[RFD] Shape of the maps

jfs · Post by **jfs** » 30 Jan 2005 22:34

Relating to the discussion of the shape of a tile, is the shape of the entire map.

If we have square tiles, it's natural to also have square, or maybe better, rectangular maps.
If on the other hand we have triangular tiles, rectangular maps will always have two jagged edges. Since it currently seems the choice will fall on triangular tiles, I have some suggestions for alternate map shapes:
Triangular
Hexagonal (6 edges, every corner angle 120 degrees)
Parallelogram (4 edges, two opposing corner angles 60 deg, the other two 120 deg)

As a related idea: How about maps that "wrap around", eg. for making an "Earth" scenario; the left side of the map connects to the right side. Also it should preferably act as a true globe, meaning that there's no "bottom edge" and "top edge", but rather you could (given enough money) build a straight track that connects to itself along a latitude line. (Is that the right word?)

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 30 Jan 2005 22:44

Would be fun to have a true earth-like map but isn't that difficult to realize? If a map with edges is used I prefer a parelellogram, I think this is easiest for people to read (don't know why, perhaps because it's the closest to a rectangular).

Wouldn't another possibility be to have every odd rows and colums of map tiles be full triangular tiles and the even rows and colums just be jagged?

jfs · Post by **jfs** » 31 Jan 2005 04:36

Hyronymus wrote:Wouldn't another possibility be to have every odd rows and colums of map tiles be full triangular tiles and the even rows and colums just be jagged?

You mean like this?

Code: Select all

-----------------
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
|---------------|
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
-----------------

(Sorry for the bad ASCII art.)
That is, cut-off triangles. I'd say that's a very bad idea

The map-shapes for triangular tiles, I can think of, are the following. On all but the first I've added "rollover-markers", that show how edges would connect in a globe-map.

Rectangular with jagged edges:

Code: Select all

-----------
 \/\/\/\/\/\
  -----------
 /\/\/\/\/\/
-----------
 \/\/\/\/\/\
  -----------
 /\/\/\/\/\/
-----------

Parallelogram:

Code: Select all

 B   B
---------
 \/\/\/\/\
A --------- A
   \/\/\/\/\
    ---------
      C    C

Triangular:

Code: Select all

  B     B
------------
 \/\/\/\/\/
  --------
 A \/\/\/ A
    ----
     \/

Hexagonal:

Code: Select all

     C  C
    ------
 A /\/\/\/\ A
  ----------
 /\/\/\/\/\/\
--------------
 \/\/\/\/\/\/
  ----------
 B \/\/\/\/ B
    ------
     D  D

Or maybe a rhombus:

Code: Select all

    /\
 A ---- A
  /\/\/\
 --------
  \/\/\/
 B ---- B
    \/

A rhombus is possibly closest to the usual square shape, but it can't be made in non-"square" sizes. (The same goes for a triangle, of course.)
A hexagon can actually be resized along 3 axes and if you allow at most one edge to have length zero, you can get both a rhombus and parallelogram from it.

It should be clearly visible that a rhombus is by far the simplest for making globe-maps, at least rollover-wise. But I don't know how well it would look in practice, and since it has to be rendered as a sphere, I'm not sure if it'll look good at all. On the other hand, the rhombus would be the only shape that actually allowed for sensible spherical rendering at all, I think.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 31 Jan 2005 10:26

Since it currently seems the choice will fall on triangular tiles

Doesn't seem that way to me, looking at the thread...

But if we did use triangles:
Hexagon. Or a dodgy rectangle.

PJayTycy · Post by **PJayTycy** » 31 Jan 2005 13:25

squares => rectangular

triangles => jagged rectangle or parallellogram (but I think we will use squares anyway).

Hellfire · Post by **Hellfire** » 31 Jan 2005 13:44

world map: icosahedron (or similar shape with triangles projected on a sphere)

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 31 Jan 2005 20:05

If we want to keep open the possibilty to have real-world projection we should choose triangles. Jagged-edges rectangles are fine with me btw.

PJayTycy · Post by **PJayTycy** » 31 Jan 2005 20:14

Can anybody show me an example of how such a spherical map would look like ??

Zuu · Post by **Zuu** » 31 Jan 2005 21:15

Why do you need triangles to make a world map. FreeCiv can do that with both recangular and hexagon cells. Or have I miss understood the ascii art?

Hellfire · Post by **Hellfire** » 01 Feb 2005 07:40

PJayTycy wrote:Can anybody show me an example of how such a spherical map would look like ??

Look at the image included in this post. This is a so-called "icosahedron". It's a sphere made up out of eighteen triangles. Each triangle can be subdivided into 4 new triangles, so we can make spheres of 18, 52, 208, 832, etc. triangles.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 01 Feb 2005 09:54

Now, that would be kind of cool...

Arathorn · Post by **Arathorn** » 01 Feb 2005 12:50

Why not have a donut shaped world? Or a parallelepiped?

Zuu · Post by **Zuu** » 01 Feb 2005 16:42

Hellfire wrote:
PJayTycy wrote:Can anybody show me an example of how such a spherical map would look like ??
Look at the image included in this post. This is a so-called "icosahedron". It's a sphere made up out of eighteen triangles. Each triangle can be subdivided into 4 new triangles, so we can make spheres of 18, 52, 208, 832, etc. triangles.

Sure, it will be pretty cool, but I think there will be some problems with not having a fixed "down" Not that we will have that much gravity involved. How do we calclulate steepnes without knowing whats down. Oh.. well there is solutons on all my questions, but we will make it more complicated, by having a gravity point in the middle, and not just "down".

Does it have any adventages over flat world exept cool facotor, and eye candy.

Post by **uzurpator** » 01 Feb 2005 17:08

Hellfire - OK - but it is YOU who will write the pathfinder ^^

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 01 Feb 2005 19:33

Wasn't TE a combined effort

? It seems pretty complex to me to have vehicles not lost or, as Zuu wrote, define heights. There's certainly an answer but how difficult is the answer?

Let's taunt our train of thoughts now. How realistic is it to choose from rectangular cells as a basis? Does it limit our freedom in any way?

Post by **uzurpator** » 01 Feb 2005 19:37

Hyro: Anything that is not freeform will limit us. The question is - how annoying the limits can be?

Square based map of rectangular shape (torus or not) is _trivial_ to operate in comparsion to iso-something.

For one - how to store it? How to navigate it?

Hellfire · Post by **Hellfire** » 03 Feb 2005 07:39

uzurpator wrote:For one - how to store it? How to navigate it?

I don't know the answer to those questions - yet. It is possible, as there are a finite number of triangles and each triangle has three neighbouring triangles.

Oh and: Ok. I'll write the pathfinding code for icosahedra

.

Arathorn · Post by **Arathorn** » 03 Feb 2005 13:09

Anyway, I think the world should be flat, wether it's square or rectangular doesn't matter, but I see no reason for very odd shapes. Remember that we have a limited number of tiles, and something like a globe world would bring rediculous scales.

Hellfire · Post by **Hellfire** » 04 Feb 2005 08:05

You're probably right about the odd scales.

And we could ofcourse have a world divided into several maps in some massive-multiplayer-online-Transport-Empire-game (a.k.a. MMOTEG).

Lilman424 · Post by **Lilman424** » 07 Feb 2005 04:32

PBIMTE? *laughs evilly*

Off topic, Lilman. Don't do it again. ~Hellfire 20050206 0828

Transport Tycoon Forums

[RFD] Shape of the maps

[RFD] Shape of the maps

Who is online