This is really cool. I'm definately going to have a play with the demo fla's posted. Would love to do something like this myself.
Would be great if you could add the houses to the fla so I can see how that was done. I must admit I haven't looked at the code properly yet so it could be really easy :)
Looking forward to seeing what you do with this.
BTW RuneScape is made in Java, not Flash or Director :)
All - With the camera/perspective problems (eliptical object orbit instead of circle), I'll go check out Blink's code to see if I can help. I was able to get mine to appear fairly realistic by bringing the camera Y down low and bringing the focal distance out to 600ish. I'm not sure how Blink did his, so I have to look first.
Lux - Sorry I've been quiet ... I spent all day yesterday grinding away at trying to get enough performance out of my engine to make it game worthy. To make a long story short, I was able to get over 50 rotating "3d" objects with 360 angles each on screen at once and still have the engine clipping at the max FPS flash will allow (120) ... but when I start bringing in the mode7 chunks it totally destroys performance. Once I got an accurate collision system in, I started seeing some real FPS degredation. My home system is an AMD xp3000+ w/ 2gb of ram ... with the movie set to 31 fps, I was running around 26-28 with a fair amount of objects. I imagine it would be pretty bad with a slower computer, especially when you start bring in AI and object interaction. Stille's probably right when he said Flash isn't quite ready for this.
However, I didn't give up yet! I'm working on "version 2" that goes about the whole 3d world thing in a different way and gets rid of the mode7 calculations all together. You might be going, "Huh?" to yourself ... but I'll give everyone a peak when I feel it's ready to be shown. From what I have so far, I think it has potential, and not for just RPGs. But if you're dead set on using a mode7 engine, I understand Lux. I'm just afraid that we're going to invest a ton of time into a mode7 world, only to hit a brick wall with FPS when it all comes together at the end.
Hey !
It seems a lot : i think with a clever map design, we shouldn't need more than 4-5 different pre rendered 3D models, plus, i agree with Blink's stance, to use a limited amount of angles / images rather than 360 ( i found 60ish to be rather acceptable )Quote:
I was able to get over 50 rotating "3d" objects with 360 angles each on screen at once
I haven't played with it enough, but it seems than the existing collision test in the current engine doesn't hog too much ressource : it is still buggy, but i think that if we "inverse" it ( defining the walkable areas ) we could get rid of the "stuck" bugQuote:
Once I got an accurate collision system in, I started seeing some real FPS degredation
Well, i'm not fixed on a specific technology, i'm quite open minded : show me something that works better, and you'll have a convert ! :)Quote:
I'm working on "version 2" that goes (...)a different way (...)But if you're dead set on using a mode7 engine, I understand Lux. I'm just afraid that we're going to (...) hit a brick wall with FPS (...)
//--
Now, i picked that engine because i like the possibilities of it, I do understand how it works, because i saw it in action in fast paced games ( http://www.fastfroots.de/ ) and I imagined that it could be applied in other types of gameplay ... and the most important point : because i was able to come up with something with it quickly
Being that i'm not a coder, my only choice is to reuse existing engines, or work with coders on some, if I want to get things done ...
The possibility of a game coming out of this work is exciting : but what does it become if it involves recoding everything : to a point you might get tired of it, or me ... I always have the feeling that these things have to be done quickly, or then, they never get done - i can be wrong on that : it depends on how long you take to come with your new engine and on how good it looks : it's difficult for me to have a stance on that without seing anything :) ...
1 - The degrees of rotation for 3D objects doesn't have much an impact on performance, only download size. That's why I tested it with so many objects at such a high FPS - I wanted to be sure of that. If asset size is a big concern, than bringing down the angles is fine. But I think the game is going to be hefty once you get all the art, sound, music, and text in there anyway.
2 - I didn't mean that the collision alone was causing a FPS reduction (I did mine by comparing x/z/y coordinates off the object array). What I meant to get across was that adding things was already starting to noticeably affect the performance. That fastfruits game is impressively quick, but its also only moving 4 objects and the map, and the opponents AI probably consists of hopping between waypoints on predefined paths. I'm afraid when combat, opponents, spell effects(?), npcs, and whatnot are added, the thing is going to take a real hit.
lux: checking this thread every few days,nice to see how its evolving =)
mhhm,would like to see that :)Quote:
Originally posted by bogeybot
However, I didn't give up yet! I'm working on "version 2" that goes about the whole 3d world thing in a different way and gets rid of the mode7 calculations all together. You might be going, "Huh?" to yourself ... but I'll give everyone a peak when I feel it's ready to be shown. From what I have so far, I think it has potential, and not for just RPGs. But if you're dead set on using a mode7 engine, I understand Lux. I'm just afraid that we're going to invest a ton of time into a mode7 world, only to hit a brick wall with FPS when it all comes together at the end.
Just looking at the big picture...Quote:
Originally posted by luxregina
Joshman_123 > The ground pixelate - the ground is a whole pixelating thing : that's more or less the side effect of Mode 7 :) ... Rotating the camera around the player could be done, but this means that i would need additionnal images for the player, hence increasing the size of the whole for a something that wouldn't impact the gameplay : this is Flash, not Director ( Runescape is in shockwave ) : all the 3D prerendered images aren't "free" : they cost a lot in filesize - and what is the point of turning the camera around the player ? how does it impact the game ? it make sense in real 3D where your character is likely to be "dynamic" ( clothes, equipement, etc ) but make less sense in our case ...
Rotating camera means more "frames", it means bigger filesize, it means longer loading times, it means more bandwith, so it means more expencive webhosting.Quote:
Originally posted by Joshman_123
Just looking at the big picture...
Just looking at the bigger picture....
And yet, it doesn't have any function on game play/user friendlyness.
Luxregina: Actually making a first person game, wouldn't be such a bad move at all.
It could reduce filesize enough.
How hard would it be to add collision detection to this thing? It seems like you could make a very speedy collision engine with tiles quite quickly. Oh, and I'm getting 8 to 9 fps now, if I'm looking at the ubildings instead of the trees.
Collision detection wouldn't be hard following Blink's system : it actually exist already, i just desactiveted it for the test engine ...
I am waiting to see what kind of engine bogeybot can come with, to take any descision about what to do next ... there is also the question of the Raycasting engine, for the Dungeons, that is still unanswered ...
For now, i'm teaching myself 3Dstudio ( as Swift3D v3 is a pain to texture more complex models, and i'm quite unhappy with the lighting system
This is not a project that i plan on doing alone, i think there is too much work for a personn alone, and, as I stated before, i think my coding skills are too poor for such a project : so if anybody feels this type of game could have a future, give me a shout ...
I will certainly upload a new version, with more elements, later this week, as i get a better grip on 3D Studio
EDIT : 8-9 FPS is very slow, I had it tested on another forum by 50ish people and the average FPS was 25-30 ... I personnaly do get a solid 32 FPS on my comp ... however, that is the downside of the engine : the game would be accessible for the latest computers with broadband connection only ... oh well ... :)
My brother's comp (a reasonably fast computer, as far as Macs go) got about 16 fps, although it could go up to about 30 when he made the window much smaller.
I think the best thing to do would be to wait for Flash Player 8 - then we'll all be on level ground. Hell, odds are that Macs will become even faster than PCs do!
u wont finish it.. no one ever finished mp3s on here.. :(
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave1983
u wont finish it.. no one ever finished mp3s on here.. :(
i got through several mp3s just reading this thread!;)
Bloody hell - I'm away for a few weeks and I see THIS?!
Gorgeous artwork Lux, and the engine looks fantastic. I'm working on something a little similar at the moment, so I know where you're coming from on the filesize/design/performance issues. I'm loving your 3D - can't wait to see more!
Thanks for the nice replies ...I just think it won't happen on Flash :( ... i'm thinking of switching the whole thing on Blitz3D ...so might not have news from me before a while, if any ( Blitz doesn't belong to Flash community ) ... no coder seem interested to devlopp that engine for a game on a timely fashion ...
Great Engine!!! You know that could really turn into something, it has great graphics where did you get them, or did you make them youreslef?
well any ways i was wonderin when i downloaded the .zip file of your engine theres no pictures, like the grounds grey and the house is blue.
Do you know why?
and again great engine.
Tell that to Jagex. I don't see you making loads of money from a MMORPG.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeroLebe
Your totally way off the track... not to mention, late too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshman_123
Jagex uses java applet based engine, not flash like we have already discussed in this thread.
Polygons are too slow in Flash.
Maybe You should read the whole thread, to see what was the point. This engine "used" bitmap graphics, so "rotating camera" effect would need several rotating frames for every character and objects.
I already have full time day job. :mrpimp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshman_123
25-30 FPS
only at 25 when there was a lot of trees and house on the screen
other wise a constant 30+-
That's not the point. Everyone's arguement was "how does that effect gameplay?" And my answer was that it seems to be working for Jagex, and I think they would know better than you. The size issue wouldn't really be a big problem the way I see it, because each graphic from a different angle would only be a few KBs. You'd only need a minimum of 8 different angles. By the way, I didn't read your post until Lux bumped the thread again.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeroLebe
At... KFC?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeroLebe
Well, maybe everybody else, but not me, You should read my reply:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshman_123
Because game would be bitmap based, rotating would happen in one axis. So there wasnt any user-friendlyness.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeroLebe
8 different angles... Please test, how much different angles defferent objects have, and how much they grow the file size.
Jagex used polygonbased engine, so their engine is much more flexible.
Believe, me I already did some coding before you were even born, so lets just end our conversation here -> .end