Why isn't there a Scale option again?

Slamoid · Post by **Slamoid** » 31 Dec 2005, 09:39

I remember when Buggi made his Minispring (which I miss TERRIBLY) that he just changed a couple variables here and there thoughout the source code. So why isn't there a feature in the script.txt to define the unit scale value? I remember the argument that certain maps would play totally differently with smaller units, and smaller mex radii, and that is true, but quite honestly, when a player is on a map, is he really worrying about how the map maker intended the map to be played? Of course not, he's thinking about winning, and having a unit scale feature would give a far FAR larger battlefield to dominate, instead of units so big you're able to zoom in on the commanders' toe. Then, conversly, there's the opposite of being able to scale UP units. Now this would BREAK alot of maps, but it would force players to stradegize FAR more when your commander is 1/4 the size of a base on Castles and would work great for quick games.

But again, this would be SERVER set, and as such wouldn't HAVE to be used, except by people who WANT to play on the 0.25 scale of a 112x122 map instead of a 28x28.

Besides, I really want it. Can you really say no to THIS face? ->

AF · Post by AF » 31 Dec 2005, 16:13

We've suggested this voer and over again as a solution to the minispring divide, and why it hasnt been done yet is astounding. It promises all these additional features for the same cpu price, double the map size, half the unti size, maps 4x as big without the stresses of the 28x28 limit on the map conv which suddenly becomes an equivilant 112x112, with the single solution being make existing maps 4x smaller, otherwise just zoom in.

Cookie for slamoid

Torrasque · Post by **Torrasque** » 31 Dec 2005, 17:01

And building with a footprint of 1x1 become what? Those with 3x3?
It's not as easy as it seem.
Buggy's minispring had bug too.
And the qualitiy of everythings decrease. (the pathfinding, the texture, the heightmap ...)

So, it look like a good idea, but ihmo, it's not a good one.
Having a way to decresase only the texture size by 2 would be better ihmo.

Post by **jcnossen** » 31 Dec 2005, 17:07

What torrasque said

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 31 Dec 2005, 18:05

Fix pathfinding for massive units and I'd say I'd prefer keeping the current system and waiting until we see what buggi does with the next sharpmap. Small unit pathfinding is tolerably inconcise... but at least with miniturized sizes you can have units that are massively huge in scale and don't get stuck on absolutly everything.

On the other hand if that gets fixed it's basicly an issue of weather I want better looking map textures or slightly less CPU and RAM usage for really huge maps. I prefer a pretty game to an ugly game that runs better. I'm assuming the next sharpmap will have image stitching features though that will be able to make maps really really really huge.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 31 Dec 2005, 20:30

It SOUNDS good but probebly dosent work good, as a whole lot of little annoying things where wrong with mini-spring, like some wird squars when building Solar PP... and other annoying pathfinding wiggy's.

But if we can get it to work, and could adjust unit scales INGAME then we could have shrink rays!

But i'd rather have a new GUI first...

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 31 Dec 2005, 22:29

Wouldn't it be easier to double the map size than to half the unit size?

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 01 Jan 2006, 00:39

Good question

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 01 Jan 2006, 00:59

zwzsg wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to double the map size than to half the unit size?

No.

Doomweaver · Post by **Doomweaver** » 01 Jan 2006, 03:34

Das Bruce wrote:
zwzsg wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to double the map size than to half the unit size?
No.

Why? It would use more cpu, but surely it would be easier?

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 01 Jan 2006, 04:57

Doomweaver wrote:
Das Bruce wrote:
zwzsg wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to double the map size than to half the unit size?
No.
Why? It would use more cpu, but surely it would be easier?

Plus the basic idea of how to scale units is already available.

Decimator · Post by **Decimator** » 01 Jan 2006, 05:15

It is not currently possible to make maps with a texture file over about 600 meg. -about 28x28.

Post by **jcnossen** » 01 Jan 2006, 05:56

Das Bruce wrote: No.

Why?

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 01 Jan 2006, 12:17

It's more difficult. It requires twice as much texture for something that can and has already been done with basicly some variable changes. The real question is weather it's the more elegant way to do it. Which it undoutably is not, since you sacrifice so much map texture detail.

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 01 Jan 2006, 19:52

What's this about 'massive unit pathfinding issues'?

Whether this is taken to mean large units with pathfinding problems, or just severe all-round ones, I don't think it's true. Even my positively monolithic Krogoths find their way around maps without any difficulty.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 01 Jan 2006, 23:05

well look at it this way. 20x20 (if the map is set up correctly for it) is big enough to have a nice 5 vs 5.

28 x28 is fricking huge no matter how you look at it. making maps bigger than that require a looooong time with mapconv.

but making scale smaller put a lot of strain on mapping too, because suddenly a 12 x 12 is a 24 x 24 (assuming you have decreased unit size by 1/2). That makes putting in correct looking features a bit od a mapin in tha ass.

It's doable, but it makes things bit more complicated.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 02 Jan 2006, 03:19

A lot of the wonder from TA came from the sheer scale. No map is too big, trust me. If you've ever played a game on an old TA "Epic-Class" map (63x63) with a 1000 unit limit, you'll know why. It's a wonder that cannot be matched.

zwzsg and James_Beatty and myself have played games like that, and they're truly, truly entertaining beyond belief. There's no reason for Spring not to match, even exceed, that 63x63 limit with time (once more RAM, about 1.5 gigs, is standard).

Btw: "Massive" units that cause problems are those that have a length ratio to the smaller units of about 30:1 (space mods)

.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 02 Jan 2006, 03:39

So Big maps = Big fun?

FizWizz · Post by **FizWizz** » 02 Jan 2006, 04:55

Zoombie wrote:So Big maps = Big fun?

That, my friend, is the secret to TA

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 02 Jan 2006, 07:41

Caydr wrote:What's this about 'massive unit pathfinding issues'?

Whether this is taken to mean large units with pathfinding problems, or just severe all-round ones, I don't think it's true. Even my positively monolithic Krogoths find their way around maps without any difficulty.

Even your kroggies get confused more easily and get stuck more easily. Expecially hills can be really gross with them. and they take blooming forever to navigate out of a surrounded gantry. True they are big, but say you want a mod that realistically scales infantry to warships. Units that large can't even exit the structure that builds them without signifigant problems.

Spring RTS Engine