 |
| |
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Thomas
Richard, I don't know if you saw my post (which caused Mark to have a fit and start talking about version 50) about micro terrain. The idea is that the terrain actually goes down to some minimum size (my suggestion is 100 m2). However, this terrain is not stored. It is generated as needed using a repeatable pseudo-random number sequence. Thus, going back to the same location has the same landscape. So, in effect, the whole map becomes a grid of 1 hectare plots.
....
As an example, suppose that, instead of having a "forest tile", you have individual trees which are then ramdomly scattered (using the same repeatable pseudo random nymber system so they alway reappear in the same place) over the polygon. This adds several factors not presently available:
|
I'm a bit confused about this. How does the pseudo-random number sequence remember what changes have been made in the terrain? Wouldn't you have to generate a new sequence every time the terrain attributes change?
But the extreme zoom sounds very intersting. It would be really cool to give the option to have the map zoom in for fights and allow the player to manage individual elements wargame-style. I am envisioning something like the Master of Magic system, which was truly excellent, and if you show how your terrain system allows us to do that seamlessly I think yuo could pick up a few converts. Obviously this is way in the future, but if we have a good foundation iyt shouldn't be too hard to add.
quote:
So far I have refrained from mentioning the step after continuous maps. This is three dimensional spline based polygonal surfaces, so a unit will know if it is moving uphill... |
It would be great for the aforementioned battles, but I'm not sure if going this far would really be a good time investment. We also have to consider the mod makers; we don't want to make them learnd a 3-D modeling system just to draw a map.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
 |
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:13
|
|
quote:
I'm a bit confused about this. How does the pseudo-random number sequence remember what changes have been made in the terrain? Wouldn't you have to generate a new sequence every time the terrain attributes change? |
What changes did you have in mind? I cannot see any likelihood of changing the terrain in a 100 km2 area. As far as forest clearance is concerned, there are just fewer trees at every level. The system doesn't "remember" anything, but in its progression to ever lower levels, it does know the settings for the next level up.
quote:
Wouldn't you have to generate a new sequence every time the terrain attributes change? |
No, you use the same sequence, but the square level parameters change.
quote:
It would be great for the aforementioned battles, but I'm not sure if going this far would really be a good time investment. We also have to consider the mod makers; we don't want to make them learnd a 3-D modeling system just to draw a map. |
I was at least partially joking, though I did want to register the fact that it is possible.
Map designers do not need to know anything about the coding. If the system were adopted it would need a map editor in which you could, for example, grab a bit of land and pull it upward to form a hill, or push it down to form a lake. All these things are fairly easy to program if you build on the work that has already been done.
Cheers
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
So a polygonal system is just a thing to manage *very* much terrain units- I don't think anyone does not want a bigger playground/battlefield. But more squares was discredited before already due to possible lack of computer capacity..
A problem can be when the polygons split too often, you would still have a map of tiny little squares. Or they don't split often enough, and you get a boring map.
The models will also need to be more detailed and less of an abstraction, thus more complicated. Every model will have to be extended.
Micro-terrain would be a good idea, polygons or not. (a pity that it didn't have more tactical consequenses in MoM like in Heroes of Might and Magic)
Generally, I also think it would make the game better and more outstanding. If the necessary adaptions can be done, why not?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
|
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:13
|
|
quote:
So a polygonal system is just a thing to manage *very* much terrain units- I don't think anyone does not want a bigger playground/battlefield. But more squares was discredited before already due to possible lack of computer capacity..
|
No, it is the opposite. Where there are a bunch of squares (like an ocean) which are identical, a single polygon covers them all. So you use less computer capacity, not more.
quote:
A problem can be when the polygons split too often, you would still have a map of tiny little squares. Or they don't split often enough, and you get a boring map. |
I have yet to see a convincing reason why polygons should split much at all. Even if they do, you put a lower limit on size (say 100 km2, equal to the area of the current squares).
In any case, squares are already polygons, just awkward ones.
quote:
The models will also need to be more detailed and less of an abstraction, thus more complicated. Every model will have to be extended. |
This is not at all correct. The models will become less complicated. Instead of having an economy for every square in the Sahara desert there will be one per civilization only. All that is required is a scaling factor (some things will need to multiplies by the area of the polygon).
Cheers
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
The complexity of any model depends on the size of the smallest unit of data you're trying to model. If the smallest possible polygon is smaller, you need more complicated models.
And for ocean squares, ok. They're the most homogenous area you can find. But for all the inhabited squares, with all the subtle differences that are possible in the models any two squares will almost always differ in several ways; how can you apply polygons to them?
The real world is neatly split up between a few hundred countries. But that's a very arbitrary, artificial difference. Look at the nation-building in Europe: England: natural boundaries. Germany: realpolitik and industry. France: language, tradition. The Netherlands: decision by the Great Powers, etc..
So a polygonal model would most likely end up puzzling the relevant data for a square together from lots of polygons. Now it's more like: apply the effects in the appropriate area to all pieces therein. And if you need information for one piece, look at it. Wouldn't that be simpler?
Finally, instead of having a change of fundamentals again I'd say go for some model-testing and demo-spawning instead. From the information you give it shouldn't be that difficult to switch to polygons from squares. Well, let's wait just a little longer thn and show some progress. Ever since I've been lurking the forums for the first time (about a year ago), demo 5 has only been a few weeks from release..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
|
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:13
|
|
quote:
If the minimum size will be no smaller, then a polygon is just a group of terrain units, with the only difference being the shape of the edges? |
More or less correct. However, in most cases the polygons will be considerably larger than map squares. On average, I would guess, about 6 - 10 times as large.
quote:
You will need to scale the calculations of the models for the different sizes of the polygons. Won't that add complexity and calculations? |
Yes but only in the most minor fashion - instead of having the fact that every polygon is 10,000 km2, the area will need to be explicit. Since this is only a scaling factor, the added complexity is extremely minor.
quote:
The models are now assuming as working unit a more or less compact area. The polygons undoubtly won't always be compact. Won't this give problems? |
I don't see why they should. Anyway, I don't see 10,000 km2 as compact. For example Mesopotamia would be only about 8 - 10 squares to cover its 15 or so civilizations, city states in this case.
I have not fully worked out the details of the polygon system. I suggested it so that we could get rid of the grid on the map, so the terrain could be more realistic, so that units could have there position specified to closer than 100km, and to facilitate the micro-terrain idea.
Hovever, I imagine that each model will have its own overlapping polygon system. For example, the terrain of a mountain range doesn't care who owns it. It remains mountainous land.
quote:
Take population, for example. I'm very sure that any two squares will only coincidentally have the same population in the course of the game. |
This is the heart of the matter. You can equally say that the possible subdivisions of the square will not have exactly the same population, so the square should be subdivided, presumably indefinitely.
My answer is that if we combine two (or more) otherwise similar squares into a single polygon with a population density, and hence a total population, what does it matter how the population is distributed inside the polygon? Any more than it matters how population is distributed within a square? Remember that squares are polygons.
quote:
Looking forward to the demo, hopefully it will make things clearer. |
D5 has none of this in it. It operates entirely on squares.
Unfortunately...
Cheers.
Last edited by Gary Thomas on 17-10-2001 at 23:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
My main concern is that, with so many factor influencing each other, with evenso many area's of effect, after a while the polygons will still be split up to their minimum size, in the interesting areas on the map. The difference would then only be shape of units..
A polygonal system is indeed superior for describing static space (like terrain or a map of nations on any given momen).
But in a game like Clash, with many complex evolutions, I fear it would still break down to the minimum units, if they are square-sized. If they had a smaller size it might work, but you'll have calculation problems again then I think..
And with smaller units there can also be changes in the models. For example, I now assume in ecology that a square is capable of maintaining and regrowing its own biomass. With smaller areas this might not be the case.
Gary, have you an example (game) of this somewhere, or an article of something available?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
By subdividing a polygon I mean splitting it when something happens to a part of it, say a flood killing half the population in the east part. When these splittings happen often, and it seems they will, many polygon layers can revert to their smallest parts, and we're back to squares then.
I think a polygon version of civ 3 would work..but as you say, civ was originally a boardgame and still has many such characteristics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
I mean what happens if a flood occurs and the polygon is half outside, half inside the range of effect? It would be split. (2 pieces) (Squares don't need to, since the range of effect is already defined in squares. ) And when something else happened in the area, it would split again (3 or 4 pieces). And so on, until all polygons are reduced to the smallest possible size. I just think it would lead to fragmentation ad infinitum, so the map would boil down to a lot of tiny little pieces.. like squares. You could also impose a minimum distance and standard ranges of effects to keep the polygons to a decent and minimum size and shape, but then you would lose some, if not all benefits of polygons.
Also, how do you handle cities? You can't have cities if the population (or whatever) is evenly distributed in a polygon.
Polygons have considerable benefits, but I think the scale of the map must be much smaller to be able to use them properly. And a smaller scale means even more detail than we're planning with now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
|
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:13
|
|
quote:
I mean what happens if a flood occurs and the polygon is half outside, half inside the range of effect? It would be split. (2 pieces) (Squares don't need to, since the range of effect is already defined in squares. ) And when something else happened in the area, it would split again (3 or 4 pieces). |
The range of effect is the polygon. No splitting.
quote:
And so on, until all polygons are reduced to the smallest possible size. I just think it would lead to fragmentation ad infinitum, so the map would boil down to a lot of tiny little pieces.. like squares. |
That is what happens now. Squares are the smallest possible size.
quote:
Also, how do you handle cities? You can't have cities if the population (or whatever) is evenly distributed in a polygon. |
To paraphrase "you can't have cities if the population is evenly distributed in a square (which is a polygon)". Why not?
I did not say that the population is evenly distributed, I said that any uneveness doesn't matter.
In any case, cities are constructs which would sit on top of underlying polygons, (just as they do in squares, which are polygons) with population additional to the underlying population. A consequence of this is that you can have more than one city per 100 km x 100 km area, which doesn't happen with the present system, but which could easily, since squares are polygons).
All of these objections apply equally well (or, in some cases even more so) to squares. It is pointless objecting to polygons on grounds that provide an equal criticism for squares (which I think I might have mentioned before, are polygons).
quote:
Polygons have considerable benefits, but I think the scale of the map must be much smaller to be able to use them properly. And a smaller scale means even more detail than we're planning with now. |
I cannot for the life of me see how this follows. And, as I think I might have mentioned before, squares are polygons, so we had better not use squares either because they will get more and more subdivided into tinier and tinier squares.
It seems to me that the real issue is being overlooked. It really doesn't matter how the map is split up. The way it works now is that EVERYTHING in a square is effectively at the centre of the square, having no other coordinates. So the map does not consist of squares, it consists of a rectangular grid of points, even though we choose to picture it as squares. It is this point location I want to get rid of. So things wouldn't be "in a polygon" as they are currently "in a square". They would be at specific coordinates. As a consequence, it would take time for a unit to cross a square (or polygon). If a unit is near the border, it can cross into the next area in a short time. If squares were a better system, every atlas would have its map areas divided up into squares. Are they? No, they are polygons.
Cheers
|
|
| |
|
|
|
F_Smith
|
|
Austin, Tx 78728
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
FWIW --
I completely agree with Gary.
From the beginning, polygons had been in the plans. Altho not in the sense of 'splitting' and all that . . . more like 'Risk' or the original 'Civilization' board game.
Or like the 'Shogun' computer game.
There's no technical reason not to, altho it makes map creation a little more interesting . . .
The biggest bonus to irregular-shaped MapSquares is a simplification of movement, and the 'strategic' importance that a MapSquare can have. The Map can be much more interesting, and a lot more fun.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
It seems to me that we are discussing several things at once:
1 the shape of the area of 1 coordinate (square or other polygon)
2 the scale and the level of detail, including the number of coordinates in a polygon (which can be a square but doesn't have to)
3 the splitting of polygons (that can be squares, but don't have to)
1 doesn't matter, cosmetic
2 Simple, I think: more detail, more power needed, which isn't necessarily a problem but it could become one.
Do you mean the coordinates in one polygon are former square coordinates, or will the total number increase?
In the first case, I think you will still end up with many tiny polygons (of whatever shape) in the more frequently used areas. In the second case we'll just have to wait how many power is still available.
3 If polygons have only one coordinate this is irrelevant, but if they have more than one it is relevant: What if a meteor falls at Tunguska and entire Siberia gets blasted? It barely affected 2000 km˛ in RL. Will the polgyon split in an affected one and an unaffected one, or will the entire area be affected? If you want range of effects, you need to split polygons sometimes or often. Otherwise you are treating them as we are now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
By level of detail I mean the total number of coordinates on the map and how many polygons there will be. And hence my persistent questions on splitting: If you have few polygons, what happens if only a small area is affected in a large polygon? Is the whole polygon affected or only that small area (in which case I expect that area to form a new, separate polygon (=splitting), since it has other properties)?
on micro-terrain: Can it be useful somewhere apart from battles and city views?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
|
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:13
|
|
I don't understand what you mean by "number of coordinates on the map". There are an infinite number of coordinates on the map (conditioned only by the accuracy of the floating point number format used, or the lower limit of visibility selected). I suggested that a lower limit of 1 hectare be used. On this basis there are about 53,114,285,714 coordinates on the Earth's surface.
quote:
If you have few polygons, what happens if only a small area is affected in a large polygon? Is the whole polygon affected or only that small area |
You have small and large polygons, depending on context. What happens when a small area of ANY polygon is affected is EXACTLY what happens when a small area of a square is affected, namely, you don't know that only a small area is affected, you assume the whole entity (square or polygon) is affected. Again, I don't understand how you detect that only part of a square is affected.
quote:
on micro-terrain: Can it be useful somewhere apart from battles and city views? |
I don't think it will be very useful for city views. It might be useful for planning movement, siting fortresses, bridges or ports, or such things. It will certainly make consistent tactical views of battles possible.
Cheers
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Thomas
about 53,114,285,714 coordinates on the Earth's surface. |
this, with several layers of polygons.. is what I mean by more complexity. The polygons COULD (depending on chance rather than the design) evolve too small (and they won't stay the same during the whole game- at least the interesting ones).
quote:
You have small and large polygons, depending on context. What happens when a small area of ANY polygon is affected is EXACTLY what happens when a small area of a square is affected, namely, you don't know that only a small area is affected, you assume the whole entity (square or polygon) is affected. Again, I don't understand how you detect that only part of a square is affected.
|
The problem here is that a square is standard, but depending on the proportion between the effect and the polygon size the effects can work out differently. For example, I might assume a certain effect is negligible in a square, and leave it out. But it can be important if the affected polygon happens to be smaller.
That's the point: squares can't get smaller, so you can forget about small-scale (although drastic) effects.
quote:
I don't think it will be very useful for city views. It might be useful for planning movement, siting fortresses, bridges or ports, or such things. It will certainly make consistent tactical views of battles possible.
|
Master of Magic used it for the city views: it made each city unique in it's layout.
So long, goodnight 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
|
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:13
|
|
quote:
this, with several layers of polygons.. is what I mean by more complexity. |
There is only one layer of polygons.
quote:
The polygons COULD (depending on chance rather than the design) evolve too small (and they won't stay the same during the whole game- at least the interesting ones). |
Polygons NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER get smaller, split, evolve smaller, or change their size in any way at all. This must be the tenth time I have said this.
quote:
That's the point: squares can't get smaller, so you can forget about small-scale (although drastic) effects. |
Polygons NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER get smaller, split, evolve smaller, or change their size in any way at all. This must be the eleventh time I have said this.
quote:
The problem here is that a square is standard, |
Why is that a problem, or even relevant?
quote:
but depending on the proportion between the effect and the polygon size the effects can work out differently. For example, I might assume a certain effect is negligible in a square, and leave it out. |
Apparently, for a square, you decide either to omit the effect, or apply it to the whole square. For a polygon, you decide either to omit the effect, or to apply it to the whole polygon.
quote:
Master of Magic used it for the city views: it made each city unique in it's layout. |
Might work, would be great if it does.
Sleep well. It is 3pm here, so I will stay up a while longer.
Cheers
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2001 02:55
|