....doing full 3D FT on a computer? The weapon ranges and stuff all give
themselves to easy 3D. Firing arcs might be a pain. You'd have to "encase"
your ship in a polygon (12 sider?) and decide which weapons can fire through
which arcs. Maybe a 12 sider would be good because you could just multiply
the arcs x2 (6-->12). You'd have to reassign them obviously, but you
ought to be able to come close. The vector rules ought to more or less work,
though we'd need to have a different syntax to imply thrust up/down.
Each ship would obviously need a 3D position and velocity and some concept of
facing (to assess firing arcs). You'd also need some 3D models (but I've seen
some awesome wireframe models).
It's a pity that someone couldn't negotiate for a copy of the Homeworld
engine and we could use some FT models. I'd want to re-write the "rules"
for
weapons and screens such that they would be conformant to FT-ish rules,
and it would be neat to have status displays that look roughly like
shipsheets. But all of this does sound within the realm of possibility on
today's systems.
In short, other than time and money, there isn't any good reason we can't do
3D FT. Of course, time and money are both often good reasons... *grin*
... and I'm sure we've got a purist or two who'll point out that it is a
miniatures game.
But it would be kind of an interesting computer project. The neat thing is
you could set it up to run real-time over a network, or turn based
driven by email. Then you could actually play PBeMs in a 3D environment using
almost familiar commands and weapons.
....Just my daydreaming 0.02.....
> ....doing full 3D FT on a computer? The weapon ranges and stuff all
Another, possibly better way of doing this would be to assign an axis to each
weapon (which would be one of the d12 directions) and spread out an allowable
"off center" cone from there. I.E. a 3 arc weapon would have a 90 degree
possible variation, resulting in a half sphere from the "pointer."
> The vector rules ought to more or less work,
No need to exclude Cinematic. Either works.
> It's a pity that someone couldn't negotiate for a copy of the Homeworld
No need to even get that complex. It could be done in that same manner as
FTMap, allowing PBEM games, etc.
I considered this for a while.
Each ship would have an x,y,z location.
Each ship would have a 360x,360y,360(roll) facing.
Each ship would have a 360x,360y,Velocity course.
Fire arcs would each gain a "free" arc of elevation (either 0 to +30 or
0 to
-30) to define the "cone" of the weapon. There would also be 2
additional arcs (straight up and straight down). This forms the aforementioned
12 sided polygon (with a flat edge forward. You could place a flat FACE
forward, but it makes it more difficult to visualize the other arcs and they
don't line up with existing arcs).
Movement orders would include: Thrust (MD), Yaw, Climb/Descent, Roll,
Push.
Yaw, Climb/Descent, and roll are best described in +/- clockface terms.
Thrust and Push as thrust along a direction (6 points forward; 1 point up and
1 point port).
Three FTMaps would have to be generated (x,y; x,z; y,z). And ship outlines
would not be presented in perspective. Roll would not be able to be captured
by FTMap.
I decided that I did not have the math ability to do this.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> Absender: tomb@bitheads.com
to "encase" your ship in a polygon (12 sider?) and decide which
> weapons can fire through which arcs. Maybe a 12 sider would be good
Note that a regular 12-sided polygon (a dodekahedron) has rather
non-intuitive 5-cornered faces. Just look at a D12 in your dice box.
I would consider a more gamer-friendly distribution: present arcs
extended to something like 45 degrees up- and downwards plus arcs to
cover
the top/bottom, e.g.up forward, up rear, down forward, down rear, or
even
just up/down.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> Three FTMaps would have to be generated (x,y; x,z; y,z). And ship
I have been working on this topic also. After working on a 2D version of FT, I
decided that it would be much more fun to have a 3D version.. at least a 3D
point of view.
What I'm currently using is a Quake 2 compatible engine with no level... just
models floating in empty space, with a surrounding backdrop for space. Planets
and asteroids will also be solid models, so in the event of bad piloting (and
I speak from personal experience) you can try and use them to... um, alter
your course!
If anyone out there has done some quake modeling, and would like to help
create some ships, please let me know.
> I decided that I did not have the math ability to do this.
I have the math ability, just not the programming savvy :-(
> ....doing full 3D FT on a computer? The weapon ranges and stuff all
Keep it at 6 arcs: fore, aft, dorsal, ventral, port, starboard.
> On Wed, 06 September 2000, "Barclay, Tom" wrote:
> In short, other than time and money, there isn't any good reason we
To do a professional level real time computer game from the ground up would
take in the order of 100,000 person hours, including artists, musicians, and
of course coding and testing. Even if it was turn based, limited to 2D, and an
exact duplicate of the miniatures game, you're still talking between 5000 and
30,000 people hours.
That's a big investment for what's essentially a niche product. I'm not sure
how much time it would take using another engine, perhaps 25% of the original
estimate? More? Less? Not sure, but it's substantial.
I wonder how long it took the group to do DBA Online. For those of you who
don't know, DBA is De Bellis Antiquitatis, a very easy to play ancient
miniatures game. It's about the same level of complexity to learn than FT (the
rules are more obtusely written, though, and the game play is, IMO, more
subtle with the various troop interactions). There is
a freeware online version out on the web. You can play it head-to-head
"hot seat" at one computer, you can play for free against the gamemasters on
their server, you can play "broken" games against anyone for free, or you can
pay $10 a month for unlimited access to their game servers (or $10 for 10 full
games over a 6 month period, if you'd rather).
The reason I ask is that DBA Online would be a better an analogy for a Full
Thrust game. The game is free, only playing on a server costs money. The game
is well built (but not INCREDIBLY well built; I think they need to tighten up
the code as it does seem unduly slow). Finding out the magnitude of that
project would be interesting, and as I said the same type of thing could be
done for Full Thrust.
> ... and I'm sure we've got a purist or two who'll point out that it is
> Keep it at 6 arcs: fore, aft, dorsal, ventral, port, starboard.
I'd say 8 (or 6): the six standard FT arcs, top, and bottom (though in my
opinion, the top and bottom are optional; you could easily just go with the
six regular arcs, leaving it up to the maneuvering ship to get it to work).
***
> Keep it at 6 arcs: fore, aft, dorsal, ventral, port, starboard.
I'd say 8 (or 6): the six standard FT arcs, top, and bottom (though in my
opinion, the top and bottom are optional; you could easily just go with the
six regular arcs, leaving it up to the maneuvering ship to get it to work).
***
One could certainly say the first IS the regular way; FTII without the FB
changes. ;->=
I'm sorry, but 6 arcs that cover 180 degrees in the vertical is a little too
simplistic for my tastes, and the 8 or 12 that feel better, either the 8 to
which you allude, and weapons out of ANY are optional, or 12, the 6 FB arcs,
split top and bottom. Painful, no?
In 3-D, I think 6, with a quarter roll to bring new arcs to bear, makes
more sense and is easier to visualize.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
> I'm sorry, but 6 arcs that cover 180 degrees in the vertical is a
Yes and no. Remember that 3 arc weapons then have a "half sphere," and all arc
weapons have a "full sphere," so it's not as restrictive as it may at first
seem.
As most single arc weapons are mounted forward anyway, do you really need the
added complexity of more directions?
> agoodall@canada.com wrote:
Agreed. I did a simplistic port of a boardgame to PC as an exercise, and
offhand I'd say your estimates of the
> agoodall@canada.com wrote:
> On Wed, 06 September 2000, "Barclay, Tom" wrote:
*grin*
> To do a professional level real time computer game from the ground up
Yes, they're not cheap - budget at least half-a-million pounds !
> Even if it was turn based, limited to 2D, and an exact duplicate of
Are you talking about a professional, finished, polished, boxed product? Or
more of a shareware (more likely freeware) style thing? If the former then I
think you're still underestimating. If the latter then I
think you are a bit over. 5000 man-hours represents roughly
two-and-a-half years of my time and I reckon I could get a basic,
turn-based, 2D version of FT up and running within a couple of months.
If I had the time. Which, sadly, I don't :-(
> That's a big investment for what's essentially a niche product. I'm
The core engine for my current project (Halcyon Sun) represents roughly 50% of
the programming time of the project.