RPTools.net

Would it be possible to get Default Grid Type = None added to the Campaign Properties?

Totally

You da man!

Isn't there always some kind of grid behind the action anyway, even if it's not showing or determining movement?

Full Bleed wrote:Isn't there always some kind of grid behind the action anyway, even if it's not showing or determining movement?

There is a NoGrid grid, does that count ?

I would just like to be able to start out a campaign with the first map having the measuring tool work for gridless. Right now, I can't use the first map when starting a new campaign, because it is defaulted to a grid, so the measuring tool measures based on that. It would be nice to be able to start making maps with the first map. Not that it takes a long time to start a new map, but ya know, for us lazy types.....

I guess I'm not following. How would it measure if there were no basis for measurement? Meaning some sort of distance standard, therefore assuming a grid with cells of that distance.

It's not the basis for measurement, but rather the way in which it measures. When you are on a Square Grid map, it measure in big boxes that represent whatever grid size you are using. So a 5' grid's measuring tool measures in 5' squares.

On a Gridless map, the measuring tool measures in actual distance, like 4.5 or 37.6. It's just a line when you drag it out, not boxes. It's much easier to use this way.

Everything else works the same way on both styles of maps if you have your tokens set up properly. But measuring distances for say, a longbow shot, it much easier in gridless combat if the measuring tool is just a line and not a series of boxes that represent an entire cell.

That's cool.

Perhaps than an option for the measuring tool to measure in real distance or via the selected grid would be best.

Steel Rat wrote:I guess I'm not following. How would it measure if there were no basis for measurement? Meaning some sort of distance standard, therefore assuming a grid with cells of that distance.

There is a basis for measurement and it is essentially the 1:1 pixel grid.

When you create a gridless map you still call out a Distance per Cell and a Pixels per Cell. These values are used to determine how many display pixels equals how much distance.

Steel Rat wrote:That's cool.

Perhaps than an option for the measuring tool to measure in real distance or via the selected grid would be best.

That would actually work just fine for me too. Whether there is a grid or not doesn't really matter, if you set your tokens to not 'snap to grid'. The biggest advantage of the gridless map is that the measuring tool measures in 1 pixel increments and doesn't make the blocky boxes.

I still like having a truly gridless map option though, so that the defaults are set properly.

As a recent gridless convert, I'm finding out that this might be a pretty small community. I'm curios how many GM's use gridless. Ooo......poll time!

Phergus wrote:When you create a gridless map you still call out a Distance per Cell and a Pixels per Cell. These values are used to determine how many display pixels equals how much distance.

So, there are "cells" in a "no-grid" map... but that doesn't count as a "grid"?

When I click "adjust grid" on a map with "no grid" I can still adjust the "grid size." Which, of course we have to be able to do until we have a measure set tool like in Kloogewerks.

So, it seems to me that there is currently always a grid there, even if we can't see it... and by starting a map with no grid, it just means that we can no longer show the grid that is actually there because the "View Grid" option just doesn't work any more.

Am I missing something?

I really just think of "gridless" as being much more incremental than the standard square grid. When you move a token in a square grid environment, it moves one complete token size at a time. But in a "gridless" environment, you can move 1/10 of a token width.

The biggest advantage to me for gridless is the way it measures distance. It's much more precise than the standard square grid and acts more like a tape measurer.

The issue of a gridless map essentially still being a form of a grid map doesn't make a difference to me. It's the freedom of movement that I like about gridless maps. For me, it just feels more organic, and less like a board game. I don't dislike boardgames, but I don't like movement bogging down combat.

I tried "gridless" with 3.5 and it didn't work too well. There were too many mechanics dependent on the square grid mechanic to make it "feel" right. FUDGE is a lighter game rules-wise, so it doesn't require the microscope approach like 3.5.

I'm trying to find a middle ground between the crunchiness of 3.5/4, and the fast-&-loose feel of standard FUDGE. So far, so good. But I have a long way to go.

There aren't any cells. There isn't a grid. There are two values that are used to determine how many pixels represent how much distance.

The default is 50 pixels = 5 units. That's it.

Nothing is calculated in cells or grids but in pixels from the top/left corner of the map display that is then manipulated with respect to the zoom level, panning, and map scale (which is defined by the two numbers above). This is true on maps with grids as well. They just then go on to determine grid location as well.

The grid isn't hidden. It doesn't exist. There is no code in the GridlessGrid to determine it and then draw it.

What is this fascination with whether or not there is a secret grid hiding inside of gridless maps?

Phergus wrote:What is this fascination with whether or not there is a secret grid hiding inside of gridless maps?

Not a fascination, just a question about the mechanics at play here and the semantics being used. In my mind, when you set the distance by saying 50 pixels equals 5 units you're defining a Cell.

This is important for more than just the "invisible grid" I was talking about.

For example, it determines the size the tokens are deployed at. A Token deployed at Medium size (default) deploys at the base Cell size (unless freesize is enabled.)

It also determines the scale the map-coordinates use.

So, if there were truly "no cell" being defined, then several things would probably occur:

1) Everything would probably deploy at freesize automatically given that MT would have no base cell to work off.
2) There wouldn't be a grid coordinate system. A pixel coordinate system could take its place though.
3) And not only should "Show Grid" go away from the menus but everything that has to do with "snap to grid" would need to go as well.

In short, there would be no discernable difference between how MT functions using a 50=5 or 10=1 setting.

That, to me, would be the consequence of having a truly "no grid/no cell" map. But that's not the way MT works and I'm not sure the usability of the program would improve for "gridless" users even if it did.

And why does this even matter... well, it partly matters because there seems to be a distinction being made between setting a map to "No Grid" upon starting it and just turning the Grid and Snap-to-Grid off.


I've been playing around with MT "gridless" for a long time, but since I've never really added a bunch of maps I didn't even know there was a "gridless" option on the additional maps you added. So I tried it out and as far as I can tell, the only tangible difference between selecting "no grid" on the 2nd map and just having the grid and snap-to-grid off on the first map is that you can no longer "show grid" if you want and "snap to grid" is no longer functional if you try to turn it on.

So, it seemed to me that what theLev was asking for was for Trevor to make it so that he could no long "show grid" on the first map or turn on snap-to-grid, which struck me as a bit odd... and I was trying to figure out what his perception of the difference was. (Ah... I see now after reading one of his posts that there is another discernable difference... the measuring tool doesn't default to a gridless mode even if you don't have the grid showing... this would probably be a nice feature to add.)

Speaking for myself, I like knowing that I can visually see the cell size I've set up by toggling "view grid." And being able to snap to that grid does have its advantages sometimes too (usually to help line things up.) But I still consider myself a "gridless" MT user since that's not a factor in my actual game-play.