Print

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

[LegoLord]

Cavalier actually looks a bit clumsy to me.  It would for the most part focus only on one side of the object viewed.  Isometric views show equal detail of three different sides.

[Puzzlemaker]

Hmm...

Try white, or black as the color.  And also, add a limit to the level of fog... after 2 or 3 levels down, there shouldn't be any more increase in the fog level.

[Mike Mayday]

Cavalier actually looks a bit clumsy to me.  It would for the most part focus only on one side of the object viewed.  Isometric views show equal detail of three different sides.

I think the biggest concern when choosing a projection method for DF isn't equal treatment of an object's sides- it's presenting three-dimensional constructions in a clear and readable way while still conveying as much information as possible. Isometric view, while obviously more realistic (less clumsy) makes walls obscure things. Transparency or view rotation make things better, but they're still more messy than cavalier (not to mention rotating the view is distracting from actual gameplay).
That being said, the mockups I present here are kind of a proof of concept, created in response to multiple questions on how to prevent view obscuring in a 3d-projection. I strongly believe that if Toady ever implements the possibility to choose a view other than top-down, he will do so in a way that will allow tileset creators to make both isometric and cavalier tilesets. Therfore- any discussion about the benefits of one 3d projection over another is most likely meaningless at this point.

Here's that tower again, I left a little bit of blue so that it's not too boring

add a limit to the level of fog... after 2 or 3 levels down, there shouldn't be any more increase in the fog level.

Well, you can only see 3 levels down on that picture, but maybe the "height fog" could be controllable? Like you could set how thick the fog is and whether at some level below things wouldn't be visible at all anymore or the fog would just end at that point (meaning that lower things would be equally visible than that border lower level)

[Decimator]

Could you make the fog amount a curve instead of linear?  That way it would never hit 100% opaque.

[Granite26]

Shouldn't it, though?

[Decimator]

Well, no, it shouldn't ever become 100% opaque.  I want to be able to see what's down there.

[Puzzlemaker]

White looks better.  Hmm.  Grey/Gray might be even better though...

It looks good though.  Real good.  I would love to play DF if the graphics looked like that.

[MrWiggles]

Has anyone given to any thoughts on frames of animations this would require?

[Tack]

no. it's an isometric tileset. To put animation queuing to absolutely every move possible in adventure mode... for wrestling only. It would never be released. Although my knowledge of C++ is absolutely nothing, so someone troll me if i'm wrong.

[Footkerchief]

Yeah, while animation is not likely to be thoroughly supported, it's not as grim a challenge as you make it sound.  Animating wrestling would be insanity, of course, but it would be relatively straightforward to do stuff like toggle between frames of a walking animation as units move around the map.

[Tack]

yeah, and different sprites for up-down-left-right movement. All feasible. Along with, say, picking up and putting down objects, being on fire, and drowning. I was concentrating more on the horribly complicated stuff.

[Footkerchief]

Gotcha, that's reasonable.

[Mike Mayday]

Tack, while one could obviously attempt to make an animation for every action, I think that's hardly necessary. The basic animations I would throw in would be:

Walk, ready and strike would have to be done in all 8 directions, lie down and sit- in 4 directions, the others would only need one animation. Though I guess the anims would be so simple that even walk, ready and strike would probably look ok with just four directions.
Also, splitting every civilized creature tile (so creature with professions) into
-legs+body
-head
-arms with tool
would make things simpler.

If you guys can think about any other necessary animation, please let me know. I bet this would be relatively easy to implement code-wise (after some sort of an axonometric view is allowed that is).

EDIT: for example, an animation of hitting something can be made just by using two frames (ready and strike) and shifting the creature a little bit:

While not extremely pretty, it gives all the necessary information (and that is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing when making DF graphics).

[Neonivek]

Id think supporting animation would be more difficult then supporting Isomers.

Mind you it isn't an objection it is more of a lement that this topic is amazing but it seems to take place in a fantasy world where Toady announced it would be supported.

As for more
-Special ability #: This only appears for specific creatures but it is more or less a place holder in case of dragons
-Sneak/Ambushing
-Speaking (For the head)

[Mike Mayday]

Mind you it isn't an objection it is more of a lement that this topic is amazing but it seems to take place in a fantasy world where Toady announced it would be supported.

Heh, yeah, I'm well aware of how extremely uncertain all this stuff is. I'm just trying to explore the potential improvement to the gameplay that it would bring, which -in turn- might encourage Toady to ponder it a bit more as well