Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.

## RE: [Arianne-general] About 2D & 3D

 RE: [Arianne-general] About 2D & 3D From: Brian Thompson - 2000-10-30 23:35:14 ```> > Hi all, > > I started yesterday to code the Map converter, when I realized that it > isn't going to be easy to run a 3D client using the actual structure. > > I am downloading Quake source to take a look at how it store the data > and how the map is done. > > I really feel that the actual terrain definition takes to much storage ( > and network ) space and it is not the best for 2D neither 3D. > > Any idea for a good 3D game to mirror the data structure? > Sorry I'm not a coder, although I have done some programming speed was not a concern the way it is for us. I do have several ideas about doing the 2d/3d problem but I confess they are a simplification and when developed may not be as fast as we need. First what about generating the landscape using triangles the rows alternate and are shifted be 1/2 each edge between points would be 1 meter like this 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 so that from 11 to 12 to 21 back to 11 is triangle each of these points has a height associated with them so these establish the normal by performing a cross multiplication of two edge vectors you find the normal vector to the surface. from above this would be a very simple system and the top of every surface is visible so the only things we'd need to worry about are caves and buildings and the seperate system for placing them and turn the roof invisible when someone walked into a building. I will ask what about crystal space they are open source and we may be able to convert part of they're code to do the 2d part of our system, in fct them may be willing to help with this. Another thing I've been thinking about is the landscape definition. I think that vistapro uses fractals to calculate its landscapes and the slopes and all, but you can change certain variables to make the landscpe look like you want. Why couldn't we use this idea define our landscape, the only problem with this is the calculations involved is would probably slow down the process but iof youre doing the calcualtions for a 1024x768 screen where the height mapping is done for 12x16 matrix of points the only concern would be smoothing, and storing the points for the whole world once its created. What size of files would this require? could we use the equation on a running basis or would it be just way to slow? If we shifted the landscape and only had to recreate the portion of the landscape that is newly revealed this might be a possibility how complex and taxing would the smoothing on a 1024x768 screen be if we used a 12x16 point matrix as a basis, and would a fractal be faster? Some thoughts, I'm not sure I got them all across but I hope someone can understand enough not to just think I'm stupid. Brian Thompson ```

 [Arianne-general] About 2D & 3D From: - 2000-10-30 12:21:05 ```Hi all, I started yesterday to code the Map converter, when I realized that it isn't going to be easy to run a 3D client using the actual structure. I am downloading Quake source to take a look at how it store the data and how the map is done. I really feel that the actual terrain definition takes to much storage ( and network ) space and it is not the best for 2D neither 3D. Any idea for a good 3D game to mirror the data structure? ```
 RE: [Arianne-general] About 2D & 3D From: Brian Thompson - 2000-10-30 23:35:14 ```> > Hi all, > > I started yesterday to code the Map converter, when I realized that it > isn't going to be easy to run a 3D client using the actual structure. > > I am downloading Quake source to take a look at how it store the data > and how the map is done. > > I really feel that the actual terrain definition takes to much storage ( > and network ) space and it is not the best for 2D neither 3D. > > Any idea for a good 3D game to mirror the data structure? > Sorry I'm not a coder, although I have done some programming speed was not a concern the way it is for us. I do have several ideas about doing the 2d/3d problem but I confess they are a simplification and when developed may not be as fast as we need. First what about generating the landscape using triangles the rows alternate and are shifted be 1/2 each edge between points would be 1 meter like this 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 so that from 11 to 12 to 21 back to 11 is triangle each of these points has a height associated with them so these establish the normal by performing a cross multiplication of two edge vectors you find the normal vector to the surface. from above this would be a very simple system and the top of every surface is visible so the only things we'd need to worry about are caves and buildings and the seperate system for placing them and turn the roof invisible when someone walked into a building. I will ask what about crystal space they are open source and we may be able to convert part of they're code to do the 2d part of our system, in fct them may be willing to help with this. Another thing I've been thinking about is the landscape definition. I think that vistapro uses fractals to calculate its landscapes and the slopes and all, but you can change certain variables to make the landscpe look like you want. Why couldn't we use this idea define our landscape, the only problem with this is the calculations involved is would probably slow down the process but iof youre doing the calcualtions for a 1024x768 screen where the height mapping is done for 12x16 matrix of points the only concern would be smoothing, and storing the points for the whole world once its created. What size of files would this require? could we use the equation on a running basis or would it be just way to slow? If we shifted the landscape and only had to recreate the portion of the landscape that is newly revealed this might be a possibility how complex and taxing would the smoothing on a 1024x768 screen be if we used a 12x16 point matrix as a basis, and would a fractal be faster? Some thoughts, I'm not sure I got them all across but I hope someone can understand enough not to just think I'm stupid. Brian Thompson ```
 RE: [Arianne-general] About 2D & 3D From: MIGUEL ANGEL BLANCH LARDIN - 2000-10-31 10:53:47 ```Ok, that is the only way of doing 3D graphics. I found no problem doing the landscape based on a height map. For both 2D and 3D this is pretty easy. Now appears the problem that I tell you. How to apply textures? ( I don't know how it is done, I will tell what I think it should be done ). You can apply a texture to the triangle with no problem at all. But what if you want to do a road in the middle of a green field. I see 2 options. a) Doing a big texture map and the engine apply it to the triangles. b) Adding an extra object and apply the road texture to it. Perhaps 3D games use a), but it total invalidate the 2D tile oriented approach. Applying option b) would perhaps do the job for both but a new object for each thing we want to do introduce an increase in Bandwidth usage and decrease speed. If anyone has experience or a idea, I would really like to hear it. I feel about this as being in a boat in the middle of the Pacific. Regards, Miguel ```
 Re: [Arianne-general] About 2D & 3D From: Djaggernaut - 2000-11-01 14:19:48 ```> How to apply textures? > ( I don't know how it is done, I will tell what I think it should be > done ). Otherwise tell me that there was a question like this posted in the ML. I've got some knowledge in the 3D texturing. To apply a texture to a 3D models (in real time 3D), you must adjust it in a square of 256*256 (a bit more is possible but after the bandwith falls.). To do this, U must extracted all the faces of the models and put them on a single plan. Hum... very difficult to explain, I will send U a tutorial, that's more simple. > You can apply a texture to the triangle with no problem at all. But > what if you want to do a road in the middle of a green field. I see 2 > options. > a) Doing a big texture map and the engine apply it to the triangles. > b) Adding an extra object and apply the road texture to it. > > Perhaps 3D games use a), but it total invalidate the 2D tile oriented > approach. Applying option b) would perhaps do the job for both but a > new object for each thing we want to do introduce an increase in > Bandwidth usage and decrease speed. In Quake3 mods, we use an extra object but the size is lower than a forest or an entire kingdom. When U've got a big land, just add an extra object. And when U've got a small lands, apply a single texture. Bye Djagg ```
 Re: [Arianne-general] About 2D & 3D From: Juan Jose Blanch - 2000-11-01 22:50:16 ```> Otherwise tell me that there was a question like this posted in the ML. > I've got some knowledge in the 3D texturing. > To apply a texture to a 3D models (in real time 3D), you must adjust it in a > square of 256*256 (a bit more is possible but after the bandwith falls.). To > do this, U must extracted all the faces of the models and put them on a > single plan. > Hum... very difficult to explain, I will send U a tutorial, that's more > simple. Ok, send to here ( saeta@... ) > In Quake3 mods, we use an extra object but the size is lower than a forest > or an entire kingdom. > When U've got a big land, just add an extra object. And when U've got a > small lands, apply a single texture. Ok, big objects == new object, small objects == texture. I will write a whitepaper about this ASAP. ```