Bay 12 Games Forum

*headdesk headdesk headdesk*
You answered the first part with the second. Of course we wouldn't have different sprites for different injuries--that's why you wouldn't have the sprites in the first place, by his argument! Anyways, sprites are as much a part of DF as rainbows and lollipops; you can mod them in, but vanilla is not like that.
Anyways, I like ASCII. I actually discovered that the hardest part of Kobold Camp, aside from the lack of stone, was the graphics! "Is this guy a woodworker or a farmer...oh, he's my miner." Also, [/serious]it keeps the rabble out. Do you want to see trolls around here?

What did i answer? I didn't even ask a question.
And, yes his argument is flawed. Sure, it is not a good idea to have a sprite for every detail. Why does this mean that there shouldn't be any sprite graphics at all?

And i really like the latest "i want to use my imagination" posts.
a) since DF simulates every little detail, e.g. in fights, there is not a lot to imagine.
And tileset graphics would be with maybe 16x16 pixel tiles. There is not a lot of detail in them, but just enough to be iconic representations of the game content. There is still lots to imagine.
b) why do people that don't like graphical representations block any development or ideas towards nicer graphics? If everything is supported by tilesets they are still free to use abstract character sets.
The amount of elitism in the community really annoys me. And at the same time there is a tremendous fear that "something" is taken away from DF when the graphics are improved. It sounds like DF will go completely downhill if it would use detailed 2D graphics, like there is no benefit in it at all. It's ridiculous.

PS: Please stop hitting the desk with your head. It's bad for the brain and the desk.

I'm having a hard time imagining a faithful rendition of DF battles in 3D without sacrificing complexity and/or it looking ridiculous.

What complexity? The graphics are now anything else but complex. Just simple tiles without any additional effects. It can only gain complexity.
Or do you say that the game has to lose complexity? I don't see why.
Of course, there need to be put a lot of effort to make it work in 3D.
As i said, i don't mind 2D. And i would prefer it for DF over 3D, because there is so much to keep track off and this would be easier to manage in 2D. But it lacks the 3rd dimension. Isometric view would be kind of an in-between.

Another flawed argument against better graphics.
First, DF is not ASCII. It is already using sprites. But the sprites are all tiles and look like characters in the default tileset.

And then let me check your argument. So you say that the current "ASCII" is better than any other graphics technology because sprites or 3D are limited to what they depict. Yet you forget that the current mode is far more limited than the other methods. This makes no sense.
It's like a game developer in the 90s who would say "Oh, we can't make a tennis game that has photorealistic graphics... so let's just do another Pong game."

And i don't know where or when someone suggested to use separate sprite graphics to depict every kind of damage or detail. Of course this makes no sense for DF considering the amount of detail in the game. The detail overload in the game would transfer to a information overload in the graphics and this is surely not desirable.
But improving the graphics beyond simple tiles would be beneficial. e.g. there could be indicators on the dwarf sprite to show the current state, like thirsty, hungry, bad mood etc. This would be better than the alternating tiles right now.

Some of this was tl;dr.

I often think about how cool df would be to play with full rendered 3d graphics. But it simply an impossibility with the mechanics of the game.

Why? I don't see any mechanic that would prevent 3D graphics.

Matters of computing power aside I thought of the single biggest reason Df can't ever have "modern" graphics. Or at least nothing better than sprites and isometric view.

If the game were to be rendered into full 3d "modern graphics" a problem of size of things becomes a big issue.

For example a dwarf digs a mine shaft that probably isn't much taller than the dwarf, how the fuck are you supposed to show a dragon or anything else large like that invading your tunnels?

You mean "single worst reason"?
There is no issue. Have you never seen a 3D game with models of different sizes? Actually the advantage of 3D is that you can scale things easily and still see everything in detail or as overview by only changing the viewport. With tiles you can't make a dwarf the proper size compared to a dragon, because it would only be one or two pixels on average sized tilesets.
And anyway, why is having a dwarf and a dragon the same size ok in 2D, but not ok in 3D?

And what are you implying by "Matters of computing power aside"? Please consider that a game like Dungeon Keeper (which i consider as a good start of what a DF3D could look like) is from 1997! Any current PC should be able to run simple 3D graphics good enough for DF. If you have a very old PC you might not be able to run the current DF anyway, because you will have 2fps on an 1x1 embark with 10 dwarfs.

Some general remarks:
- Does DF need 3D? No.
3D is not always better than 2D and a tile-based game like DF works perfectly fine with 2D.

- Would DF benefit from 3D? Yes.
Because the simulated world is 3D, using 3D graphics just feels naturally. But, because its not a shooter, you need mainly the overview. But this is not a problem with 3D at all. Even the multiple z-levels are no problem, just keep the z-level indicator and cut everything off over the current level.
A great possibility of 3D is that you could have an overview to manage things and seamlessly to a first person view. Just imagine looking at your fortress in 3D in game while the dwarfs are working.

- Is 3D harder to program than 2D? Yes.
Right now DF is pseudo ascii anyway and already uses accelerated graphics. Still 3D takes things to a new dimension, literally. I reckon that Toady is good at programming game logic, but he isn't a 3D programmer. This is actually the biggest reason against 3D. If you do it, do it right.

- Can the 2D mode be improved? Yes.
Like i said, Toady is not a 3D programmer. Well, i don't think he is a good graphics programmer at all (or UI programmer). The 2D mode is sufficient but leaves a lot to be desired. There could be colored meters/indicators for dwarf status (drink/food/health). Indicators on workshops could show cluttering or workload or that it's claimed by a moody dwarf. Stockpiles could show usage. Overlays could be added to see what areas indicate negative/positive thoughts.
Even though the game is mainly tile-based doesn't mean that everything has to stay this way. Using tiles for the interface is already a bad choice.
If Toady would eventually risk the step to improve the 2D graphics mode there would be endless possibilities to improve the game. But i guess that would mean that he has to find someone who can actually program a proper 2D engine and UI.

Like i said, you render the whole text and then blit it to the destination. Anything that is too wide will be automatically clipped. No need to know the exact width. Google will help you.
Rendering, checking the width, rendering again etc. until it fits is just bad programming. Also knowing the width of each character in TT is just useless because of kerning.
I don't see a problem here.
(clear type shouldn't matter because the SDL TTF rendering is done without native windows routine. Or please show me a game where there is a difference with or without cleartype.)

Yes, it is not really ASCII like many people think. It's already just a graphical tileset that looks like ASCII.
But these BMPs are not actually rendered, nor does BMP stand for bumpmap, it's bitmap.

If mouse control's added in then hey, fine, but i'm personally alright with just pressing "k"...

and up-up-up-up-up-up-left-left-left-left-left-down-left