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
Tiled 1.9+ uses the existence of "regions" layers to determine whether Automapping rules should always use the old behaviour where tiles that are empty in all layers behave as "Other", allowing old rule maps to behave correctly in 1.9+ instead of breaking. However, a major difference in 1.9+ is that rules are executed out of order by default, while in older versions, rules always executed in order. This means that old rules are still likely to run incorrectly in 1.9+, and users have to update their rulemaps even if they keep their "regions" layers.
In the interest of backwards compatibility, I think that if a rulemap has "regions" layers and does not have a specific value for MatchInOrder set, MatchInOrder should be treated as true. If there is a specific value set, that value should be used.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Tiled 1.9+ uses the existence of "regions" layers to determine whether Automapping rules should always use the old behaviour where tiles that are empty in all layers behave as "Other", allowing old rule maps to behave correctly in 1.9+ instead of breaking. However, a major difference in 1.9+ is that rules are executed out of order by default, while in older versions, rules always executed in order. This means that old rules are still likely to run incorrectly in 1.9+, and users have to update their rulemaps even if they keep their "regions" layers.
In the interest of backwards compatibility, I think that if a rulemap has "regions" layers and does not have a specific value for
MatchInOrder
set,MatchInOrder
should be treated astrue
. If there is a specific value set, that value should be used.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: