Spring RTS Engine

profile>add to foes list

YEAH I BET YOU'RE WORRIED NOW

arghs effects are awesome.


Spring is a toy. A game is a toy. Whats the big deal with toys? Its christmas gdmt!

If u want to see really toy-like effects, look at supcom. Every single projectile is some weird little white laser streak. Plus the units look like TOYS.

Yes TA is cute. Dont touch my cute game. You will take down part of the userbase.

Seraphim nukes are blue, they almost look like rifts

Things like waving capes and what not were much more convincing and easy done with sprites than polygonal modeling can handle.

[rant mode ON]

Whoever said that can kiss my ass, because they have obviously never made paper-doll animation for videogames before. I'll be their whole "experience" consists of maybe doing an animated sprite for a website. Once.

Really, now.

I once worked with a team on a long-dead MMORPG (The Xenology Crisis, if you're bored you can Google it), doing paperdoll artwork for all of the animated characters.

Doing that kind of work is unbelievably time-consuming and difficult. I have the utmost respect for the Blizzard guys who did the paperdoll for Diablo II, because it was some of the most technically-challenging work I've ever had to do. You first had to build, and animate, your characters in full 3D, then render them, then use them to move the clothing around, then render the clothing with the appropriate "holes" for the model underneath, etc., etc., etc. all in isometric perspective. Oh yeah, and we had to use a restricted 8-bit pallette, too!

So, basically, whoever said that is out of their mind- any animator who's worked with 3D and 2D knows whereof I speak- when you get past just a sprite series and get into stuff that is supposed to reflect multiple states, it rapidly becomes insanely hard to work in 2D- let alone stuff like alpha channels and all of the stuff seen in the last gen of 2D games.

Moreover, their statements about "realism" are about 5 years behind the current state of the art- with normal maps, we can do fully 3D models these days that look like they're completely smooth at almost any distance and angle, and it's EASIER from a technical perspective.

[/rant]

Foxomaniac wrote:since when anyone should listen to YAN

QFT

Who was even talking about realism?

I liked working in 2D because of the abstraction from realism, plus the quite plain limits of the format.

Argh wrote:

Things like waving capes and what not were much more convincing and easy done with sprites than polygonal modeling can handle.

[rant mode ON]

Whoever said that can kiss my ass, because they have obviously never made paper-doll animation for videogames before. I'll be their whole "experience" consists of maybe doing an animated sprite for a website. Once.

Really, now.

I once worked with a team on a long-dead MMORPG (The Xenology Crisis, if you're bored you can Google it), doing paperdoll artwork for all of the animated characters.

Doing that kind of work is unbelievably time-consuming and difficult. I have the utmost respect for the Blizzard guys who did the paperdoll for Diablo II, because it was some of the most technically-challenging work I've ever had to do. You first had to build, and animate, your characters in full 3D, then render them, then use them to move the clothing around, then render the clothing with the appropriate "holes" for the model underneath, etc., etc., etc. all in isometric perspective. Oh yeah, and we had to use a restricted 8-bit pallette, too!

So, basically, whoever said that is out of their mind- any animator who's worked with 3D and 2D knows whereof I speak- when you get past just a sprite series and get into stuff that is supposed to reflect multiple states, it rapidly becomes insanely hard to work in 2D- let alone stuff like alpha channels and all of the stuff seen in the last gen of 2D games.

Moreover, their statements about "realism" are about 5 years behind the current state of the art- with normal maps, we can do fully 3D models these days that look like they're completely smooth at almost any distance and angle, and it's EASIER from a technical perspective.

[/rant]

I read your post a couple of times and still can't figure out what you're getting at

He's saying variable equipment is easier with 3d models. IMO that depends on your tools, if you have scripts and stuff to render all your perspectives and frames with the press of one button the workload should be similar.

Of course with hand-drawn sprites it can be harder, depending on how you handle that equipment. If it's just plastered on specific positions on your sprite it's easier than if it has to adjust every frame. I don't think anyone does isometric with variable equipment and hand-drawn sprites, for those most use either no visible equipment or rendered sprites.

Shouldn't the priority be to make it look good, not make it fast?

That depends on how much money you're budgeting for the game.

Scratch wrote:Shouldn't the priority be to make it look good, not make it fast?

Try doing that to dwarf fortress and see what happens with your computer... :)

lol

Argh wrote:

Things like waving capes and what not were much more convincing and easy done with sprites than polygonal modeling can handle.

[rant mode ON]

Whoever said that can kiss my ass, because they have obviously never made paper-doll animation for videogames before. I'll be their whole "experience" consists of maybe doing an animated sprite for a website. Once.

Really, now.

I once worked with a team on a long-dead MMORPG (The Xenology Crisis, if you're bored you can Google it), doing paperdoll artwork for all of the animated characters.

Doing that kind of work is unbelievably time-consuming and difficult. I have the utmost respect for the Blizzard guys who did the paperdoll for Diablo II, because it was some of the most technically-challenging work I've ever had to do. You first had to build, and animate, your characters in full 3D, then render them, then use them to move the clothing around, then render the clothing with the appropriate "holes" for the model underneath, etc., etc., etc. all in isometric perspective. Oh yeah, and we had to use a restricted 8-bit pallette, too!

So, basically, whoever said that is out of their mind- any animator who's worked with 3D and 2D knows whereof I speak- when you get past just a sprite series and get into stuff that is supposed to reflect multiple states, it rapidly becomes insanely hard to work in 2D- let alone stuff like alpha channels and all of the stuff seen in the last gen of 2D games.

Moreover, their statements about "realism" are about 5 years behind the current state of the art- with normal maps, we can do fully 3D models these days that look like they're completely smooth at almost any distance and angle, and it's EASIER from a technical perspective.

[/rant]

I didn't say sprite based animation is generically easier. To animate a sprite you have to repaint a whole new frame, or at least heavily edit an existing frame... I know how difficult it is, I've built smallscale RPGS in one of the old make your own game engines in which I had to generate all the art. that being said, abstractionism and convincing animations are easier and generally more convincing... because when artists train, they train themselfs in how to create compelling poses and good looking character frames, so intentionally or not, the end result of sprite based animation tends to be very high quality keyframes in terms of what it does to the animation. It's much more difficult to pose a 3D doll in good looking positions and stances than it is for a good 2D artist to generate a good looking position or perspective from scratch. It's still alot of work, but it makes reaching a high standard of quality easier for the most part. There are alot more ways you can fuck something up as a 3D model than a practiced artist can fuck up a 2D drawing.

Producing more "realistic" looking graphics and effects is much more difficult than doing cartoony art.

The problem is most of the modders involved in graphics on the forums are relatively inexperienced. Modellers who have an eye for proportions and design style here are few.

Even rarer are modders who have taken the time to do their research on the texturing techiques and methods, studied weathering and detailing and so forth with the intention of making a good texture.

Coupled with the apparent aversion for any mention of the word 'realism' by the general modding population on these forums, result in a lack of motivation to do the extra work to add that bit of realism to their artwork.

given the experiences of the past few days over in #s44... players dont *want* realism.

they want BA with new and exciting skins (realistically it doesnt matter if they are good or not, we are talking about the lowest common denominator here)

well... lets be honest, most people still come to spring for "sweet TA in 3d!!!" so if you give them anything other than TA it ends in tears, whining and raegquit.

There is an aparant differance between ta's and say,warcraft 3's visual look.
Warcraft 3 is toyish,Ta not so.
You cant say people come to play TA and thus they want toyish graphics,that is not correct.
The story behind TA is of a futuristic war beetwin robots that stop at nothing to destroy their enemy.
Where do the toyish effects come in?how do they contribute to TA's atmosphere?they dont.
You can make very good looking effects yet make them look very real.
I think that if it is so hard to do realistic visual effects dont make any at all.
Just keep visual effects to a minimum.
Ta based mods really need new models and textures,the normal lasers and plasma are fine imho,maybe a few minor changes can be made but besides that they dont spoil the games atmosphere which is already a big achievment.

When I see C&C tiberium, im like WOW THAT IS A TOY. It has more shininess maybe, or visual effects. However, I think TA and SPring capture the opposite effect, looking fun and appealing.

Wolf-In-Exile wrote:Producing more "realistic" looking graphics and effects is much more difficult than doing cartoony art.

The problem is most of the modders involved in graphics on the forums are relatively inexperienced. Modellers who have an eye for proportions and design style here are few.

Even rarer are modders who have taken the time to do their research on the texturing techiques and methods, studied weathering and detailing and so forth with the intention of making a good texture.

Coupled with the apparent aversion for any mention of the word 'realism' by the general modding population on these forums, result in a lack of motivation to do the extra work to add that bit of realism to their artwork.

+1

Pressure Line wrote: so if you give them anything other than TA it ends in tears, whining and raegquit.

Yeah well TA is the shiznits and what made Spring popular. If your mod doesn't measure up it's not our fault.

I think the current versions of BA and CA are pretty reasonable for model realism. It still sucks compared to 1997 graphics though, since I don't have TA installed I can't go further into depth about what it has that we dont.

Maybe the only thing that even made Spring popular is multiplayer? I mean TA shut down all over the place in the last 10 years.

Scratch wrote:

Pressure Line wrote: so if you give them anything other than TA it ends in tears, whining and raegquit.

Yeah well TA is the shiznits and what made Spring popular. If your mod doesn't measure up it's not our fault.

I think the current versions of BA and CA are pretty reasonable for model realism. It still sucks compared to 1997 graphics though, since I don't have TA installed I can't go further into depth about what it has that we dont.

Maybe the only thing that even made Spring popular is multiplayer? I mean TA shut down all over the place in the last 10 years.

GTFO. Seriously, shut up and get out. We've had this discussion before Scratch, Spring != TA. Would you try to play a C&C game, or World in Conflict the same way you play a game of TA... hell no you wouldnt (unless you're about as intelligent as a dustbin).

Thats the way you have to look at Spring. Its not 'TA and all that other shit.' its 'a wide selection of RTS games playable from a single lobby.' Which is awesome, if i want to play a few rounds of a Star Wars RTS i can, a World War II RTS i can, if i want to play TA online i can through Spring, cos god knows im never gonna find a game anywhere else.

For the record Spring:1944 is well balanced and well thought out, the ONLY reason many games degenerate into quagmires of whining, bitching and raegquitting is because people are TOO STUPID to adapt.

If you just want to play BA, thats cool, but for gods sake dont try another game then complain that it doesnt play like TA. You wouldnt do it if you bought a commercial non-TA game, so DONT DO IT HERE.