AF-
You still hold the data the same way as now. You just need to use rule-based exceptions for the different possible circumstances. Let's say your map is 1000x1000 and you shoot a cannon that goes 1001 spaces. Well, the projectile will orbit once because it travels a distance of 1001 spaces the reality is that true displacement is just one space. You have to think of displacement and distance as different meanings. Displaying this in a simple and manageable hemispherical fov form is the real issue.
Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
Madrat, your explanation falls apart into mushy goo as soon as I try to zoom out to see the whole planet at once, nevermind adding multiple planetary bodies.
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
Spaceballs for the Work... it´s not a Spaceship, it´s not a Planet... it is a CleaningLady.... 
The Zoomout reveals it..
The Zoomout reveals it..Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
You can always zoom out to a flat map.AF wrote:Madrat, your explanation falls apart into mushy goo as soon as I try to zoom out to see the whole planet at once, nevermind adding multiple planetary bodies.
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
No because I was asking how to make sphere worlds, spore style, the sort wher you zoom out and see a globe, multiple globes even....
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
Keyhole views; the field of view is warped into a circle to give the impression of a sphere. If each world map is shown in its own keyhole then it looks like you have planets.
-
Tribulexrenamed
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 22 Apr 2008, 19:06
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
Shall we forget spring and play SoSE?
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
I don't think all these hacks around a repeating heightmap are easier than just implementing a mathematically correct sphere with heightmaps on it.Keyhole views; the field of view is warped into a circle to give the impression of a sphere. If each world map is shown in its own keyhole then it looks like you have planets.
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
How do you skin over a sphere... with tiles?
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
No, you use a cubical projection method, stretching 6 textured squares around a sphere, basically. This is usually done in conjunction with using a tessellation method to auto-tessellate the sphere according to distance, to achieve good LOD performance, and extremely "round" feeling spheres at most distances.
Freelancer used it, and it works very well, with a minimum of distortion.
Freelancer used it, and it works very well, with a minimum of distortion.
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
I'd think you are accomplishing little more than what you get from a curved 2D plane distorted into a keyhole view, but you method would take a lot more work because you'd have to come up with whole new methods.
Really, Argh, it would look identical when you think about it. The only difference is that when you render the keyhole view you're shifting the map coordinates relative to match your camera position. That is instead of moving the camera around, you're rendering the map seamlessly. If you move out to the edge of the map it is really the edge of the map moving in and the flip side is stitched to where there is an edge, creating a seamless appearance. It works the same for corners.
I think what is giving people perspective problems with my solution is the idea of taking a conventional map and spreading it out on a sphere which doesn't quite work out right philosophically. (Going off the map and suddenly appearing the other side of the world is a hard concept to swallow.) But the keyhole method would support the existing map format.
Really, Argh, it would look identical when you think about it. The only difference is that when you render the keyhole view you're shifting the map coordinates relative to match your camera position. That is instead of moving the camera around, you're rendering the map seamlessly. If you move out to the edge of the map it is really the edge of the map moving in and the flip side is stitched to where there is an edge, creating a seamless appearance. It works the same for corners.
I think what is giving people perspective problems with my solution is the idea of taking a conventional map and spreading it out on a sphere which doesn't quite work out right philosophically. (Going off the map and suddenly appearing the other side of the world is a hard concept to swallow.) But the keyhole method would support the existing map format.
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
Madrat, you don't get what hes trying to say.
Taking a cube and turning it into a sphere involves far less distortion than taking a 2D rectangle and warping it into a sphere, with the cube you get distortion at the corner, but with a rectangle the corners are squared and the rest of the plane is stretched.
Populous gets away with using a rectangular plane by never warping the rectangle and controlling how the entire map is viewed at any one time.
Lets say we add another planetary body, we're now no longer able to slide our UV co-ords and we're forced to expose the extremely warped ugly side of our planet were the corners meet, and because we could see any side of the planet at once we can no long do what populous does in that populous doesn't wrap its map onto a sphere, it wraps it onto a half circle, allowing it to show the center of the rectangle and reducing the stretching, because if the whole texture was shown it wouldn't wrap around the whole planet and you'd see gaps were the rectangle doesn't join up at the back that the user never sees.
hmmm in hindsight perhaps I shouldn't have typed all that, your likely to just ignore what I and argh say and treat it as pure opinion, but then again we don't need to go on about it, just look at how the industry does it, if you think what were saying wont work we only have to point you at games were its actually used to prove you wrong.
Taking a cube and turning it into a sphere involves far less distortion than taking a 2D rectangle and warping it into a sphere, with the cube you get distortion at the corner, but with a rectangle the corners are squared and the rest of the plane is stretched.
Populous gets away with using a rectangular plane by never warping the rectangle and controlling how the entire map is viewed at any one time.
Lets say we add another planetary body, we're now no longer able to slide our UV co-ords and we're forced to expose the extremely warped ugly side of our planet were the corners meet, and because we could see any side of the planet at once we can no long do what populous does in that populous doesn't wrap its map onto a sphere, it wraps it onto a half circle, allowing it to show the center of the rectangle and reducing the stretching, because if the whole texture was shown it wouldn't wrap around the whole planet and you'd see gaps were the rectangle doesn't join up at the back that the user never sees.
hmmm in hindsight perhaps I shouldn't have typed all that, your likely to just ignore what I and argh say and treat it as pure opinion, but then again we don't need to go on about it, just look at how the industry does it, if you think what were saying wont work we only have to point you at games were its actually used to prove you wrong.
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
A planet is not so small, even a 64x64 will not be the size of a planet.
This "spherical worlds" thing will only be useful for mods not based on TA, on mods where the map is not in a planet, like in kernel panic.
Its better to the spring developers focus on others things, since some said here that this would be a very difficult develop.
Many people are wanting this to map developers for TA based mods, put this in their created maps, and this would be a very ilogical thing.
This "spherical worlds" thing will only be useful for mods not based on TA, on mods where the map is not in a planet, like in kernel panic.
Its better to the spring developers focus on others things, since some said here that this would be a very difficult develop.
Many people are wanting this to map developers for TA based mods, put this in their created maps, and this would be a very ilogical thing.
-
Wolf-In-Exile
- Posts: 497
- Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 13:40
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
Maybe spherical worlds aren't quite possible for actual maps atm, but what it'd be good for is a meta map for campaign-play IMO.
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
That's a good idea, could you elaborate on that?
-
Wolf-In-Exile
- Posts: 497
- Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 13:40
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
Well its not really a new idea. Games like UFO, Universe At War have done it, while the Total War/Battle For Middle Earth series have implemented a more tactical version of metamaps. The only real-time metamap implemented in a game that I can think of is in Star Wars: Empire At War.
It'd be pretty heavy work to code the whole metamap component, depending on how detailed/functional you want it to be.
The 'globe' would be split into various territories representing the maps/missions you fight on. Movement across the globe can be real time (something like SW:Empire At War), or turn based.
Basic metamap features would include:
- troops that gain experience and carry over from mission to mission (or at least the same unit types anyway),
- territories provide bonuses (new/more advanced unit types, additional metal/energy buffs in missions, faster construction/unit movement/veterancy gain/upgrades etc.)
- link between mission map and meta map. Buildings constructed on the mission map will be listed on the meta map (and for factories, can be used to build units). Factories and other buildings would have to be restricted to certain territories
- enemy metamap AI. It'd build up its own infrastructure and forces, launch attacks on the player, reinforce its own territories, try to retake critical territories etc.
- to keep things simple and manageable, players/AI will only control one 'active' army each. While territories can be garrisoned, these units cannot be used to attack territories unless they link up with the main army.
- garrisons serve to delay the AI if they're attacking your territory (increases the amount of time needed to conquer), thus giving you more time to respond, while larger enemy garrisons mean heavier resistance (and possibly give time for the enemy's main army to reinforce).
- 'time' in the meta map freezes when missions are being carried out.
The campaign itself will be semi-linear, where players have 'primary territories' they need to attack and capture within a certain time limit, with optional secondary territories which grant some of the aforementioned bonuses if the player can do them in time.
This serves to create a sense of urgency in the player (delay onset of boredom), to push the player to make faster decisions and to drive the campaign onwards at a pace of the designer's choosing.
That's all I can think of for now, will add/expand this idea later.
It'd be pretty heavy work to code the whole metamap component, depending on how detailed/functional you want it to be.
The 'globe' would be split into various territories representing the maps/missions you fight on. Movement across the globe can be real time (something like SW:Empire At War), or turn based.
Basic metamap features would include:
- troops that gain experience and carry over from mission to mission (or at least the same unit types anyway),
- territories provide bonuses (new/more advanced unit types, additional metal/energy buffs in missions, faster construction/unit movement/veterancy gain/upgrades etc.)
- link between mission map and meta map. Buildings constructed on the mission map will be listed on the meta map (and for factories, can be used to build units). Factories and other buildings would have to be restricted to certain territories
- enemy metamap AI. It'd build up its own infrastructure and forces, launch attacks on the player, reinforce its own territories, try to retake critical territories etc.
- to keep things simple and manageable, players/AI will only control one 'active' army each. While territories can be garrisoned, these units cannot be used to attack territories unless they link up with the main army.
- garrisons serve to delay the AI if they're attacking your territory (increases the amount of time needed to conquer), thus giving you more time to respond, while larger enemy garrisons mean heavier resistance (and possibly give time for the enemy's main army to reinforce).
- 'time' in the meta map freezes when missions are being carried out.
The campaign itself will be semi-linear, where players have 'primary territories' they need to attack and capture within a certain time limit, with optional secondary territories which grant some of the aforementioned bonuses if the player can do them in time.
This serves to create a sense of urgency in the player (delay onset of boredom), to push the player to make faster decisions and to drive the campaign onwards at a pace of the designer's choosing.
That's all I can think of for now, will add/expand this idea later.
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
+1Wolf-In-Exile wrote:Well its not really a new idea. Games like UFO, Universe At War have done it, while the Total War/Battle For Middle Earth series have implemented a more tactical version of metamaps. The only real-time metamap implemented in a game that I can think of is in Star Wars: Empire At War.
It'd be pretty heavy work to code the whole metamap component, depending on how detailed/functional you want it to be.
The 'globe' would be split into various territories representing the maps/missions you fight on. Movement across the globe can be real time (something like SW:Empire At War), or turn based.
Basic metamap features would include:
- troops that gain experience and carry over from mission to mission (or at least the same unit types anyway),
- territories provide bonuses (new/more advanced unit types, additional metal/energy buffs in missions, faster construction/unit movement/veterancy gain/upgrades etc.)
- link between mission map and meta map. Buildings constructed on the mission map will be listed on the meta map (and for factories, can be used to build units). Factories and other buildings would have to be restricted to certain territories
- enemy metamap AI. It'd build up its own infrastructure and forces, launch attacks on the player, reinforce its own territories, try to retake critical territories etc.
- to keep things simple and manageable, players/AI will only control one 'active' army each. While territories can be garrisoned, these units cannot be used to attack territories unless they link up with the main army.
- garrisons serve to delay the AI if they're attacking your territory (increases the amount of time needed to conquer), thus giving you more time to respond, while larger enemy garrisons mean heavier resistance (and possibly give time for the enemy's main army to reinforce).
- 'time' in the meta map freezes when missions are being carried out.
The campaign itself will be semi-linear, where players have 'primary territories' they need to attack and capture within a certain time limit, with optional secondary territories which grant some of the aforementioned bonuses if the player can do them in time.
This serves to create a sense of urgency in the player (delay onset of boredom), to push the player to make faster decisions and to drive the campaign onwards at a pace of the designer's choosing.
That's all I can think of for now, will add/expand this idea later.
Re: Spherical worlds weeeeeeeeee
epic necrophil revival of the infamous Monsterthread.. i still think spherical (not donuts Shaped ) Worlds would ruule! Oh, its derailed, the beautifull flamewar, into a serious topic - how dare you necro this- don´t you have any shame at all...