When playing around with my own tile-sets and the tile-sets of AdvenTutorial, the first thing I noticed was how inefficient AdvenTutorials tile-sets are with space. That's not a criticism of the assets, but merely an observation of their dimensions. For example, the regular brick floor that Joe uses in the underground can be reduced to just a 16x8 tile. This is not the only tile of that set that can be cut in half horizontally or vertically, or further reduced to just 8x8. Now, when selecting and defining tiles in the asset editor it gives me the option of a width of 1-15 and a corresponding number for a tile's height. 1 in this instance is 16 pixels.
So my question (and preemptive follow-up) is:
If not, it would be a nice tile space optimization feature to have if we are able to reduce duplicates and partition our 16x16 tiles into 8x8 or 16x8 or 8x16 sections that are defined and stitched together in the asset editor as 16x16 tiles or whatever dimensions we may like for an asset.
I'm one of these hopeless cases who starts something with very minor alpha\pre-alpha optimization because my future self will be very grateful that I did.
Reason for Edit: Clarified the follow-up question.
So my question (and preemptive follow-up) is:
- Is it a hardware limitation of the NES that background tiles MUST be stored on the ROM symmetrically with how they are displayed on the screen in divisions of 16x16 tiles? If this is not the case and 16x16 on-screen tiles can be formed and stitched together with as little as a single 8x8 section on the ROM, then are there any performance issues and so forth in doing so?
If not, it would be a nice tile space optimization feature to have if we are able to reduce duplicates and partition our 16x16 tiles into 8x8 or 16x8 or 8x16 sections that are defined and stitched together in the asset editor as 16x16 tiles or whatever dimensions we may like for an asset.
I'm one of these hopeless cases who starts something with very minor alpha\pre-alpha optimization because my future self will be very grateful that I did.
Reason for Edit: Clarified the follow-up question.