No idea with the main question. For the related one, whats wrong with 1.4? easy to remember, you dont usually that much precision in most boards, if you have to much trouble with the .4, round it up to .5

>Anybody knows an elegant solution to put rectangular objects on a hexagonal grid without goofy things like doors being only able to be stepped through on a diagonal line?
Make sure your grid resolution is high enough that a 'square' is just a chunk of hexagons (helps if you use 'squashed' hexagons). That, or if you're already working at an abstracted 'one grid space per object' level, don't worry about door orientation at all. If you need arbitrary shapes at arbitrary orientations, grid less is the way to go.

Main question: Hexes are an abstraction. Your characters aren't standing perfectly still in the center of their hexes swinging their weapons around when they fight, so why are they always in them exactly when they move?

Also, it can help a lot to draw lines for walls, rather than saying "this hex is passable, this one is not." Makes it easier to express more types of terrain.

>>315802
>>315803
>>315804
OP here, thanks for your answers!

Actually going for a gridless system now, but hex grids are, and will forever be, on my mind. I really like their look and simple elegance. Although yu are right, the level of abstraction should be higher than what I had in mind (which is, dimension-wise, squad-level tiny. Hex grids might shine on division/brigade-level abstraction, though).

But now back to coding. And implementing a new pathfinding function. Sigh.

>>315796
The simplest way to remember them is to calculate the sides of the triangle and subtract 1 unit. If I move 5 units diagonally, that's 9 units (2N - 1).

>>315811
This is... actually really useful. Ta.

>>315805
For these reasons I use gridless and a little measuring tape. I find that it represents the proper size and distance of pretty much everything.