The new map format?

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 23 May 2006, 21:00

I know zaphod did a lot of work for the new map format. Here is my question, what is the delay with it?

Is it that difficult to implement? Or is it just a matter of something you guys have not had time to do? If it is the seccond case, I REALLY want to see this and certain features implemented.

However, I have very little time IF someone has the time can they give me a runthrough of what is need to help the devs? how do I submit changes and what is the way of making sure we do not crap in each other's sand box?

Post by **jcnossen** » 23 May 2006, 22:55

I'm just very busy with university stuff, that's all.
I've had stuff running for quite a long time now... but making it all robust and compatible with a broad range of PCs takes months, not to mention spring integration.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 23 May 2006, 23:32

ahh cool stuff. Thanks for the info.

I didn't realize the cross platform stuff was such and issue. I was presuming most of it was net code.

Post by **jcnossen** » 23 May 2006, 23:51

It's no networking code actually, the incompatibilities come from differences in OpenGL drivers and hardware capability.
Also, whereas the old format uses the same texture code for all PCs, this code uses multipass on old hardware, and single-pass (or at least fewer passes) with shaders and effects.
I need to guarantee a map runs for all spring users, and not just for the guys that have the same hardware as the mapper.

Oh and here's a screenshot, it's a few weeks old though, from when I still had more time for coding :/

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 23 May 2006, 23:57

Cool stuff, I hope I didn't come across as impatient. I did not know someone was on that part of the game.

I eagerly lookforward to it.

FireCrack · Post by **FireCrack** » 24 May 2006, 00:18

Looking good, should make map making a lot easier for those of us with less ram

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 24 May 2006, 00:52

I'm curious. What will be the difference between this map version and the last map version type...thingy.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 24 May 2006, 05:37

*sighs* ok, it is hard to explain but understand this.. the current version is a pre-rendered texture. That means more ram usage and harder to make for their size.

The new format uses texture splattering which means less ram usage and more efficient for it's size... meanin MUCH larger maps and MUCH less memory intensive levels. It also has bumpmapping.

Erom · Post by **Erom** » 24 May 2006, 05:43

So instead of loading the texture for the entire map into RAM, it just loads a set of small textures, then applies them to the map in real time when needed? Is that it?

Like, instead of BigxBig Dryriver texture, it would load
LittlexLittle grass
LittlexLittle yellowgrass
LittlexLittle mud
LittlexLittle stone
LittlexLittle water

I can see how the sum of the littles would be much smaller than the big.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 24 May 2006, 05:47

something like that. I could explain it but the ogre engine has a nice bit about texture splattering if you read their wiki.

Basically yeah though. It will be sweet, my mod is not meant to run on 16X16 maps. I cannot wait until we can have 30X30. then I can really get into the crazy stuff :).

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 24 May 2006, 06:16

Cool! So maps will be bigger, better and faster?

Post by **jcnossen** » 24 May 2006, 11:53

I'm mostly aiming for better graphics with lower memory use and much smaller file sizes. Ofcourse if a lot of high-detail 1024x1024 textures + bumpmaps are being used then it will still be a large filesize, but you'll get something in return from it

colorblind · Post by **colorblind** » 24 May 2006, 12:13

And what about FOW? Will we get real shadows for that?

:edit: And wow! The new map renderer looks stunning! Absolutely brilliant work I might say

.

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 24 May 2006, 12:16

Lower memory use == Larger max sizes?

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 24 May 2006, 13:37

Das Bruce wrote:Lower memory use == Larger max sizes?

Yes because the method of managing the primary texture is about ten times more efficient, which removes the current limitation of not being able to exceed a certain maxium size for the painted texture. This map format innately uses tiled textures and gives you the tools to manually blend them seemlessly. It also support bumpmapping and has a really cool LOD feature as you zoom out away from the world.

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 24 May 2006, 13:43

Something tells me pathfinding is still going to be kicking us in the balls.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 24 May 2006, 13:52

Das Bruce wrote:Something tells me pathfinding is still going to be kicking us in the balls.

The new mapping format to my knowledge uses the same heightmap system that the old one did just with a much higher bitcount for your B&W colors... I'm not sure how it handles the typemap... From a heightmap prespective it should acctually make pathfinding much better because mappers will have more precise control over the height variation from point A to point B. Zaphod will have to tell you what typemaps will do to pathfinding for the new format.

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 24 May 2006, 14:05

That seems utterly irrelevant.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 24 May 2006, 14:27

well, think of it this way, more open maps means units will path easier. If Epic had less twists and turns fot it's size it would have much better pathing.

Although I stil maintain they need to kill unit pushing. That causes soo many issues.

Cheesecan · Post by **Cheesecan** » 24 May 2006, 19:36

Here's an idea. Use larger features on maps. Mountains should be huge, just like they are irl, and not just 10 krogoths wide/long as they are in many current maps. With support for larger map sizes this wouldn't be a problem really.

Spring RTS Engine

The new map format?

The new map format?