# Hex Grid Image Size

I’m currently working on creating the artwork for some Hex tiles. However, when I add a Hex grid to my board and set the hight to 100 it sets the width to 86.60254037844386. To make things a little easier I round up the width to 87.

I’m using inkscape to create my tiles. I create a hexagon with a hight of 100 and width of 87. I export this as a bmp and create a piece for it. However, the piece is not nearly wide enough. Turns out if I make the piece 113 wide it almost fits.

How do I find the perfect size so it fits properly?

You have been fooled by the definition of height and width used.

Consider the hexes in a standard orientation with flat sides top and bottom. Then height is the separation of these two flat sides, but width is NOT the full diameter of the hex, but rather (exactly) 3/4 of that: it is the separation of vertical lines running through the centers of adjacent columns of hexes. In the online game-design community I have seen these two widths termed narrow-width and full-width.

Joel:

Should this note be added to the wiki and the JavaDoc? I struggles with this also for a while in working on hex-grid numbering.

the value he gets as a width is correct at 86.60xxx as defined in geometry of a circumscribed Regular hex. The height is the distance across corners (c) and the width (f - distance across flats) should be by formula f=0.866c.

The terms Vassal is using are confusing but its result is correct, so the only issue I see here is a naming convention where we should be using “corners” and “flats” instead of “height” and “width”, because orientating the hex with either vertical flats or horizontal flats or even 12 degrees off vertical center doesn’t affect the hex formula any at all but the true terms remain valid. I would say we need to change the terms so it is clearly understood in the dialog box

Actually when one is not constrained by an existing hex-grid overlay, I believe it best to set the hex dimensions at whole pixels; in this case 100 by narrow-width of 87 (or equivalently full-width of 87 *4/3 = 116).

The current terminology is pervasive on-line, so I don’t think we are out-of-line in using it, but a ready definition of the terms would certainly be useful. I suspect that height originally comes from its connection to the height of the underlying triangles composing each hexagon, and thus only coincidentally to the vertical orientation of the grid.

Probably - maybe it was just called height because it is in opposition to width and width is short for the term/expression “width across the flats” - no one ever says “height across the flats” that I’m aware of and I use or hear that expression at least once a week

On Jan 13, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Tim M wrote:

I would say we need to change
the terms so it is clearly understood in the dialog box

Well either that, or perhaps just including a small image (diagram)
that illustrates what physical line the terms refer to. That is the
least ambiguous way of communicating the information to the user.

Just how many words are your trying to say a good picture will save us?