Multiple Height maps :: Tunnels and caverns

Multiple Height maps :: Tunnels and caverns

Various things about Spring that do not fit in any of the other forums listed below, including forum rules.

Moderators: Moderators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20671
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Multiple Height maps :: Tunnels and caverns

Post by AF »

Currently spring has a single height and texture map with its metal map. But how about multiple height maps?
We could make it so that the overall map has density based on its metal content and th nearer you get to the bottom layer the higher the density/metal content, with the bottom layer yielding the base metal output with the same rules of terrain deformability as the current terrain. Depending on density we could make ti so that a lot fo weapons fire could make holes int helayers leading to lower layers or just deform the terrain till the next layer shows. This could lead to tunnels and caverns, or possibly I blast a huge whole and the floor beneath the enemy and my own army gives way to form a big hole to the next layer or a cavern. It could also give a use for digging units and the exposing of units that are underground such as underground fusions etc, or simply hiding or giving a second route of attack by leading untis into a cavern and attackign the ceiling under the enemy base
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Post by Argh »

Y'know... the only RTS games I've ever seen that allowed an "underground"... have all sucked butt. Perimeter and Metal Fatigue immediately come to mind... I've played both, and was distinctly underwhelmed by both.

Personally, I think that TA had *more* than enough going on to satisfy all but the most ambitious micromanagers out there, especially in MP, where you rarely ever see gigantic armies anyway, unless the players are all nubs or very evenly matched defensively-oriented players...
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22300
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

I do and don't want surface over surface.

I'd like bridges or cliffs with over hangs but undergroud stuff is just too difficult to manage in a 3d engine without occlusion or fps mode.

I don't think I'd enjoy tunnels. I would love bridges and gateways. Thing is I don't want to lose units behind anything or under it.
0 x

Warlord Zsinj
Imperial Winter Developer
Posts: 3742
Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59

Post by Warlord Zsinj »

I agree with the general concensus. Multiple overlays are just a pain in the arse. Its tough enough to keep up with a battle on the ground.

It would be interesting to see how Spring plans to deal with units obscured by terrain/features... Perhaps a rotateable camera means that no special efforts for this are necessery.
0 x

User avatar
aGorm
Posts: 2928
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 10:25

Post by aGorm »

Tunnels, multiple layers, there all far to complicated... Besides TA plays better than any other RTS and it doesn't have underground, so why would spring need it. Theres loads of other cool stuff that should be worked on instead.

aGorm
0 x

User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20671
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

But if ever we needed it I've provided a solution to it without drastic changes to the way terrain works in spring atm
0 x

User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7022
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Post by zwzsg »

I think tunnels and caverns would require a major rewriting of the game engine. Go help the Unreal Annihilation project if you want tunnels and caverns in TA. Their engine is much more appropriate.
0 x

User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20671
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

Agreed but the multiple height system can eb sued for other stuff and I'm not sayign ti would eb used always onyl by those map makers who feel the need for an underground cavern or a tunnel where appropriate ro possibly a building?? How about a map that's the insides of a huge cathedral ro the great halls fo moria from LOTR
0 x

Doomweaver
Posts: 704
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14

Post by Doomweaver »

it would cause a major loss of speed for multiple levels, and its hard to code as well. I say forget it.
0 x

User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20671
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

Just a suggestion
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22300
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

I wasn't hating the idea. I was just saying what I thought man :). Like I said I was thinking that it was a neat idea just that I didn't want full on tunnels.
0 x

User avatar
Redfish
Posts: 289
Joined: 27 Feb 2005, 16:12

Post by Redfish »

I don't like the underground idea. My experience is that above ground battles are already hard enough to manage. Now we also have unlimited height for planes and unlimited depth for subs, so I think that's about enough. In Ota units can hide behind a statue. As a player you don't see it because you can't rotate the map. Units can see it and will fire at it. But I do like the idea of overhangt. However with a single heightmap it's hard to do. You'd need something like an overhang feature with a certain texture. But with just grey values on a map you can't achieve it.
0 x

User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20671
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

As I said above what about inside a massive cathedral or a map thats just a huge cavern? Or maybe a Toy Box with the lid down? Possibly even the inside of a persons stomach? They would require at least 2 height and texture maps for the ground and the ceiling and walls. Or maybe someones room witht he units all tiny etc
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”