Space maps and spring :: part 2 What went wrong?
Moderator: Moderators
Space maps and spring :: part 2 What went wrong?
OTA never did support space maps. The original FF designers had a problem in that they couldnt expect FF to simply be a tier 3+ aircraft addition to OTA.
Thus eventually someone figured out a simple ingenious ploy. Render a space tileset with stars and build things on platforms, basically islands with a starry texture for the sea. Many maps where made this way and FF continued to use the same style as TA and use the platforms behaving more like a ground based air mod in that respect.
This worked because the user had a 2 dimensional perspective of the map and an orthogonal perspective of the 3d units, and radar wasnt affected by asteroid.
Sadly this specialized OTA methodology is being applied to spring with horrific results.
these maps may look fine from the minimaps:
http://spring.unknown-files.net/index.p ... &dlid=1341
http://spring.unknown-files.net/index.p ... &dlid=1381
http://spring.unknown-files.net/file/1323/Cosmos/
These map makers are capable of so much more, they could be producing maps thousands of times better using the same skill level but a different cocnept and methodology.
Those minimaps look very similair and indeed space maps in spring follow a set pattern. Space maps in spring follow the cult of OTA FF. They render stars on the sea, and have flat low lying asteroids, and lots and lots of them.
Runecrafter did start to get some of the idea right alter though. The map I posted above (number 3) doesnt have a sea texture and uses a skybox, but he still falls into the same traps, and his skybox while making it one of the prettiest space maps for spring is all wrong.
Just try looking at an FF map from any angle but top down:
Because of the way the mods work, mappers use very flat asteroids to prevent it looking silly, despite the fact it looks silly from any angle but top down. And because of the non orthogonal nature of springs 3D view, the way the map is rendered becomes obvious almost immediatly.
This is worsened by clip art syndrome, where mappers palce nasa images or renders of models onto the space scene of stars layering the sea as can be seen in this thread at smoths forums:
http://cs.selu.edu/~ssmith/BB/viewtopic.php?t=398
Minion was deluded, but he saw the light in the end. Sadly he never produced any spring space maps, but if he had, the new methodology would hqve made them far prettier than anything currently seen.
The current OTA methodology applied to spring leaves still a lot more to be desired, even the better of the OTA FF maps followed what I outlined in part 1
Ironically the map that applies the principles of part 1 best in spring is not a space map at all
Stratos is the pinnacle of spring space maps despite it not being a space map at all.
However, one retort space mappers in spring throw abck is this image:
which was quickly countered by sinbad, who ahd a marvellous fix:
This was rejected as it required skinning the ground with feature models, and might look odd from terain deformation, but it was silly because the whole idea of building on asteroids is silly to begin with. Why do you need to build a solar colelctor ontop of a manmade paltform? Is that not innefficient? A waste of resources?
Sinbad continued this idea and got good results with it but his examples where poor and thus he was forgotten and ignored.And as it is, space mappers put too much stuff in their maps, with all this stuff how is it we can see space at all?
The whole concept of large platforms andlots of asteroids is poor, and it lead to lots of OTA FF maps that look very similair. Indeed they dont look realistic and as can be seen from the minimaps further up they look similair in spring too. But most of all they arent necessary.
Thus eventually someone figured out a simple ingenious ploy. Render a space tileset with stars and build things on platforms, basically islands with a starry texture for the sea. Many maps where made this way and FF continued to use the same style as TA and use the platforms behaving more like a ground based air mod in that respect.
This worked because the user had a 2 dimensional perspective of the map and an orthogonal perspective of the 3d units, and radar wasnt affected by asteroid.
Sadly this specialized OTA methodology is being applied to spring with horrific results.
these maps may look fine from the minimaps:
http://spring.unknown-files.net/index.p ... &dlid=1341
http://spring.unknown-files.net/index.p ... &dlid=1381
http://spring.unknown-files.net/file/1323/Cosmos/
These map makers are capable of so much more, they could be producing maps thousands of times better using the same skill level but a different cocnept and methodology.
Those minimaps look very similair and indeed space maps in spring follow a set pattern. Space maps in spring follow the cult of OTA FF. They render stars on the sea, and have flat low lying asteroids, and lots and lots of them.
Runecrafter did start to get some of the idea right alter though. The map I posted above (number 3) doesnt have a sea texture and uses a skybox, but he still falls into the same traps, and his skybox while making it one of the prettiest space maps for spring is all wrong.
Just try looking at an FF map from any angle but top down:
Because of the way the mods work, mappers use very flat asteroids to prevent it looking silly, despite the fact it looks silly from any angle but top down. And because of the non orthogonal nature of springs 3D view, the way the map is rendered becomes obvious almost immediatly.
This is worsened by clip art syndrome, where mappers palce nasa images or renders of models onto the space scene of stars layering the sea as can be seen in this thread at smoths forums:
http://cs.selu.edu/~ssmith/BB/viewtopic.php?t=398
Minion was deluded, but he saw the light in the end. Sadly he never produced any spring space maps, but if he had, the new methodology would hqve made them far prettier than anything currently seen.
The current OTA methodology applied to spring leaves still a lot more to be desired, even the better of the OTA FF maps followed what I outlined in part 1
Ironically the map that applies the principles of part 1 best in spring is not a space map at all
Stratos is the pinnacle of spring space maps despite it not being a space map at all.
However, one retort space mappers in spring throw abck is this image:
which was quickly countered by sinbad, who ahd a marvellous fix:
This was rejected as it required skinning the ground with feature models, and might look odd from terain deformation, but it was silly because the whole idea of building on asteroids is silly to begin with. Why do you need to build a solar colelctor ontop of a manmade paltform? Is that not innefficient? A waste of resources?
Sinbad continued this idea and got good results with it but his examples where poor and thus he was forgotten and ignored.And as it is, space mappers put too much stuff in their maps, with all this stuff how is it we can see space at all?
The whole concept of large platforms andlots of asteroids is poor, and it lead to lots of OTA FF maps that look very similair. Indeed they dont look realistic and as can be seen from the minimaps further up they look similair in spring too. But most of all they arent necessary.
- Optimus Prime
- Posts: 755
- Joined: 03 Oct 2005, 14:31
that is all right what you are saying (if i get all of it).
But the problem is even bigger for spring and OTA. Spring only supports 2 dimensional movement control.
So even if we could make real 3d space maps with asteroids in the back and front where units could fly under and over, it wouldnt be usefull because spring doesnt support it.
It would look like a real 3d space but all units would still only fly on a 2 dimensional area.
So whats my point?
I want to say that space battles will never be like in homeworld for spring and therefore maps like in homeworld are not needed. Its just the imagination of the players to feel in a 3d space environment and no one will ever play in another view than the standard top down view (at least as long as spring only supports 2 dimensional movement controle). Therefore if the top down view looks good, its all we need.
But the problem is even bigger for spring and OTA. Spring only supports 2 dimensional movement control.
So even if we could make real 3d space maps with asteroids in the back and front where units could fly under and over, it wouldnt be usefull because spring doesnt support it.
It would look like a real 3d space but all units would still only fly on a 2 dimensional area.
So whats my point?
I want to say that space battles will never be like in homeworld for spring and therefore maps like in homeworld are not needed. Its just the imagination of the players to feel in a 3d space environment and no one will ever play in another view than the standard top down view (at least as long as spring only supports 2 dimensional movement controle). Therefore if the top down view looks good, its all we need.
Spring space maps look ugly. Thats reason enough, games are an escape formr eality and players want good looking space maps, but the current methods just arent capable of doing the job. Space maps cant be amde using L3DT style methods, you cant just render a space map, the best tools are handmade skyboxes, and ltos of variety. They're works of art and they require a lot of artistic talent and effort. While a 2D playing field may be okish, it is only so because the current maps arent designed for it.
The illusion of a 3D field is perfectly possible and you dont have to feel spring is handicapped by this. And indeed with enough work, true 3Dness can be attained. mobile factories plus a way of selecting a height/depth value in building placement would allow for mods where every single unit was an aircraft and true homeworld style play. We already have basic harvesting through gradual reclaiming and features.
The illusion of a 3D field is perfectly possible and you dont have to feel spring is handicapped by this. And indeed with enough work, true 3Dness can be attained. mobile factories plus a way of selecting a height/depth value in building placement would allow for mods where every single unit was an aircraft and true homeworld style play. We already have basic harvesting through gradual reclaiming and features.
indeed another problem of OTA style FF maps in spring is terrain clipping:
http://www.fileuniverse.com/images/screen023.jpg
Which can be avoided if all the terrain visible is made of features and the platform mentality is abandoned.
http://www.fileuniverse.com/images/screen023.jpg
Which can be avoided if all the terrain visible is made of features and the platform mentality is abandoned.
- Optimus Prime
- Posts: 755
- Joined: 03 Oct 2005, 14:31
- Optimus Prime
- Posts: 755
- Joined: 03 Oct 2005, 14:31
Thats not the reason.. let me elaborate something for people cause they seem to fail to realise this..
Modders, and Mappers, and Coders are STILL PEOPLE... this means they have likes, dislikes, preferences, attractions to certain visual styles.. ETC..
Most Mappers make Maps for the Mod they most likely play, Hence why alot of forbs maps would seem to cater to EE.. He likes to play EE, and so makes maps geared for being played in EE.. Alot of the other mappers play BA, or XTA (AA doesnt exist let it die) and so make maps for both of those..
Now EE, BA, XTA, Gundam, SWTA, AATA..etc all happen to be planet side mods which need maps that roughly function as a landscape.. so maps made for any of these mods are likely playable by all..
Very few people play FF (spring stats counts games not players) if the same 3 people host and restart 40 games in one day, that doesnt mean that 100 people like FF, it means 3 do.. needless to say FF is not a very popular mod, none of the mappers that I know of play it or for that matter play spring much..
This is why there are no FF maps, and requesting them is likely to fall on deaf ears.. people who dont play a mod are not likely to attempt contribute some sort of work to it, because it doesnt benefit them at all..
(THAT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RULE BUT ITS GENERALLY TRUE)
Modders, and Mappers, and Coders are STILL PEOPLE... this means they have likes, dislikes, preferences, attractions to certain visual styles.. ETC..
Most Mappers make Maps for the Mod they most likely play, Hence why alot of forbs maps would seem to cater to EE.. He likes to play EE, and so makes maps geared for being played in EE.. Alot of the other mappers play BA, or XTA (AA doesnt exist let it die) and so make maps for both of those..
Now EE, BA, XTA, Gundam, SWTA, AATA..etc all happen to be planet side mods which need maps that roughly function as a landscape.. so maps made for any of these mods are likely playable by all..
Very few people play FF (spring stats counts games not players) if the same 3 people host and restart 40 games in one day, that doesnt mean that 100 people like FF, it means 3 do.. needless to say FF is not a very popular mod, none of the mappers that I know of play it or for that matter play spring much..
This is why there are no FF maps, and requesting them is likely to fall on deaf ears.. people who dont play a mod are not likely to attempt contribute some sort of work to it, because it doesnt benefit them at all..
(THAT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RULE BUT ITS GENERALLY TRUE)
- Optimus Prime
- Posts: 755
- Joined: 03 Oct 2005, 14:31
sure you are right Fang. I never said anything else.. i too make only mods i like to play and would never do anything else.
But therefore i asked not for a special super duper map, but for just a playable moderate map which someone could do in one or 2 days.
because the chance to find someone who will do such a map is much higher than if you want a gigantic super map... also for some mappers its enough to see that their map will be played instead of playing on them. You know a lot of ground maps are uploaded every week and most of them get lost cause no one ever plays them...
But therefore i asked not for a special super duper map, but for just a playable moderate map which someone could do in one or 2 days.
because the chance to find someone who will do such a map is much higher than if you want a gigantic super map... also for some mappers its enough to see that their map will be played instead of playing on them. You know a lot of ground maps are uploaded every week and most of them get lost cause no one ever plays them...
Yes alot of maps get uploaded, but if you look at those maps, and who made them, you will quickly realize why this is.
These are newbie maps, made by people who are still working it out or are just doing it for fun. They usually lack the skill and time to sit down and make a good land map (hence why their maps are usually not played) and doubly so lack the time or skill to make a good space map.. which as AF says should probably have NO terrain and have features as the main resource.. but I digress..
I will only make one comment In regards to this statement (this is not a flame but an attempt at reason)
These are newbie maps, made by people who are still working it out or are just doing it for fun. They usually lack the skill and time to sit down and make a good land map (hence why their maps are usually not played) and doubly so lack the time or skill to make a good space map.. which as AF says should probably have NO terrain and have features as the main resource.. but I digress..
I will only make one comment In regards to this statement (this is not a flame but an attempt at reason)
This is why People harass you about FF, you have balanced it almost exclusively to your playing style and to what your would want to play. And AF is right in his other thread It is not your mod, you did not come up with the concept and you did not make the orginal concept you simply rebalanced it and fixed some errors. (not that this didnt involve work) but it does not give you claim over the mod. This is why people get irritated because your version of FF is not what they want, they want something else and you dont want that.. this is again why FF is not as popular as it appeals to only one aspect of FF fans.. Thats all Im going to say..i too make only mods i like to play
I believe the space mods in Spring (2 I'm aware of including FF) dont have good space maps so less people play them which means less space maps which means less players and so on, hence why production of FF maps has fallen dramatically to zero.
Also, I feel space maps require a skillset that a lot of ground based mappers simply dont have or arent as talented at. The best space mapper may be a rubbish ground mapper and vice versa.
Also, I feel space maps require a skillset that a lot of ground based mappers simply dont have or arent as talented at. The best space mapper may be a rubbish ground mapper and vice versa.
- Optimus Prime
- Posts: 755
- Joined: 03 Oct 2005, 14:31
you are right, the rights on most models and textures belong to the people who made them, but FF for spring is different from OTA in nearly every corner. Only the names and models are the same (and some scripts)... all the rest is different. I believe not one single value is unchanged and therefore it is more like if you play football or baseball in stadium... the environment is the same, the game is different - and that is one point some people cant accept. I NEVER wanted to make OTA FF for Spring.And AF is right in his other thread It is not your mod, you did not come up with the concept and you did not make the orginal concept you simply rebalanced it and fixed some errors.
Else you you could say KuroTA, AA, XTA and a lot of other mods are all the same. They have all a similar set of baseunits made by TA, but strange... i never saw someone crying about that.
- Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
At least you wouldn't really need a heightmap for Space maps (other than to lift features up and down I suppose)
Clearly you have not seen the threads on that particular subject...Optimus Prime wrote:Else you you could say KuroTA, AA, XTA and a lot of other mods are all the same. They have all a similar set of baseunits made by TA, but strange... i never saw someone crying about that.
- Optimus Prime
- Posts: 755
- Joined: 03 Oct 2005, 14:31
can be, but i bet it never was that often than it is with FF. But never the less, i dont care about it if people think that i have done spring FF or not. I never fought for this and will not.
Its more the opposite when people aske me "hey are you the maker of FF?" then i reply "i did a lot of work on it and are developing it for spring now, but most models and sounds are taken from OTA FF, if you wanna know in detail who made what, check the changelog"
What i want is that people test the mod, try it in detail and if they like it, they shall stay with it. Over 80% of the players in the lobby never tried it and get their oppinions from some few people and thats where i am working on, to ge more people for their first FF game. (I hope my english wasnt that bad - it sounds not very good)
Its more the opposite when people aske me "hey are you the maker of FF?" then i reply "i did a lot of work on it and are developing it for spring now, but most models and sounds are taken from OTA FF, if you wanna know in detail who made what, check the changelog"
What i want is that people test the mod, try it in detail and if they like it, they shall stay with it. Over 80% of the players in the lobby never tried it and get their oppinions from some few people and thats where i am working on, to ge more people for their first FF game. (I hope my english wasnt that bad - it sounds not very good)
The problem is that Spring's map format isn't really designed for space maps. Landscapes are _horrible_ for space, since space is about objects... but if you want a surface to build on in space, you need a landscape. So basically the option is to make a features that hide the underlying landscape... but I don't know how doable that is, and how well you could build on a concealed landscape.
For example, let's say I want a small spherical planetoid, and to allow players to build on the top of that planetoid... how would I do that? Make a hemispherical heightmap and an intangible planet-looking feature that sinks far below the ground, so that the surface of the feature maps perfectly to the surface of the landscape.... if that's even possible. Then I wouldn't be able to see the landscape - if I wanted to build on it, any buildings would probably be set to not-deform terrain and be not-upright, but you'd still have to make them on stilts because they'd probably be subtly below the surface of the sphere (on the landscape).
A tricky proposition in general, involving lots of hacks (yes, I have given this substantial thought, since I want to make a from-scratch space mod).
For example, let's say I want a small spherical planetoid, and to allow players to build on the top of that planetoid... how would I do that? Make a hemispherical heightmap and an intangible planet-looking feature that sinks far below the ground, so that the surface of the feature maps perfectly to the surface of the landscape.... if that's even possible. Then I wouldn't be able to see the landscape - if I wanted to build on it, any buildings would probably be set to not-deform terrain and be not-upright, but you'd still have to make them on stilts because they'd probably be subtly below the surface of the sphere (on the landscape).
A tricky proposition in general, involving lots of hacks (yes, I have given this substantial thought, since I want to make a from-scratch space mod).
Best Sollution would be a VoidWater + MirrorLandscape Feature...
Just the usual VoidWater but with the Same Landscape mirrored and connected with the Landscape above.. that way every Feature becomse (at least in look) like an Object..
_____
|_ _ _|___ VoidWaterline
|____|
Mirrored Landscape.. No more holes.. and sm3 could solve the remaining issue of stretched Textures...
Just the usual VoidWater but with the Same Landscape mirrored and connected with the Landscape above.. that way every Feature becomse (at least in look) like an Object..
_____
|_ _ _|___ VoidWaterline
|____|
Mirrored Landscape.. No more holes.. and sm3 could solve the remaining issue of stretched Textures...
Last edited by PicassoCT on 26 Feb 2007, 21:24, edited 2 times in total.
AF its really easy to make posts saying "this is wrong blah blah blah."
Its a bit harder to actually create a quality map... You actually wonder why these threads haven't been stickied?
And Fang is right. Personally I don't even have enough time to work on ground maps: let alone space maps. But if I did spend some time creating something its going to be a map that can be used by the majority of the mods that are released (as opposed to the other way around).
Its a bit harder to actually create a quality map... You actually wonder why these threads haven't been stickied?
And Fang is right. Personally I don't even have enough time to work on ground maps: let alone space maps. But if I did spend some time creating something its going to be a map that can be used by the majority of the mods that are released (as opposed to the other way around).