Print

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

[jokermatt999]

o_0 Why do people think setting up a good view in 3d would be hard w/ regard to caves? Just having similar controls, but > also shaves off a layer in drawing. I believe most visualizers already do this. I vote to have the default camera be essentially the same, but also give it the power to rotate if the user chooses. This essentially leaves the same game, but with 3d graphics and an optional isometric view (ala every rts ever basically).

[The_Kakaze]

I think a 3d Dwarf Fortress would have a lot in common with a game like Evil Genius.  It's a base building, trap placing, mindless minion controlling game.

Really, the problem is only one of implementation.  Stonesense does a pretty good job of showing DF in 3d, if the game could be controlled from that window the problem would be over. 

Full on AAA graphics would take a much bigger team a long time to create, just from the enormous asset list.  The main barrier is that the game is still in flux as to what assets are included.  Can you imagine creating and animating the .28 demons, only to have them replaced with .31 randomly generated body type demons?  None of what was created could be transferred, and a whole new system would have to be designed and implemented.

[languard]

First of all, we have CPU issues. Everyone gets FPS issues at a high level of dwarves, with the amount of pathing going on. This, coupled with the fact that it would also be having to render the 3D animations, would mean that it would be EXTREMELY hard to do without crashing most computers.
Analysis: CPU issues will be a major issue with a 3D version. Maybe if it is optimized, but not until then.

3D animation is mainly a graphics card issue, not a CPU issue.  Yes, there is some CPU processing going on, but correctly done animation places the load on the GPU, not CPU.

Second, we have the current Z-levels, which number in to the hundreds. This will also cause a slowdown, especially when moving between Z levels, as the game would have to render every single item in sight with the 3D interface.
Analysis: Another CPU hog, and another reason no.

Again, rendering != CPU load.  Also, no modern game that uses polygons renders everything, seen or not.  There are some very powerful occlusion tools available that handle, very well and very fast, what should be seen and not be seen.

Third and finally, we have the issues of enemies and monsters. As everyone knows, we have HUNDREDS of different monsters and titans and sentients, randing rom the simple dwarf to the massive, randomly-generated forgotten beasts. The amount of time and CPU issues this would cause when the game tries to load a single mob would be astronomical, and probably crash all but the highest class computers. For instance... what happens when a forgotten beast made of water and six horns appears? The game would have to find the 3D sprite for horns, then find the sprite for water skin, and then, depending on how the monster looks, would have to warp the skin to make it look like the description- all in a matter of seconds after you see the message pop up.
Analysis: Yet another CPU issue. The amount of sprites required for the different animals and beasts in DF would probably be around 10-15 gigs, if I am thinking correctly.

Spore.  No seriously, the game Spore.  While the monsters aren't randomly generated, it wouldn't be a large stretch to randomly generate critters.  Also design patterns (probably the fly wieght pattern), disk caching, in-memory compression, occlusion (again), and a whole host of other well known programming techniques makes this a manageable problem.

Conclusive Analysis:Non-Programer's Flawed Analysis
Currently, with the system Dwarf Fortress uses today, it is impossible for it to have a 3D engine; the graphics requirements would be much too great. Even the best computers would keel over and die when explosed to the amount of items and generated terrain and beasts in dwwarf fortress. Personally, I am surprised it can even handle it as ASCII art. Toady is just awesome like that I guess.

Fixed that for ya   About the only thing we agree on is that Toady is awesome.  I think the biggest disconnect here other than lack of knowledge on game programming techniques is that it sounds like you're analyzing this in terms of something like the Unreal or CryEngine.  That would be problematic, and in that case yes the game probably would require enough RAM that it would only be playable on a 64bit system.  And I feel that would be a bad decision.  Part of the charm of DF is the retro feel, which I feel both the tilesets and the original ascii art captures wonderfully.  Nothing would be added to the enjoyment of DF if it were rendered in the same quality as Crysis.  But other than interface issues, almost nothing changes going to 3D.

Pathing?  It's currently 3D.  Level data?  In 3D format already.  Monster/creature/dwarf data? Already all there.  3D physics allowing things to fall?  Yep, that's in.  The only information that isn't there already is geometry data and texture data.  If you keep with the block representation, geometry is easy.  In most cases, a block will only have 2 triangles showing at any time.  A properly done 3D engine should be able to show 80,000 triangles at 30fps.  Hell, I can write code that does that, and I'm not an engine programmer.  For the dwarfs/critters/ect, simple very low-res models should be enough.  To keep the feel DF has, you could even go sprites rendered in the 3d scene.  That way you have the choice of traditional ascii art or the tileset art for critters and such.

Toady could do it.  If he froze all feature development for a year so he could:

• Refactor/optimize the code
• Add multi-thread support
• Implement basic 3D rendering

Will he? No.  Do I want him to?  Oh HELL no.  Can the community do it?  That's a separate kettle of fish.  Currently I don't think so, because we have to use memory hacks to get at the information, and that is many orders of magnitude slower that if we had access to the source.  Possible I suppose.  It would be easier to create an off-line DF viewer that ripped the info out of memory, then compiled it into properly optimized 3D mesh data.  Could also make it look purdy then, if you had the art talent.

[TolyK]

Why not try to re-create DF? and then present it to Toady?

I'm actually working on an Excel version of DF. Anyone wanna help?

[Komus]

We really are talking about DF2.0...

I think the topic can agree that 3D would be perfectly viable, and bloody marvelous, but what we really want is an intuitive UI

[Roflcopter5000]

Frankly I think stonesense is on the right track, going with isometric representation backed up by sprites. True 3D would not only be more of a resource hog, it would also suck, and nobody would like it. There is a utility out there that can convert DF maps into minecraft maps... Then you can walk around as the minecraft dude and check out your fort. You might think 'AWESOME!' No. It sucks. You get lost obscenely quickly, and everything looks like shit.

What I want to see is support for animated sprites. With proper sprite support, you could have basic attack animations (I'm thinking like old-school FF style animations, 2 frame stuff), or icons to indicate something is on fire, or if it is spattered in blood instead of just red. This would not only be neat, it could help the player in a lot of ways. You can display mountains of information visually, in such a way that it is easy to absorb. Imagine if all those things you had to 'k' at, you just already KNEW. Or when you keep hitting 'r' constantly to see if they've actually started fighting yet... Instead, you would just watch for the attack animation.

With a 3d+sprite hybrid, you set the bar for visual representation pretty low, while still having a system that can cram an enormous amount of detail into a small piece of visual territory.

[nordak]

I'd settle for Multithread support. I'd wait a full year for it.

[GrizzleBridges]

I wouldnt mind something like dungeon keeper 1 graphics, but with z-levels.
Simple 3D dungeon, and 2D sprites for the dwarves and monsters.
Plus an option to walk round your fortress in first person

[SalmonGod]

One more here who thinks Stonesense is doing it right.  Leave anything prettier to fan art.  Something like Overseer is great for admiring architecture, but would be impossible for actually playing the game.  You need to be able to see and interact with large areas at once, and any 3d view that wants to show much visual detail would have to sacrifice this.

I best hope, I think, is for Stonesense to expand on the types of information it displays (the types of things you normal have to press k for as roflcopter said), and gain some access to interface functions.  At the same time, another Overseer style visualizer can worry about making pretty screenshots of your megaprojects.

[Komus]

+1 Roflcopter5000

[lolghurt]

First of all, we have CPU issues. Everyone gets FPS issues at a high level of dwarves, with the amount of pathing going on. This, coupled with the fact that it would also be having to render the 3D animations, would mean that it would be EXTREMELY hard to do without crashing most computers.
Analysis: CPU issues will be a major issue with a 3D version. Maybe if it is optimized, but not until then.

3D animation is mainly a graphics card issue, not a CPU issue.  Yes, there is some CPU processing going on, but correctly done animation places the load on the GPU, not CPU.

Second, we have the current Z-levels, which number in to the hundreds. This will also cause a slowdown, especially when moving between Z levels, as the game would have to render every single item in sight with the 3D interface.
Analysis: Another CPU hog, and another reason no.

Again, rendering != CPU load.  Also, no modern game that uses polygons renders everything, seen or not.  There are some very powerful occlusion tools available that handle, very well and very fast, what should be seen and not be seen.

Third and finally, we have the issues of enemies and monsters. As everyone knows, we have HUNDREDS of different monsters and titans and sentients, randing rom the simple dwarf to the massive, randomly-generated forgotten beasts. The amount of time and CPU issues this would cause when the game tries to load a single mob would be astronomical, and probably crash all but the highest class computers. For instance... what happens when a forgotten beast made of water and six horns appears? The game would have to find the 3D sprite for horns, then find the sprite for water skin, and then, depending on how the monster looks, would have to warp the skin to make it look like the description- all in a matter of seconds after you see the message pop up.
Analysis: Yet another CPU issue. The amount of sprites required for the different animals and beasts in DF would probably be around 10-15 gigs, if I am thinking correctly.

Spore.  No seriously, the game Spore.  While the monsters aren't randomly generated, it wouldn't be a large stretch to randomly generate critters.  Also design patterns (probably the fly wieght pattern), disk caching, in-memory compression, occlusion (again), and a whole host of other well known programming techniques makes this a manageable problem.

Conclusive Analysis:Non-Programer's Flawed Analysis
Currently, with the system Dwarf Fortress uses today, it is impossible for it to have a 3D engine; the graphics requirements would be much too great. Even the best computers would keel over and die when explosed to the amount of items and generated terrain and beasts in dwwarf fortress. Personally, I am surprised it can even handle it as ASCII art. Toady is just awesome like that I guess.

Fixed that for ya   About the only thing we agree on is that Toady is awesome.  I think the biggest disconnect here other than lack of knowledge on game programming techniques is that it sounds like you're analyzing this in terms of something like the Unreal or CryEngine.  That would be problematic, and in that case yes the game probably would require enough RAM that it would only be playable on a 64bit system.  And I feel that would be a bad decision.  Part of the charm of DF is the retro feel, which I feel both the tilesets and the original ascii art captures wonderfully.  Nothing would be added to the enjoyment of DF if it were rendered in the same quality as Crysis.  But other than interface issues, almost nothing changes going to 3D.

Pathing?  It's currently 3D.  Level data?  In 3D format already.  Monster/creature/dwarf data? Already all there.  3D physics allowing things to fall?  Yep, that's in.  The only information that isn't there already is geometry data and texture data.  If you keep with the block representation, geometry is easy.  In most cases, a block will only have 2 triangles showing at any time.  A properly done 3D engine should be able to show 80,000 triangles at 30fps.  Hell, I can write code that does that, and I'm not an engine programmer.  For the dwarfs/critters/ect, simple very low-res models should be enough.  To keep the feel DF has, you could even go sprites rendered in the 3d scene.  That way you have the choice of traditional ascii art or the tileset art for critters and such.

Toady could do it.  If he froze all feature development for a year so he could:

• Refactor/optimize the code
• Add multi-thread support
• Implement basic 3D rendering

Will he? No.  Do I want him to?  Oh HELL no.  Can the community do it?  That's a separate kettle of fish.  Currently I don't think so, because we have to use memory hacks to get at the information, and that is many orders of magnitude slower that if we had access to the source.  Possible I suppose.  It would be easier to create an off-line DF viewer that ripped the info out of memory, then compiled it into properly optimized 3D mesh data.  Could also make it look purdy then, if you had the art talent.

This is what I tried to say. You are very much correct.

[AngleWyrm]

But other than interface issues, almost nothing changes going to 3D.

That hasn't been my experience; what I have observed is that a lot of the game changes when going to 3D: It gets dumbed down heavily. There is a general loss of depth of play. Going to 3D nerfs the game.

The only notable exception to this that I've seen recently is StarCraft 2, and they had an enormous staff.

[thijser]

Well in order to get df to 3D all we really need is a way for the visualizers to give back commands to df. If that is implented we basically have df in 3D. For beeing a CPU hog, remember that DF only uses a single core and nothing else (OK the screen mouse keyboard speakers ext.) that leaves 1 video card and a unkown amout of cores to spare. Meaning that the 3d version could have be many times as heavy as df itself(if you have 4 cores). So all we need is for toady to allow more input from utilities to have an effect ingame.

[optimumtact]

I think the major problem with 3d, as others have pointed out. Is that it would be very difficult to maintain the level of control we have over the game right now. When you move to 3d there has to a be a completely new control scheme that would work efficiently and I don't think it would be easy to create one that matches the current controls (Note that controls and Interface are not the same for my purposes here.) I tend to agree with those who would like to see a 2d sprite system or an Isometric style.

[Max White]

If we had 3d graphics, then modders would NEED to include a 3d model of the creature or item they were modding in. Therefor few would go to the effort.