First of all, congratulations on this fantastic tool. Couldn’t start without saying this.
Well, I’ve bought a tileset where I have images with 256x256 pixels and others vary, for example, I have this tree which is 142x248.
What I’m trying to accomplish is to have my background with my tiles of 256x256 and I’d like to put my trees in between these background. But when I select the Stamp Brush tool, I’m only able to place my tree in the Left x Bottom position. The next tree is only possible to place in the next grid space.
But I would like the trees to be touching each other. You can see the spaces between the trees in the image below:
Every tile cell in the map has to be the same size. Tiles of different sizes to the map’s tile size will be placed in the corner and underfill or overfill the available space.
You can sort of work around this by having multiple layers, and offsetting them. This way, the trees in the offset layers can appear as if they’re between other trees.
Another option is to place the trees as Tile Objects instead of as tiles, so they’re entirely unconstrained by the grid. If this is for a game and you have a lot of trees and your engine doesn’t batch effectively, that may cause performance issues, however.
I was wondering if having these trees as objects would be wrong. Because in an Object Layer I could manage to make the trees be placed exactly where I wanted to.
I’ll try that and will try to look at the memory cost of this.
It’s not really the memory that’s an issue usually, but the CPU/GPU overhead of processing and drawing a bunch of objects compared to drawing a tile layer (which is usually a single drawable object).
It really depends on your engine, and whether you’re using sprite batching. If your engine has an option to not do any update on the Tile Objects (except perhaps to update their tile animations), and if you’re able to batch all the Tile Objects (and other objects) into a single draw call, then the performance would be comparable to using regular tiles.
