doktorhonig wrote:The problem is, that really huge maps should be played for a long time.. and maybe openttd will lose its i-play-while-chatting-and-surfing-charm.
As long as we also make the original-size-copy (which I think shouldn't be a lot of additional work), you will be able play that way while also being able to play it as a more demanding game.
mexicoshanty wrote:To counter act the doubling in size the world would need to be bigger and require more zoom levels.
You're right, that's probably the better way.
Playing in the second or third zoom level should be convenient. Maybe a stepless zoom would be best (opengl renderer?).
The problem is, that really huge maps should be played for a long time.. and maybe openttd will lose its i-play-while-chatting-and-surfing-charm.
Provided that graphics are rended to sufficient resolution, I don't see why zooming should be a problem. Stepless zoom would be a nice 2.5D feature, so long as it's not a resource hog.
Yeah, when looking at the 32bpp images, the third zoom level should be quite usable. And stepless zoom shouldn't degrade performance, if done in hardware.
Normally the games that try to make realistic graphics are a total disaster. It works much better to try to make something less realistic - for example there's a really nice game out there that tries to make it's characters like made out of plastic. Works much better than the games that try to be realistic, although it's probably too extreme.
TT doesn't seem to try to simulate the real world too much, and thus the nice looks of it.
!kiX! wrote:Normally the games that try to make realistic graphics are a total disaster. It works much better to try to make something less realistic - for example there's a really nice game out there that tries to make it's characters like made out of plastic. Works much better than the games that try to be realistic, although it's probably too extreme.
TT doesn't seem to try to simulate the real world too much, and thus the nice looks of it.
We're remaining with a 2D engine, however, so won't end up wasting time with 3D effects for realism. Take a look at some of the graphics already produced, they look excellent, and will do on any machine that runs it since they're just sprites.
I did vote for the first option, not because I don't like realistic sizes, but because I don't see why we need it now. I think it perhaps should be a goal for OTTD2 or something. I think we should only replace graphics with new shiny 32-bit ones because of the following reasons:
1. Make it a truly free game
2. It looks better
3. It doesn't break downwards compatibility
4. Doesn't require (re)programming
If for some graphics a realistic size can be achieved without recoding that's great, but IMO certainly not a goal.
I would also like to see some reaction of the dev guys, if they don't even consider reprogramming it's no use to even discus it.
I think the sizes should stay the same because:
»1. If airports are larger you can't use them on 256x256 maps.
»2. [removed]
»3. I can't use old saves if it changes.
»4. Easier to do.
»5. Might screw up gameplay.
This is all my opinion, you don't have to agree with me or do what I say.
EDITED
Last edited by Dan on 05 Jan 2007 16:59, edited 2 times in total.
the graphics are 2x the origonal game size, the trains and trucks are hardly to small to be scaled, not to mention you computer is the least of the developers worries at the moment, no offence intended
I quess in the end if we want to have realistic sizes, it all breaks down to having a lot bigger maps than now. You can't play a 256x256 game if the width of a plane is 5 squares and a small regional airport is 30 squares long. Even 2048x2048 seems a bit too small. Still, I think that because bigger maps are in no way impossible and there is the possibility of town owned and modular airports, the realistic sizes matter shows a lot of potential. Ofcourse it can screw up the gameplay, but that's what beta testing is for. In time I'm sure that we can get the balance just right.
Then perhaps modular airports is something to have on the roadmap. We have modular stations of variable width and length, why not airports.
We are getting somewhat ahead of ourselves, however. I think the best plan of action to take is to leave aircraft and airports out of the early builds so we can actually get some work done rather than wasting time worrying about them.
Once the engine and basic graphics are down, that's when airports and seaports (the two major scaling concerns) should be handled.
Creating a system that allows the finite state machine movements to be "built" in a modular way will either create incredibly simple (slow and dull) airport movements - eg. only 1 plane taxiing at a time - or will be too complicated for the normal user to create a working airport without crashes.
The current system is the best compromise - predesigned airports with debugged finite state machines.
richk67 wrote:Aaagh... not modular airports again.
Modular airports just wont fly.
Creating a system that allows the finite state machine movements to be "built" in a modular way will either create incredibly simple (slow and dull) airport movements - eg. only 1 plane taxiing at a time - or will be too complicated for the normal user to create a working airport without crashes.
The current system is the best compromise - predesigned airports with debugged finite state machines.
Not more complicated then some of my stations ;p You can always have some default airports templates or something.
It's why I never build airports, it's just plain clicking work, while I can put my creativity at work with complex trainstation
brupje wrote:Not more complicated then some of my stations ;p You can always have some default airports templates or something.
Your station does not have any finite state machine *at all* which is why they are easily modular.
As I usually say at this point... if it is so easy, there is nothing stopping anyone going and coding it as a patch. (But it aint easy, so this aint gonna fly...)
That Guy wrote:the graphics are 2x the origonal game size, the trains and trucks are hardly to small to be scaled, not to mention you computer is the least of the developers worries at the moment, no offence intended
Oh i didn't know that the graphics were getting bigger, I have been gone a while
EDIT: I looked it up and I see that non-3d opengl is fine for me so I am all for smooth zooming!
Last edited by Dan on 05 Jan 2007 17:01, edited 2 times in total.
OpenGL was just an idea to simplify stepless zooming. I didn't think about 3d - the Ortho-2D mode allows fast texture mapping in 2D, just like HUDs in most games are drawn.
The reason it is important to discuss alternate sizes now is (1) because there is a demand for it (as can be seen from the poll result) and (2) because if there won't be any different sizes we can save a lot of work and frustration by modelling specifically for the original size.
I find it frustrating that there is absolutely no feedback from developers. I for my part will stop working for anything until I know whether anything will be worth it.
brupje wrote:Not more complicated then some of my stations ;p You can always have some default airports templates or something.
Your station does not have any finite state machine *at all* which is why they are easily modular.
As I usually say at this point... if it is so easy, there is nothing stopping anyone going and coding it as a patch. (But it aint easy, so this aint gonna fly...)
I never said it was easy to code, I said it's not harder to use then train stations. I just think it can be a good feature. And your claim that a finite state machine is hard to make modular doesn't make sense to me, but that's probably because I didn't understand it correctly
Look your stations are nothing more than simple rails that are separated with signals at some points and all this needs only a simple pathfinding for trains to use it.
Now airport is NOT rails airplanes have every move hardcoded or else they wouldn't know where to go and even if it worked planes could just get stuck in the midle of your custom airport becouse you did a little mistake somewhere. So making fully working state machines for airports is not a very easy task let alone somehow making it modular...
