Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Proposal: Initialize maps as pokecrystal maps #337

Closed
kqesar opened this issue Sep 27, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed

Proposal: Initialize maps as pokecrystal maps #337

kqesar opened this issue Sep 27, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@kqesar
Copy link
Contributor

kqesar commented Sep 27, 2021

I open this issue to propose of merge object, header, script files of a city or gym in one file like pokecrystal.

for example in pokecrystal the gym of PewterCity https://github.com/pret/pokecrystal/blob/master/maps/PewterGym.asm the object part and the script part are in the same file but in pokered the object is in data/maps/objects and script part in scripts/

What do you think about this @Rangi42 @dannye ?

If you need more clarification, don't hesitate !

@Rangi42
Copy link
Member

Rangi42 commented Sep 27, 2021

They're in separate files because the objects, headers, scripts, text, and blocks' INCBINs don't have a consistent arrangement or grouping (unlike how Gen 2 puts all the blocks together, all the scripts' INCLUDEs together, text always goes in the middle of each script, headers are in one table, etc). maps.asm lists them all.

Regrouping them would mean putting each piece in its own SECTION, and since we'd presumably want a consistent order in each file (like having the headers first, then the objects, then the scripts, then the text), the linkerscript would need to define the order of all those sections. That's not impossible, and pret/pokecrystal#631 does it for the whole project, but I think it would be less convenient having to deal with a large layout.link file.

@kqesar
Copy link
Contributor Author

kqesar commented Sep 27, 2021

Ok I understand better why it's different :)

I close this issue and thank you for you feedback !

@kqesar kqesar closed this as completed Sep 27, 2021
@mid-kid
Copy link
Member

mid-kid commented Sep 27, 2021

I think it would be less convenient having to deal with a large layout.link file

It's worth noting that .link files allow includes. At the end of the day the setup wouldn't be very different.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants