New Graphics - Blender ".blend" thread (Works In Progress)

richk67 · Post by **richk67** » 26 Dec 2006 19:23

I think the drive for "realism" especially with scales is totally misguided. Playability should be top - and if that means that an airport is only 6 tiles long, and the aircraft is 1/4 the size it should be, then so be it.

To me it is stupid to have a runway 25 tiles long (which is still WAAAY too small in scale) which means about 16 tiles/mile. So a 2048 map would only be 128 miles, which is not enough of an area to be interesting.

Personally I feel strict ratios should be applied to scale the different transport to make them playable.

Buses, Small Buildings (Houses): 1:1
Trains, Commercial Buildings: 1:2
Aircraft, Large Buildings (eg. stadia): 1:4 or 1:8
Ships: 1:8 or 1:16
Airports: 1:32 (otherwise you would never afford to flatten an area big enough without the local authority becoming impossible)

Without careful attention to scale - and it would probably take a LOT of experimentation - 32 bit may be just another "pretty graphics, awful gameplay" game.

(I remember Elite - a spaceship game - where v1 had a really playable non-physics movement model, and v2 was an appalling real-physics model that was frankly unpleasant to play. God save OTTD from that fate! Realism isnt always good.)

Aracirion · Post by **Aracirion** » 26 Dec 2006 20:02

@richk67: people who don't like changes will always be able to stick with the old gfx, but the scale of these will look awkward if zoomed in. Cf. attachment. And remember that this is a small plane. A jumbo will be double size. Cramm it into 12,5x12,5m, and enjoy.

Furthermore, in my opinion the new scale for planes will work as consequence of the increased size of maps compared to the original (That was a huge change too!!) and will make it more playable not less.

(@ athanasios: thats my vision too .........

)

mosfet · Post by **mosfet** » 26 Dec 2006 20:16

Aracirion wrote:airports are quite a bit larger than small towns, cf. image, and wiki

But the mockup provided was a small regional airport, and yet was vastly larger than any town on the map. An international airport would be several screens in size.

Besides, towns would still be far too small. For instance, some of the office blocks uploaded here are 1x1 tile, making them 12.5x12.5m, which is a footprint slightly smaller than an average house.

Cheers for the wiki link, had somehow missed that page, lots of useful info.

Aracirion · Post by **Aracirion** » 26 Dec 2006 20:25

mosfet wrote:the mockup provided was a small regional airport, and yet was vastly larger than any town on the map. An international airport would be several screens in size.

The airport is a city airport. Runway with of 6 tiles would accommodate the biggest planes, and it is still possible to scale the bigger planes down if that is too big. The airport would be more efficient than the city airport we have now, because they don't have to taxi on the runway. And you could add up to 4 more parking slots along the taxi way. (The runway length in the example is 5 times its width .. that could also still be changed to 4.)

I also hope that the economy would be changed so as to make airports like the international airport more rare.... It's just too easy with planes now. Passenger destinations would stop you from just building 2 huge airports and use dozens of planes on the same route.... and make fine distribution / networking more interesting .... That's what I hope will be realised one day ....

*** EDIT ***

mosfet wrote:Besides, towns would still be far too small. For instance, some of the office blocks uploaded here are 1x1 tile, making them 12.5x12.5m, which is a footprint slightly smaller than an average house.

Yeah, but the office blocks as of now all are suited for people if the same size. Just as the runway will be shorter than realistic, an office could be 12 instead of 30m across. what do you think?

mosfet · Post by **mosfet** » 26 Dec 2006 21:49

Aracirion wrote:I also hope that the economy would be changed so as to make airports like the international airport more rare.... It's just too easy with planes now. Passenger destinations would stop you from just building 2 huge airports and use dozens of planes on the same route.... and make fine distribution / networking more interesting .... That's what I hope will be realised one day ....

Couldn't agree more. But this raises the point: Is this just a graphics/tile replacement or something more? If the economy is changed then a whole new can of worms is open.

Yeah, but the office blocks as of now all are suited for people if the same size. Just as the runway will be shorter than realistic, an office could be 12 instead of 30m across. what do you think?

Makes perfect sense to me, just wanted to clear up the confusion.

Field-Mouse · Post by **Field-Mouse** » 27 Dec 2006 00:16

The way I have understood things, buildings are going to be larger in the 32bpp version.. so if we follow the current scale without destroying any game play an airport might not be that much bigger than a city. The officeblocks should be at least 25m x 50m according to me. If not, we should redo everything and keep the scale from the 8 bit version entirely.
And by keeping that scale I mean simply putting 3 windows on an entire office and 5 windows on a plane and all that, make an exact copy of the original, just 32 bpp better looking high resolution.
If we go on the way we have been going, we should keep to current scale as long as possible, BUT without destroying game play!
Cramp the airport together as much as possible, international airport gotta have a tiny main building, not realistic size.

EDIT::
However I think we should do ONE thing about the scale of vehicles..
All road-vehicles should be allmost the same size, half a road or whatever fits, as long as all are the same size (lenght), same sorta thing should apply to trains I think. ships and planes are not that pointy, but a jumbo has to be scaled down a bit I believe... but still look massive and be expensive

If we are gonna change the scale (from the OTTD one) we will also have to change economy and efficency of the the different buildings and vehicles!

Aracirion · Post by **Aracirion** » 27 Dec 2006 00:27

@mosfet: I think it is first of all a tile-replacement, but at the same time we want to change some things. Imo with new zoom levels discrepancies in scale are necessarily more apparent and shouldn't be treated as before.

@Field-Mouse: I am not sure what you mean. In my opinion there should be offices that use more than one tile like that for example:

I just meant that for example this:

or the one Ben just made looks good in 12,5x12,5 and doesn't need to be bigger. Does that agree with what you meant?

Field-Mouse · Post by **Field-Mouse** » 27 Dec 2006 09:51

Take a look at this picture. I have sized up some buildings, some in order to raise questionmarks about the scale, others to simply correct scale.
I think its quite obvious that some buildings are gonna be A LOT bigger than the original game, wich means the city will have to be larger too.. A LOT of coding here I believe...
If we want it to LOOK any realistic, that is. If not, we should do like sawyer did.
The trains I just want to say that, for example, the small train has to be slightly shorter, in order for it to fit on 1 tile. We cannot have anything longer than the big trains here. Think about putting one train after another.. We need standard length for the trains or something.
So, comparing new airport size to the old city doesnt make much sense to me, since the citys are gonna be A LOT bigger.
Anyways, study this picture for a little while and you will hopefully see some of the problems I see.
AND I agree with mosfet that the scale has allways been confusing and never really straithened out.
http://mongo.servegame.com/otherwebs/ttd/testscale.jpg

Aracirion · Post by **Aracirion** » 27 Dec 2006 11:18

I fully agree, and it must be sorted out now. (I'm sorry for seeming a little hard of understanding

) I remember being very concerned about scale when I joined, and then at some point I just got into the routine of modelling I guess and just assuming it will be ok.

I tried to talk to some people on the irc channel yesterday, and it was rather frustrating, and I think there's no point in going on modelling for hours when there will be no-one wanting to integrate differently sized models.

In my opinion the new zoom levels only make sense if size relations are more realistic, as I tried to illustrate with my mockup of the small airport (here). Others might have different opinions. However, it should be sorted now. How is this to be done? Where to talk to whom?

Grigory1 · Post by **Grigory1** » 27 Dec 2006 13:36

At such scale of planes (I have added the big plane), buildings, power stations, etc. look small...
There can be planes make little bit less?

richk67 · Post by **richk67** » 27 Dec 2006 14:03

My point is that that is *not* a small airport, unless you enjoy playing on perfectly flat terrain. Before you become a multi-zillionaire, you would NEVER be able to afford to landscape that large an area (or larger for bigger airports), and the city would never let you build it if you had to terraform that large an area.

Yes, the graphics are beautiful, but if you cant place an airport, what is the point?

(That airport is 20x14. Go for 1/4 scale, and it becomes "sensible" - ie. 5x4)

Connum · Post by **Connum** » 27 Dec 2006 14:32

Just my two cents: As someone as well said some posts above, I agree that it should not be tried to achieve right proportion compulsively! I love the new 3D graphics and I am looking forwart to have them in the game one day, but over and above that, TTD is NOT a 3D simulator and such adjustions for proportion would oppose the look and feel of the old game that I love so much. The world is not made up of squares and if you take that into account you'd have to change the whole system of how the TTD-world is constructed. And that would make a wholly new game!

So don't get me wrong: I realy appreciate the new 3D graphics but I think the grade of realism is limited by the way the world in TTD is constructed.

Please don't slap me if that has already been discussed within the last 122 pages (I realy didn't have enough time by now to read through that) but as this debate seems to blaze up (again), I thought I'd just tell you what I think!

Keep up the great work!

Aracirion · Post by **Aracirion** » 27 Dec 2006 14:47

Why are people always so afraid of alterations in gameplay with different size relations? To be honest, In my opinion gameplay with planes sucks right now.

Korenn · Post by **Korenn** » 27 Dec 2006 14:55

Connum wrote:Please don't slap me if that has already been discussed within the last 122 pages (I realy didn't have enough time by now to read through that) but as this debate seems to blaze up (again), I thought I'd just tell you what I think!

It has, several times, but that doesn't mean it's bad to repeat it. Apparently the people currently restarting the scale argument also haven't read the last 122 pages, because they're just regurgitating what has already been said several times.

But on the other hand, the community was asking for it, because a clear official decision about scale was never reached, so it was only a matter of time before it would restart all over again.

The only thing that was clear was that a realistic scale is simply not feasible. Oil tankers 19 squares long not only take up way too much space, they also require far too many sprites for anything resembling smooth turning (imagine a 19 square long oiltanker with the current 8 sprites doing a 180 degree turn...)

some people suggested scales for the different classes of vehicles / buildings, just as said above.

Unfortunately there is no central new 3d graphics team, so there is no group of people who can say 'this is how we're going to do it.' The only person who remotely resembled something like that was Alltaken and he's off to greener pastures.

So perhaps such a team should be made? a group of people who together officially decide what is going to happen in collaboration with the dev team?

mosfet · Post by **mosfet** » 27 Dec 2006 14:58

richk67 wrote:My point is that that is *not* a small airport, unless you enjoy playing on perfectly flat terrain. Before you become a multi-zillionaire, you would NEVER be able to afford to landscape that large an area (or larger for bigger airports), and the city would never let you build it if you had to terraform that large an area.

Yes, the graphics are beautiful, but if you cant place an airport, what is the point?

(That airport is 20x14. Go for 1/4 scale, and it becomes "sensible" - ie. 5x4)

I think that's a brilliant idea. Aeroplanes and airports cost vastly more to build and operate than stations and trains in real life, and I think TTD should reflect this, because it's far too easy to make a mint by spamming aircraft.

Once you start making a comfortable profit there's nothing to play for, the game becomes directionless. If air transport takes a lot of time and money to work, so be it, it'll add a new dimension to the game and increase the longevity.

Aracirion wrote:Why are people always so afraid of alterations in gameplay with different size relations? To be honest, In my opinion gameplay with planes sucks right now.

Agreed completely. IMHO (not that my opinion counts for much) the 32bpp branch should be something beyond graphics replacements, especially if the graphics look quite real and are based on real buildings and vehicals.

Maps can be 2048x2048, why not use that to our advantage?

Connum · Post by **Connum** » 27 Dec 2006 14:58

Yeah, I agree in the point that it's too easy with planes at the moment! But don't you think that airports are way too big when you size them as on Grigory1's picture? Making airports just a bit larger or more unaffordable is not the point, but I don't think realistic proportion is possible. But I'm open for getting convinced!

\\edit:
wrote this before the last 2 postings were posted

mosfet · Post by **mosfet** » 27 Dec 2006 15:01

Korenn wrote:It has, several times, but that doesn't mean it's bad to repeat it. Apparently the people currently restarting the scale argument also haven't read the last 122 pages, because they're just regurgitating what has already been said several times.

But on the other hand, the community was asking for it, because a clear official decision about scale was never reached, so it was only a matter of time before it would restart all over again.

The only thing that was clear was that a realistic scale is simply not feasible. Oil tankers 19 squares long not only take up way too much space, they also require far too many sprites for anything resembling smooth turning (imagine a 19 square long oiltanker with the current 8 sprites doing a 180 degree turn...)

some people suggested scales for the different classes of vehicles / buildings, just as said above.

Unfortunately there is no central new 3d graphics team, so there is no group of people who can say 'this is how we're going to do it.' The only person who remotely resembled something like that was Alltaken and he's off to greener pastures.

So perhaps such a team should be made? a group of people who together officially decide what is going to happen in collaboration with the dev team?

I raised the issue of scale because after reading the 120+ pages in a day I found no satisfactory answers to a lot of questions I had regarding it.

I think forming a team would be a great idea, with more information in the wiki, a proper leader and a design specification to follow. Perhaps this deserves its own thread?

mosfet · Post by **mosfet** » 27 Dec 2006 15:02

Connum wrote:Yeah, I agree in the point that it's too easy with planes at the moment! But don't you think that airports are way too big when you size them as on Grigory1's picture? Making airports just a bit larger or more unaffordable is not the point, but I don't think realistic proportion is possible. But I'm open for getting convinced!

\\edit:
wrote this before the last 2 postings were posted

Just for what it's worth: I don't think the airports are too big, I think everything else is too small.

Edit: apologies for double post

Korenn · Post by **Korenn** » 27 Dec 2006 15:06

mosfet wrote:
Aracirion wrote:Why are people always so afraid of alterations in gameplay with different size relations? To be honest, In my opinion gameplay with planes sucks right now.
Agreed completely. IMHO (not that my opinion counts for much) the 32bpp branch should be something beyond graphics replacements, especially if the graphics look quite real and are based on real buildings and vehicals.

Maps can be 2048x2048, why not use that to our advantage?

The best response to this is the well known saying: Don't bite off more than you can chew.

A total graphics replacement is already an enormously epic undertaking for a bunch of amateur volunteers like us. So the best way to make sure we actually produce something is by setting clear goals that aren't too far away.

In other words:
First replace the graphics, THEN think about new features. Not the other way around, because there's a good chance it will never get done.

edit: about a thread for a graphics team: good idea, I'll start one.

mosfet · Post by **mosfet** » 27 Dec 2006 15:11

Korenn wrote:The best response to this is the well known saying: Don't bite off more than you can chew.

A total graphics replacement is already an enormously epic undertaking for a bunch of amateur volunteers like us. So the best way to make sure we actually produce something is by setting clear goals that aren't too far away.

In other words:
First replace the graphics, THEN think about new features. Not the other way around, because there's a good chance it will never get done.

I do agree with this, but it still doesn't solve any of the questions raised about scales and sizing. If the graphics are first replaced, what are they replaced with? Accurate sizes or scaled to fit the original?

Transport Tycoon Forums

New Graphics - Blender ".blend" thread (Works In Progress)

Who is online