On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:31 AM, BGB <cr88...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/16/2012 6:47 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: > > Top post. Heightmapping can go a really long way. Probably not news > though:) > > > I am still not certain, since a lot of this has a lot more to do with my > own project than with general issues in computing. > > > I had messed with a few technologies already. > > height-maps (long ago, not much used since then, generally randomized). > > the issue was mostly one of being "not terribly interesting", but it makes > sense if one wants terrain (and is "fairly cheap" in terms of memory use > and performance impact). > > a more advanced variety would be to combine a height-map with a tile-map, > where the terrain generator would also vary the texture-map to give a > little more interest. I have considered this as a possibility. > > also tried randomly generated voxel terrain (similar to Minecraft, using > perlin noise). issues were of being difficult to integrate well with my > existing technology, and being very expensive in terms of both rendering > and memory usage (particularly for storing intermediate meshes). one may > need to devote about 500MB-1GB of RAM to the problem to have a moderately > sized world with (with similar specifics to those in Minecraft). > > I suspect that, apart from making something like Minecraft, the technology > is a bit too expensive and limited to really be all that "generally useful" > at this point in time and on current hardware (I suspect, however, it will > probably be much more relevant on future HW). > > > I also tried randomly generated grid-based areas (basically, stuff is > built from pre-made parts and randomly-chosen parts are put on a grid). I > had also tried combining this with maze-generation algorithms. the results > were "functional" but also "nothing to get excited about". the big drawback > was that I couldn't really think of any way to make the results of such a > grid based generator "particularly interesting" (this is I think more so > with a first-person viewpoint: such a structure is far less visually > interesting from the inside than with a top-down or isometric view). > > it could work if one were sufficiently desperate, but I doubt it would be > able to hold interest of players for all that long absent "something else > of redeeming value". > > > the "main maps" in my case mostly use a Quake/Doom3/... style maps, > composed mostly of entities (defined in terms of collections of key/value > pairs representing a given object), "brushes" (convex polyhedra), "patches" > (Bezier Surfaces), and "meshes" (mostly unstructured polygonal meshes). > > these would generally be created manually, by placing every object and > piece of geometry visible in the world, but this is fairly > effort-intensive, and simply running head first into it tends to quickly > drain my motivation (resulting in me producing worlds which look like "big > boxes with some random crap in them"). > > sadly, random generation not on a grid of some sort is a much more complex > problem (nor random generation directly in terms of unstructured or > loosely-structured geometry). > > fractals exist and work well on things like rocks or trees or terrain, but > I haven't found a good way to apply them to "general" map generation > problem (such as generating an interesting place to run around in and > battle enemies, and get to the exit). > > the "problem domain" is potentially best suited to some sort of maze > algorithm, but in my own tests, this fairly quickly stopped being all that > interesting. the "upper end" I think for this sort of thing was likely the > .Hack series games (which had a lot of apparently randomly generated > dungeons). > > > it is sad that I can't seem to pull off maps even half as interesting as > those (generally created by hand) in commercial games from well over a > decade ago. I can have a 3D engine which is technically much more advanced > (or, at least, runs considerably slower on much faster hardware with > moderately more features), but apart from reusing maps made by other people > for other games, I can't make it even a small amount nearly as > "interesting" or "inspiring". >
I don't think you can do this project without a understanding of art. It's a fine gridded mesh that make us pick between practically similar artifacts with ease and that make the engineer baffled. From a engineering standpoint there is not much difference between a random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock. You can get far with surprisingly little resources if done correctly. Karl > > > > > On Jan 16, 2012, at 8:45 AM, David Barbour <dmbarb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Consider offloading some of your creativity burden onto your computer. > The idea is: > > It's easier to recognize and refine something interesting than to > create it. > > So turn it into a search, recognition, and refinement problem, and > automate creation. There are various techniques, which certainly can be > combined: > > * constraint programming > * generative grammar programming > * genetic programming > * seeded fractals > > You might be surprised about how much of a world can be easily written > with code rather than mapping. A map can be simplified by marking regions > up with code and using libraries of procedures. Code can sometimes be > simplified by having it read a simple map or image. > > Remember, the basic role of programming is to automate that which bores > you. > > Regards, > > Dave > > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, BGB <cr88...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am generally personally stuck on the issue of how to make "interesting" >> 3D worlds for a game-style project while lacking in both personal >> creativity and either artistic skill or a team of artists to do it >> (creating decent-looking 3D worlds generally requires a fair amount of >> effort, and is in-fact I suspect somewhat bigger than the effort required >> to make a "passable" 3D model of an object in a 3D modeling app, since at >> least generally the model is smaller and well-defined). >> >> it seems some that creativity (or what little of it exists) is stifled by >> it requiring a large amount of effort (all at once) for the activity needed >> to express said creativity (vs things which are either easy to do all at >> once, or can be easily decomposed into lots of incremental activities >> spread over a large period of time). >> >> trying to build a non-trivial scene (something which would be "passable" >> in a modern 3D game) at the level of dragging around and >> placing/resizing/... cubes and/or messing with individual polygon-faces in >> a mapper-tool is sort of a motivation killer (one can wish for some sort of >> "higher level" way to express the scene). >> >> meanwhile, writing code, despite (in the grand scale) requiring far more >> time and effort, seems to be a lot more enjoyable (but, one can't really >> build a world in code, as this is more the mapper-tool's domain). >> > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing listfonc@vpri.orghttp://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
