3d vehicles & why

[charlieg]

As openttd moves on to hi-res graphics, there becomes more impetus to at least consider the adoption of using 3d graphics to represent the key objects in the game.

With the all-round feel of the graphics improving, the obvious flaws in sprite-based vehicles becomes more striking. Carriages separating as trains tackle slopes, rounded turns on rails with trains jumping from one direction to another, etc etc. Use a bit of 3d and this all goes away. Trains slant instead of step, they turn instead of jerk between directions, planes can circle instead of square (well, octagon) around, and the feel of your vehicles moving around your transport empire becomes all that bit more satisfying.

Considerations:

• System requirements
  "But now I'll need a 3d card!?" Don't you think that having hundreds of sprites stored in memory won't have the same impact on the system requirements for openttd. The differences in requirements between using 100s of hi-res 2d sprites and low-poly 3d objects will be minimal. Hell, it might even be favourable for the 3d objects , especially in terms of memory, taking into account sharing textures.
• Disk consumption
  With the sprites doubling in size, the amount of disk-space per sprite quadruples (if not more taking into account colordepth). Storing a model with a few small textures will be more efficient whilst offering infinitely more angles than 2d sprites could ever hope to. I would be surprised if a low-poly model train took up much, if any, more space than a hi-res train sprite. Then you'll have sharing of textures which is something sprites can't do.
• Models
  Trains are modelled in 3d. So the issue of having the 3d models to put in game is moot other than creating LODs.
• The Future
  It may be, in a few years, desired that 3d adaption of the rest of the game world might add to the openttd experience. This would pave the way for doing that, reducing the otherwise-drastic changes that would need to be made.

[Dextro]

Well I for one would rather have ottd to be 2D just because I prefer 2D over 3D in strategy games but that's my personal opinion that the videogame industry has been "prooving wrong" for quite some time now

[LordOfThePigs]

I vote against it. Old games don't stand that kind of upgrade very well (Worms springs to my mind).

Anyway, it's been discussed many time before. And it has always been rejected.

[andy_blah]

I like it

[MeusH]

I like it, some developers also like it. The problem is, someone should write the 3D engine.

[tempus_46_2]

I think if OpenTTD goes 3D, I'll either stick to old versions or switch to TTDP, I love the feel of the old graphics, if only for nostalgic reasons.

[XeryusTC]

• System requirements
  "But now I'll need a 3d card!?" Don't you think that having hundreds of sprites stored in memory won't have the same impact on the system requirements for openttd. The differences in requirements between using 100s of hi-res 2d sprites and low-poly 3d objects will be minimal. Hell, it might even be favourable for the 3d objects , especially in terms of memory, taking into account sharing textures.

Have you thought about the textures that come with 3D models, there are mostly more then 8 textures(against 8 sides of sprites) on one model, which also mostly are bigger then the sprites. Or did you think about shaders, some people would like to see realistic water in a 3D engine, or people want shiny engines and more of those things you have to solve with a shader.

[*]Disk consumption
With the sprites doubling in size, the amount of disk-space per sprite quadruples (if not more taking into account colordepth). Storing a model with a few small textures will be more efficient whilst offering infinitely more angles than 2d sprites could ever hope to. I would be surprised if a low-poly model train took up much, if any, more space than a hi-res train sprite. Then you'll have sharing of textures which is something sprites can't do.

A 3D model takes space too, a simple 3ds max file, say a simple house with only 4 walls and a roof, is >200kb in size, off course this is uncompressed but if you compress it it would still be >15kb in size, this again larger then 8 sprites if you include textures.

[*]The Future
It may be, in a few years, desired that 3d adaption of the rest of the game world might add to the openttd experience. This would pave the way for doing that, reducing the otherwise-drastic changes that would need to be made.[/list]

So if other game devs jump off a bridge, OpenTTD devs have to do it also?

I think that it should be a option to add 3D support for those who want it. I won't really use the 3D engine anyway, I never used it in C&C Generals because I always got lost, so I'll probably won't use it in OpenTTD too.

[Brianetta]

The only problem I foresee with 3D support is that hardware support for modern 3D cards in Linux is pathetic. Even a simple OpenGL screensaver runs like a slide show on my Linux machine, and it has a Radeon 9800 Pro. Both ATI and nVidia provide binary drivers, but that's entirely the wrong approach for an open source OS where different distributions use different kernel builds and so on.

Since 3D stuff in Linux is so lacking in performance as long as the hardware manufacturers fail to "get it," I'd rather stick with a 2D sprite based game.

[egladil]

Actually, the nVidia drivers work quite nice as they are only partly precompiled.

[jez]

My vote: Please God, no.

I love the cute isometric TTD graphics and a 3d engine wouldn't improve things, everything is 3d nowadays and this is a pleasant exception. Go play Locomotion if you want 3d. Its 3d engine is implemented quite well. Well, it's 3d in that the trains turn smoothly and you can view the map from different angles.

[tempus_46_2]

I didn't think there was a shred of 3D in LoMo? It's the same engine a RollerCoaster Tycoon, and I like it. Apart from the landscaping (which would allow some mad rail designs), I like the sprite based graphics. But putting anything 3D into a game like this would suck.

[Darkvater]

I fell in love with TTD and all derivatives because of its nostalgic cute 2D feel and sprites. I am not really favourable of going 3D, but I've said it before. What I can see is the 32bpp branch which will give new graphics, but still in 2D. Those will look nice, although I think I will, when implemented, reach back to the good old-old sprites that TTD had.

And you can't say it's ugly. Just look at all the awesome vehicle sets people have been doing

[Andrew21]

The key that has made Transport Tycoon and it's off shoots so sucessful is the simplicity of it. I mean, look at OpenTTD for example. Because it's written in C++ (I think), many people with programming knowledge are able to write patches and updates for it. I think that's why people have enjoyed it so much is because it's simple yet effective. 3D graphics would complicate things too much I think and reduce the ability of people to make new grf content.

That's my 2 cents anyways

Andrew

[MeusH]

• System requirements
  "But now I'll need a 3d card!?" Don't you think that having hundreds of sprites stored in memory won't have the same impact on the system requirements for openttd. The differences in requirements between using 100s of hi-res 2d sprites and low-poly 3d objects will be minimal. Hell, it might even be favourable for the 3d objects , especially in terms of memory, taking into account sharing textures.

Have you thought about the textures that come with 3D models, there are mostly more then 8 textures(against 8 sides of sprites) on one model, which also mostly are bigger then the sprites. Or did you think about shaders, some people would like to see realistic water in a 3D engine, or people want shiny engines and more of those things you have to solve with a shader.

Seems you're new to 3D graphics. If you have ever digged up inside quake 2, you would have seen the whole player model is made with one small model file and one texture file. It's called UVWmapping. Google for it, and you will see the model's verticles can be broken so they all fit on the 2D grid.

[*]Disk consumption
With the sprites doubling in size, the amount of disk-space per sprite quadruples (if not more taking into account colordepth). Storing a model with a few small textures will be more efficient whilst offering infinitely more angles than 2d sprites could ever hope to. I would be surprised if a low-poly model train took up much, if any, more space than a hi-res train sprite. Then you'll have sharing of textures which is something sprites can't do.

A 3D model takes space too, a simple 3ds max file, say a simple house with only 4 walls and a roof, is >200kb in size, off course this is uncompressed but if you compress it it would still be >15kb in size, this again larger then 8 sprites if you include textures.

And again, why 3ds max file? And why are you calling it "simple"? These are developement files, containing most settings etc. Final output file, like md2 or md3 is very small and handy. Also, google for md3

[R2]

My opinion: Make a smart zoom, make the map turnable in 90°-steps - but please don't make it 3D, it just wouldn't be TT any more!

I haven't even played Rollercoaster Tycoon 3D because I didn't like the idea (btw: has anyone? Is it ok?) of 3D in a game I liked in 2D...

[charlieg]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying OpenTTD should be 3d - I'm saying that just the vehicles could look a lot nicer if done with low-poly 3d models instead of sprites.

I'm not in favour of making a 3d version of OpenTTD - being isometric is what makes it nice.

Also Linux 3d support is decent enough for the very low requirements for a few low-poly 3d models. Software rendering would be adequate for what I'm talking about.

Also the comparison with games like Worms is absurd. Worms was a pure-2d game. There are 3 dimensions in OpenTTD, just it's represented with 2d graphics. Even if there were only 2 dimenions (no height), still vehicles turn in all directions. In Worms the characters face either forwards or backwards and nothing else. Keep comparisons on-topic if you can?

[Alinator]

I played RCT3 because its a wonderful to watch all the lovely details.
BUT: Its not the real RCT. Its more for watching instead for playing.

I fear too, that the TTD feaver, we all know, will be lost with hiRes-graphics. Maybe it works fine and it will be more fun than before. Maybe not.
I dont know the answer, but i would enjoy to try it.

[XeryusTC]

• System requirements
  "But now I'll need a 3d card!?" Don't you think that having hundreds of sprites stored in memory won't have the same impact on the system requirements for openttd. The differences in requirements between using 100s of hi-res 2d sprites and low-poly 3d objects will be minimal. Hell, it might even be favourable for the 3d objects , especially in terms of memory, taking into account sharing textures.

Have you thought about the textures that come with 3D models, there are mostly more then 8 textures(against 8 sides of sprites) on one model, which also mostly are bigger then the sprites. Or did you think about shaders, some people would like to see realistic water in a 3D engine, or people want shiny engines and more of those things you have to solve with a shader.

Seems you're new to 3D graphics. If you have ever digged up inside quake 2, you would have seen the whole player model is made with one small model file and one texture file. It's called UVWmapping. Google for it, and you will see the model's verticles can be broken so they all fit on the 2D grid.

I know what UVW mapping is, but it still would require a texture file and a model file.

[*]Disk consumption
With the sprites doubling in size, the amount of disk-space per sprite quadruples (if not more taking into account colordepth). Storing a model with a few small textures will be more efficient whilst offering infinitely more angles than 2d sprites could ever hope to. I would be surprised if a low-poly model train took up much, if any, more space than a hi-res train sprite. Then you'll have sharing of textures which is something sprites can't do.

A 3D model takes space too, a simple 3ds max file, say a simple house with only 4 walls and a roof, is >200kb in size, off course this is uncompressed but if you compress it it would still be >15kb in size, this again larger then 8 sprites if you include textures.

And again, why 3ds max file? And why are you calling it "simple"? These are developement files, containing most settings etc. Final output file, like md2 or md3 is very small and handy. Also, google for md3

It's called simple because it was the basic shape of a house, a cube and a prism on top as roof.
Just for a comparison, I made a sword a few weeks ago. The 3dsm file is 246kb, packed with winrar its just 28kb. An Adobe Illustrator file is 10kb in size. I couldn't find any smaller format, md2 or md3 are not supported by 3dsm and I don't have my old conversion tool anymore (I can't remember the name but it was something with "Scape" IIRC).

[Redirect Left]

My vote, DO IT. it will look superb
Though to be quite frank ive only voted do it casue i wont need to tweak my system it already supports hig graphics games (its got an nVidia Geforce 4 graphics card)

[MeusH]

Have you thought about the textures that come with 3D models, there are mostly more then 8 textures(against 8 sides of sprites) on one model, which also mostly are bigger then the sprites.

... one small model file and one texture file ...

I know what UVW mapping is, but it still would require a texture file and a model file.

Good, at least I explained it can be achieved with one texture file

A 3D model takes space too, a simple 3ds max file, say a simple house with only 4 walls and a roof, is >200kb in size, off course this is uncompressed but if you compress it it would still be >15kb in size, this again larger then 8 sprites if you include textures.

And again, why 3ds max file? And why are you calling it "simple"? These are developement files, containing most settings etc. Final output file, like md2 or md3 is very small and handy. Also, google for md3

It's called simple because it was the basic shape of a house, a cube and a prism on top as roof.
Just for a comparison, I made a sword a few weeks ago. The 3dsm file is 246kb, packed with winrar its just 28kb. An Adobe Illustrator file is 10kb in size. I couldn't find any smaller format, md2 or md3 are not supported by 3dsm and I don't have my old conversion tool anymore (I can't remember the name but it was something with "Scape" IIRC).

I've been modelling in 3ds max and gmax, too.
A lightsaber I've made was a 102kB gmax file (same as 3ds max format), but it was also 828B md3 file used in game.

No polygon, surface, tag data was lost, so everything was allright. It was just a bit difficult to make a gmax file from md3 file again, but it was possible.