Transport Tycoon Forums

Well, you can always give user some predefined cameras to view universe of OTTD, one of it could be isometric camera, another one would be camera you can move and rotate however you want, and another one would be camera you can attach to any of your trains or buses and see everything that average passanger sees, wouldn't it be cool from time to time? I would love to see my biggest city from window of some high speed train which connects two airports together.
As I remember, Railroad Tycoon 2 has been using 3D models and game looked pretty cool, it was also pretty fast on my old Cyrix 150MHz with 32MBs of RAM... (WOW! even my sound card has more RAM than this computer! ).

knedle wrote: As I remember, Railroad Tycoon 2 has been using 3D models and game looked pretty cool, it was also pretty fast on my old Cyrix 150MHz with 32MBs of RAM

Wow... A 150Mhz Cyrix running RT2 smoothly? I can hardly believe it.
Apart from that, i agree with the last 3 posts.
Would be nice with more directions on everything.
More detail and more possibilities.

But i'll try a suicide when the visual intrepentation of "perspective"
comes to OpenTTD. 3D simply doesn't belong in that league...

knedle wrote:As I remember, Railroad Tycoon 2 has been using 3D models and game looked pretty cool, it was also pretty fast on my old Cyrix 150MHz with 32MBs of RAM... (WOW! even my sound card has more RAM than this computer! ).

You're mistaken. The trains were 2d, on a 3d(ish) landscape,

athanasios wrote:Most strategy games converted to 3D are a failure. Seems they are great hits in our days but when compared to older versions they are 0. Younger guys have to go and play original games and then understand what I mean.
3D OpenTTD would be nice for viewing but not to play. Isometric is the best way to display things and you don't get confused. So any attempt for 3D should not remove isometric view and should mainly concentrate on 3D vehicles to make their movement more natural.

I think current day 3d remakes fail not because they are 3d but because the gameplay gets simplified to appeal to the mainstream\casual gamer.
Back in the day the gaming was done by geeks who weren't scared off by complexity, now everybody plays games and most people expect to be able to start playing without reading one line of manual text.

If done correctly a 3d version of openttd could keep almost the exact visual style and certainly play the same way. Orthographic graphics are very much possible with 3d rendering and perspective camera modes would be optional.

Yeah. This happened in Lomo.

dmh_mac wrote:most people expect to be able to start playing without reading one line of manual text.

I hate manuals. You don't need a manual when game has good tutorials like TTD and in game help. Consider Dune 2000 and many other strategy games. Campaigns have a simple start and get more difficult. Some have tutorial campaigns to learn the GUI. Much much better than reading a manual.

athanasios wrote:Isometric is the best way to display things and you don't get confused

dmh_mac wrote:If done correctly a 3d version of openttd could keep almost the exact visual style and certainly play the same way

I agree with both of the above. I think it would be possible to keep the gameplay the same way, even though i'm convinced that 2D is actually the best way to overlook any strategic scenario.

Btw, i trried to create an isometric-looking landscape in 3D, and it is quite possible. With an extremely low FOV, or view angle,
the rendering "lens" becomes close to flat. After that, with the rendering of small items, it would look like there is no perspective.
Quite convincing, actually. Furthermore, i could rotate the camera around the focused tile on the landscape... Nice iso lookalike...

You don't need to tweak the FOV. In OpenGL you can provide a projection matrix which is not perspective, but orthogonal. This gives you the TTD look but with full 3D movement capability.
Some years ago I started coding something of this kind to learn about openGL.... I must still have the code somewhere...

Heh, Ok, i use dx3d(yeah, i know), that must be why...

SuperVGA wrote:Heh, Ok, i use dx3d(yeah, i know), that must be why...

Nope, you can do orthogonal perspectives in dx3d too.

I must suck at making my projection matrix, then...
I guess i'll head over at MSDN to find out...

Matrix.CreateOrthographic ... neat ...

Even though, i stick to hometransformed polygons when doing
iso... don't really know if i can trust this.
Any experience with it?

Just dream!

That reminds me of PSX version of TT, if you look over internet you should find 3D renders from that version

This could be sooooo awesome! Please do it, I promise Ill model for you!

Nice concept pics!

One thing which would be cool, is when switching to orthagonal view, you could change the lens, this way there is a smooth transition between perspective and orthagonal modes.

(Hope I got the terminology right. I've barely used those functions myself)

PouncingAnt wrote:Nice concept pics!

Indeed. Also not many polygons, so it's should not be that GPU demanding, but still looking nicely shaped.

What about engine? Would it be possible to use Quake 2 engine to render objoects in OpenTTD? It's already free to use, so we could save a lot of time by just using it instead of making dedicated engine?

More concept spam... 1339 poys, 2922 tris...

Well, I don't know the complete conversation here now, but 3d should be possible, no? I just think of the PS1 Version of TransportTycoon, and it worked fine for me(just framerate to low then )

And you could make it optional, or something, for the ppl that can't stand it

Well so I just want to question again...is it even posible, or do you have to redo it from bottomline?

Sorry, to redo an old thread

Gubius wrote:Well, I don't know the complete conversation here now, but 3d should be possible, no? I just think of the PS1 Version of TransportTycoon, and it worked fine for me(just framerate to low then )

And you could make it optional, or something, for the ppl that can't stand it

Well so I just want to question again...is it even posible, or do you have to redo it from bottomline?

Sorry, to redo an old thread

Consider the ammount of work to do it and what could be possibly gained. Then think about it for like 10 minutes and maybe you'll get the same result as me. If you want we can secretly compare our results.