Well, I have played this game for a long time, but I have never felt a need for posting anything on this forum, cuz, simply, everything I have ever needed was added in every new version. But, personally, I think that this game needs a new style, new look and new design. Old isometric system is now totally obsolete, and 3D is its future. With this so many addons and features that none game on market has ever had, I think that Simutrans project could rise in something very very big. And how to do that. I see that there is really a lot of quite capable people who would be able to do this. What? To convert this game in real 3D.
Well, how to do that. My first idea was to make a team composed by people from this forum, and divided in teams. So, if someone knows how to design in 3D, he will belong to design group. I think it is clear. So basically we will need three groups in beginning. Design, Programming and Ideas. We have to find open-source 3D engine, the easiest one, or one that is abandoned. Then we have to start everything from scratches, we have to begin making a base of the game. OFc it will take some time, but in the end, we will have workin engine, working game mechanics, and then, we will have Design and Ideas team, who will start converting, adding and suggesting old and new features and addons. When we make that game core, we will be able to continue developing it in every single way we want. I'm telling WE, cuz this game will probably be opensource, and free for all. Unless We decide opposite. What do you think, could we do this? And yes, I know a little bit of C and C++, and I am workin in 3dsMax actively... what do u think. Should we do this, but all of us, who plays this game, and develop it.
..
3D engine : Irrlicht http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/
It sounds tempting but I'm afraid you haven't considered all the aspects of this titanic task. You suggest to start everything from scratch, as it was easy to carry out. In terms of code, Simutrans it's not a 2k game and the use of 3D engines means collisions and physics, that would increase the task complexity.
On the other hand, there're impressive commercial games that use isometric view mixed with pseudo-3D like Simcity 4, so imho the use of a real 3D engine is not a requirement to make Simutrans a good game. It may help, but must ****ess whether it is worth the effort.
From my point of view, I would prefer to increase the quality of graphics instead of using a 3D engine. It implies less critical changes and would be achievable with the current implementation.
I considered that too... But, u have to admit that idea is good, and that we all have enough acknowledge for doing that. And why shouldnt we start it from scratches? Well, it wont be from scratches totally, cuz complete economical system wont be changed. Numbers stays numbers. I am just saying, why shouldnt we try? Cuz, i would like to see parallel tram and train tracks, better looking interface, and graphic in total, more industrial chains, better industry placing algorythms, better done underground system, many other things which are simply not possible to be added in this game, unless we harm entire game code... U have to admit that this game has terrific potential and that we have to use it. I mean, imagine that, playing game, building transport system, and then, in some point of time, u simply zoom in to the street level, and watching trams and troleeys and trains going around you.... I mean, im dreamin to see that... But I cant do that on my own :D
Dreaming is free, but as Bruce Lee said:
I'm not saying you can't try it, I'm just trying to show that perhaps there're other less complex ways to get the same result. Anyway, If you're fully convinced, then go on. Simutrans is open source, so the code is public and accesible. A possible solution would be to create a fork as jamespetts did with Simutrans Experimental.
Well, u know that I cant do it on my own... And I hope that, if I start doing this, someone will help me... Abd tell me the way of reaching all those thingsa I said, without using 3D?
Impressive first posts on the forum!
You are proposing to undertake a huge thing here. Some of the very fundamental concepts of the game have to be reworked. Nothing I want to participate.
Simutrans 3D?
The problem with 3D games is they take a lot more work to make them look good than 2D ones. With a 2D game you're restricted in viewpoint and the artist has much greater control over the style of the graphics (since they know that the views they are creating are the only ones which can ever be seen). In the 3D world you have to model objects to be viewed in all directions, close up and far away.
A 3D game also tends towards having greater realism. E.g. free-form tracks, free motion of vehicles, realistic physics etc. These things add a lot of complexity on top of the kind of complexity that is already required for a transport sim game like Simutrans. Designing a game around discrete tiles actually gives you many cheats to get around complex programming tasks (e.g. pathfinding, economic calculations (these can be approximated to tiles), building placement in cities, road/track graphical placement etc. etc.)
And overall, what does it really gain in terms of gameplay? Is the game more fun for being 3D? That's the key question, and one that sadly many games developers failed to ask when developing 3D versions of cl****ic 2D games. Was Sim City in 3D more fun than Sim City in 2D? Was Lemmings? Was RRT?
I've actually looked into the logistics of creating Simutrans 3D before, and decided that the extra effort wasn't worth it given the rewards in terms of gameplay and the fun factor. I never took it beyond a few experiments though.
If you want to contribute to Simutrans, there are still lots of ways that you can (the big ones being AI and network play) which would make a much bigger difference than a 3D engine. Both of these will improve the actual gameplay and fun factor much more than a new graphics engine would.
If you want a 3D transport sim game, then I'd recommend either checking out one of the existing attempts (e.g. Transport Tycoon 3D) or starting an entirely new project under a new name (as you seem to suggest). Just be aware that doing a 3D game well takes (IMO) an order of magnitude more work than doing a 2D one well.
Well, I know it's gonna difficult, but why not to try?? My biggest problem is gonna be pathfinding, everything else I will sort out, cuz i already have a plan how to do everything else.. So, I wondered if someone knows how to solve this... I'd appreciate it so much... Why shouldnt we start it as 3D Simutrans? As I see, ever1 is afraid of starting 3D Simutrans. Why?
I'm afraid you haven't get the point. The primary question is not why, actually is Is it worth it?. From your point of view, the problem is easy but people with more experience on Simutrans development says it's quite complex. You think it's fear to change, but imho, we're just realistic. It has been already discussed before and the conclusion was it's not worth the effort.
Anyway, we're not stopping you. As I said before, if you are fully convinced that it's as easy as it seems then start the development and post here your ideas. We surely can discuss them and provide support for this new adventure.
I like this :D:D
Firstly, May I name it as Simutrans 3D?
And Secondly, why shouldn't I make this game, but with using of tiles, just like 2D Simutrans? I think that is the best idea for now :D Only the camera and models will be real 3D :D
What do you think:D
I'd agree with Timothy. Simutrans is a great game, and IMHO it's more important to have a fun game with good gameplay and OK graphics than a game with amazing 3D graphics (and I can't think of any transport game that comes into the amazing 3D category). And maybe it's just because I grew up playing TTD and Civ 2, but I'm a bit nostalgic about isometric tile games... :)
If you just do an easy conversion with the same tile structure but rendered as isometric tile/3D alternatively, you can almost completely keep the game core. The graphics layer is quite seperate from the game mechanics, and would allow for a 3D replacement.
There are several engines working, like the ogre engine, which the people of transport empire http://www.tt-forums.net/viewforum.php?f=56 (http://www.tt-forums.net/viewforum.php?f=56) use.
But the only game with a sensible economy and working 3D was the never finished 3DTTT, which is closed source and now dead, unfourtunately. It has many innovative concepts on dealing on the problems/freedom of 3D transport simulators while still being somewhat close to the simutrans concepts.
Topic moved and renamed from "New Simutrans" to "Simutrans in 3D".
Well, this is good point. I already have chosen Irrlicht engine for this :D So, give me some hints for converting game in 3D. And yes, only problem here is graphic, every other aspect of the game can easily be transferred inthis new one :D Am i right :D
Going this route is simple, programming-wise. I had considered that by myself, using OpenGL. But the amount of 3D models needed was scary. So I gave up on the idea.
If you can gather a team of 3D artists - well at least one dedicated person and a programmer who has experience with one of the 3D APIs (a portable one, please!) it should be doable.
Then, what are we waiting for ?? Lets do that Hajo then !!
I have a lot of friends who will be able to help me. I mean, we only need one example of tram, train, trolley, building , road, bridge, and that is it. Even I can make a modle for that :D When we succeed in converting the game, I bet that entire forum will be with us, cuz I already saw that there are a lot of people who found that it is easier for them to design in 3D than in 2D. Let's do it Hajo !! I can use Irrlicht, cuz it is very eligible for game design and it is really simple to use :D And it supports DX8.1, DX9 and OpenGl :D When do we can start with this :D
well to tell the truth, it would be nice to have 3d simutrans incorporated in normal game, so it could load 3d-paksets and 2d paksets. Idea of writing game from scratch or creating completely separate branch is probably bad - game logic which is (i suppose) more important part of game would remain the same.
irrLicht is also very portable and sounds like a good choice too. Especially since it is around for years. But I fear the look of just tiles converted will not satisfy expections, just have a look at the 3D TTD for PSP.
Well OFC we will make it better and more beautiful than those tiles are now :D What i am trying to tell is that we should make tile in constant size but to add zoom, but enhanced zoom, so on unzoomed view, detail of tile wont be that good. It will be just appropriate for quick map moving and creating tracks blablabla in oreder to keep game playable and with big fps. But when we zoom in totally, than tiles will be more detailed and better looking, and it will be just enough detailed to enjoy looking your creation getting alive. I thought to add free walking, and free camera angles in maximum zoom, so in fact we can walk through city :D I think that is good idea :D What other thinks :D
Sounds nice.
If you start, I hope you work for a playable 3d version and that this project would not sleep.
It will sleep if noone helps me. This is a huge project and I would like everyone enough free and with enough enthusiasm to help me :D This is gonna be something good. really :D
OTOH, having a fork like experimental would afford some interesting opportunities... like allowing player to place truck stops without making road and having the trucks wear a path like in Settlers 3 (or was it 4?) that becomes dirt road.
Anyway, I think this is an interesting idea. However, I'm not sure I could play it. My computer already has trouble running pak128, so the added graphical requirements would probably shut me out.
:D Good Mornin'
I was trying to figure out which 3D engine we should use, Ogre or IrrLich and I still don't know which one to chose, cuz IrrLicht is really simple, but OGRE looks two times better :D Well, If someone knows something more bout this topic, he should say something, and give me some advices for choosin the correct one :D
Both are well-established 3D engines. If Irrlicht looks easier to you, then use that. Simutrans 3D won't need fancy light effects, or anything very sophisticated.
Okay then.
IrrLicht :)
To prevent misunderstandings - I'm usually either lazy or busy with ideas of my own. I've worked on Simutrans way too long, I don't want to come back, except for the occasional image or two.
Actually, I think I have forgotten most of my former C++ knowledge, so I'd be of no use to such a project. I will read here now and then, and try to help with ideas and advice if I can.
:D That's good help too :D:D
I finally installed Visual Basic, and I am going to begin with work :D
Mac OS and Linux fans will cry if Simutrans 3D gets done with Visual Basic, I think.
Why? Could I use Visual C++ then, instead?
IS it gonna be compatible then?
I downloaded both, and there are tutorials for both :D
C++ is a more portable language. Since most code of Simutrans is C++, it should be a good choice as language for Simutrans 3D; I ****ume you don't want to rewrite all code.
Just be careful not to use system specific APIs, at least not directly, so that the code can be ported to other systems easily.
http://www.filehosting.org/file/details/96105/Oj1QqaJNX3FD5iiH/Simutrans_3D_Terrain.7z
this is terrain that I finally generated. i am now facing a problem. What will happen with curved terrain when i start implementing tiles :S If i decide to build a building i.e., what will happen. Should I add some kind of autoleveling, or a platform for buildings??
Currently Simutrans uses foundations for buildings. These work like little platforms. I think keeping that idea will be the easiest way to have building in sloped terrain.
Cool :D Now I need Simutrans source code.. Where to find it?
svn://tron.homeunix.org/simutrans/simutrans/
username "anon"
It is telling me that "Page cannot be displayed :S"
What to do?
svn:// addresses are not "understandable" by Internet browsers so they display "Page cannot be displayed" or "Firefox doesn't know how to open this address. You'll need to get a Subversion Client in order to be able to open a svn address.
TortoiseSVN is, say, the most "famous" among subversion clients out there. Below are an article about svn and a list of subversion clients:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversion_%28software%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Subversion_clients
by the way, i'll give you my 2 cents about 3D.
I think the game would benefit the most from a first 3D rendering of vehicles. They could ride normal roads/tracks, but with much better turning/climbing. Also, still being a long 3D painting work, it would be much smaller than painting in 3D all buildings. Additionally, (1) i believe that most of vehicles have somewhere 3D sources and (2) the same vehicles could be rendered on-the-fly for both pak64 and pak128 (i exclude pak96c, as it has a completely different style :::))
Well, my goal is to create working 3D game, and if Community find to like it, then we should start creating 3D models. I just need a way to extract graphic engine from the game, but it is gonna be otugh, cuz I dont know where to start :D I downloaded source code... I thought just to convert graphic system into 3D and all game mechanic should remain intact. What do u think
I really don't think it's anywhere as simple as you seem to think, but I don't think that's necessarily a problem. If you can managed to get a workable 3-D engine into Simutrans, I'd be happy with that.
I wouldn't be surprised if you don't find much in the way of coding help here, though - we're a pretty small community, and most everyone who can work on things is already spending their free time doing so. So if you make calls of "help me!" and very few respond, if doesn't mean everyone hates the idea; I think it means more than everyone who can do, is already doing.
That's good, just, in the coding chaos (english + german, now I need even a translator :D:D) I really can't find any library or cpp that is responsible for graphic rendering. I have an Idea of importing Irrlicht in game, but firstly I have to remove old engine. And I really dunno where is it. For now, that is the only help I will need.
the drawing happens in simview.cc, the display routine there.
I cry when anything is written in Visual Basic. ;)
You...Cry. You actually...cry. Why? Is it because you can't understand it?
No, because this language is one of the least portable languages. That means, using Visual Basic will look lock out a lot of people from using Simutrans 3D (but the thread is so old, I doubt the project is still going. And I'd ****ume a serious try to use a language that is easier to link with C++, the language Simutrans is written in).
Edit: Typo fixed.
Every time somebody writes code in Visual Basic, God kills a kitten.
We could make a silly poll to determine which language/framework should be used for "new Simutrans" of any kind. Here are some serious contenders:
Erlang
Perl, Ruby, Python (take your pick)
****embly with AT&T syntax
Lua
Matlab
J2ME (mobile, whee!)
Cobol
autotools
jQuery
bash
...not all on this list are actually jokes :)
Lua is cool actually. We could compile the C++ code of current Simutrans into a library and use that from Lua ;D
At least I have successfully intertwined C++ and Lua code in the past.
This is why I don't see too many kittens around me... These days at work I have a wide use of Visual Basic, ihihihih
You forgot Haskell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell_%28programming_language%29)!!
Simutrans is going functional :)
(You can actually use SDL with Haskell - and it even looks quite nice [at least on the first glance])
How about QBasic?
How about I SLAP YOU AROUND?
;-)
Only if you can write a "slap you around" programme in QBasic...
10 print "slap"
20 goto 10
;D
Or maybe:
10 print "Slap"
20 pause 10
30 goto 10
?
That would be the additional feature in slap-you-around-experimental ;)
lol
I used to write GWBasic programs, so I doubt I'd have trouble understanding it. As someone already suggested, it's not the most portable language in the world; hence the crying.
I have a theory that the best eficiency in results would be to use a partially 3-D engine, where the ground, track, and building foundations are 3-D, while everything else is the existing sprites. This could probide opportunities for several gameplay changes that at least I would consider improvements, such as variable heights and diagonals on slopes, as wells as removing the incredible numbers of sprites that the grounds in the current version of simutrans are using, while not requireing all of the building and vehicle sprites to be replaced.
as for languages, any language will do as long as it will compile and run on either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(Discworld) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(Discworld))
The problem is, that the routing of vehicles is tile based. Changing that (efficiently) is not easy.
+++ OUT OF CHEESE ERROR +++
Prissi: My idea was to have a map that's tile based in 2-D, but with height not being fixed points. Existing buildings would be usable (with 3-D foundations) as they would be on flat squares as currently in simutrans. Trains would still work as the fact that the vehicles fail to line up on slopes would often be less visible than currently as the slopes would often be less steep. Track, trackobjects, stations, and bridges would need new graphics to follow the terrain (partly, as left to right would still be kept flat with some kind of foundation)
Issac: You need a cheese industry
Very very good idea :)
The current system has the advantage it is easy to see whether a tile is flat or if it is a slope. With variable slopes this becomes more difficult.
Yes you can reuse building graphics but all track has to become 3d (it's impractical to draw all the possible combinations). Likewise bridges and stations have to go 3d. Then it becomes tricky making graphics consistent between 2d and 3d parts of the game...
I very much like this idea!
Not necessarily. Slopes could be not entirely free, but, say, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% (existing ones).
Tracks and roads could limited to 10% (roads and tracks), 20% and 30% (roads only).
Steeper slopes would need to be smoothed in order to host ways, whereas only roads would need more (and only 3) different slopes.
Railroad Tycoon 2 uses something similar, I think... terrain is 3d-like, but some items like buildings and trees are 2d. It's also exceptionally ugly compared to Simutrans ;D And the whole world is simpler, there are not so many things interacting with terrain.
Why do stations need to become 3D models? I think 2D sprites like now would still work in a 3D landscape, given that the landscape isn't freely rotatable and the stations are only build on flat ground.
Because once you have variable slopes it actually starts to become tricky to get perfectly level ground. You can try and code workarounds for this but it would get tricky (only practical way is to automatically level terrain when building stations, adjusting height of surrounding tiles when required, but this introduces problems too). Similarly for bridges it becomes less obvious whether there is enough height difference between two ways crossing.
Settlers II and III flattened the area for a building. I'd ****ume that it's possible in Simutrans 3D, too. But you are right, this requires extra thought and maybe some tricks.
Another idea for moderately level ground would be 3D foundations to have level ground for the station, while the track is slightly sloped. This may or may not work, most likely one would have to make a few mockup screens to judge the visual appearance.
before this gets to far along could anybody give an example of a commercial game that was isometric and then moved to 3d and get better? I personaly cant think of any!
I don't know any either. And given the fact that we talk since years about Simutrans 3D but neither have any code nor models, I'd not fear this gets too far along before ... I don't know. Currently the situation is that he official dev team does nothing in this direction, and volunteers all have stopped their work, if they even started.
GTA 3, Fallout, Warcraft 3, Command & Conquer, Starcraft 2, MMORPGs like Ultima Online, Football games like FIFA or PES...Perhaps they didn't improve the gameplay, but at least they look different... ;)
Good looking is essential for commercial games.
The only instance I can think of a business game where making it 3d improved the game was Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 - but that was still grid-based (improvements in gameplay were mainly based around more flexibility in track shapes and more different slopes - all the rest was eyecandy).
You must notice, through, that recent discussion have not centred on making Simutrans 3-D, but using 3-D technology to improve the isometric graphics system (more flexibility in slopes, for example)
going full 3D would make content creation less effort in the long run. as i understood it is quite a lot of work to create the images, with all rotations, from the 3D models, since a lot of postproduction is required. i guess this is also likely the reason why almost all the commercial game developers created only 3D games from the late 90s on.
3D should also provide higher performance and higher detail if LODs are chosen well.
the huge workload will be on the code side.
It depends. To me it seems that full 3D usually means more work for the artists. Also it locks out all people who paint, instead of modeling items.
If there is no option to use painted sprites and tiles, I can immediately dump my plans and ideas for things like pak.Excentrique (http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=3702.0). Nothing there is made with a 3D program that would be compatible with the polygon-based way to display images that nowadays graphics cards and all 3D games use (well except the few voxel and raytracing based ones).
The reason for 3D in commercial games was not saved work for the developers, but marketing, in my opinion.
from other mod projoects i've noticed that there's never a lack of 3D artists. maybe because creating 3d models is not an art at all and requires not a lot of imagination -- so it's more nerd compatible. back in the low texture size days people who could do good textures were really rare. now with photo based textures and shader effects it also became a technical instead of an artistic challenge, so there's no lack of textures either. The 3D models typically also got shared between games/mods, further reducing the workload. (Well, i guess more than half of the repositories are filled with weapon models, but there are also plenty of buildings)
i don't want to suggest making* simutrans 3D, i just think that creating the 3D content is not the real problem.
but of course going 3D would just mean swimming with the stream, excentricism is something i value very highly. And there's quite a lot of content in the available paksets.
the players response during the switch from painted 2D to modeled 3D was mostly negative, it just looked really ugly with the primitive 3D back then. being excited with new technological possiblities has also been a factor in game industries, i think.
* the key word is also 'make' i don't do anything, so i don't have a right to suggest anything anyway.
Sorry, I just wanted to say, I had/have a bad day, and my message was a bit over the top, also I missed the point a bit. I'm sorry. Another day I'll try a more reasonable response.
no offence taken, and no need to be sorry. i also can't see where your message is over the top. my footnote was also not related to your reply, just me in general feeling that since i don't contribute to the project i'm a bit too much of a smart**** by being so vocal.
ps.: reading my posting again, it sounds a bit offensive on 3D artists, wich i did not intent. See it less as a statement of their lack in creativity and more as my lack in writing skills (and creativity)
With pak128.Britain we have a set that is made in Blender in big parts. I ****ume that will help to get a 3D version of Simutrans started if someone wants to try, since there is a good number of models that can be used with only little extra effort.
I see OpenGL being used more and more also for 2D games, just because the hardware acceleration of current graphics cards helps so much. Maybe in a first step, someone could try to write a OpenGL rendering backend for the current Simutrans code, and in a second step this OpenGL backend can be expanded by full 3D capabilities?
ANy openGL render has very limited amount of images it can handle (less than 1024). Thus it would involve a lot of chaching logic. (Some people tried this for OpenTTD, which has even less unique images per set).
I'm no expert, but could this be solved by using image sheets (generated at runtime) as textures and drawing them clipped? After all, a 128*128 tile is not stored as a complete bitmap, is it...
This is point that was mentioned again and again, but I do not quite believe it, because nowhere else I have heard about this, and I visit a lot of game developer forums.
Are there some references to back up this point? I have once made a small OpenGL renderer which worked fine, but had less than 1024 textures, so I wouldn't have run into the problem. Still, in all the documentation that I read, I never saw such a limitation mentioned. But that can just mean I didn't read it carefully enough ...
I see this done often. There are even "image packers" that try to fit as many small images into one large texture as possible (which is tricky if the small images have arbitrary sizes) and create offset lists to blit the small images from the big texture onto the screen as needed.
About the images issue, as far as I know, what people usually do is to unwrap 3D models into a single image, so you can have just a texture for all the elements of the object. If you want to go further, as Hajo said, you can use wad-style files, that gather all textures in a single huge file.
Umm, that isn't exactly what both of us meant. The thing with opengl is, you can't have many textures (as prissi says), but you can have them
large. But drawing only parts of the texture is cheap. So it makes sense that when stuffing the pictures into graphics card, you combine many small pictures into big ones.
OpenGL has issues (which can be solved of course)
- sometimes small spritebuffer
- does not handle images with a sizes!=power of 2 well
- no good 15 bit support/player color support
- do work good with partial screen rendering
- do not work on many devices (like iPod touch, Haiku, ... )
http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=38151&hilit=OpenGL&start=0 (OpenTTD GL patch from 2008 working, then abandoned)
http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=36780&hilit=OpenGL&start=0 (some discussion about OpenGL blitter)
And this shows nicely the haggles with 3D construction ... (and nice graphics)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCD3FFcbtmM&feature=related
Then, what are the alternatives to OpenGL? Ogre, Irrlicht, own 3D engine?
Irrlicht seems rather portable ... Orge may do it too.
Imho modelling and usability issues (not to mention the pathfinder) and movement code must be sorted out first.
Not always the case. There are game out there that painters excel at. Just as examples Rfactor Or the 18 Wheels of Steel Series. Both allow incredible freedoms when it comes to painting or creating Skins as most are referred as. I am no good at the 3D modelling side, But I have created many skins for both of those examples with realitive ease. Granted it would first be upto the Modellers to prove templates for such things.
On the other hand this would mean the Modellers would be the on the hook for new content. Paint takes minimal effort and can be produced much quicker then great models.
Just a thought :)
Cheers Joker
Iris2 is open source ultima online client that works with free serververs.
It uses ogre for graphics rendering and has 2d and 3d mode.
It might be helpful if someone wants to make openGL version of simutrans.
http://www.iris2.de/index.php/Main_Page (http://www.iris2.de/index.php/Main_Page)
I think that full 3D may be sometime helpful but I also saw how it can give very bad result (on RCT3). So I vote for staying in isometric.
Prissi told in a recent interview at the official blog that in the future, Simutrans might need to go 3D in order to survive.
Well, not by me of course ... but somebody might try.
I don't think so ... that 3D is needed to be Simutrans alive. If I am right, at this time only one silimar game use 3D - Sid Meyer's Railroads. And it was published in year 2006.
Just correcting you it's Sid Meier's Railroads.
Anyway i think your a little wrong Vaclav Simcity 2 is in 3D anyway. :)
Simcity 2 is not in 3-D. It's isometric 2-D with layers, similar to Simutrans.
Please note that nitromefan has been changed to a "Lounger"; therefore, any followups for them from this thread should be directed there.
For more information, see here: http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=5620.0
If this post is a double-post, it is intentional.
Please continue the thread. If you have any questions about this post, please start a new topic in the Help Requests board.
?
could you explain this a bit more please?
Hello. I was so busy, working in 4 countries, and I was unable even to be near my PC in 3 months, not to mention that I haven0t had time for anything else than saying hello to my gf over facebook and thats it. I was thinking about Simutrans in 3D. I would really like to make this game working, but I realised that it is impossible task to accomplish alone. I have programming skills, but not enough for makin game. I would really like someone to help me, because Simutrans in 3D wont have boundaries, it will be simply amazing. But I need a team, someone who ahs programmed before.
@Vaclav: RRT2 uses a similar 3-d system... but you may be right about the relative age.
@Eddielex:
Maybe it will help if you write up a little design document. Write up what you want to keep from Simutrans, what you want to change. Why the changes are good and how they improve the game.
With that, you might have an easier time to find helpers, particularly programmers.
Even better was if you could make a prototype or demo of how it will look like - an example landscape with a few sample models on it, and basic user controls. Doesn't need to do anything, just show off how it could look like. Such uses to attract peoples attention easily.
Okay, I will write down PDF file, with all the ideas, and upload it here. Okay?
And if u like it, I will try to make a preview.
Might be a start :)
Well, I had an idea of making city building game + Simutrans. What do u think about that? It would be unique? And if it is possible, to push that idea to real developers?
In the past people have asked to expand Simutrans with SimCity'ish elements. So there seems to be some interest. But you know, you are combining two already big games there, and the resulting project will be rather huge.
A problem is, if you do not consider yourself a developer, you need good team building and marketing skills to get the project going. Usually people wait till someone gets something going and only jump onto the train if they see a certain chance of success.
Yeah, I know that, but I think that gaming community would accept that kind of game on big scale. I can make a plan for every single aspect of the game, and try to push that idea to developing studios. I just dont know how to do that :( We can start building something on our own too. But I am not developer, you are.
"Studios" sounds wrong to me somehow. So far I was thinking of a hobby/open source project, much like Simutrans itself is.
Personally, I'd be scared about the size of such a project. I've set my mind on much smaller projects, things that I can do within a few weeks and then call them finished. But this is just me, and I see in other places that people can stick with projects many years.
I'd say, start with the 3D change for Simutrans. If you can get that going, add the SimCity expansion.
Okay, I will think about that. But is is huge project already, cuz I need firstly to translate half of coding. God helps me. But, firstly, I will upload PDF with ideas. There are already a lot of thing that needs change. :D
I am deeply sorry for quite delayed answer: Thanks for info. I looked on some screenshots - but it seems that this game (meant RRT2) uses mainly isometric 2D.
I still think that Simutrans does not need to be 3D - but some else things which are currently in queue of deprecated/denied features can be implemented instead it.
I was going to say it was similar (3d) to Railroads, but looking at Youtube videos (It's been a while since I played RRT2 and I may have gotten rid of it), it looks like you're right. It just really
feels 3d... perhaps because of the way track can be laid down.
hello, I think that 2D Simutrans should continue developing, but that we really deserve something better looking and with more features, after almost 10 yrs. Good news is that I am almost finished with my PDF, and development project should be started soon, in one month max :D
Hello
i Find that simutrans cant not to be go in 3D.
3D requiend more power from the CPU´s,Graficcard,Ram and Harddisk.
A Computer or Laptop with 3D useable Graficchip,CPU,Harddisk and Ram cost
new more than 700€.
That is for some people very many money that not be growe on tree!
greenling
I'm pretty sure that the 2D versions of Simutrans will continue to be developed. So it shouldn't be a problem if some people have older hardware, they just continue to use the versions and pak sets that they use now.
Slightly unrelated, but I'd still ****ume that a OpenGL rendering backend gives a performance boost, not a slowdown, if the rest of the code is kept as it is.
I'm not quite sure why one would need to translate half of the coding to go 3D. In a first step, it would suffice to replace one of the rendering backends with one that supports 3D, like OpenGL or Direct3D. Also to adapt the pak files so they can store 3D models and textures instead of bitmaps.
But the rest of Simutrans can stay unchanged.
Anyways, I'm slightly curious what you actually will do ;D
What you suggest is to change only engine, so tile system can remain intact? That sounds good to me. And very possible to be done. Do you have MSN or FB or mail Hajo?
The only problem are Slopes. I still don't have any idea how to resolve that. The existing system is ofc obsolete and unusable in #d. Anyone has any idea?
Mail icon is left of this posting ;)
But since this discussion might be interesting for other people I'd prefer to keep it public. There might be more opinions and ideas how to implement a 3D view for Simutrans.
Why does the slope system not work in 3D? A tile in Simutrans has 4 corners, and each corner has a height (at least it was this way when I retired from coding ...) If you split the tile in two or four triangles, it should be quite straightforward to display a tile.
For the artificial slopes, you need additional quads or triangles to fill the gaps to the side and next lower tiles. Since Simutrans already knows where to put the slope bitmaps, it should be fairly straightforward to put extra quads and triangles there.
Prissi's concern was, that the storage of textures in the graphics memory can be a problem. My concern was that there might not be enough manpower to create the 3D models needed. Also there is a slight concern that Simutrans might show way too many models at once, so even modern GPUs might have problems to display, unless one implements tricks. Like several levels of detail (simpler models being used when many objects are on screen).
I think the basic coding is comparably easy, but the problems mentioned above will be the real problems that make or break the project.
As I understand, SDL can use hardware acceleration for 2D rendering. But current simutrans engine don't relay rendering work to SDL.
Yes, Simutrans uses SDL only as a framebuffer and manages the bitmaps itself. This was done so to get maximum ease for porting to other rendering backends.
My information might not be up to date, but support for non-2^n (aka NPOT) textures depends on actual hardware and maybe driver as well. I wouldn't rule this out...