3D maps

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:31 pm

Suggestion Idea: To eventually have three dimensional maps as an additional option (like the larger or smaller map)

Specifics: Not all maps would necessarily have a 3D version; however, if the map-maker decides to make one, they can. The 3D version would allow for more appealing graphics, and the ability to rotate or zoom the image.

Why it is needed: This would give many map-makers who are bursting at the seams with ideas (DiM for example) more creative freedom. I got this idea during a discussion about the graphics of DiM's map CC City Mogul that is in development. I think that map in particular would be great if it had a 3D version. This is just one example; really it would be great if every map could be 3D. Note that this is optional; it would not detract from Classic lovers and conservative/retro RISK players.

Herakilla · Post by **Herakilla** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:20 pm

would be nice but until the servers lack has now are given a serious upgrade this would take a lot of usage

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:48 pm

Herakilla wrote:would be nice but until the servers lack has now are given a serious upgrade this would take a lot of usage

I know this isn't likely at the moment, but I think it should be a goal for sometime in the future (be it near or far).

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:49 pm

Just... No. The amount of server space required for this would be obscenely huge. In order to do it well, it would also require, potentially, multiple extremely expensive programs (the current version of 3D Studio costs 3500$) and would take ages to do. Let's stick with "Large" and "Small", shall we?

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:39 pm

hecter wrote:Just... No. The amount of server space required for this would be obscenely huge. In order to do it well, it would also require, potentially, multiple extremely expensive programs (the current version of 3D Studio costs 3500$) and would take ages to do. Let's stick with "Large" and "Small", shall we?

I never said this was urgent, did I? Perhaps this will be plausible some day. I just wanted to make sure Lack has at least heard the idea, and see what people think of the idea itself.

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:59 pm

InkL0sed wrote:
hecter wrote:Just... No. The amount of server space required for this would be obscenely huge. In order to do it well, it would also require, potentially, multiple extremely expensive programs (the current version of 3D Studio costs 3500$) and would take ages to do. Let's stick with "Large" and "Small", shall we?
I never said this was urgent, did I? Perhaps this will be plausible some day. I just wanted to make sure Lack has at least heard the idea, and see what people think of the idea itself.

And I just gave you some reasons on why it should never ever be...
1. Software is plentiful and expensive
2. Extremely time consuming
3. New XML system would be required for the army co-ordinates
4. Server space required would be massively huge
It's just not valuable or practical enough for it to ever be implemented... It would required hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars for to do a single map and for what? So you can play around with a map in 3D? Just... no...

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:03 pm

hecter wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:
hecter wrote:Just... No. The amount of server space required for this would be obscenely huge. In order to do it well, it would also require, potentially, multiple extremely expensive programs (the current version of 3D Studio costs 3500$) and would take ages to do. Let's stick with "Large" and "Small", shall we?
I never said this was urgent, did I? Perhaps this will be plausible some day. I just wanted to make sure Lack has at least heard the idea, and see what people think of the idea itself.
And I just gave you some reasons on why it should never ever be...
1. Software is plentiful and expensive
2. Extremely time consuming
3. New XML system would be required for the army co-ordinates
4. Server space required would be massively huge
It's just not valuable or practical enough for it to ever be implemented... It would required hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars for to do a single map and for what? So you can play around with a map in 3D? Just... no...

You are describing the present. I am asking about a possible future. Really the only valid point you make is 3. New XML system required for army co-ordinates.

I do concede that this doesn't seem likely though. At the present I admit it's probably impossible.

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:13 pm

InkL0sed wrote:
hecter wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:I never said this was urgent, did I? Perhaps this will be plausible some day. I just wanted to make sure Lack has at least heard the idea, and see what people think of the idea itself.
And I just gave you some reasons on why it should never ever be...
1. Software is plentiful and expensive
2. Extremely time consuming
3. New XML system would be required for the army co-ordinates
4. Server space required would be massively huge
It's just not valuable or practical enough for it to ever be implemented... It would required hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars for to do a single map and for what? So you can play around with a map in 3D? Just... no...
You are describing the present. I am asking about a possible future. Really the only valid point you make is 3. New XML system required for army co-ordinates.

I do concede that this doesn't seem likely though. At the present I admit it's probably impossible.

Number 3 is the least valid point! Changing the xml isn't too difficult, lack did it recently. The programs will always be expensive, though server space will increase over the years, it probably won't get THAT big for a good 20 years or so and it will take hundreds of hours no matter what year it is. I've used 3D software, it's not an easy thing to do.

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:26 pm

Hecter, I understand you're being realistic, but you sound as if you don't even want 3D maps. All I'm saying is that if it becomes plausible, we should do it. Simple as that.

lord voldemort · Post by **lord voldemort** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:28 pm

click this

Strife · Post by **Strife** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:32 pm

lord voldemort wrote:click this

He wants, click-able, zoom-able, angle changeable maps.

lord voldemort · Post by **lord voldemort** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:48 pm

oh..yucky...server upgrades maybe...would be cool i guess. but i dnt see the point

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:18 am

InkL0sed wrote:Hecter, I understand you're being realistic, but you sound as if you don't even want 3D maps. All I'm saying is that if it becomes plausible, we should do it. Simple as that.

I don't want 3D maps.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:08 am

hecter wrote: And I just gave you some reasons on why it should never ever be...
1. Software is plentiful and expensive
2. Extremely time consuming
3. New XML system would be required for the army co-ordinates
4. Server space required would be massively huge
It's just not valuable or practical enough for it to ever be implemented... It would required hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars for to do a single map and for what? So you can play around with a map in 3D? Just... no...

hecter is partially right. 3d maps are impossible now. probably in 2-3 or more years they will become a reality but surely not now.

i just want to say i don't agree with all the reasons he put up.
1. Software is plentiful and expensive

1. there are ways around the software prices. plenty of ways. do you really think i paid for all the software i used in map making?

2. Extremely time consuming

2. current map making is also time consuming. i'm sure that if lack adds 3d there will be plenty of volunteers. in fact click here to see my 3d map. i did it a long time ago with the 3d maps option in mind.

3. New XML system would be required for the army co-ordinates

3. this is the least of the worries. xml can be updated fairly easy.

4. Server space required would be massively huge

4. this is indeed the only serious problem. i can't argue here.

TaCktiX · Post by **TaCktiX** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:29 am

I think a more practical thing, and something I would like to see, is a multi-layer map, with simulated 3-dimensionality. Take the cube idea, and instead of the forced orthogonal perspective, have multiple images for each "layer" of the map, with a section on each layer showing interconnections to other layers. THAT would be cool to see.

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:37 am

I could settle for that, but it would have to be done well.

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:38 am

DiM wrote:hecter is partially right. 3d maps are impossible now. probably in 2-3 or more years they will become a reality but surely not now.

i just want to say i don't agree with all the reasons he put up.
1. Software is plentiful and expensive

1. there are ways around the software prices. plenty of ways. do you really think i paid for all the software i used in map making?

2. Extremely time consuming

2. current map making is also time consuming. i'm sure that if lack adds 3d there will be plenty of volunteers. in fact click here to see my 3d map. i did it a long time ago with the 3d maps option in mind.

3. New XML system would be required for the army co-ordinates

3. this is the least of the worries. xml can be updated fairly easy.

4. Server space required would be massively huge

4. this is indeed the only serious problem. i can't argue here.

1. Ha ha, no, of course not.
2. Yes, you did a bit with 3D, but it's been my experience that doing things with 3D programs takes quite a bit more time and not only does it take longer, you don't get the level of detail that you could with Photoshop.

3.Ya, I know, just an extra digit space for the co-ordinate portion of the XML...

4.

Personally, I just don't see the value in lack changing the XML (yes, not a big deal, I get it!), putting in tons and tons of hours of work to implement a system so you could use 3D maps, a map maker putting in tons and tons of hours to make a 3D map and lack upgrading the server by an obscene amount just so you can pan and tilt in a blocky-but-3D environment.

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:46 am

Mapmakers don't get paid to do this Hecter. If they want to do a 3D map, believe me, they will.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:53 am

hecter wrote:
DiM wrote:hecter is partially right. 3d maps are impossible now. probably in 2-3 or more years they will become a reality but surely not now.

i just want to say i don't agree with all the reasons he put up.
1. Software is plentiful and expensive

1. there are ways around the software prices. plenty of ways. do you really think i paid for all the software i used in map making?

2. Extremely time consuming

2. current map making is also time consuming. i'm sure that if lack adds 3d there will be plenty of volunteers. in fact click here to see my 3d map. i did it a long time ago with the 3d maps option in mind.

3. New XML system would be required for the army co-ordinates

3. this is the least of the worries. xml can be updated fairly easy.

4. Server space required would be massively huge

4. this is indeed the only serious problem. i can't argue here.
1. Ha ha, no, of course not.
2. Yes, you did a bit with 3D, but it's been my experience that doing things with 3D programs takes quite a bit more time and not only does it take longer, you don't get the level of detail that you could with Photoshop.

3.Ya, I know, just an extra digit space for the co-ordinate portion of the XML...

4.

Personally, I just don't see the value in lack changing the XML (yes, not a big deal, I get it!), putting in tons and tons of hours of work to implement a system so you could use 3D maps, a map maker putting in tons and tons of hours to make a 3D map and lack upgrading the server by an obscene amount just so you can pan and tilt in a blocky-but-3D environment.

actually the same level of detail that exists in photoshop can be achieved with 3d graphics and even more. it's just a matter of textures and their quality

map graphics can be in theory as good as any of the recent games you see on the market. they can even be animated and scripted to bring a whole new dimension to gameplay. but of course much more work will be needed and probably above a certain level lack will have to pay for maps if he wants state of the art graphics motion capture and fancy stuff. but that's eons away from where we stand now.