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

Connum · Post by **Connum** » 27 Dec 2006 15:13

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

Heheh, you can see it that way of course!

It would be hell of a work to redo nearly everything but I'll admire you if you find the necessary time and energy to afford this!

Aracirion · Post by **Aracirion** » 27 Dec 2006 15:14

Korenn wrote: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...)

Why always oil-tankers? TTd oilwells produce around 100'000 litres/month of oil. TTd Oil tankers are in the range of 450'000 litres of oil. This seems about ok. Wikipedia sais, that "Tankers can range in size from several hundred tons, designed for servicing small harbours and coastal settlements, to several hundred thousand tons, with these being designed for long-range haulage."
I think "several hundred tons" is just what is adequate for ttd. If you want big oil tankers you have to totally change the economy model before saying that such grafics would be too big.

Korenn wrote:First replace the graphics, THEN think about new features.

Basically yes, however if you model airports to be the current scale and then after that decide to make them bigger, that will be twice as much work as making them bigger from the start, so deciding on some changes right now will save a lot of work.

richk67 wrote:My point is that that is *not* a small airport, unless you enjoy playing on perfectly flat terrain.

someone made the point already that if size relations change, its not just airports vs. everything else. Hills should be wider too. I even think the new terrain generator already gives you more realistic maps with better space for large airports.

Korenn wrote: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 definitely agree.

richk67 · Post by **richk67** » 27 Dec 2006 16:02

Aracirion wrote:
richk67 wrote:My point is that that is *not* a small airport, unless you enjoy playing on perfectly flat terrain.
someone made the point already that if size relations change, its not just airports vs. everything else. Hills should be wider too. I even think the new terrain generator already gives you more realistic maps with better space for large airports.

Err... only on the flatter settings. With a roughness of medium or high, getting any flat area of more than 3x3 is exceptional.

Maybe the way airports are bought needs changing - perhaps go to a zoning model. You zone the area you would like to build your airport on, and the local authority tells you yes/no and how much. If they say yes, and you pay the fee, then you can terraform with no worry about local authority rating. Otherwise, the larger airports would always be impossible as no local authority would ever allow the building after the terraforming.

In my view, the only problem with aircraft in OTTD is not the scale - that to me is perfect - one plane per tile. The problem is on cost and revenue - which is a gameplay balance problem, not the graphics problem per se.

Field-Mouse · Post by **Field-Mouse** » 27 Dec 2006 17:22

I like the idea about a leader team.
New feaures HAS to be thought up before making all the graphics! No question about it. And we should not be afraid to make new features.
Airport on that pic is oversized according to me, but as I said before, city buildings will also be bigger, so difference is not that big.
Local authority allow/deny would be a smaller problem I think.
Airport should be very big, but not THAT big.
I think its very very very good this discussion was started again.

brupje · Post by **brupje** » 27 Dec 2006 18:52

Field-Mouse wrote:I like the idea about a leader team.
New feaures HAS to be thought up before making all the graphics! No question about it. And we should not be afraid to make new features.
Airport on that pic is oversized according to me, but as I said before, city buildings will also be bigger, so difference is not that big.
Local authority allow/deny would be a smaller problem I think.
Airport should be very big, but not THAT big.
I think its very very very good this discussion was started again.

no we shouldn't be afraid to introduce new features, but we should do carefully. I don't see any functional improvement by getting real life scale images. I do see functional improvement bt replacing old graphics with shiny new ones. Most of these projects will probably end up dead, because people wanted too much, at the same time.

Aracirion · Post by **Aracirion** » 27 Dec 2006 21:19

I started a new post on size relations. Please help me get a more complete picture of the different arguments here

athanasios · Post by **athanasios** » 28 Dec 2006 01:43

Let us think about the future. TTD maps were only 256. OpenTTD are 2048 and Simutrans can go 4096. (Has any one tested that 4096 is playable? My hardware is old to go so much.) After a few years we will have much bigger maps I suppose. (Unless one of the leading 2 CPU or Graphics Card companies goes bankrupt or M******* buys out the rest).

OK scaling is a problem now, and things cannot be done immediately. But correct scaling should be our target on the long run. Many of us still play TT because of its realism (it is a simulation game) and not other similar stupid games.

George made Long Vehicles and almost all use his GRF's which are more realistic and scaled between themselves (even though out of scale with current graphics). And we do not protest when vehicles pop out of the current stations when they load. Why some not agree to do the same with the rest of the graphics? I do not understand.
Certainly not 18 tiles tankers or 24 tiles airport runways, but for example 5 or 6 and 12 to 14 respectively would be nice for the time being.

Hope discussion will not get heated again

Aracirion · Post by **Aracirion** » 28 Dec 2006 01:48

I was working on a new texture for that 2x2 office (ignore the grass for now), but I suppose it's better to wait now until we sorted out that size problem. Please post in the new thread...

Post by **peter1138** » 28 Dec 2006 10:45

athanasios wrote:George made Long Vehicles and almost all use his GRF's

Quite a lot of people don't like his Long Vehicles, actually...

richk67 · Post by **richk67** » 28 Dec 2006 11:06

Yeah, I dont like the way they dont turn corners. One of my least favourite .grfs.

Field-Mouse · Post by **Field-Mouse** » 28 Dec 2006 13:04

I DONT like the long vehicles thingy.. if its the one im thinking about.. Pretty cool but i dont want to use it.

Ben_Robbins_ · Post by **Ben_Robbins_** » 28 Dec 2006 18:19

I'm back, but off again for till new year. There seems to have been a lot of discussion about stuff, so apologies if I missed things.

Field-Mouse: I think egladil is working alone with the code.

athanasios: Thanks, your comments definatly hold some value in there contrast. I would like to work on some more similar style building without sticking to the confines of the original graphic, as that sprite didn't really allow some elements to be modelled in, and some bits are inposible to make out. That'll be a way off though.

richk67: I completly agree to what you have said. The drive for realism is what makes most new games so poor, as gameplay is a minor concern. This debate seems to have moved to somewhere else, so I'll post the rest in there.

Korenn: Although we shouldn't bite of more than we can chew, we should also keep in mind that although are first goal is just to replace, to rescale would involve comepltly remaking some graphics. If they are made to real scale, taking the step back and rendering them in normal TT scale is not a problem.

For oil tankers, you would just have to make a wider canal (asuuming they are rendered and operate in game as 'to scale' ships.

Born Acorn · Post by **Born Acorn** » 28 Dec 2006 19:32

peter1138 wrote:
athanasios wrote:George made Long Vehicles and almost all use his GRF's
Quite a lot of people don't like his Long Vehicles, actually...

I've seen many a negative thing said about it on the forums and IRC by most community veterans.

Killer 11 · Post by **Killer 11** » 29 Dec 2006 11:54

Well i for one love Long Vehicles.
I can forgive the gliches becouse the set makes vehicles so much more usable and Volvo trucks look just awesome i can't have too much of them in my games

brupje · Post by **brupje** » 05 Jan 2007 11:46

just to keep this thread alive a shot of my new building

habell · Post by **habell** » 05 Jan 2007 12:14

The building looks great, but I think the roof needs a bit more texturing.

Silky · Post by **Silky** » 05 Jan 2007 12:34

Looking good but...
It took me a minute or so to work out the roof. Maybe if the angles weren't exactly 30°. it wouldn't look so much like an optical illusion. I guess improved texturing will help a bit there.

brupje · Post by **brupje** » 05 Jan 2007 14:42

update

BerberJesus · Post by **BerberJesus** » 05 Jan 2007 15:19

very nice!

Silky · Post by **Silky** » 05 Jan 2007 15:43

yeah, that looks much better

Transport Tycoon Forums

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

Who is online