With this third layer wouldn't a fog layer be unneccessary? 

i.e.

New Layer - Sections only shown when normally fog would be shown

Board layer - as normal

Fill Layer - as normal

make sense?

I was trying to figure out the mechanics of the Fog image and I think I just had a breakthrough. Of course, now My brain hurts!

Viper, here's where I think we've both been confused..  The fog image DOESN'T recognize specific territory coordinate data and "turn on" just in those areas. Rather, it sits below the fill map as tom stated, and when the territory is determined to be "fogged" the FILLMAP is "ALTERED" and the affected territory is "filled" with transparency, revealing only that specific area of the fog image.

So the best solution I can currently think of for the color issue is to have the ability to change the neutral color and unit count color as if it were a player, as tom has described.  That said ..and if I understand it correctly, I did think of a related and useful designer feature.

There would be limitations, but there could be some pretty good functionality too.  All that would be required would give the designer the ability to move the fill map image to the top of the Board Image. So what you have is..

TOP

Top Fillmap Image (TFI)
Board image
Fog Image.

BOTTOM

Of course, the advantage of this configuration is that pieces could be played ON TOP of the board image.

Now because the  TFI sits on top of the Board image, designers would need to treat the image differently than they do with the current fill map placement.

For one, EVERYTHING on the TFI will be visible, including the borders used.  At first, you might think that this would require special attention to detail on the part of the designer.  In order to look "normal," anything on the TFI would necessarily have to be the same as the Board image, but this isn't as hard as it sounds. All you'd really have to do would be to make a copy of the board image and then "cut holes" in it. With the uncut board image below the TFI, any fill will cover whatever is beneath it.

Now, to use this feature to solve my Go-Board problem -- By moving the fill-map image to the top, all pieces can be placed right on top of the intersecting lines of the Go-Board.  From there, all I'd have to do would be to set the neutral color (and unit count color) to transparent!  ..and Voila!  All you see are playing pieces and board.

Edit: 

BTW Viper -- I was thinking of the top layer idea independently of your above post..  It had been percolating all day..  Didn't mean to steal your thunder.

tom,

To be redundant (because it was buried in that real long post -- It would be wonderful if "transparent" could be a valid neutral color as well as neutral unit count color.

M57 wrote:

TOP

Top Fillmap Image (TFI)
Board image
Fog Image.

BOTTOM

Of course, the advantage of this configuration is that pieces could be played ON TOP of the board image.

Now because the  TFI sits on top of the Board image, designers would need to treat the image differently than they do with the current fill map placement.

This won't work as it would break existing maps. most maps are drawn so the board image is semi-transparent over the fill spaces so the detail still shows with the fill color bleeding around it.

M57 you're correct in how the current layers work. However the TFI concept itself doesn't help as it makes the fog layer redundant. This is because it will be completely covered up by the Board layer so fog will not be possible.

It's fine to have a Neutral layer instead of the fog layer - it just means if you want to use a cool Neutral layer then you can't have fog enabled. 

The TFI is not as good an approach because the Fillmap only supports filling with flat color (it is just a flood fill of the player color into the territory outline). This means you can't use transparency in the Board image to make nice territory outlines.

weathertop wrote:

This won't work as it would break existing maps. most maps are drawn so the board image is semi-transparent over the fill spaces so the detail still shows with the fill color bleeding around it.

 

Absolutely.. Default would certainly be under the board image ..as is.  This would be a special designer "option"..

"Move the Fill map on top of the board".

Also, Tom is right about the fog layer.  If the fill-map image were to be placed on top, the fog would have to be disabled. Tom also makes a valid point about not being able to use the board layer for smoothing effects.  Neither of these are a problem for my application, but I will admit that they further limit the feature.

tom wrote:

M57 you're correct in how the current layers work. However the TFI concept itself doesn't help as it makes the fog layer redundant. This is because it will be completely covered up by the Board layer so fog will not be possible.

It's fine to have a Neutral layer instead of the fog layer - it just means if you want to use a cool Neutral layer then you can't have fog enabled. 

The TFI is not as good an approach because the Fillmap only supports filling with flat color (it is just a flood fill of the player color into the territory outline). This means you can't use transparency in the Board image to make nice territory outlines.

So this could be implemented in the manner I suggested if we don't use fog on the board?  If so call it Triple Layer!

I think it would just be a switch - either you have a Fog Layer or a Neutral Layer.

tom wrote:

I think it would just be a switch - either you have a Fog Layer or a Neutral Layer.

But it's more than a neutral layer -- it's a top layer.. any and all player colors would cover the board image.

There is a way to get the "smoothing effect" using a top layer; that would be to put an additional "rather transparent" board image (only in fill areas) on top of the whole thing -- but this is getting too complicated.

Here's a different idea. What if you could 'lock' the fog layer such that you upload the fog image, but then have no fog.  I.e., colors always fill (even neutral)? You could make it so that it engages for neutral because the neutral color would be set to transparent.

But there's no benefit (that I can see) to having it on top. All that happens is you lose the capability to use transparencies to mask the plain fillmap layer.

tom wrote:

But there's no benefit (that I can see) to having it on top. All that happens is you lose the capability to use transparencies to mask the plain fillmap layer.

But I want territories (stones, in this case) to completely cover/replace portions of the map (intersecting lines, in this case).  This is the benefit of having it on top.. 

On the other hand, I'm thinking that if you could force a fog map (even when the designer calls for no fog), and have a transparent neutral color, that would do the trick

I think this discussion calls for a visual example.

Viper wrote:

I think this discussion calls for a visual example.

What do you mean? ..of the desired results (Really, the Go-Geared board is the perfect example) ?  ..or a blue print of how things work?

V, do you now understand why the fog layer is on the bottom?  ..because that's essential to understanding what the limitations are. ..or is that what you would like the visual for?

M57 wrote:

tom wrote:

But there's no benefit (that I can see) to having it on top. All that happens is you lose the capability to use transparencies to mask the plain fillmap layer.

But I want territories (stones, in this case) to completely cover/replace portions of the map (intersecting lines, in this case).  This is the benefit of having it on top.. 

On the other hand, I'm thinking that if you could force a fog map (even when the designer calls for no fog), and have a transparent neutral color, that would do the trick

This would be quite straightforward to do.

tom wrote:

M57 wrote:

tom wrote:

But there's no benefit (that I can see) to having it on top. All that happens is you lose the capability to use transparencies to mask the plain fillmap layer.

But I want territories (stones, in this case) to completely cover/replace portions of the map (intersecting lines, in this case).  This is the benefit of having it on top.. 

On the other hand, I'm thinking that if you could force a fog map (even when the designer calls for no fog), and have a transparent neutral color, that would do the trick

This would be quite straightforward to do.

Is that possible - to upload a fog map that functions even though there is no fog called for?  It should work if everything is transparent all the way down, right?

So all we need is the ability to set color (both territory and unit count) for neutral, and include transparent as an option for both.