The new map format?

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 24 May 2006, 19:57

rly? we never thought of that... OH WAIT the old format did not really work for that sized map!

farkin' preview button.

Anyway, dude yeah we would love to have it as a possibility.

PauloMorfeo · Post by **PauloMorfeo** » 24 May 2006, 20:29

jcnossen wrote:I'm mostly aiming for better graphics with lower memory use and much smaller file sizes. ...

Anything will get worst? Normally, when we make something that has better grafics and lower memory usage, it is generally more CPU intensive. Although, here, will probably mean more GPU intensive!?

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 24 May 2006, 20:51

something like that. It isn't really a big deal, seriously texture splattering is MUCH faster then the standardard giant render.

What you lose is some of the finer details but I am sure it will be something that can be worked with.

Deathblane · Post by **Deathblane** » 24 May 2006, 23:15

Will this upgrade invalidate all exisiting maps? Or will they be able to co-exist happily?

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 24 May 2006, 23:21

IIRC Zaphod said it would be compatible

Post by **Tim Blokdijk** » 25 May 2006, 00:03

co-exist happily afaik

Post by **jcnossen** » 25 May 2006, 00:19

There are now two implementations of the spring map system defined with CReadMap:
http://svn.berlios.de/viewcvs/taspring- ... s/rts/Map/

And if anyone wants to compile it right now, it still crashes on ATI and textures are very messed up, so you can better wait.

Anything will get worst? Normally, when we make something that has better grafics and lower memory usage, it is generally more CPU intensive. Although, here, will probably mean more GPU intensive!?

Maybe slightly worse looking graphics for the absolute low-end PCs that run spring now (I'm caching the texture splatting into tiles on the fly for the very slow PCs, but for that I have to disable mipmapping)

Otherwise everything will improve, especially for the higher end ( >= 0Radeon 9600 or GF 6600 )

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 25 May 2006, 16:52

what is the maximum size that this map format can support?

Post by **jcnossen** » 25 May 2006, 17:50

I just tested a 4097x4097 map and spring simply crashed with it. 99% chance it just runs out of memory. Spring allocates huge chunks of memory when handling such a big map, so it probably wouldn't matter if you had more RAM than me (I have 1GB)

-> 2096x2096 is the limit.

FireCrack · Post by **FireCrack** » 25 May 2006, 17:55

^2096? Wouldnt it be 2045?

krogothe · Post by **krogothe** » 25 May 2006, 17:56

is that in the same units as our current spring maps? (eg metalheck is 8x8)

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 25 May 2006, 17:58

I think he means Height map pixels

thus

32x32 to current standards

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 25 May 2006, 18:08

jcnossen wrote:I just tested a 4097x4097 map and spring simply crashed with it. 99% chance it just runs out of memory. Spring allocates huge chunks of memory when handling such a big map, so it probably wouldn't matter if you had more RAM than me (I have 1GB)

-> 2096x2096 is the limit.

2096x2096... in what size constaraints?

Map constraints? such as a 16x16 map?

Or heightmap pixels? which would be what noize said?

Which one? I wanna know! :D

Post by **jcnossen** » 25 May 2006, 18:17

what noize said: heightmap pixels

FireCrack: I was wrong yeah, I meant 2049x2049

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 25 May 2006, 18:18

jcnossen wrote:what noize said: heightmap pixels

FireCrack: I was wrong yeah, I meant 2049x2049

ouch.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 25 May 2006, 18:55

Well, it is better then 20X20

Nemo · Post by **Nemo** » 25 May 2006, 20:04

Its possible to make 40x40 maps right now. See Epic by Runecrafter. Apparently if you use jpeg instead of bmp somewhere along the map making process you can keep the memory usage low enough that you can bump the size up to 40x40.

AF · Post by AF » 25 May 2006, 20:16

*_*

suddenly the draw of the new map format starts loosing its pull

In future please use OTA scales rather than heightmap scales unless you're willing to put up a conversion scale (this many heightmap pixels == this many OTA sized units e.g. a 20x20 map is this many by this many)

krogothe · Post by **krogothe** » 25 May 2006, 20:23

i dont see it as a problem, honestly, whoever thinks anyone will want to play anything bigger than 50x50 more than once needs a reality check. Epic and other huge maps barely get played. (lol "gigalithic" maps would take months to play).
But if the new format is supposed to use less memory, why is there a lower max size due to memory restrictions???

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 25 May 2006, 20:23

Nah the pull is still there cause alpha splattering is the shit. Just a little dissapointed.

Spring RTS Engine

The new map format?