Maybe this page should be merged with this one: Action layers ...As a page titled "special tiles"?

In any case we need to find a way to make the two ideas compatible. --Bjørn 23:26, 5 April 2006 (CEST)

Where do the articles contradict each other? --Crush 03:36, 6 April 2006 (CEST)

I estimated they could, not sure if they actually do. Won't the action layers approach introtrude more problems in checking whether somebody can be shot with a bow? Like you can't shoot somebody on top of a bridge when you're standing below the bridge. In any case, I simply stressed the importance of compatibility over performing an article merge. To keep it on topic, I actually do not think we should merge the two unless there is an advantage in seeing them as one system from an implementation point of view. --Bjørn 19:52, 6 April 2006 (CEST)

Other approaches

--Bjørn 19:52, 6 April 2006 (CEST)

This articles contains a few nice ideas to solve the bow and fence problems. I've solved the fence problem similarly in my RPG engine by defining tile borders as potentially colliding instead of the tiles themselves. However, I may prefer to solve the fence problem by seeing the fence as a series of static objects which have collision areas defined as rectangle. Support for this could be added as part of our move to pixel based movement. With static objects I mean objects that are defined in the map file, as opposed to dynamic objects which include NPCs, monsters and items.

The bow problem could also be solved by using a tile property. The same goes for the obstacle layer in general, actually. However, this is less flexible and it would mean each tile can only be passable or non passable by either flying things or walking things. The plus side would be automatic collision layer that is less error prone.