3D Maps

http://carielf.joeuser.com/

You'll get your 3D in GalCiv 2...but it'll be a while.

Now my hopes are up.

~SDC~

Sorry to dash your hopes, ForesterGC.

The developers have stated in this forum that there will be a 3D "engine" for GalCiv II. However, the current plan is to have the map play like a 2D map. The objects on the map will be rendered using a 3D engine to give them visual flair, and the 3D engine will allow for zooming in and out, but no MOO3 style 3D galaxy.

Now for my opinion, as if you'd asked for it:
Although a 3D galaxy is more realistic, many would question whether it really adds anything to the game play. To me, it would just be a pain in the neck to keep adjusting my view so that I could see things clearly.

qui Gonn, can you please stop stating my opinion and pretending it's your own?

I agree with Qui-Gon, a 3D map would just be a real pain when you're spending half the time rotating the view to see things properly.

I like the idea of 3d, I think it will add allot if done correctly... that done correctly part is the hardesdt part but we'll just have to wait and see.

As for a 3d map hard to use, as long as you can change your camera postion you shouldn't have problems. Just leave it on a top view... plus you'll be able to zoom.



~SDC~

Simply put: 3D maps don't work unless you use starlanes. GalCiv does not use starlanes. Thus 3D maps in GalCiv won't work. There'd be ships all over the place with no way to actually tell where they are. :notsure:

Good point kryo, without stalanes it would just be a complete mess. Actually, even with starlanes it's a complete mess . That's one of the (many) reasons that I hated MOO3 so much.

My mistake I assumed there would still be a grid for movement regardless of whether it was 2d or 3d.
I still maintain that 2d can work in 3d....

Nothing personal but I think your logic is a just a little more then flawed.
3d maps do not need starlanes, transfering the current setup to 3d (yes using grids) would work just as well and could be set up to look better and provide the user with more not just eye candy wise but machine performance. Information can be overlaid directly on your map with easy as can movement and trade lanes.... I've already negated your statement, should I continue?

Please try to be a little bit open minded because to me its coming across as...

wont work stupid 3d

~SDC~

Isn't "Won't work stupid" a line told the Wright Brothers.

Also in "Homeworld" the 3D does not seem to use starlanes.


~SDC~

Nothing personal but your logic is nonexistant. You haven't negated anything. You haven't offered one shred of evidence that what you have said can be done, actually can be done or has actually been done effectively. Is there a game on this type of scale where combat could take place anywhere and not just at systems (whether there are starlanes between them or not)? I can think of one but not nearly on a Galciv type scale. And its Galaxy was shaped like a perfect sphere. How realistic is that? LMAO. Your post was merely a gratuitous assertion that it "can" be done without providing anything to back it up. It thus can be equally gratuitously denied.

I can tell you right now the system requirements of what you are proposing would most certainly be beyond the capabilities of 3/4 of the computers in American households when completed. That's just dandy for sales now isn't it?

Furthermore, in 90% of the "real" galaxies out there, including our own milky way, the X and y dimensions totally abso-friggen lutely dwarf the z. Thus, for gameplay purposes, the top view from above is realistic enough.

Oh how I'd love to spend hours upon hours looking at every ship and rotating views to determine in open space if a ship were 3 spaces away or 20 sectors. Yes that sounds like fun.

Instead of chastising people to be more open minded perhaps you should be a bit more realistic.

Homeworld is not nearly the scale that this would be and is a different type game entirely.

Pontius stop putting words in my mouth where did this realistic nonsense come from?

I simple put forward that the current galactic civilisations model would work in 3d and could prove beneficial. As to what system specifications, well that depends doesn't it... we are are all full of broad statements tonight aren't we but surely that nothing to get so worked about about eh Pontius?

You're the one that got worked up. I simply pointed out your statement lacked any logical proof whatsoever.
And once again you provide nothing to back up your statement that the galciv model would work 3d. It's a mere gratuitous assertion. I equally gratuitously denied it.

Same place your "be open minded" nonsense came from most likely.

I fail to see how you came to the conclusion I was worked up, nor do I see the realistic phrase at all from my mouth as you so nicely put it.

Instead of a decent discussion you've only succeeded in killing this thread.

If you want to believe galactic civ won't work in 3d so be it. Far be it from any one to have an opinion in disagreement with your own had I known you'd be so threatened I might have had more patience. As it is I've lost interest in your ravings.

You fail to see how I came to the conclusion that You were worked up, yet come to that conclusion regarding me, who did nothing more than exactly the same thing you did, but on the opposite side of things.

Raving? LMAO you're the one that started with the ravings in Post 9 sunshine when you accused those who disagreed with you of not being open minded.

You have yet to back up any of your assertions with facts that a tbs strat game on this scale can work without either A) Starlanes or restricting combat to occur between fleets at planets a-la Moo
That in no way means that I think it cannot be done 3d. It merely means I think YOU have yet to prove it.

It seems you are the one that cannot handle disagreements and you are the one with the ravings.

Now just bleed and get it over with for this month sunshine.

Interesting . . .

The only advantage I can see of Galactic Civilizations going 3D (appart from rendering and resolution adaptability) would be 'vessel possesion' (from a game play perspective) . . . has anyone out there ever played Dungeon Keeper 2?

It perhaps (imho) is one of the most ambitious games ever created since it combined a 3D engine overview (god cam) mixed with first person combat as well all in 'real time', pretty awsome for its day. Also very demanding system requirements wise . . . mmm . . . I don't know mabye in 'Inter-Galactic Civilizations' . . . hehe.

Ahhh good old bullfrog (pity they are gone), I loved dungeon keeper and dungeon keeper 2.

Must admit dungeon keeper 2 was a drain on the system but thats why you can lower texture detail etc to match your system specs. Very ambitious for sure but that was bullfrog (populus) wasn't it... doing things differently and well. Vessel possession would be a cool idea!

Imperium Galactica 2 was 3D, even the star map even though it was nothing more then a top view starmap.
I think a 3d engine make production easier. At the moment I'm making a ship mod for Galciv and every time I see a ship problem I have to change my ship model, reskin it and render it out, rotate it (easier now, thanks Rainbird for your ship rotator!) and use that ship encoder to compile it.... I'd prefer to make my ship model... convert it and play the game!

I think a lot of people here have an issue with how it will look and how you can interact with it, this a design issue not an engine one.

~SDC~