce Scripting:

 

RGSS3

Just because I haven't expressed myself enough:

-Ruby 1.9.1

-Debug Console

The API hasn't evolved THAT much, but it's worth noting movies can be played, and Windows have padding that can be changed (finally)

 

Default Scripts

The main architecture of the engine mostly feels the same. Still very highly coupled. I am impressed that Enterbrain finally started implementing "event-based" object messaging systems, however am disappointed that they only implemented this for the Selectable windows

 

(Enterbrain calls them "handlers", it would've been nice to see multiple handlers/delegates, and/or modular controller classes...throw in a some abstract "Controllable" class interfaces and then we're talking <3)

 

*Ahem*

 

Almost got caught in a rant there.

 

So my verdict:

 

The mapping system could have been better, but with everything else, I think I could overlook that aspect....Who knows, maybe with the newer ruby interpreter, someone might develop an external map editor and a custom map script.

 

Anyways, if you guys still don't like vxAce, rmxp's still kickin', and it's probably only going to get cheaper.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OHHHHHHH, ok. I think i get it know. Parallax maps sure look ALOT more accommodating when it comes to creativity.....i didint know you could do that. So you need a script for it to work though, right?

Edited by forcebreaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for that informative post Kell. Would you think that RMVXA is a complete improvement to the way RMXP works? I realize it has the same amount of layers, but they force you to put images on certain layers. When I use RMXP I am constantly having to put layer 2 stuff (non floor) on layer 1 simply because I need more layers and always try to hold out on the event layer, specifically for like dense forest, where you can't see the ground, so you just put the correct tile as ground so they all display properly. If my layer 2 stuff is always layer 2 doesn't that limit me a whole bunch? I have only used RMVX, but my understanding is that the tile layout and layer separation were the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OHHHHHHH, ok. I think i get it know. Parallax maps sure look ALOT more accommodating when it comes to creativity.....i didint know you could do that. So you need a script for it to work though, right?

 

Parallax mapping should not require any script to work, just a little more work on your end to get things to line up right, and make passability work correctly.

 

Thank you very much for that informative post Kell. Would you think that RMVXA is a complete improvement to the way RMXP works? I realize it has the same amount of layers, but they force you to put images on certain layers. When I use RMXP I am constantly having to put layer 2 stuff (non floor) on layer 1 simply because I need more layers and always try to hold out on the event layer, specifically for like dense forest, where you can't see the ground, so you just put the correct tile as ground so they all display properly. If my layer 2 stuff is always layer 2 doesn't that limit me a whole bunch? I have only used RMVX, but my understanding is that the tile layout and layer separation were the same.

 

That's a hard question. In my opinion, yes, I think RMVace is a complete improvement. For what it is, not so much. The mapping itself, is definitely gimped. I am not going to lie, while there is still the ability to create nice maps in RMVXace, like you said, the way the layers work now limit your creativity, and probably makes mapping much more painful/tedious. Also, I have never really tried out rmvx mapping...so maybe they are mostly the same.

 

My answer is mixed because I am heavily biased:

1. I don't use RPG Maker xyz anymore for my projects.

2. I never really liked the mapping system, nor the RTP (any version) and in previous RMxx projects, I was developing ideas to completely replace the built-in mapping system (my final comments on my last post will give insight into what I was thinking)

3. I'm more of a programmer than artist (I am including "mapper" under artist here), therefore the solution to getting around the limitations of the map editor is just a matter of writing some scripts to hack at the default implementations. This is not so accessible for non-programmers.

 

I guess being a programmer, when I analyze the editor I look more at the underlying implementation/design rather than the default features/systems. Therefore, the performance boost plus additional debugging features puts RMVXace on a pedestal higher than the other versions, more so than other users.

 

So, I guess the best way to put it would be:

In terms of potential: RMVXace takes the crown.

In terms of default built-in features/functionality: RMXP is still king.

 

Also, I guess it would be worth to note, RMXP still has the best RTP.

(But, I don't see why one couldn't use any of the RTPs in any of the makers, it's just a bunch of .png files...and in my opinion all the RTP is pretty boring)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I get it.

 

May I ask which engine you choose over the maker series? I think it might be relevant to the conversation as a basis of comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be honest I haven't used many engines other than the RPG Maker series. I've gotten very familiar with Sphere, though (http://www.spheredev.org/wiki/Sphere:Latest) which is much like a "more" generic RPG Maker. Mainly, I stopped using Sphere over some desire to learn ruby properly (RPG Maker XP was a good learning environment, plus I used to use RPG Maker 95/2000/2003 heavily; so it was also much more familiar) and Sphere seemed to have little support and a small/non-existent community (I could be wrong, I didn't really look that hard).

 

The main difference between Sphere and RPG Maker is that Sphere lacks many built-in features such as saving, data classes, battle/menu systems, etc. But, IMO, that is actually awesome, because it provides the basic necessities of an rpg - graphics, movement (pixel-perfect btw), mapping, etc. - without overbearing the developer with bloated, highly dependent features they have to hack around.

 

Also, Sphere uses javascript as the backing scripting language; which is a very powerful scripting language, just wrapped in clunky syntax and primarily associated with web development.

 

Otherwise, I haven't really worked with any other engine long enough to formulate an opinion about.

 

Primarily, I've been looking/toying with different free/open source Game Development Programming Libraries.

 

I've toyed mostly with Gosu (http://www.libgosu.org/) which has bindings for Ruby and C++

 

I haven't been developing much in terms of Game Development in favour of spending more time designing and planning my current project.

 

However, I just finished my 2 year college program, and will have a light course-load over the summer (bridging into second year University), so I plan on spending more time with OpenGL (http://www.opengl.org/) and planning.

 

I don't really like the idea of using game "engines," I don't like settling for "good enough" and I don't really like rewriting/working around existing code, just to get something to "feel" right. I dunno, call me crazy, but I get nervous if my design doesn't look, feel and behave exactly how I envisioned it...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RMVXace (In my opinion, after all, this topic is highly subjective) is more powerful, and has greater potential for developing games. However, this potential requires more work to unleash, primarily through scripting -- RMXP + RMVX uses the Ruby 1.8.x interpreter (i think it's 1.8.3 if i recall correctly) while RMVXace uses the Ruby 1.9.2 interpreter, and the main update from 1.8 - 1.9 was the Ruby Virtual Machine, primarily involving improved performance. If I recall correctly, the Ruby VM in 1.9 is something like 7 times faster than the Ruby VM in 1.8.

 

RMXP however, has greater potential "out of the box" in terms of mapping. While *technically* there are the same number of layers between versions (if not more, in RMVXace, if you count the shadow layer...but only shadows can be drawn on the shadow layer), in RMXP the map editor gives the user MUCH more control over the layers themselves. In RMXP you essentially get 3 arbitrary layers (which can have ANY tile from the tileset), plus an event layer. RMVXace, forces layers through the tiles' location in the tileset and cannot be explicitly controlled.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RMVXace (In my opinion, after all, this topic is highly subjective) is more powerful, and has greater potential for developing games. However, this potential requires more work to unleash, primarily through scripting -- RMXP + RMVX uses the Ruby 1.8.x interpreter (i think it's 1.8.3 if i recall correctly) while RMVXace uses the Ruby 1.9.2 interpreter, and the main update from 1.8 - 1.9 was the Ruby Virtual Machine, primarily involving improved performance. If I recall correctly, the Ruby VM in 1.9 is something like 7 times faster than the Ruby VM in 1.8.

 

RMXP however, has greater potential "out of the box" in terms of mapping. While *technically* there are the same number of layers between versions (if not more, in RMVXace, if you count the shadow layer...but only shadows can be drawn on the shadow layer), in RMXP the map editor gives the user MUCH more control over the layers themselves. In RMXP you essentially get 3 arbitrary layers (which can have ANY tile from the tileset), plus an event layer. RMVXace, forces layers through the tiles' location in the tileset and cannot be explicitly controlled.

 

Practically this, the only downside I have against it is it's confusing source code (probably due to my novice/intermediate skill level) and database, and the poor mapping it still seems to have and inherited from VX. Otherwise if it wasn't for these three things I would love this system. The first two I can work around in due time, but the 3rd one is going to be challenging. It would of been better if they kept XP's mapping, but you can use VX's for making world maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, the engine's source code was ALWAYS pretty confusing, and IMO smells of bad design. Their sudden attempt to create a more manageable design while maintaining similarity to the original design can be an even more confusing jump.

 

I can see some rationale behind their design choices, as RPG Maker was never REALLY intended to target programmers. It still irks me though because the source code doesn't really feel like Ruby and the heavy dependencies make the system very non-scalable/non-extensible. Half the time, when writing custom scripts for RMxx, I feel like I'm hacking at the source code to make it work rather than extending the engine. That's partly the reason why I mostly gave up on developing custom scripts, it's quite irritating working with the engine. I'd like to note that I love the RGSS library, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is true that RMxx does have sloppy coding, espically if someone with your scripting skills say so, RMVXace is just all over the place to point that you need to me and expert level to at least know what you're doing. Which probably takes us back to that point you made about RMxx not being mainly a scripting engine.Thing about custom scripts, I can create them easily now in Xp and VX(kind of), ace is just an issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...