sphere?
-
Tank Program
- Forum & Project Admin, PhD
- Posts: 6711
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:03 pm
For best results in this scenario, still lots of all new code would be required (at the very least, the 2d coordinates would need to be replaced by points on the sphere and all formulas operating on them would need to be updated), and for gameplay to make sense, you'd need to be able to turn at arbitrary angles. Right angles and spheres don't mix too well. Let's get cubes working first 
-
philippeqc
- Long Poster - Project Developer - Sage
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:55 am
- Location: Stockholm
- Contact:
I dissagree,z-man wrote:in 3D, you cannot close someone in with your trail. So everyone would just be curving around madly, hoping the other guys crash sooner.
First, the game would still be on the surface (2d) of a 3d object. The fundamental rules stay the same, it is just that the surface is distorted.
Second, playing on a sphere is not unlike playing on a square where touching the south wall teleport you on the north side, and the same for east and west walls, allowing you do drive forever in a straight line (cycle trace ingnored). A sphere would allow someone to run away forever in the same way than the connecting square, or a sufficiently large arena for that matter. But as for the connecting square, it is possible for someone to turn back on his track and change an enemy running away into one coming at you.
While in connecting square/sphere it becomes a bit harder to corner someone, as there are no rim to help you, sufficiently long cycle trace are all that is required to recreate some boundaries. Also, it is already possible to kill someone in the middle of an area given that they dont simply run away. Think of the opening moments of a well populated fortress server.
Third, the problem of people keeping isolated and waiting for others to crash already exist in extremely large bounded arenas. But it doesnt appear as nobody host such arenas. So the sphere could be made smaller to promote interraction between player. Have obstacle to be used to kill people, or zone of interest (sumo zone on one hemisphere only).
Sure, it opens to new problems, but to new possibilities too. Maybe the whole range is not interesting, but some segments of it can be quite fun. It would be like disqualifying rubber as a whole because values of 1000+ make it impossible to kill anyone.
/ph
Yeah yeah, I know I promised this for a long time ago and havent done a thing!
Canis meus id comedit.
weightless was a poor word choice. But Z-man is correct: that would be an entirely different game.
I visualize the bikes as Electro Magnetic Energy Entities, and the "Rubber" surrounds the bike, protecting your bike from a "surge" of energy that makes u explode. Kinda Trippy how one's mind works, huh? Having said that, The bikes need to be "grounded", or else it would be a pulse of light/energy. Virtual reality game; not same game.
But if the Axis were Spheres, 720 degrees , and the bikes were magnetized to the floor...that would be one helluva capture the flag map...The Globe! Thunderdome. Crazy Worlds..etc
Thanks for considering a crazy idea and not considering me Crazy.
See you on the Grid
$[/quote]
I visualize the bikes as Electro Magnetic Energy Entities, and the "Rubber" surrounds the bike, protecting your bike from a "surge" of energy that makes u explode. Kinda Trippy how one's mind works, huh? Having said that, The bikes need to be "grounded", or else it would be a pulse of light/energy. Virtual reality game; not same game.
But if the Axis were Spheres, 720 degrees
, and the bikes were magnetized to the floor...that would be one helluva capture the flag map...The Globe! Thunderdome. Crazy Worlds..etcThanks for considering a crazy idea and not considering me Crazy.
See you on the Grid
$[/quote]Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy.
Ludwig van Beethoven
Ludwig van Beethoven
-
philippeqc
- Long Poster - Project Developer - Sage
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:55 am
- Location: Stockholm
- Contact:
Sorry for the confusion, I was answering to your first post only. Missed the second one as it took a while to write my answer.
a) You can only move parallely to the lines drawn on a globe (longitude and latitude lines) . The poles become very dangerous locations.
b) Running along an orbit and turning direction is calculated on the point where the turn occurs. Everybody should be ready to accept that if you start at a pole and let your cycle run in a straight line, it should run along the same longitude, cross the other pole and then run on the longitude + 180 toward the first pole. Also, starting on the equator in a direction parallel to it, one should following it around the globe until one is back to its start-up position.
Turning is easily defined at the equator and at the poles. From any longitudinal trajectory (from a pole to another), turning 90 degrees when you pass on the equator puts you on an equatorial trajectory. From an equatorial trajectory, turning 90 degrees put your on a longitudinal trajectory. Turning precisely while passing over a pole put you on a longitude exactly 90 degrees away from the one you where.
If you inspect closely any of the mentioned turns, you will find that the cycle always turn 90 exactly on the point where it stands, and then follows a trajectory around the globe starting and ending at this point.
What would this look like if it was done somewhere else than at the equator or the poles?
The following would probably be easier to do with a globe in your hands. For the lazy or the couragous, I used the map at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_ma ... I_2003.jpg .
Lets start a cycle on the south pole, and drive north (not that we have much choice ;) ) on the longitude 0. Somewhere between Bouvet Island and Cough Island, exactly on the 45 parallel (south), the cycle turn left at exactly 90 degrees. The cycle now races toward souther Brasil (ok, I'm actually winging this from a map, excuse the precision, but do find a terestrial globe and try for yourself), pass over Peru and will cross the equator (not to be confused with Ecuador) just east of the Galapagos Island, exactly on the 90' longitude. At this exact location, the cycle's trajectory is exactly 45' from the equator and the 90' longitude. Note this location, we will come back to it. Continuing in a straight line for itself, it will keep over the Pacific and reach the 45' latitude north exactly on the 180' longitude (somewhere between the Aleutian Island and the Midway Island). For people looking at it from the side, it will look as if it is slowly converging toward 45' north latitude, but in the drivers' perspective, it is a very straight line. At this coordinate (180' E/W, 45' N), it is exactly over the point where the turn first occured. Didn't I tell you a globe would be great?
Passing south of Japan and over Vietnam, if will reach the equator exactly on the 90' longitude east. It will continue, swinging around Madagascar and South Africa, and reach its starting position. When crossing longitude 0', it will be exactly perpendicular to it.
So from a given trajectory (south to north on the 0' longitude), it was possible to turn 90' on a given point (longitude 0, latitude 45' south) and find the trajectory.
Now if you where to repeat this exercise with 2 other cycles, both from longitude 0', running north, one on latitude 60' south and the other from 30' south, you would be able to find and describe their trajectories and bring them back to their starting position in the same way. During this exercise, one thing you would notice is that they both cross the equator at the same point at the same point as the first trajectory that was described in the first exercise. Actually, all the trajectories one could take from the path on latitude 0' will pass throught that point, exactly like any turn made while circling the equator will put you on a trajectory that will cross the poles.
So for any given trajectory around the sphere, there will be 2 points (one on each side) where all perpendicular trajectories (i.e: after turning) will pass. But these points are unique for a given trajectory. For the 3 trajectories that started on latitude 0', the points would be:
-0' east, 45' north for the 45' south trajectory,
-0' east, 60' north for the 30' south trajectory and
-0' east, 30' north for the 60' south trajectory
While these might seems to be close to each other, the "trajectory poles" of 3 players would quickly diverge at each turn, as no 2 turn would be done at the same instant, resulting in greatly variying trajectories. Rarely would 2 appear parallel, as it would require that the players have "trajectory poles" very close, for converging trajectories (or rather, as all trajectories end up being converging, at a moment where 2 players race one another and see the meeting point somewhere close to their location) the race between them would have an extra element in the form of who gets to cross the meeting point first, in addition to the classic "turning in front of the enemy".
Principally, any pole set from the start-up position would quickly dissapear, and players would move in various trajectories. The sphere would become an unified battle field, where no point is more important than any other.
I'm sure most reader will appreciate if some of the artistically inclided of you could make some graphical presentation of this babbling of mine (drawing, painting, animation, youtube clip, hiring Peter Jackson, etc)
I know it feels unnatural, something that people would never understand. But when you think about it, most of the game is often played on reflex and habits rather than sheer mental power. How many calculate how far they can push agains a wall, and how many just "feel" it. I beleive such behavior as the second option would come in naturally after a bit of playing.
Well, there might be other interpretation how to manage this, but those are the 2 I can think of. But overall, there is a buncha work to get anywhere close.
/ph
Well, there are many "right angle" solution to consider:z-man wrote:For best results in this scenario, still lots of all new code would be required (at the very least, the 2d coordinates would need to be replaced by points on the sphere and all formulas operating on them would need to be updated), and for gameplay to make sense, you'd need to be able to turn at arbitrary angles. Right angles and spheres don't mix too well. Let's get cubes working first :)
a) You can only move parallely to the lines drawn on a globe (longitude and latitude lines) . The poles become very dangerous locations.
b) Running along an orbit and turning direction is calculated on the point where the turn occurs. Everybody should be ready to accept that if you start at a pole and let your cycle run in a straight line, it should run along the same longitude, cross the other pole and then run on the longitude + 180 toward the first pole. Also, starting on the equator in a direction parallel to it, one should following it around the globe until one is back to its start-up position.
Turning is easily defined at the equator and at the poles. From any longitudinal trajectory (from a pole to another), turning 90 degrees when you pass on the equator puts you on an equatorial trajectory. From an equatorial trajectory, turning 90 degrees put your on a longitudinal trajectory. Turning precisely while passing over a pole put you on a longitude exactly 90 degrees away from the one you where.
If you inspect closely any of the mentioned turns, you will find that the cycle always turn 90 exactly on the point where it stands, and then follows a trajectory around the globe starting and ending at this point.
What would this look like if it was done somewhere else than at the equator or the poles?
The following would probably be easier to do with a globe in your hands. For the lazy or the couragous, I used the map at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_ma ... I_2003.jpg .
Lets start a cycle on the south pole, and drive north (not that we have much choice ;) ) on the longitude 0. Somewhere between Bouvet Island and Cough Island, exactly on the 45 parallel (south), the cycle turn left at exactly 90 degrees. The cycle now races toward souther Brasil (ok, I'm actually winging this from a map, excuse the precision, but do find a terestrial globe and try for yourself), pass over Peru and will cross the equator (not to be confused with Ecuador) just east of the Galapagos Island, exactly on the 90' longitude. At this exact location, the cycle's trajectory is exactly 45' from the equator and the 90' longitude. Note this location, we will come back to it. Continuing in a straight line for itself, it will keep over the Pacific and reach the 45' latitude north exactly on the 180' longitude (somewhere between the Aleutian Island and the Midway Island). For people looking at it from the side, it will look as if it is slowly converging toward 45' north latitude, but in the drivers' perspective, it is a very straight line. At this coordinate (180' E/W, 45' N), it is exactly over the point where the turn first occured. Didn't I tell you a globe would be great?
Passing south of Japan and over Vietnam, if will reach the equator exactly on the 90' longitude east. It will continue, swinging around Madagascar and South Africa, and reach its starting position. When crossing longitude 0', it will be exactly perpendicular to it.
So from a given trajectory (south to north on the 0' longitude), it was possible to turn 90' on a given point (longitude 0, latitude 45' south) and find the trajectory.
Now if you where to repeat this exercise with 2 other cycles, both from longitude 0', running north, one on latitude 60' south and the other from 30' south, you would be able to find and describe their trajectories and bring them back to their starting position in the same way. During this exercise, one thing you would notice is that they both cross the equator at the same point at the same point as the first trajectory that was described in the first exercise. Actually, all the trajectories one could take from the path on latitude 0' will pass throught that point, exactly like any turn made while circling the equator will put you on a trajectory that will cross the poles.
So for any given trajectory around the sphere, there will be 2 points (one on each side) where all perpendicular trajectories (i.e: after turning) will pass. But these points are unique for a given trajectory. For the 3 trajectories that started on latitude 0', the points would be:
-0' east, 45' north for the 45' south trajectory,
-0' east, 60' north for the 30' south trajectory and
-0' east, 30' north for the 60' south trajectory
While these might seems to be close to each other, the "trajectory poles" of 3 players would quickly diverge at each turn, as no 2 turn would be done at the same instant, resulting in greatly variying trajectories. Rarely would 2 appear parallel, as it would require that the players have "trajectory poles" very close, for converging trajectories (or rather, as all trajectories end up being converging, at a moment where 2 players race one another and see the meeting point somewhere close to their location) the race between them would have an extra element in the form of who gets to cross the meeting point first, in addition to the classic "turning in front of the enemy".
Principally, any pole set from the start-up position would quickly dissapear, and players would move in various trajectories. The sphere would become an unified battle field, where no point is more important than any other.
I'm sure most reader will appreciate if some of the artistically inclided of you could make some graphical presentation of this babbling of mine (drawing, painting, animation, youtube clip, hiring Peter Jackson, etc)
I know it feels unnatural, something that people would never understand. But when you think about it, most of the game is often played on reflex and habits rather than sheer mental power. How many calculate how far they can push agains a wall, and how many just "feel" it. I beleive such behavior as the second option would come in naturally after a bit of playing.
Well, there might be other interpretation how to manage this, but those are the 2 I can think of. But overall, there is a buncha work to get anywhere close.
/ph
Canis meus id comedit.
-
Lucifer
- Project Developer
- Posts: 8641
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: Republic of Texas
- Contact:
Just allow wrapping from one side to another, where we specify in the map how the mapping is to be done.
Normally, in a game that tries to simulate a world map, they wrap east-west and otherwise do a mercator projection, but we all hate that, right? It's really a cylinder, what you're playing on.
Some games, like Ultima 3, wrap also North-South, so you're on a torus.
I figure that what's really needed to let you use 2d math on a fake 3d sphere is a diamond. The two top edges wrap to each other, and the two bottom edges wrap to each other. The perceived accuracy of the figure then will be determined by it's size, and the angle between the wrapping sides.
Normally, in a game that tries to simulate a world map, they wrap east-west and otherwise do a mercator projection, but we all hate that, right? It's really a cylinder, what you're playing on.
Some games, like Ultima 3, wrap also North-South, so you're on a torus.
I figure that what's really needed to let you use 2d math on a fake 3d sphere is a diamond. The two top edges wrap to each other, and the two bottom edges wrap to each other. The perceived accuracy of the figure then will be determined by it's size, and the angle between the wrapping sides.
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
gaining speed and slowing down.
yes, but as the cycles get closer to the "poles", they could increase velocity, like a coin in a funnel. To slow the bike down, you ride the "equator".Lucifer wrote: It's really a cylinder, what you're playing on.
Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy.
Ludwig van Beethoven
Ludwig van Beethoven
-
philippeqc
- Long Poster - Project Developer - Sage
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:55 am
- Location: Stockholm
- Contact:
Concord:
* When i read your first block of text, it feels as if you only consider a very large sphere. If it has a too large radius, players need to travel a long time before coming back, possibly incuring long periods between the fights. A small enough radius, where the play area is the same than a classical arena, and the average time to reach an opponent is reduced as you no longer are bound by the rim walls and can reach a fleeting opponent by performing a u-turn, and now racing toward him. Reduce the radius even more so the play area is 1/8 or less of the classical arena, and everybody is continually in the center of the battle, all with the same tactical advantage, as opposed to a small arena where people pushed to the rim walls get less freedom of movement. Or at least that is what I expect. Wise is the man who can predict with accuracy the effect of a map (such as sphere) at a certain size ratio.
* No point to 4 axes on a sphere? I'd invite you to read again this thread from the begining, as a few interpretation of a 4 axes movement on a sphere are floating around.
* I'm always amaze by the things that I dont find interesting that people do, such as:
- speed servers
- rubber servers
- hamburgers without mayonais in them
In the end I figured I was better replacing the question "do I think it will be interesting" by "will somebody find it interesting".
/philippe
* When i read your first block of text, it feels as if you only consider a very large sphere. If it has a too large radius, players need to travel a long time before coming back, possibly incuring long periods between the fights. A small enough radius, where the play area is the same than a classical arena, and the average time to reach an opponent is reduced as you no longer are bound by the rim walls and can reach a fleeting opponent by performing a u-turn, and now racing toward him. Reduce the radius even more so the play area is 1/8 or less of the classical arena, and everybody is continually in the center of the battle, all with the same tactical advantage, as opposed to a small arena where people pushed to the rim walls get less freedom of movement. Or at least that is what I expect. Wise is the man who can predict with accuracy the effect of a map (such as sphere) at a certain size ratio.
* No point to 4 axes on a sphere? I'd invite you to read again this thread from the begining, as a few interpretation of a 4 axes movement on a sphere are floating around.
* I'm always amaze by the things that I dont find interesting that people do, such as:
- speed servers
- rubber servers
- hamburgers without mayonais in them
In the end I figured I was better replacing the question "do I think it will be interesting" by "will somebody find it interesting".
/philippe
Canis meus id comedit.
-
Lucifer
- Project Developer
- Posts: 8641
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: Republic of Texas
- Contact:
I think I like philippe's redefinition of the 4-axis movement as instead always being parallel to one axis. So in 2 dimensions, you're on a cartesian coordinate system and always parallel to x or y axis, and in 3 dimensions you're still in rectangular coordinates, but still parallel to the x, y, or z axis. I'm having a little hard time visualizing it on a sphere because I just woke up.
But we did all agree to keep arma a 2d game, so I'd be interested in pursuing wrapping options for the 2d map. Or at least some way to make the sphere happen and retain the 2d coordinate system.
I think someone in this thread suggested (or suggested to me somewhere else) that we consider a disc, flat on both sides, but wraps from one edge to the other. Then, to have the earth as the body on the sphere, you'd need polar projections instead of mercator projections. Probably a more convincing illusion, and stays within the defined 2d bounds.
But we did all agree to keep arma a 2d game, so I'd be interested in pursuing wrapping options for the 2d map. Or at least some way to make the sphere happen and retain the 2d coordinate system.
I think someone in this thread suggested (or suggested to me somewhere else) that we consider a disc, flat on both sides, but wraps from one edge to the other. Then, to have the earth as the body on the sphere, you'd need polar projections instead of mercator projections. Probably a more convincing illusion, and stays within the defined 2d bounds.
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden