In the editor, I feel that every fifth vertical and horizontal line should be either slightly bolder or a different color/shade to assist in giving the mapper distance references for creating more accurate placements (when accentuating the music and not using distance snap) and for sliders. I often find myself trying to count lines on grid level 4, just because it takes slightly less effort than looking at coordinates and doing the math. Sometimes this can be kinda frustrating, there may be some feature or technique I'm not aware of though since I can't seem to find any complaints about this.

I used to be obsessed with a type of puzzle called a nonogram, it involves and grid and lots of counting. To make it easier there are always reference lines, and let me tell you, the level of convenience is extremely high :]
Here's an example


Edit

1.0 A grid with bold lines to show reference of distance, making it easy enough to count without even trying, and without having to avert my eyes to look at coordinates (helpful when doing non-distance snap stuff, such as gaps or closer notes to accentuate the music, plus other stuff)

1.1 The above, and the amount of thinner lines between bold lines could either be 4 for the convenience of counting by 5's since everyone over 4 years old can do that easily, OR it could be decided by the amount of beats per measure (beat snap divisor) so, for example, 1/4 timing would have every 4th line bold

1.2 The above, plus a custom rendered grid based on distance snap so that each gap between lines represents the correct spacing for 1 unit based on the beat divisor.

1.3 The above, but with the ability to toggle a grid that sticks a center point to the most recent circle, or slider anchor, and turns as you move the cursor around, this giving you a grid where you can conveniently tell how far a gap should be or how long a slider should be without having to avert your eyes to look up at the timeline, also very helpful when using 1/8 timing. Also a button that could lock the grid in place where it's currently at could be a pretty cool idea.

I tried pointing out some specific uses of these features, though I'm sure there are many uses that I failed to think of, and while there are many reasons you can shoot these ideas down saying "you can just do this instead", this request is about CONVENIENCE, not about the capability to do something which is already capable.

A lot of idea's are getting thrown around here when it was originally just 1 :S They're all interesting at the least, though it's not up to me to decide if they're worth implementing

I think the grid should be gotten rid of, entirely. You really don't need more than an x and y-axis, since you can do everything with reflection, rotation, and scaling.

This would also reduce not as popular mapping techniques like rectangular mapping.

I'm always counting the lines and place the notes equal. Or at least trying to place them. ._. I think the grid is useful for new mappers, so get rid of it a bit too much. o.o

DFLT wrote:

I often find myself trying to count lines on grid level 4

I don't see why anyone would want to do this... it's frustrating at best and outright painful to the eyes at worst. Count on a lesser grid and only use grid 4 for fine-tuning. For most purposes, grid 4 is roughly the same as having no grid at all.

those wrote:

I think the grid should be gotten rid of, entirely. You really don't need more than an x and y-axis, since you can do everything with reflection, rotation, and scaling.

This would also reduce not as popular mapping techniques like rectangular mapping.

This is only really practical for symmetry mapping. Not all of us prefer mapping that way... and hey, the grid can already be effectively turned off with the grid snap button anyway. And I kind of like the occasional rectangular map (as shitty as they sometimes can be)...

edit: Forgot to comment on the actual feature request! It sounds like a great idea to me. Would be easier than counting from the center lines or the edges of the grid.

Soaprman wrote:

This is only really practical for symmetry mapping.

Of course it isn't. In fact, it is the presence of grid lines that promotes symmetrical mapping.
The two most basic tools are distance snapping, and eyeballing. After that, you use reflection, rotation, and scaling.

You're totally right that anything can be done without the grid. I wasn't arguing with that point in particular and I should have worded my post better. I'm focusing on whether it's easier or faster to do those things without the grid, and I guess the symmetry mapping comment is what I first thought of.

The main thing I'm thinking of is aligning objects with other objects in a straight line, which is something I like to do often. It can be done without a grid by moving my hand slowly and keeping an eye on the coordinates in the corner. But I don't want to have to do it that way when I can do it so much faster with grid snapping.

The grid isn't necessary but it's a big enough timesaver that it shouldn't be removed.

those wrote:

In fact, it is the presence of grid lines that promotes symmetrical mapping.

You're right about this too, and I have no beef with symmetrical mapping. I just prefer to map a different way is all.

Soaprman wrote:

The main thing I'm thinking of is aligning objects with other objects in a straight line

If it's a multiple of 45 degrees, holding shift when you have both grid and distance snap on will ensure that:


Shown by that white line between (1,2).

You can select a circle and in the top right of the screen you will see the numbers of the coordinates of the circle.. so if circle 1 is y=200 height and you want to make circle 2 on the same height you can check this very quick and easy this way ^^ without counting the grid. It also shows the distance from your current circle to the next and previous circle. It is also good to check for things that way if it is not straight vertical or horizontal. I think this is the best solution for you because on grid level most precise there are way too many lines to count still and alot of boxes then, still very hard to see maybe. But you can work easy that way.

Hanyuu wrote:

You can select a circle and in the top right of the screen you will see the numbers of the coordinates of the circle.. so if circle 1 is y=200 height and you want to make circle 2 on the same height you can check this very quick and easy this way ^^ without counting the grid. It also shows the distance from your current circle to the next and previous circle. It is also good to check for things that way if it is not straight vertical or horizontal. I think this is the best solution for you because on grid level most precise there are way too many lines to count still and alot of boxes then, still very hard to see maybe. But you can work easy that way.

If you mapping vertically and horizontally, yes. But in any other way, no. Sometimes you need to use a slider to place the notes in one line.

Kurokami wrote:

Hanyuu wrote:

You can select a circle and in the top right of the screen you will see the numbers of the coordinates of the circle.. so if circle 1 is y=200 height and you want to make circle 2 on the same height you can check this very quick and easy this way ^^ without counting the grid. It also shows the distance from your current circle to the next and previous circle. It is also good to check for things that way if it is not straight vertical or horizontal. I think this is the best solution for you because on grid level most precise there are way too many lines to count still and alot of boxes then, still very hard to see maybe. But you can work easy that way.

If you mapping vertically and horizontally, yes. But in any other way, no. Sometimes you need to use a slider to place the notes in one line.

Yes that is why i also said about the distance spacing information. There are many ways to do that like you said with a slider.. or you can just put it in grid and use rotate. Any ways work

Well a experienced mapper won't have such problem, they have been so familiar with the editor so they maybe don't need any reference. So the most valid method is to practise more

Besides, My suggestion is checking the top right of the screen for numbers, as hanyuu said. Btw if counting grid level 4 is too hard, then use level 3.

I'm placing with grid level 3 and correcting with level 4. Oh, and sometimes counting the lines. xd I'm not so familiar with the editor since I'm just waiting with my first beatmap to be bubbled, but I already know some trick. :3

Kurokami wrote:

If you mapping vertically and horizontally, yes. But in any other way, no. Sometimes you need to use a slider to place the notes in one line.

Ever heard of rotation?

those wrote:

Kurokami wrote:

If you mapping vertically and horizontally, yes. But in any other way, no. Sometimes you need to use a slider to place the notes in one line.

Ever heard of rotation?

Ever tried to rotate one note?

EDIT: And place like below?

Yes.

But in an actual post, the funny thing is, I generally don't map with grid snap, and the only time I use grid snap is when I want something directly on the x or y axis :>

but lol this is so off topic. Your idea is pretty cool, though :>.

Kurokami wrote:

Ever tried to rotate one note?

EDIT: And place like below?

._.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

those wrote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

If you are trying to place the notes like me on my pic, the rotation will never help. Of course, my picture was not the best example. If you are trying to map a star pattern without the grid, it will looks bad. But nvm, I'm just trying to point out, grid is useful sometimes.

Yeah grid is useful, but i dont see why you would rotate notes when you can just ctrl+c > ctrl+v > flip

Would be nice to have some guidelines to guide your mapping.

But this sounds cool too. Maybe it should adapt to the distance snap? Higher distance snap will increase the distance between bold lines and vice versa.

theowest wrote:

Would be nice to have some guidelines to guide your mapping.

But this sounds cool too. Maybe it should adapt to the distance snap? Higher distance snap will increase the distance between bold lines and vice versa.

so the grid level would be determined by the distance snap in that case?
Meaning there would be the standard levels and a specific rendered level where each bold line would represent the distance equivalent of a quarter note perhaps? That would work best of course if the amount of lines in between was based upon the beat divisor :O
So if it was set to 1/4, then every 4th line would be bold

This is actually quite awesome, the grid should adapt to the distance! (distance snap) \:D/

DFLT wrote:

theowest wrote:

That would work best of course if the amount of lines in between was based upon the beat divisor :O
So if it was set to 1/4, then every 4th line would be bold

YES!

DFLT wrote:

theowest wrote:

Would be nice to have some guidelines to guide your mapping.

But this sounds cool too. Maybe it should adapt to the distance snap? Higher distance snap will increase the distance between bold lines and vice versa.

so the grid level would be determined by the distance snap in that case?
Meaning there would be the standard levels and a specific rendered level where each bold line would represent the distance equivalent of a quarter note perhaps? That would work best of course if the amount of lines in between was based upon the beat divisor :O
So if it was set to 1/4, then every 4th line would be bold

That would warp the grid into a circular one, with it being different every time when you go to a different object at a different coordinate in the xy-plane.

Oh yeah.

I once discussed a rotating grid with mm but he came to the conclusion that it was too unnecessary.

those wrote:

That would warp the grid into a circular one, with it being different every time when you go to a different object at a different coordinate in the xy-plane.

It would be better if it just had horizontal and vertical lines with correct spacing, giving a normal grid. I'm pretty sure that was obvious by the example I gave If it really bothers you then you could promote the request for a rotating grid that follows your cursor around when youre going to place a circle/slider in relation to the most recent circle/slider

DFLT wrote:

those wrote:

That would warp the grid into a circular one, with it being different every time when you go to a different object at a different coordinate in the xy-plane.

It would be better if it just had horizontal and vertical lines with correct spacing, giving a normal grid. I'm pretty sure that was obvious by the example I gave If it really bothers you then you could promote the request for a rotating grid that follows your cursor around when youre going to place a circle/slider in relation to the most recent circle/slider

Yes, genius! A grid that follows you around!! Dude! Summarize this progress. This is awesome.

If you don't like the grid, don't use it. The grid may promote certain styles of beatmapping, but no grid will promote sloppy placements and patterns.

Mithost wrote:

If you don't like the grid, don't use it. The grid may promote certain styles of beatmapping, but no grid will promote sloppy placements and patterns.

The grid sure as hell isn't perfect. What this guy has been suggesting is quite genius and would drastically improve mapping.

The grid that would follow the cursor around would make sure you were snapped to the grid and also make sure the distance is always perfect. Do you find it hard to imagine it?

Mithost wrote:

If you don't like the grid, don't use it. The grid may promote certain styles of beatmapping, but no grid will promote sloppy placements and patterns.

I like the grid and I do use it, this would just make it more convenient for myself and possibly other people.

Also, to all the people who are saying i just need to look at coordinates or use a different grid level, or not to use this grid at all, this feature request isn't about the capability of doing something correctly, it's about convenience. I can appreciate people trying to weed out all the bad feature requests, but I feel like people try really hard to shoot down other people's ideas, even when it won't affect them, but to each his own I guess

Mithost wrote:

If you don't like the grid, don't use it. The grid may promote certain styles of beatmapping, but no grid will promote sloppy placements and patterns.

This "sloppy" placement is due to distance snapping, not grid.

those wrote:

Mithost wrote:

If you don't like the grid, don't use it. The grid may promote certain styles of beatmapping, but no grid will promote sloppy placements and patterns.

This "sloppy" placement is due to distance snapping, not grid.

you mean the other way around? Sloppy placement is due to NOT using distance snapping

theowest wrote:

you mean the other way around? Sloppy placement is due to NOT using distance snapping

I meant sloppy placement has nothing to do with grid snapping; it's all distance snapping's fault - the lack of use of distance snapping is what I meant.

ah yes. Of course.

theowest wrote:

Mithost wrote:

If you don't like the grid, don't use it. The grid may promote certain styles of beatmapping, but no grid will promote sloppy placements and patterns.

The grid sure as hell isn't perfect. What this guy has been suggesting is quite genius and would drastically improve mapping.

The grid that would follow the cursor around would make sure you were snapped to the grid and also make sure the distance is always perfect. Do you find it hard to imagine it?

How is that any different from disable grid snap? the grid is to ensure your notes are attached to the lines on the grid, having a grid that moves around when placing a note with DS on is the same as having a ruler of some sort but no real snapping to any grid.
Albeit i admit that slider ends are never snapped to the grid to begin with and hence cause spacing problems even with DS on, specially on easier difficulties, but moving the grid to adjust to the distance snapping will only make it look less structured and off-aligned with other hitobjects.

Sakura wrote:

How is that any different from disable grid snap? the grid is to ensure your notes are attached to the lines on the grid, having a grid that moves around when placing a note with DS on is the same as having a ruler of some sort but no real snapping to any grid.
Albeit i admit that slider ends are never snapped to the grid to begin with and hence cause spacing problems even with DS on, specially on easier difficulties, but moving the grid to adjust to the distance snapping will only make it look less structured and off-aligned with other hitobjects.

True. But grid reference lines adjusting to the distance snap do sounds good though.

Pretty? Probably
Useful? No, it's just like having grid snap off all the time.

Ah yes.

Yeah, I support the original suggestion in this thread because that would help a lot, but having the grid follow me around would just screw me up. The grid is mainly for A) aligning and B) easily spacing things in non-DS situations. The grid makes linear jumps a lot easier to do, for example. Also keep in mind that some of us can easily place hit circles symmetrically without any C&P shenanigans, saving us time, but that would be almost impossible without a static grid.

"easily spacing things in non-DS situations."

Wait. Why would you ever turn off distance snap?

When you're moving an object that is between two objects in time, and you want to get perfect distance snapping, you turn off distance snapping so you can do it on your own without the game messing it up for you (e.g. you want 0.80x;0.80x instead of 0.78x;0.81x)

oh well that's just temporary disabling.

One day, the (e.g. you want 0.80x;0.80x instead of 0.78x;0.81x) problem will be a thing in the past. It's ridiculous how people have to turn off their distance snap just to fix such small problems.

Blame it on the OCD or whatever (1 in 40 people have it) but as bpm gets bigger, smaller spacing problems gets bigger, and certainly it doesn't look as nice.

those wrote:

Blame it on the OCD or whatever (1 in 40 people have it) but as bpm gets bigger, smaller spacing problems gets bigger, and certainly it doesn't look as nice.

yeah and if you must make a perfect geometrical shape, you have to use perfect distances. Nobody wants ugly squares.

What? why is the topic still under discussion?

No, I personally against your and the op's idea. There are somethings I want to throw out.

1. Grid is always a great thing, it should never be expunged, nor added cosmedic functions.
2. If you think it is nonsence please just alter the .osu code manually but do not complain. We never compel you using a grid snap. example

   circlesize: 1234

3. If you really need a reference while mapping, go and make a .jpg/png blod lines or sth else pic mingled with you original background but do not to add this function to public build especially when there are many of mappers don't need.
4. I never regard that the editor can't avoid small distance difference as a problem. It depends on how many maps you've made and how many experiences you possess. To me, the small distance diffference is the charm of mapping cause you never know when will it appears and maps with what style the others will make.
5. I enjoy the time when I'm switching grid snap on and off, osu! is such a wonderful game that can give you different choices.

theowest wrote:

oh well that's just temporary disabling.

One day, the (e.g. you want 0.80x;0.80x instead of 0.78x;0.81x) problem will be a thing in the past. It's ridiculous how people have to turn off their distance snap just to fix such small problems.

about this, I want to say that atm(and the past as well), "high-end" mappers as I know do not use distance snap on Hard~Extra diffs due to their perfect sense on controlling distance.

then they must be wasting a lot of time.

I think it would help mostly with making symmetrical curved sliders, being able to count the lines easily enough that you barely have to think about it sounds nicer than having to look at the coordinates for multiple anchor points. You will be able to easily say something like "ok from here to here it goes up 5 lines and left 12, then from there to the next anchor point it goes down 7 and right 4, now I just have to do the opposite for the second half"

referring to either recommendation 1.1 or 1.2, not 1.3

theowest wrote:

then they must be wasting a lot of time.

1 awesome map per year > 100 shitty maps per year

and how do you know they aren't using distance snap?

are you saying distance snap makes bad beatmaps?

theowest wrote:

and how do you know they aren't using distance snap?

are you saying distance snap makes bad beatmaps? ofc I'm not.

I have asked some mappers for this question. The majority of them said they disable DS while mapping Hard~.

To me DS is a thing has both merit and defect. It helps a lot when you're doing Easy/Normal but as for Insane/Extra diffs, they will influence your creativity since it keeps giving you a limited mapable area. (But there are experts like shinxyn, also star stream as I know mapping with DS all the time[but actually it requires you higher mapping skills to make your map fun]. So I wasn't criticizing mapping with DS but just saying a truth.)

I endorse this suggestion, as I count grids from time and often get a bit lost. Having reference lines would be pretty neat and could make it a little bit easier for the mapper to orientate themselves in the grid. It certainly wouldn't be harmful and would likely be easy to implement.

LKs, what exactly are you saying? I'm not sure if you're trying to say that distance snap is good or not, but it is good. It gives readability to rhythmic variance and the map as a whole. Also, [Hard] should still be using distance snap for the most part. [Insane] too. Distance snap adds extra challenge to creating interesting patterns, but that's exactly what makes excellent maps stand out--the fact that they're interesting and satisfying, while not being horribly unpredictable messes.

Sorry for kind of contributing to this thread's derailment, but I read your post and got curious, yeah.

DEEDIT: I really wouldn't want to see the grid mutate constantly. Just having reference lines to guide the mapper a bit would be helpful enough. This sort of thing really doesn't need to be complicated. Also, if you're finding the grid to be too restrictive, then lower the grid size for adjustment and disable grid snap when that isn't enough. Fine-tuning tools are there for a reason and removing the grid entirely would be a terrible decision which will never be implemented.

D33d wrote:

I endorse this suggestion, as I count grids from time and often get a bit lost. Having reference lines would be pretty neat and could make it a little bit easier for the mapper to orientate themselves in the grid. It certainly wouldn't be harmful and would likely be easy to implement.

LKs, what exactly are you saying? I'm not sure if you're trying to say that distance snap is good or not, but it is good. It gives readability to rhythmic variance and the map as a whole. Also, [Hard] should still be using distance snap for the most part. [Insane] too. Distance snap adds extra challenge to creating interesting patterns, but that's exactly what makes excellent maps stand out--the fact that they're interesting and satisfying, while not being horribly unpredictable messes.

Sorry for kind of contributing to this thread's derailment, but I read your post and got curious, yeah.

DEEDIT: I really wouldn't want to see the grid mutate constantly. Just having reference lines to guide the mapper a bit would be helpful enough. This sort of thing really doesn't need to be complicated. Also, if you're finding the grid to be too restrictive, then lower the grid size for adjustment and disable grid snap when that isn't enough. Fine-tuning tools are there for a reason and removing the grid entirely would be a terrible decision which will never be implemented.

I agree, I always have grid snap on for when I'm making sliders, and then I just shift-place them for perfect distancing, in this manner I use grid snap without compromising the distance of my placements