You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If the room is resized in an increment that does not match the tile size assets/instances can come "detached" from where they appear like they should be relative to the tile layers.
This is because assets/instances are moved the exact amount of pixels needed to match the new room size and anchoring, whereas tiles by necessity are moved on a perfect tile grid. So if you added 8 pixels to the room's width, for instance, with right-hand anchoring, all assets/instances would be moved over 8 pixels while the tileset may get a new column of tiles added which ends up visibly moving the tiles over by 16 pixels.
Technically this is correct but it isn't a good user experience. Currently the "Round up to nearest tile size?" option mitigates this, but finding a better way to handle it or a more seamless user experience would be great.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If the room is resized in an increment that does not match the tile size assets/instances can come "detached" from where they appear like they should be relative to the tile layers.
This is because assets/instances are moved the exact amount of pixels needed to match the new room size and anchoring, whereas tiles by necessity are moved on a perfect tile grid. So if you added 8 pixels to the room's width, for instance, with right-hand anchoring, all assets/instances would be moved over 8 pixels while the tileset may get a new column of tiles added which ends up visibly moving the tiles over by 16 pixels.
Technically this is correct but it isn't a good user experience. Currently the "Round up to nearest tile size?" option mitigates this, but finding a better way to handle it or a more seamless user experience would be great.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: