I don't have a list of what I've said these many months, but I think I said that I would be focusing on it next if I was hurting for donations, and I also said during the Bay 12 get-together in April that I might be doing parts of it (like expandable views and tile support for items/terrain) as a sort of humanitarian action even if the donations are fine. Although I'm still treading water more or less on donations, I'm not yet hurting, meaning that I haven't liquidated the meager funds I saved while working the math job. The current idea is to work in some of the things that need to be done as I'm working on other things, at an unspecified ratio. This makes it a very vague current idea, but that's what I'm working with.
1 - Yes, graphics support for items, terrain and so on, and it's not possible at the moment to attain a separation from the text for anything aside from creatures.
2 - DF uses 24bit color (32 if you count alpha, which is supported by what's there, but not used), but you can only get at that through the creature bmps right now (though you can specify the core 16 colors in the init up to 24bit). As more support is added, we'll figure out what we want to use the alpha channel for (smoke, miasma etc.).
3 - For the whole presentation arc? Whatever people complain about the most. The more specific people are the better. There are many prior posts/emails on the matter that are fairly specific, though oftentimes the solutions presented aren't really practical (or solutions aren't even considered). In addition, the more specific the solutions get, the more nailed down the game itself has to be (and it isn't), so there's a bit of a problem, though clearly a robust framework can handle most of what's thrown at it (but not everything, especially as new features oversaturate the current screen real estate, requiring a revision).
4 - Sure. You can already use the mouse on many of the new screens, but the main screen isn't one of them of course (aside from designations). Again, the more specific people are the better, keeping in mind the overall context. I find some of the suggestions about real-time hover sort of impractical, for example, since the critters move on a grid and there are lots of them.
We don't need an upgrade to the interface. Works fine for me.
It would be best if you could separate the interface completly from the game, ie. make two distinct parts - the DF server which calculates everything that happens in game world and the DF client that controls user inputs and outputs and communicate with the server.
This way modders could create their own clients, relieving you of the hard task of improving the interface.
Imagine a client interface based on 3Dwarf Visualizer (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=608.0)
And it wouldn't hurt the ASCII fundamentalists as they would just use the ASCII client...
It would be best if you could separate the interface completly from the game, ie. make two distinct parts - the DF server which calculates everything that happens in game world and the DF client that controls user inputs and outputs and communicate with the server.
This way modders could create their own clients, relieving you of the hard task of improving the interface.
Imagine a client interface based on 3Dwarf Visualizer (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=608.0)
And it wouldn't hurt the ASCII fundamentalists as they would just use the ASCII client...
Castlevania roguelike
We don't need an upgrade to the interface. Works fine for me.
It may work fine for us 'hardcore' gamers, but I know quite a few people who scoff at the idea of a text-based game to the point where they won't even look at it, much less consider playing it. Plus, some streamlining wouldn't hurt; it'd be grand if I could identify dwarves at a glance, and designate things quickly and efficiently.
Castlevania roguelike
Wait wait what? Hold the phone here, a Castlevania Roguelike? I was about to ask why that guy looked like Alucard. Where is this Roguelike of which you speak?
And really, the notion that people without the patience to laboriously teach themself the skill set necessary to play a game are not worthy of DF, is ridiculous.Wait, so the notion of people without the patience to learn DF being not worthy of playing DF is ridiculous? Did I miss something?
a clean, easily readable tileset is just as good, if not better
The worst are generally those who refuse to accept help and instead sit around waiting with bad grace for someone to activate the magic make-it-easy switch
I think tileset support for environment and maybe more screens with mouse support would be the most important parts of the Presentation Arc.
Without the tilesets like Mike Mayday's, I know I wouldn't have even bothered downloading DF, let alone donating. And I also play Angband, but again, only with tilesets - pure ASCII is simply too hardcore.
My problem with improving the interface is that, if (when) Toady does, that will attract a completely different group of players than the one we currently enjoy. DF's followers are almost always much more patient and imaginative than your average internet user, simply because both of those things are necessary to have any fun while playing the game. This makes the forum a much more productive place, overall; one that's conducive to the development of the game, and much more, well, reasonable than your normal group of "LOL LEIK WY R DERE LETTERS EVREEWERE HOW DO I MINE FO FISH" 9-year-olds (no offense to 9-year-olds, but most of you are immature and annoying.)
And really, the notion that people without the patience to laboriously teach themself the skill set necessary to play a game are not worthy of DF, is ridiculous.Wait, so the notion of people without the patience to learn DF being not worthy of playing DF is ridiculous? Did I miss something?
I think tileset support for environment and maybe more screens with mouse support would be the most important parts of the Presentation Arc.
Without the tilesets like Mike Mayday's, I know I wouldn't have even bothered downloading DF, let alone donating. And I also play Angband, but again, only with tilesets - pure ASCII is simply too hardcore.
And really, the notion that people without the patience to laboriously teach themself the skill set necessary to play a game are not worthy of DF, is ridiculous.Wait, so the notion of people without the patience to learn DF being not worthy of playing DF is ridiculous? Did I miss something?
If all that's putting them off is the interface, then yes. That's a pretty elitist notion.
The game itself is complex enough to learn but the fact that actually doing basic things is completely impossible without extensive help, can easily put off anybody.
The default should always be what Toady has right at this very moment, pure ASCII; simply adding support for others to build a prettier world would be more than enough for a lot of players, myself included.
I think tileset support for environment and maybe more screens with mouse support would be the most important parts of the Presentation Arc.
Without the tilesets like Mike Mayday's, I know I wouldn't have even bothered downloading DF, let alone donating. And I also play Angband, but again, only with tilesets - pure ASCII is simply too hardcore.
Same here, except that, weirdly, I play Angband with ASCII. I have no idea why I can handle Angband with ASCII but not DF.
pure ASCII is simply too hardcore.
Even tho, that DF is alpha, and lot more features will be added, its [Dwarf mode] already much more complicated than a "simple" roguelike.
Lies. The first time I ever played an ASCII game I thought it would be mind-bendingly difficult to understand. It isn't, at all. It's a matter of familiarity and learning how to use a 'l'ook button (or some other variant, all roguelikes I have ever played have something along those lines).Like I was saying though - DF's ASCII is off-putting even to some people who are hardened roguelike players like me, just because it uses so many strange unfamiliar symbols, and so many of them.
The default should always be what Toady has right at this very moment, pure ASCII; simply adding support for others to build a prettier world would be more than enough for a lot of players, myself included.
There's no sensible reason why ASCII should be default. The vast majority of players would find the graphics more attractive and useable - an init option to load an old, ASCII-set should be more than enough for the fundamentalists among the current players - they'd certainly be hardcore enough to do the necessary change.
Even tho, that DF is alpha, and lot more features will be added, its [Dwarf mode] already much more complicated than a "simple" roguelike.I think tileset support for environment and maybe more screens with mouse support would be the most important parts of the Presentation Arc.Same here, except that, weirdly, I play Angband with ASCII. I have no idea why I can handle Angband with ASCII but not DF.
Without the tilesets like Mike Mayday's, I know I wouldn't have even bothered downloading DF, let alone donating. And I also play Angband, but again, only with tilesets - pure ASCII is simply too hardcore.
A more uniformal menu system - Presumably something a bit more mouse orientated, for some reason I always picture a kind of Command & Conquer esque side menu that you popped up just by pressing tab or something.Uniform menu controls - yes. Mouse-oriented? No thank you. Allowing players to click on things would certainly be nice, but more screen real-estate for less information is less than tempting, as is losing the ability to quickly navigate menus with the keyboard. I'm prefer both methods of user input to be supported, instead of exiling the keyboard completely to the realm of hotkeys.
My personal understanding of what the presentation arc would bring wasn't a complete graphics overhaul along the lines of 3d or even isometric,I'd always presumed it was going to end up looking more like an old Final Fntasy or Zelda game with things like:
When people talk about right-click context menus for every tile and to get at creature interfaces etc., I'm wondering how you guys are picturing that working with pause/unpause and larger tiles (and so possibly fewer displayed depending on resolution). If they are zipping around, you wouldn't really be able to use the right button effectively, since you'd miss all the time, as far as I can tell (having it pick the closest wouldn't work since people want info for all tiles and sometimes there are a lot of critters running around), but the whole pause-to-do-anything paradigm is sort of weird as well. Were you still imagining being paused when you do things? Did the unpaused view work any differently? Making everything move smoothly between tiles and/or more slowly is off the table for the purposes of my inquiry here.
When people talk about right-click context menus for every tile and to get at creature interfaces etc., I'm wondering how you guys are picturing that working with pause/unpause and larger tiles (and so possibly fewer displayed depending on resolution). If they are zipping around, you wouldn't really be able to use the right button effectively, since you'd miss all the time, as far as I can tell (having it pick the closest wouldn't work since people want info for all tiles and sometimes there are a lot of critters running around), but the whole pause-to-do-anything paradigm is sort of weird as well. Were you still imagining being paused when you do things? Did the unpaused view work any differently? Making everything move smoothly between tiles and/or more slowly is off the table for the purposes of my inquiry here.
If you right-click somewhere else on the screen while already in a context menu then it jumps to the new tile.
In another thread, I was reading about how the way brooks work at the moment (being a full z-level deep, yet allowing creatures to stand on them) is a workaround to placate the current z-level system. If so, what we could eventually see is a z-level system that makes terrain vary between 1-7 high in each z-level, which practically begs for a Stronghold-style rotating isometric view. It'd still be divided into the same number of z-levels, those levels would just be subdivided into 7 separate layers which could be dirt, grass, water, stone, or any number of things.
Close enough. Seems like quite a few don't read the development page:
# Core50, TILESET SUPPORT, (Future): Allow graphical tiles to be used for all game objects.
# Core51, SIZEABLE GAME WINDOW, (Future): Allow the resizing of the game windows, and possibly the support of variable width fonts to allow more text to be displayed.
# Core52, INTERFACE OVERHAUL, (Future): A coherent interface, additional options and mouse support.
As for the graphics, isometric could work. Do you guys remember this lovely screenshot? :)
The way I saw it the z-levels in that image are a 1-1 translation to the current z-levels in DF but just under-sized for overview purposes.As for the graphics, isometric could work. Do you guys remember this lovely screenshot? :)
I've seen it, but that image doesn't (and wasn't intended to) address any of the issues I mentioned (it also has fractional Z levels which don't currently exist and aren't likely to exist in the future, so it's not the best test image, though I understand that wasn't its original purpose so much).
It does do one of the things that bugs me in general about isometric, which is obscuring the view with things like trees, which can be handled with transparency I suppose, but the main issue is how to handle the stacked Z levels of a typical fortress.
When people talk about right-click context menus for every tile and to get at creature interfaces etc., I'm wondering how you guys are picturing that working with pause/unpause and larger tiles (and so possibly fewer displayed depending on resolution). If they are zipping around, you wouldn't really be able to use the right button effectively, since you'd miss all the time, as far as I can tell (having it pick the closest wouldn't work since people want info for all tiles and sometimes there are a lot of critters running around), but the whole pause-to-do-anything paradigm is sort of weird as well. Were you still imagining being paused when you do things? Did the unpaused view work any differently? Making everything move smoothly between tiles and/or more slowly is off the table for the purposes of my inquiry here.
The way I saw it the z-levels in that image are a 1-1 translation to the current z-levels in DF but just under-sized for overview purposes.As for the graphics, isometric could work. Do you guys remember this lovely screenshot? :)
I've seen it, but that image doesn't (and wasn't intended to) address any of the issues I mentioned (it also has fractional Z levels which don't currently exist and aren't likely to exist in the future, so it's not the best test image, though I understand that wasn't its original purpose so much).
This would spark the suggestion of 'scalable' z-level representation so the user can choose their preference between overview (low/flat z-levels) and realism (high/tall z-levels) representation wise.It does do one of the things that bugs me in general about isometric, which is obscuring the view with things like trees, which can be handled with transparency I suppose, but the main issue is how to handle the stacked Z levels of a typical fortress.
The way I see it is to do it the same way it is done now. You see everything 'up-to' the 'current' z-level. The user can navigate up or down cutting down more and more of the terrain/buildings as they go down.
The only problem will be terrain/objects that is obscured by terrain/objects on equal z-level.
This is a minor thing and depends on the type of isometric view that is picked (angle of view).
Like you suggested for objects this can be mediated by transparency and for terrain to let the user pick (between 2 at least) z-level representation heights.
Like suggested before the ideal way to go is to make the terrain/buildings polygon based and the objects/creatures sprites. Allow the user to set the view angle and current z-level and obscure anything above that level (maybe baring creatures/moving objects). But I guess that is out of the question?
In another thread, I was reading about how the way brooks work at the moment (being a full z-level deep, yet allowing creatures to stand on them) is a workaround to placate the current z-level system. If so, what we could eventually see is a z-level system that makes terrain vary between 1-7 high in each z-level, which practically begs for a Stronghold-style rotating isometric view. It'd still be divided into the same number of z-levels, those levels would just be subdivided into 7 separate layers which could be dirt, grass, water, stone, or any number of things.
About the top/down vs isometric view. Im for dop/down... because it is really easy to mod it to the "pseudoisometric" by the moders. I mean somethink like this:
It is possible that this idea has been suggested and rejected in the past, but I would really like an interface similar to FreeCiv or perhaps even like Photoshop. What I mean is that you have a main game window that continues doing whatever dwarves do, and you can have multiple smaller windows up for other things like the list of dwarves, stocks or what have you and make adjustments while the game continues to run. So you could leave open whatever menus you wished and rearrange them as you like. This may be insanely difficult or impossible to implement, but I think it would improve my experience more than graphical changes or the ability to use the mouse more.
If these were implemented, I'd probably have to quit playing. I despise them.
It is possible that this idea has been suggested and rejected in the past, but I would really like an interface similar to FreeCiv or perhaps even like Photoshop. What I mean is that you have a main game window that continues doing whatever dwarves do, and you can have multiple smaller windows up for other things like the list of dwarves, stocks or what have you and make adjustments while the game continues to run. So you could leave open whatever menus you wished and rearrange them as you like. This may be insanely difficult or impossible to implement, but I think it would improve my experience more than graphical changes or the ability to use the mouse more.
It is possible that this idea has been suggested and rejected in the past, but I would really like an interface similar to FreeCiv or perhaps even like Photoshop. What I mean is that you have a main game window that continues doing whatever dwarves do, and you can have multiple smaller windows up for other things like the list of dwarves, stocks or what have you and make adjustments while the game continues to run. So you could leave open whatever menus you wished and rearrange them as you like. This may be insanely difficult or impossible to implement, but I think it would improve my experience more than graphical changes or the ability to use the mouse more.
I hate multiple windows for the same program.
You have to worry about things like moving each and every window whenever you want to move the game around, clicking on each and every window whenever you want to get them out from behind another window, accidentally closing one of them (which causes you to have little to no control over what's going on in the other windows; this would be like closing the window that lets you select which tool you're using in photoshop), and opening a stupid little menu to summon your stupid little windows back because you accidentally exited one.
If these were implemented, I'd probably have to quit playing. I despise them.
As for the graphics, isometric could work. Do you guys remember this lovely screenshot? :)
If you right-click somewhere else on the screen while already in a context menu then it jumps to the new tile.
Does that include within the boundaries of the context menu? I guess if the menu is translucent it wouldn't be too confusing, and you could get used to the right button popping you around as its primary function.
Regarding additional mouse support, I would very much wish for the following:
Mouse wheel to go up/down z levels while the cursor is over the main view.
Mouse wheel to scroll menus when the cursor is over the list of options/items.
Mouse button to select options/items in menus.
Shift + mouse button to select a range of options/items in menus that allow multi-select (trading screen, stocks screen to mass forbid, mass dump, et cetera)
Ctrl + mouse button to select multiple options/items like above, but not as a range.
Ctrl + shift + mouse button to select multiple distinct ranges.
Other than that, I do not have a particularly strong desire for other mouse features at the present time. The keyboard works well enough for most things, but somewhat more inefficiently (or not at all yet) regarding the items listed above, in my mind. Context menus for creatures and other things, or the ability to specify locations beyond just the designations (for example, when building stuff) might be nice, but they either strike me as less of a priority, or as more complex to implement.
I'd rather keep it 2D and tile based. With some work it can be made to look isometric/ish:Obviously, that isn't a DF tileset. BUT IT NEEDS TO BE.
(http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/3797/u02901bu1.th.gif) (http://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=u02901bu1.gif)
For mouse support, it'd also be nice to have middle click drag scrolling, on top of the other things. A right click context menu would be handy. If everything could be done with the mouse without touching the keyboard, I'd be happy. That's not to say I want keyboard support gone-- far from it! I want it possible to use either exclusive mouse, exclusive keyboard, or a combination of both. Redundancy in control is a good design principle.
Here's an example for how graphical tiles could work, from a project of mine.
...
(http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3664/graphicaltileszy2.th.jpg) (http://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=graphicaltileszy2.jpg)
...
I'd rather keep it 2D and tile based. With some work it can be made to look isometric/ish:
(http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/3797/u02901bu1.th.gif) (http://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=u02901bu1.gif)
You don't have isometrics or depth when you're viewing everything from directly above.
A wall below a wall will not appear, because you can only see the tops.
DF is top-down. Many of the tilesets don't reproduce it correctly, but yes. It's a 90 degree angle to the ground.
You don't have isometrics or depth when you're viewing everything from directly above.
A wall below a wall will not appear, because you can only see the tops.
DF is top-down. Many of the tilesets don't reproduce it correctly, but yes. It's a 90 degree angle to the ground.
DF is 2d (well in display anyways), how you display that is totally up to the designer. You rarely ever see a total top down view as you describe, and usually only older games take that perspective (the original Sim City for example). Isometric is still used in a 2d world, but it gives it more of a 3d look. Displaying it as such isn't wrong as you seem to assume, because top down games these days are almost always done from a isometric viewpoint.
It's top-down though. Look at the walls. They wouldn't appear as two parallel straight up/down/left/right lines if it wasn't top-down. They'd be skewed to some direction.You don't have isometrics or depth when you're viewing everything from directly above.
A wall below a wall will not appear, because you can only see the tops.
DF is top-down. Many of the tilesets don't reproduce it correctly, but yes. It's a 90 degree angle to the ground.
DF is 2d (well in display anyways), how you display that is totally up to the designer. You rarely ever see a total top down view as you describe, and usually only older games take that perspective (the original Sim City for example). Isometric is still used in a 2d world, but it gives it more of a 3d look. Displaying it as such isn't wrong as you seem to assume, because top down games these days are almost always done from a isometric viewpoint.
Sound and Music
Oh, I just remembered something that could go well with the Presentation arc: A uniform alternate keyset for keyboards that don't have a numpad, such as laptops. I've wanted to play DF a couple times on a laptop and even had a friend download DF, but gave up when we realized it required numpad (or totally remapping all of the keys to something else which was a huge pain).
Actually, does anyone already have an init file for keybindings that work without a numpad?
Toady and Three-Toe have pretty much done this alone - there's no reason to think they'd want or need someone else to build the front end of the game. And it's clear this isn't meant to be an open source community-build project.
It would be best if you could separate the interface completly from the game, ie. make two distinct parts - the DF server which calculates everything that happens in game world and the DF client that controls user inputs and outputs and communicate with the server.
This way modders could create their own clients, relieving you of the hard task of improving the interface.
Imagine a client interface based on 3Dwarf Visualizer (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=608.0)
And it wouldn't hurt the ASCII fundamentalists as they would just use the ASCII client...
that one? (do correct me if im wrong.)Toady and Three-Toe have pretty much done this alone - there's no reason to think they'd want or need someone else to build the front end of the game. And it's clear this isn't meant to be an open source community-build project.
...huh? This reply was directed to who in this thread, because I cannot figure it out. ::)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/Kestenvarn/df/df-ui.gif)
Here's another. Stuff is missing, but should be enough to give you the idea. Message box height can be raised. Detached resizable window for map and tools so users can stick it wherever they want - out of the way.
Sorry for the minor necro, but I created a concept for an interface.
(http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/871/conceptgw7.png)
Obviously it would be a bit more polished, maybe some minor tweaks, but here's the general deal.
Viewport window should be self-explanatory. If not, this is how you look at your fortress.
Info bar is where the messages like "Blahblah Boatmurdered has been struck down!" appear.
Construction window is the building menu from the current DF with a snazzy control interface.
Mining window is the "d" key menu with snazzy controls.
Social window (selected) is where you manage your dwarves, manage your nobles, view other civilizations, view trade routes, view history (shortcut to Legends screen that doesn't require abandoning fortress), and assign jobs to dwarves.
Military window is where you manage your military.
Things like build orders at workshops would be handled through right-click context menus.
Sorry for the minor necro, but I created a concept for an interface.
(http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/871/conceptgw7.png)
Obviously it would be a bit more polished, maybe some minor tweaks, but here's the general deal.
Viewport window should be self-explanatory. If not, this is how you look at your fortress.
Info bar is where the messages like "Blahblah Boatmurdered has been struck down!" appear.
Construction window is the building menu from the current DF with a snazzy control interface.
Mining window is the "d" key menu with snazzy controls.
Social window (selected) is where you manage your dwarves, manage your nobles, view other civilizations, view trade routes, view history (shortcut to Legends screen that doesn't require abandoning fortress), and assign jobs to dwarves.
Military window is where you manage your military.
Things like build orders at workshops would be handled through right-click context menus.
Coming from someone that likes to do interface art, I'd love to see the possibility for UI modification, but I can understand Toady's reluctance for that sort of thing, so I don't really touch it. If he added support for it I'd be all over it, though lol
Yeah, I'd like for mouse support to work on everything, and then maybe have the scroll wheel mapped to z-level up/down.
I like the idea of drawing some prototype interfaces. What about some more bold changes to the current layout and adding functionality instead of just making the keyboard commands clickable? Maybe integrate some utilities like the Foreman as suggested in another thread?
Some folk seem to be quite opposed to context sensitive menus which is unusual as they are by far one of the most efficient ways of interacting with games of this nature (before mastering hot keys ;-) I think for personal interactions this method would be great and combined with a consolidated menu akin to Davions control would be much easier.
A lot of people seem to be hinting / fantasising (English spelling ;-p) about at an isometric view angle. I've no doubt it could be done and it's a great thought considering that image a few pages back, but quite frankly DF should remain in extended ASCII for as long as Toady has internal stuff to sort out.
It appears you have dug too deep. Office Assistant can help you write your last will and testament!Winner.
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/Kestenvarn/sa/assistant-clipit.gif)
stuff
So, does anyone feel up to making a mockup of an isometric view? :) I'm curious about whether it could really work in practice, and drawing a mockup is one of the best ways to find out.
But since Sky is generally that teal-like color, why not make the levels further down that color as well instead of black, so people don't mistake it for chasms or just darkness? I think it would work great if the creatures and objects also showed up, so you can actually see the whole path for crossbow bolts being fired from one level to the other, or to get a real advantage settling on higher ground (you see any approaching enemies without having to change z-level), for example.
But since Sky is generally that teal-like color, why not make the levels further down that color as well instead of black, so people don't mistake it for chasms or just darkness? I think it would work great if the creatures and objects also showed up, so you can actually see the whole path for crossbow bolts being fired from one level to the other, or to get a real advantage settling on higher ground (you see any approaching enemies without having to change z-level), for example.
The sky thing could also be easily done. Perhaps just put a 'transparent' sky tile over the lower-level tile, that gets more and more opaque as the depth increases.
My intention was for all structures/units to show up on the map, yeah... possibly with creatures 'hovering' slightly above the terrain to make them stand out. I'd really like to try my test app on real DF data, but I don't have an easy way of importing it at the moment.
And there's one problem with trying to implement DF in an isometric perspective: every tile has the same lenght and width, so walls and doors would be humorously thick. :P
This is how an isometric game looks like. I am wondering can we see a graphic quality like this in DF If toady would decide to implent an isometric gfx engine one day? If not, we better stick to top-down 2d for good, thats quite decent, and easy to make graphics for it.
*REMOVED GFX*
This is how an isometric game looks like. I am wondering can we see a graphic quality like this in DF If toady would decide to implent an isometric gfx engine one day? If not, we better stick to top-down 2d for good, thats quite decent, and easy to make graphics for it.
*REMOVED GFX*
Now that's an interesting looking game. Is it any good? (I figured out from the URL it seems to live @ http://www.daimonin.com/)
Why does everyone seem so keen on isometric views? What's the appeal?
Why does everyone seem so keen on isometric views? What's the appeal?
And there's one problem with trying to implement DF in an isometric perspective: every tile has the same lenght and width, so walls and doors would be humorously thick. :P
And unless certain creatures were multi-tiled, larger creatures such as dragons and colossi would be the same size as a dwarf and about as tall as a door.
Davion, this is awesome.
Minor thing: we don't really need the sidebar if we have the menu bar.
More importantly: How could the community get together to help generate that flowchart? Make a wiki page, perhaps? What data would be important?
The point is that you would be able too see all Z-levels below the one you currently have selected, which would (among other things) allow you to more easily get a feel for the terrain and fully grasp how constructions look in 3D.
The major problem would be that objects in the back could be entirely obscured by objects in the front. There are a couple of different solutions for this, but none is perfect.
This is already a problem with the current 2D version. I've always found it slightly chuckle-worthy that dragons and kittens are the same size.
This is already a problem with the current 2D version. I've always found it slightly chuckle-worthy that dragons and kittens are the same size.
7)
/3
This is a dragon! O/
LL
Cyclops!I think the flat top-down version can get away with it, though. The problem with an isometric view is it is a more realistic angle and the suspension of disbelief is harder to maintain.Not really, just make the dragon take up every bit of real estate in the square and make kittens really small.
Why does everyone seem so keen on isometric views? What's the appeal?
I think the flat top-down version can get away with it, though. The problem with an isometric view is it is a more realistic angle and the suspension of disbelief is harder to maintain.Not really, just make the dragon take up every bit of real estate in the square and make kittens really small.
Final Fantasy Tactics and most games in that genre get away with a lot of scaling stuff while using isometric graphics. :P
The key would be not make graphics too realistic, I think. Like the first X-Com game: the terror missions gave a very nice sense of fighting in tight quarters, without being overly crowded.
I think the flat top-down version can get away with it, though. The problem with an isometric view is it is a more realistic angle and the suspension of disbelief is harder to maintain.Not really, just make the dragon take up every bit of real estate in the square and make kittens really small.
True, but you'd have to match that scale with everything else, which means you'd have smaller graphics for most objects in and around the fortress just to keep the scale 'realistic' for larger entities. That might put some strain on eyesight. I mean, a cat is size 3, a dwarf is size 8, and a megabeast is 20. You'd probably have to fudge it a bit but it still might cause problems when it comes to seeing everything well.
It's not like the dwarf or the kitten occupies the ENTIRE tile. But I don't think most people here would want a "realistic" representation of a 2x2 pixel @ for dwarf vs a 16 x 16 pixel D for dragon. They're all big for readability's sake.
I think the side bar could still be there because that's the easiest way to show the information, since there are usually so many options. That, or have it in a floating menu that pops up, but until something is done about window sizes and number of tiles on screen it'd probably obstruct too much.Hmm... My expertise in this is tapped out now, but y'all can figure out some nice suggestions for the display issues. I'm a fan of keeping it visually similar to the current. I want the user interface to be better, don't care so much about it being prettier.
I am not sure about the best way to start a community interface flow chart, maybe using something like Dia (http://live.gnome.org/Dia) to map it all out, it can export many different file types. I am not sure how practical having a flow chart would be since the data would just consist of stuff like "Designation (d) ------> Designate menu ----> List of options", etc., but it'd probably help point out areas that take too many keystrokes to access or whatever.
digraph DF {
main -> "[d]esignate"
"[d]esignate" -> "[m]ine"
"[d]esignate" -> "[b] properties"
"[b] properties" -> "[d]ump"
main -> "[m]ilitary"
main -> "[x] control squads"
}anime-styled dwarf tiles
Here's a start:Code: [Select]digraph DF {
main -> "[d]esignate"
"[d]esignate" -> "[m]ine"
"[d]esignate" -> "[b] properties"
"[b] properties" -> "[d]ump"
main -> "[m]ilitary"
main -> "[x] control squads"
}
Save that into df.graph, then run dot -Tpdf < df.graph > df.pdf, then open up df.pdf
I think the first picture is a better representation.anime-styled dwarf tiles
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/Kestenvarn/sa/dwarf.jpg)
clearly you two are missing the point of the joke, the man mentioned anime dwarves
clearly you two are missing the point of the joke, the man mentioned anime dwarves
I CONSIDER GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH TO BE THE TRUTHER.
It's not like the dwarf or the kitten occupies the ENTIRE tile. But I don't think most people here would want a "realistic" representation of a 2x2 pixel @ for dwarf vs a 16 x 16 pixel D for dragon. They're all big for readability's sake.
I am talking about scalability in terms of isometric graphics. If they were all big for readability sake, even in an isometric environment, then it doesn't seem like there would be much of a point in having isometric graphics, other than for z-levels and elevation you wouldn't even see as much.
Maybe as a minimap or view that just shows the elevation and construction going on, but if creatures weren't to some kind of scale you might as well just be playing top-down.
clearly you two are missing the point of the joke, the man mentioned anime dwarves
Fixed.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v502/the_blue_raja/funnies/animedorf.jpg)
I updated my little viewer to read maps from the DFMA. This is Charmglen, from Sappho.Please... I'm curious how you're loading/warping the tiles to make it look like that. There's a kind of "Mode 7" feel to it.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Still working on the interface to try and make it more intuitive... I'll happily post the code if anyone wants to have a look-see.
I'm using OpenGL to display the tiles. I'm telling my graphics card to magnify/minify the textures (e.g. due to perspective) by doing a 'nearest neighbour' interpolation--that is, rather than taking a weighted average of two adjacent texels on the texture to produce a gradient effect, it just picks the nearest texel available. That way you get the sharp edges that you can see in the screenshot.I'm curious because I had an idea to test and see if I could get the central view space coordinate somehow and do a mem swipe of the DF Map data in that area in memory to produce an alternate display with some kind of 3D feel to it. I'm mainly interested in just being able to see multiple Z-levels in real time without having to wait for 3Dwarf's map_extract and loading.
My code's getting towards a releasable state. It now opens .fdf-map files from any of the many DFMA compressors available, and displays them in a semi-usable way. All that remains is to sucker somebody into building it on windows... and to test it out a bit more. One issue I'm having at the moment is working out a good way to remove 'sky' tiles, and the 'dot' tiles you see when looking at a lower level in-game. They're sort of redundant when you're looking at the map in 3D :p
I'm curious because I had an idea to test and see if I could get the central view space coordinate somehow and do a mem swipe of the DF Map data in that area in memory to produce an alternate display with some kind of 3D feel to it. I'm mainly interested in just being able to see multiple Z-levels in real time without having to wait for 3Dwarf's map_extract and loading.
Edit: took me a second to figure out what you're doing. You're basically looking at the data from the extracts... though any info you have I think will assist me in my experiment. ;) Seeing as Toady doesn't have any interest in working with others making any kind of interface adjustments, I figured I'd go about it the "hacker" method.
I updated my little viewer to read maps from the DFMA. This is Charmglen, from Sappho.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Still working on the interface to try and make it more intuitive... I'll happily post the code if anyone wants to have a look-see.
Man. Simcity 2000 flashback.
You know what we need before even considering isometric or 3d or any kind of major graphical overhaul? We need to figure out whether we want each and every little action and detail displayed on-screen. I mean, could we really animate different colored socks on 200 dwarves?
Man. Simcity 2000 flashback.
You know what we need before even considering isometric or 3d or any kind of major graphical overhaul? We need to figure out whether we want each and every little action and detail displayed on-screen. I mean, could we really animate different colored socks on 200 dwarves?