Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[winner]

columnar basalt?  I say leave the ramps as a octagonal bump so you dont have to mess around with context.

[Mike Mayday]

Also of minor note is that diagonal blocks seem to be solide, even though dwarves can walk between them.

That can be fixed in both cavalier and isometric by slightly modifying the corner tile. Not a problem, really.

Also of minor note is that diagonal walls are very jagged while horizantal or vertical walls are very smooth.

I don't think that making BOTH of them jagged is the right solution, really...

Another advantage is that multi level views are less confusing because the grid for each level is somewhat skewed from the one below it.

That is also true for cavalier. See the multi-level cavalier mockup I've posted before.

This will also have a performance advantage over the "rotated cavalier" view because each tile can be drawn without consulting what is in adjacent tiles.

That is entirely untrue. Just try making a mockup where some wall tiles are adjacent to unmined rock and you'll see for yourself (right now all you've posted is walls constructed over a flat floor).

Whereas with the rotated cavalier, in order to get the right graphic for any wall you have to check all 8 of its surrounding tiles.

Not true again. In most cases it's enough to check four.

[Tormy]

Hmm... Now that it has been discussed a bit, using octagons does have its own set of limitations like all the other "fancy pseudo-3d" graphical display methods. I'll see if I can whip up a demonstration that addresses a demonstrates or addresses these issues. If those squares in the corners between octagons get filled in while walkable, it would mostly negate the advantage of being able to see most of a hidden tile behind a block.



I personally would rather not display the covered squares between pillars, at least not for the upper most displayed layer.

Hm this looks a bit weird to me....especially the door.

[Random832]

Doors are another of those things that's going to have to be more complex (though maybe not as complex as ramps)

[Granite26]

Bumping this to aid others

[Mikademus]

Bumping to provoke updates

[Raz]

I really think the rotated cavalier would be best. Now.. if only we could think of a way to make walls on different z-levels connect..

[TerminatorII]

I really see absolutely no problem using Iso with another common concept. The MAP! In a corner we can have a 2D representation of the 3D environment that we are looking at. (perhapse only 7 tiles wide to reduce the size of the map yet still allow you to see a ways.) With that you get the complete advantage of the beutiful, gorgeous, and totally awe-inspiring Iso view with no occlusion due to the 2D map. Also If we go with Tormys excelent Idea of rotation with the Iso we have solved every problem. If we really wanted to go no missing data anything that is occluded would get a floating (!) over it so you know something is there. Personaly, I can't stand any other view than Iso. Cavalier makes me go crosseyed and makes my neck hurt from craning it sideways, and diagonal has issues with moving to different tiles w/o a num pad. Iso is the best and only real choice.

[sweitx]

Personal preference, I don't really like isometric style (or any style that turns the perception to 45 degree) for Dwarf Fortress.  Since DF is essentially a game that focus on fortress design, it is hard to visually recognize that a design is artistically beautiful.  Take some real life example, when you design a building you always design from top down, since you mind can quickly calculate efficiency of your design in a glance.

[Derakon]

I'm inclined to agree with Sweitx. If we want to get pseudo-3D walls, I'd suggest doing something like Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. There's an interesting discussion on various kinds of faked 3D in this article.

[Tormy]

Personal preference, I don't really like isometric style (or any style that turns the perception to 45 degree) for Dwarf Fortress.  Since DF is essentially a game that focus on fortress design, it is hard to visually recognize that a design is artistically beautiful.  Take some real life example, when you design a building you always design from top down, since you mind can quickly calculate efficiency of your design in a glance.

Yeah, which is why I am preferring the 2d top-down display method to be honest. It's simple and it can be beautiful with a proper high quality tileset.

[Mipe]

Take a typical 3D dungeon romp with minimap drawing. Now, use the main DF view as the minimap and a minimalistic 3D window for the 3D view; the viewpoint would be defined by current cursor location or selected dwarf's PoV.

Top-down AND mini 3D window somewhere in a corner. Easy to do with some raycasting; check for line of sight and draw the visible blocks - walls, engravings and the crippled kitten following a busy dwarf.

[Randominality]

Well my favourite method is still the transparent/teardown toggleable view in conjunction with 90 degree rotation.
But before this is even thought about i think its best to get seperate graphics for all the objects.

[Jadael]

Hmm... Now that it has been discussed a bit, using octagons does have its own set of limitations like all the other "fancy pseudo-3d" graphical display methods. I'll see if I can whip up a demonstration that addresses a demonstrates or addresses these issues. If those squares in the corners between octagons get filled in while walkable, it would mostly negate the advantage of being able to see most of a hidden tile behind a block.



I personally would rather not display the covered squares between pillars, at least not for the upper most displayed layer.

This guy is the only person in this thread that knows what he's talking about (except the people talking about the Zelda-style graphics, who are mostly being ignored and treated like idiots).

This isometric octagon idea is the best idea for DF graphics I have ever seen. Combine this with rotating, and you've solved every possible problem, including things no one else thought of like the fact diagonals are walkable, ramps needs to be seen from every direction, and doors take up an entire tile, to name a few. Make the tiles slightly shorter, i.e. not cubes, and it's even prettier- you wouldn't even need rotation, although I would still put it in.

[Raz]

Combine this with rotating, and you've solved every possible problem..

Except that it looks like shit.