I am using an Image Layer as a template for map making in Tiled.
I have no problem creating the layer, importing the image, etc. I also can see how to click-drag the image around the Tiled map to align it as desired.
What I am wondering is if it is possible to RESIZE the image within Tiled? This would be a handy way to adjust the “fit” of the image to the Tiled grid, etc. Possible?
(I know it can be done outside Tiled and then updated in Tiled; I’m just curious if it can all be done inside the Tiled framework). Thanks!
Thanks, but I am talking about an Image in an Image Layer… not an Object in an Object layer. I do not see those scale buttons when I select the image in the Image Layer…
Then No, I don’t know of a way to scale. Is there any benefit to an image layer over an object layer? I’ve just never really understood the purpose of them when object layers do it all and more.
Well, I use an Image Layer to superimpose and image of the map I am going to make. Like a template, in a sense. As such, and Image Layer is very easy… just create one and attach the image. Piece of cake. The only challenge… if the image is not the exact right size, I’d like to be able to “stretch” it inside Tiled, but so far don’t see a method.
For those also doing this, the work-around is to use MS Paint (or equivalent) to re-size the original image file. Then close/re-open the Tiled file. It will “resample” the image and grab the new size. Works, but slightly cumbersome with some trial/error required to zero in on the exact desired size.
If the image layer is easier to use than a tile object then there is something to improve about tile objects. I think probably I should make it easier to add tiles to an image collection tileset, for example by adding drag-and-drop support.
Thanks bjorn, but I mildly - and respectfully - disagree.
In my mind, an “Object Layer” is just that… a layer in the map in which you place objects that will be USED by the map in some way. They are often “units” or “players” and have actions, movements, etc. Much more.
An “image layer”, IMHO has the very simple purpose of containing a static image. That is how it is designed today, and it is very easy to use. I use that static layer as a template to help create the map itself (I stick it on top of the stack and turn down the opacity). I am making WWII maps using Tiled, and it’s easy to grab a Google Earth shot of a real location, image layer it as a template on top of the stack, and then draw in forests, streams, buildings, etc. in the underlying terrain layers of Tiled. I also see an image layer as useful for static background.
As such, I see great utility in having the image layer do what it does today and not somehow “expand” object capabilities to convert images -> objects (if I understand your idea). Rather, the one - and so far only - need I see in the image layer is the ability to “stretch” the image as desired (in the same way objects can be stretched in the object layers).
The thing is, that the object layer + tile object functionality does not actually need to be expanded to cover the exact same use-case. Already right now, you can add an “Image Collection” tileset, add the image to this tileset, and then place it as a tile object, and the result is exactly the same as when creating an Image Layer and setting that image on it (except that the tile object is more flexible, since it can be scaled and rotated).
Possibly, the issue is just about how things are named and the few additional steps required to get it done. But in this area there are improvements to be made that I want to do anyway. Placing images as tile objects should be very quick and easy, but right now it isn’t since it’s cumbersome to first add the image to a tileset. Also, it should be possible to lock a layer to avoid touching it. It’s an often requested feature. And once those things are implemented, there seems to me to be no reason to keep the Image Layer functionality around.
Did you actually try using an object layer + tile object for your use-case? If not, please do. And when it’s not an alternative for you, let me know why.
