I'm working on a top-down (oblique) tile-based engine. I would like for the tiles to have a definable height in the world, with Characters being occluded by them, etc.

This has led to a desire to be able to "rotate" the view of the world, even though I'm using all hand-drawn graphics and blitting.

Therefor, I need to rotate the actual world itself, or change how the Camera traverses these arrays.

How can, or should, I create individual rotations of 90 degrees, when I have multi-dimensional arrays?

Is it faster to actually rotate the array, to access it differently, or to create pre-computed accessor(?) arrays, something like how my chunks work?

How can I rotate an individual chunk, or set of chunks?

Currently I establish my tile grid like this (tile height not included):

function Surface(WIDTH, HEIGHT)

  this.tiles = [];
  this.chunks = [];

  //Establish tiles
  for(var x = 0; x < WIDTH; x++)
    var col = [],
        ch_x = Math.floor(x/TPC);


    for(var y = 0; y < HEIGHT; y++)
      var tile = new Tile(x, y),
          ch_y = Math.floor(y/TPC);





Even some basic advice on my data struct would be much appreciated.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Any tips for improving my question? \$\endgroup\$ – Danie Clawson Jul 7 '14 at 1:35

I don't think speed is a huge issue between your different methods so you might go with whichever approach you think is easiest. I would absolutely choose to access the arrays differently and not store pre-rotated versions of them.

For rotating one chunk: normal rotation gives you array[x][y] -90 degrees would give you array[WIDTH-1-y][x] 180 degrees would give you array[WIDTH-1-x][HEIGHT-1-y] 90 degrees would give you array[y][HEIGHT-1-x]

I would recommend somehow putting chunk access behind a layer of abstraction. Just ask for tiles on the map relative to the player and change access to the tiles based on the rotation.

As for improving your question, I don't think that's anything anyone can answer. You'd have to consider what motivates people to answer questions. Personally, I almost didn't answer because the question seems too simple and I don't know enough to understand what is giving you trouble so I don't feel that I can help.

| improve this answer | |
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thank you!! Good advice all around, I really appreciate you working through my vagueries :] I'll ask better next time because of it, I'm sure! --- P.S. Seeing the rotation laid out like that really made a lot click for me, and "putting chunk access behind a layer of abstraction" really drove home some other realizations. Thanks again. \$\endgroup\$ – Danie Clawson Jul 22 '14 at 0:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.