Home » Stars! Clones, Extensions, Modding » FreeStars » 3D Viewport for Stars!
3D Viewport for Stars! |
Fri, 20 October 2006 12:41 |
|
sirgwain | | Senior Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 86
Registered: March 2004 Location: Tucson | |
|
I've recently begun working on my own version of Stars! as a coding side project/c# test bed. The viewport is currently done with Managed DirectX using 2D sprites rendered by Direct3D (using textured quads).
I've just recently been working on the graphics for scanner radius display and I catch myself thinking how cool it would be for the scanner radius to be a translucent sphere, possibly with an animated texture. This line of thought has me thinking about a 3D viewport in general.
It's nontrivial to bite the 3D bullet and do the whole viewport in 3D, but I think it might be worth it in the end. I would like the opinions of the freestars community on the benefits and drawbacks of a 3D viewport as well as any cool ideas on how to make the interface more intuitive.
Some pros I've thought of:
- Cool new look and feel.
- Unique ship models for each type of fleet (colony, capital, scout, etc.)
- Textured planets that display information, like habitablity, mineral conc, etc.
Some cons:
- Stars! current viewport is very streamlined and can contain a lot of planets and fleets on it without feeling cluttered. A 3D interface would require larger planets (16x16 pixels doesn't cut it for 3D rendering), larger fleets, and more zoomed in views. I'm worried this might detract from some of the massiveness of universes in stars
- My modeling abilities end at sphere, cube, cylinder and pyramid. As such any additional models would require work on someone else's part to generate model/texture files consumable by Direct3D.
- 3D makes everything more complicated, thus slowing down development time.
Any thoughts or ideas about 3D viewports from the FreeStars! community?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: 3D Viewport for Stars! |
Sat, 21 October 2006 02:58 |
|
craebild | | Lieutenant | Messages: 568
Registered: December 2003 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark | |
|
IIRC, there has been discussion about making the Freestars universe 3D instead of 2D as it is in Stars!, but noone has come up with a workable display for a 3D universe.
In addition, the first goal for Freestars is a clone of Stars, with the known bugs corrected but otherwise identical to Stars! JRC3/JRC4. Any enhancements would come in version 1.1 or 2.0 of Freestars, or as part of the configurable ruleset.
I agree that the possibility for a 3D universe would be a good idea, and I do not think it would be that difficult for the people who are coding the server and client to implement that possibility, even if it is switched off for a direct Stars! clone (and any other ruleset until someone comes up with a workable display for a 3D universe). After all, it should just be a question of including a Z coordinate in any position or distance calculation, and keeping that Z at zero when the universe is a 2D universe.
Med venlig hilsen / Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Christian Ræbild / Christian Raebild
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: 3D Viewport for Stars! |
Sat, 21 October 2006 03:46 |
|
|
fwiw I'd rather like it to include code for an arbitrary number of dimensions, not just 2 or 3. I have my own ideas for a stars-like game using 5 dimensions and a 3-dimensional interface.
As for a good 3D interface. I'd like to see something like that used by the black and white engine where you grab features to turn and use the wheels for zooming.
I'd also like to see the map take up the whole window (less a toolbar) and planet/ship/etc control panes as windows that pop up from the map.
[Updated on: Sat, 21 October 2006 03:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: 3D Viewport for Stars! |
Sat, 21 October 2006 22:11 |
|
|
I think it'd be too hard to set waypoints... it might look cool visually but IMHO it'd be too messy to use, and to code as well.
There's nothing wrong with a 2d universe, especially if it's supposed to represent plane hyperspace instead of 3d space.
One thing that might be fun and not add too much horrible complexity is to make one or both the edges wrap. Also, maybe a Moebius-strip option so the left-right edges connect inversely somehow.
[Updated on: Sat, 21 October 2006 22:12] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: 3D Viewport for Stars! |
Sun, 22 October 2006 17:30 |
|
|
I think cylinder-universe games (one edge wraps, the other doesn't) would be fun for alliance vs alliance games, providing it's easy to determine where the players start.
Another thing would be instead of picking from a list of uni sizes, have sliders for length and width, and density (ly^2/system), and a display box that shows the # of systems. This means you could have broad, narrow ring-shaped universes, or toroids, et cetera - all without having to mess with a complicated 3d view.
[Updated on: Sun, 22 October 2006 17:39] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: 3D Viewport for Stars! |
Mon, 23 October 2006 18:07 |
|
Marduk | | Ensign | Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
Remap the coordinate field to center on (0,0) whatever object the player is working with, whether it be a fleet, a minefield, a system or whatever else. In parenthesis next to the remapped (relative) coordinate list the homeworld-based (absolute) coordinate, so that players can perform tasks like have multiple fleets meet at the same location in deep space. Given the limited number of objects in a game (compared to modern and semi-modern processing power, anyway) such remapping is a trivial task.
If it makes you feel better about visualizing the shape, think of it as the surface of a point.
For two or more players to cooperate in any spacial sense, they'd have to use coordinates relative to the same object. You could include an option to allow allied players to switch to your coordinate system... though that would reveal your homeworld location.
Honestly, I'd arrange the coordinate system this way whether or not the universe wrapped. Self-centered mapping encourages self-centered thinking, which is a good contributor to conflict. Anything that helps put the 'war' in 'wargame' or the 'fist' in 'pacifist' must be good. Or the 'romance' in 'necromancer'... but I digress.
Edit: Depending on the flexability of the in-game communications (perhaps even outside of the turn-based system), perhaps you could send marked maps that would automatically convert to the coordinate system of the player receiving them. Label the marked points, and refer to them by the labels, much as we already do with systems and sometimes fleets.
[Updated on: Mon, 23 October 2006 18:11] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: 3D Viewport for Stars! |
Tue, 24 October 2006 13:52 |
|
Marduk | | Ensign | Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
Kotk wrote on Tue, 24 October 2006 07:36 | Having hyperspace as Klein bottle surface is however far lot more logical and fun concept than rectangle.
|
Who says it has to be hyperspace for the map representation? As for a rectangle not being fun, tell that to the people who got addicted to the Asteroids game! (I figure *someone* had to be addicted to it.)
Besides, rectangle and cube are simpler both in concept (everyone is used to them) and implementation. I grant you that the 3D shape of a triply-wrapping cube is beyond reason... just ignore that. Or if you have to understand it, just spend a week staring at the works of M. C. Escher and Salvidor Dali. And taking large quantities of hallucinagenic drugs. That should do the trick.
My own preference is for a standard cube with no wrapping, containing a globular or cluser galaxy. Or, with a more or less even distribution of stars and more of a concession to the relatively tiny distances involved, representing a subset of a galaxy. I imagine the stars as being only the ones with resources (planets or a sufficiently large and calm asteroid belt, the right kind of stable star) suitable for large-scale exploitation. As for why the inhabitant races couldn't simply expand outside the box, there are large voids in many galaxies; or clouds of debris and/or areas or especially intense radiation that make travel impossible or at least impractical for normal life forms with normal technology. The foul Mystery Traders have mastered methods for traversing these hazards, but the rest of us are stuck.
Edit: You could still be stuck in a 'bad' position by starting on the edge, but the edge of a 3D space is a lot better than the edge or corner of a 2D space.
[Updated on: Tue, 24 October 2006 13:53] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: 3D Viewport for Stars! |
Wed, 25 October 2006 03:07 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1209
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Coyote wrote on Sun, 22 October 2006 04:11 | One thing that might be fun and not add too much horrible complexity is to make one or both the edges wrap. Also, maybe a Moebius-strip option so the left-right edges connect inversely somehow.
|
I don't find that cool. 've seen and played such an universe in Reach for the Stars II and I can tell you it's quite frustrating.
No safe border (attack can come from every direction),
no reference point (like starting position - HW centered) in late game, when ships could travel everywhere, and
in any universe larger than what fits on ~four screens (50-60 stars) I've had problems navigating (what part of uni I'm actually looking at, where's that star I had to check).
Things went so far I lost the patience to finish the "Enter the Klaaken" campaign, when presented with a huge wrapped-up universe.
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: 3D Viewport for Stars! |
Wed, 25 October 2006 13:59 |
|
Marduk | | Ensign | Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
Kotk wrote on Tue, 24 October 2006 14:23 |
Marduk wrote on Tue, 24 October 2006 20:52 |
Who says it has to be hyperspace for the map representation?
|
Laws of nature. On other cases you can not travel 100ly with a single year.
|
This is mostly off-topic, but physics is fun.
Firstly, just because the ships are traveling faster than light doesn't mean you have to change the map. What about Star Trek warp, where they generate a warp bubble and travel in that, but remain analagous to a position in normal space? Space compression drives, tachyon drives (if tachyons in fact exist and could be used for propulsion of sub-light masses to supra-light speeds), the list goes on.
You could also posit some form of teleporting drive - perhaps each year of travel is made up of hundreds or thousands of 'short' jumps, with a recharge time required before being able to teleport again. That would allow interception for combat; and once the recharge is complete (after seven squares of movement) the ships can leave the battlefield. If there were some sort of FTL disturbance produced (a gravity fluctuation, or some such), that would account for being able to scan a ship at ranges greater than one light-year in a year's time. (Don't ask how pen scans can estimate the number of people on a planet... if you have a planet with a million people who generate gravity detectable hundreds of light years away, you have bigger problems then other people shooting lasers at you.)
Or if they simply travel faster than light - there is no prohibition against it. Too many people don't understand the "infinite mass at light speed" thing. Your mass doesn't change at all. Your *apparent* mass changes due to the time dilation effect, since force is applied over time. Your own motivating force, however, is also subject to the time dilation effect - as your apparent mass increases, so too does your apparent engine output. Some have claimed that the added mass is caused by the extra energy imparted by high-speed travel, but experiments at the other end (trying to reach absolute zero) show that this is ridiculous.
Conservation of mass/energy, the usual argument people bring up against FTL travel, is evidently not valid for this universe (quantum effects ruined a lot of very neatly arranged theories). It seems likely to apply to whatever larger system our universe is a part of, but that of course remains unclear.
The biggest questions remaining about traveling at light-speed and beyond involve the nature of time and gravity, and what happens to masses that approach and reach light speed. It's possible that the mass simply converts to energy at that point, likely with unpleasant implications for the vessel.
By the way, there was a recent demonstration of the ability to remotely assemble and modify a molecule through quantum entanglement. So we have broken, in principle, the FTL barrier for communication and energy transfer. A more impressive test over distances of meters instead of micrometers is supposed to be forthcoming. If that works, presumably they'll try it for opposite sides of the globe.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: 3D Viewport for Stars! |
Mon, 13 November 2006 10:39 |
|
|
Coyote wrote on Sun, 22 October 2006 04:11 | One thing that might be fun and not add too much horrible complexity is to make one or both the edges wrap. Also, maybe a Moebius-strip option so the left-right edges connect inversely somehow.
|
iztok wrote on Wed, 25 October 2006 09:07 | I don't find that cool. 've seen and played such an universe in Reach for the Stars II and I can tell you it's quite frustrating.
No safe border (attack can come from every direction),
no reference point (like starting position - HW centered) in late game, when ships could travel everywhere, and
in any universe larger than what fits on ~four screens (50-60 stars) I've had problems navigating (what part of uni I'm actually looking at, where's that star I had to check).
|
Wrapped edges would be a nice feature if it would be an additional feature that can be turned on or off like other general game settings (eg public player score). But if somebody ever implements this feature, I would strongly recommend that it should go along with the implementation of freely scrolling the map. Otherwise it't a headache to visualize in your head that your corner is in fact NOT a corner.
While I am not a fan of it myself, the point is valid that wrapped edges make starting positions of players a lot more equal and to some this will probably appeal.
I myself would rather agree with iztok that I don't like it. I experienced it in some other games, namely ImperialConflict.com. My experience was:
1) Wrapped edges and what it means for your empire is surprisingly difficult to handle in your poor human brain (easier for an AI)
2) To quite an extent planning your defense, offense, with whom to ally, whom to make war with or a NAP is based on your and the other players' location on the map. And just think about your usual tactic to enclose another player, to cut him off from further expansion or the cornered player who has to do some hard thinking wether he gets out of his corner by allying or by war... All this gets much more difficult with wrapped edges (see also 1), some things become impossible.
You can't strife anylonger to create a secure backyard-corner but need to think rather in circles with only the core (perhaps) secure.
To sum it up, IMHO wrapped edges take out some of the fun and make things much more difficult.
And somebody mentioned 3d or even more dimensions... puuuh, and all that put on a 2d-monitorscreen... I get a headache just thinking about the complexity this involves. Gone would be the days where I can do some thinking about my tactical situation in the Stars!-universe while taking a shower.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: 3D Viewport for Stars! |
Sat, 18 November 2006 18:27 |
|
|
I'm going to have to disagree with all you that say that not having "safe borders" is a bad thing. You need to remember that if your enemies can't attack yout hrough the map edge, you can't expand and colonize through there either. In my humble opinion the map is much more fair if every player has an opportunity to expand in any direction, as well as the risk of an atack in any direction. Starting positions won't be so vital, and it'd be a lot easier to recover from a bad planet draw than being stuck on the edge with your only neighbors having the same hab as you.
The way I see it, the size of the front is more a function of the power and numbers of you and your enemies and the relative border meshing than about the actual distance. You can fit a lot of action into a small space, or have a drawn-out stalemate over a wide sparse area. Planet density and scanner/engine tech have a large role to play here as well.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: 3D Viewport for Stars! |
Fri, 08 June 2007 09:07 |
|
jabbawocky | | Crewman 3rd Class | Messages: 9
Registered: June 2007 | |
|
Neo the White wrote on Sun, 31 December 2006 04:21 |
Quote: | Seems you are not excluded. Wink You forget "the time stops at light speed" thing. So since time slows down in ship it makes its "constant" acceleration weaker and weaker for external observer.
It is impossible that something accelerates itself to light speed ... instead you may "create" something that is initially faster than light (useful for communication or energy transfer) but that is whole different story.
|
I think this physics is rather funny thing and very irrealistic. First time as a measurable unit exists only as an artificial thing measured and created my man.
If a ship would move faster than light then if it can adjust its over-light speed from 1x times to 5x times then the acceleration effect would equally vary for traveller and outside observer.
the time is but an artificial factor just like meter or yard is not a universal factor.
neither is the speed of light an universal factor. It can travel faster and slower depening on space dust and gases or not.
|
Sorry about this, I know its a bit off topic but I'm doing an extended physics major at uni and I love it! Anyway, there have been some interesting theories//experiments on the speed of light recently which suggest that the speed of light itself is not constant in a vacuum at all. That it varies about 300m/s in different directions. Also I will have to agree with time, as a measured unit, existing purely as a perception of mankind- it is just an easier way of describing the difference between two different events occuring in the same spatial coordinates but at different temporal coordinates. Oh this stuff does my head in after a while...
Either way, it is physically possible to travel at 2.7 times the speed of light through the glorious method of quantum tunnelling. Granted it is HIGHLY unlikely to work for any amount of matter (considering the compton wavelength of proton is in the realms of a 1.321x10-15 metres) but that doesn't mean that it is impossible (just highly HIGHLY unlikely). Also there have been some CRAZY (ie; pseudoscientific) theories, involving exotic matter, about FTL drives which, instead of bothering to accelerate matter, accelerates a 'bubble of space', thus avoiding the inconvenient increase in mass and time dilation effects (because matter isn't being accelerated, just the space in which the matter is located. Mathematically it is sound, until you attempt to STOP the device. Can anyone say spontaneous blackhole generation? ).
[Updated on: Fri, 08 June 2007 09:10] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 21 10:09:57 EDT 2024
|