Transport Tycoon Forums
https://www.tt-forums.net/

[RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?
https://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=13159
Page 3 of 3

Author:  Hyronymus [ Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well, I refuse to call it stupid but please read the other topics that deal with cell and scale. They give you more background information.

Author:  aarona [ Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

It's not a stupid question Purno...

1024x1024 = 1MB per byte of tile info. (If we have say 6 bytes of info per tile, then this is 6MB, etc)
If we instead have four time as many tiles then we will now have 4096x4096= 17MB per byte. A 16 times increase in memory useage!
If the scale is 32m for 1024 then its 8m for 4096. Nothing really interesting happens on the 8m scale, so there is a lot of redundant waste.

Now you may think that, oh well with computers today 100MB of memory useage is small, but don't forget that this will be a network game.

The purpose of having snap points is to make the 3D landscape a bit more manageable, while at the same time, keeping the map (and memory) to sensible proportions.

Author:  Purno [ Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

But I wonder, wouldn't it be confusing for the player to have those 4x4 snappoints per tile for railway? How will they be visually? Will the player just see 1 big tile, or 4x4 small tiles? What about buildings, do they cover whole tiles, or just an x amount of snappoints (meaning, they can partially fill one or more tiles)? Those snappoints, which I consider as sub-tiles, don't appear in games often. I can only remember RCT having 2x2 subtiles for some scenery , and TRS (which is a simulator, and actually does not use tiles (gameplay-wise)).

Apart from the technical reasons for using snappoints (you know more about that memory-usage stuff than me), I wonder if it's not gonna be too confusing for the player.

Now, I don't want to let the discussion be longer than necessary, but I just have a few questions in my head. If they're unimportant, just tell me, I don't want to delay TE too much.

Author:  DaleStan [ Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

aarona wrote:
It's not a stupid question Purno...

1024x1024 = 1MB per byte of tile info. (If we have say 6 bytes of info per tile, then this is 6MB, etc)
If we instead have four time as many tiles then we will now have 4096x4096= 17MB per byte. A 16 times increase in memory useage!

Nope. 4096x4096 is sixteen times as many tiles as 1024x1024, not 4 times as many.

That aside, a tile with 16 snap-points will probably require more memory than a tile with just one snap-point. How does this affect the above numbers?

Author:  mathwizi2005 [ Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

has anyone ever played RollerCoaster Tycoon 3?
it is a 3D rotatable game that uses cells

it would have the feel of freeform but still have the controlability of cells
it worked for RCT3, the game is only 1.5 GB, small for a 3D game where most 3D games are a standard 2.5 GB or larger

Author:  Purno [ Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

RCT3 is a bad example IMO. The interface was so much worse than RCT2. I'd prefer to take Age of Empires III as example, building isometrically, but freely rotatable.

Author:  Vaulter [ Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

obviously - vectors!
tile basing comes from ages of tiles. 3D is entire new universe, with possibility to be vector-based.

Author:  matsv2011 [ Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

RTC3 is almost identical to RTC2 in all ways except how the graphics is rendered. The illusion that RTC3 is more free than RTC2 is caused only by graphics.

Thow RTC3 is a great example how god title based game actually can be, it´s take a while to get used to it, and is quite hard working underground.

I really don´t have a opinion in the matter, booth give certain advantages, but free-form seams kind of more modern, thow similar experiences can be made whith titles if they are made very small.

The titles in Locomotion and Transport Tycoon is around 12-25m depending on how you measure. That minimum with is there for 12m.
A railroad (the whole road, not only gauge) is usually in real life around 4 meter wide, in most cases there is around 3-4m bank on both side, making a total with of about 12m, thatch fine (4+4+4=12m). But if there is a dubble rail, they share bank, so they make 4+4+4+4=16meters in real life, not 12*2=24meters. Also banks can be shared with ordinary roads, and in tight spots like harbors banks might not be needed at all, offcause, tramways don´t use banks.

My suggestion is if titles is used, make them quite small, around 4*4meters, making a railroad title 1 square long and 3 wide, including 2 bank square, witch can be built over, but not under unless using a troth.

Well of cause free-form might look nicer, but i´m concerned about speed, we know from OTTD that several millions of titles is no problem, anyone have a number for free-form?

Author:  cbqza [ Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

I am very sad that Transport Empire's developement is sooo regressive.
uzurpator takes it much too far with his oppinion. He thinks that hardcore-coding solves all problems.
On the other hand matsv2011 has really tight ideas.

Author:  cbqza [ Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

I am sorry to be that rude.
I want to share something regarding this project.
I am an experienced C#/Java developer and I am a
little bit experienced developer concerning C++/C.

Author:  matsv2011 [ Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

Well, there people who seems to be wiling to take it from the beginning.
An00biS
Hyronymus (maybe, maybe need some persuasion?)
Vaulter (i wold guess)
cbqza (?)

And maybe me (i use to be a coder in the distant pass, maybe can re learn, i can do complex mathematical task anyway)
Well and uzurpator, what i understand of him is that he work i he believe it was the right way.

Well everybody shod talk for them self. Competences vise i think its pretty good. To start with anyway. I think we could attract OTTD coders to help with economics and stuff if the project only gets off the ground.

Author:  Hyronymus [ Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

You can scratch my name. I'm too busy with other things and I have myself a job again in 2 weeks. It'll be nice if TE ever makes it to a fully implemented challenge for OpenTTD, the ideas are there. This community just doesn't have enough dedicated people to realise it.

Author:  matsv2011 [ Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

Maybe with a lot persuasion... well, now we know your opinion, hopefully you change it in time. Personally i think you have a lot to contribute.

Author:  uzurpator [ Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

I am in.

Author:  An00biS [ Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

I believe in TE and I'm going to stay around.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to contribute anytime soon.

As for the map type, i favor square-tile-based map (I did change my opinion a few times, but this one's final). It looks very good (as in RCT3), it allows simple game logic (in comparsion to freeform map) and most importantly, there is already some codebase written by uzurpator (check the SVN) - and that counts.

~An00biS

Author:  Gummipalle [ Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

Am I right in assuming this project is dead?

A shame, I would have liked to get involved, maybe do some 3d artwork or something....
But i guess its too late for any of that... On the the transport empire website, it says last update was in 2009.

And that there were only 3 people contributing!

Why dont we just get an ugly version running and then update it with better sounds and graphics as time goes on?
Anyways, Ive got a lot of time on my hands and it would have been nice to contribute something...

Maybe i should just do more sprites for opnettd... ;-)

Author:  An00biS [ Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

Gummipalle wrote:
Am I right in assuming this project is dead?
Nope, you're not right. But you're not the first one coming here and making this assumption. I guess it looks pretty dead around here, huh?

The situation is, there are quite a few people who still believe this project will actually come to some results. Many of them are willing to contribute graphics and stuff, like you appear to be.

The problem is with the programmers - they never have time to get anything done. And there are actually just 2 of them, should I dare to count myself. Well, I'm buried in school work until February next year. But I'm alive enough to say that TE is not dead.

The plan with ugly but workable and improving program is actually what I intend to do - just when I work out the real life issues.

Stay around and don't lose hope.

~An00biS

Author:  Vlad.Ionut [ Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

i know this is not the right topic to post this but i've read the topic and my post would fit.

any news on the project?


i am not very good with 3d graphics but i am willing to learn and help.
i like the idea of the game very much.

with the programing i cannot help :(

i will try to read the rest of the forum and maybe find something with wich i can help.

chears!

Author:  An00biS [ Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [RFD]cell based, freeform or something in between ?

Hello Vlad.Ionut,

Basically, this project is in quite early stage of development, there are only 2 things working:
1. The terrain, coded by Uzurpator. Get a peek here. There's no demo yet.
2. The trains, coded by myself. To see what's happening, follow this thread. You can download and run a demo there.

Anyhow, thanks for your interest. You needn't worry about your 3D skills because:
* It'll be a long long time before this project actually needs graphics, so you'll have plenty time to learn.
* Since I don't have very broad knowledge of 3D rendering, the code is rather sub-optimal, so the 3D models should be kept simple to archieve high performance.

Right now we don't have any 3D resources on our own, so we need pretty much anything - trains, trucks, busses, ships, all kinds of vehicles; houses, industry buildings and vegetation. But as I said, the only thing which the code supports right now are trains and tracks, so if you create any of that, I'll show it in the demo. Tracks have strict scaling rules, so if you'd like to work on them, get in touch.

Hope you'll ejnoy contributing to this project.

Cheers!

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000-2017 phpBB Limited

Copyright © Owen Rudge/The Transport Tycoon Forums 2001-2017.