Friday Facts #219 - Cliffs

[Zavian]

Not without sacrificing performance by a large amount.

Do you not pre-render the shadows? Does it not just entail re-rendering everything with a consistent light source direction? Why would it affect performance...?

Because sprites are rotated runtime to save on video memory which also rotates the shadows.

I'm wondering just how much video memory this saves. Would it be viable to add pre-rotated graphics with consistent shadow orientation for players with enough video memory? How much memory would that require?

[Rseding91]

Not without sacrificing performance by a large amount.

Do you not pre-render the shadows? Does it not just entail re-rendering everything with a consistent light source direction? Why would it affect performance...?

Because sprites are rotated runtime to save on video memory which also rotates the shadows.

I'm wondering just how much video memory this saves. Would it be viable to add pre-rotated graphics with consistent shadow orientation for players with enough video memory? How much memory would that require?

It doesn't work that way. You would have to runtime compute the shadow for all 360 orientations which is the same as using a 3D model.

[Andrzejef]

Blowing cliffs away is a weird and not a very fun idea in my mind. Since cliffs are basically walls it would be better to make a special "cliff door" thing, like a drawbridge or something like this. But if you want to make space flat, it would be a lot more fun and challenging to move cliffs either by blowing/digging them up or using a large amount of landfill. I think this way you have many options to get rid of cliffs on your way each with its tradeoff. In the case of blowing them totally, you have simply one way to do this and this gives you no challenge and no reason to think and it's boring (not to say not believable).

Unless I understand the door wrong, tunnel would fit best the definition of "cliff door".
As for actual getting rid of them, I thought to first, blow them up, then having the actual need to clear up the debris before the space is of any use, then use said debris to landfill elsewhere, either expanding (or creating) other cliff, or filling a lake (3trip had very nice idea about filling lakes of different depths). In this case, we'd need also to be able to form a ramp, to freely get up/down. So Kinda like in Perimeter, or TTD
For this we could either use special tool (like dedicated explosive), or vehicle, or special bots on "higher" levels of advancement.

Also for better view upper terrain should be little bright.

Heh, didn't bother me untill you posted it, and now I can't unsee how it's better

This is amazing!
You shuld add a way to build bridges, and cliffs with pipes and conveyor belts.

I'm all in for bridges as such, on which we could place whatever we like
Or bridges for pavement, asphalt, rails - this sort of things, and scaffolds for belts and pipes


Also another idea - how about placing radars on a cliff increases their immediate range?

[Zeblote]

Not without sacrificing performance by a large amount.

Do you not pre-render the shadows? Does it not just entail re-rendering everything with a consistent light source direction? Why would it affect performance...?

Because sprites are rotated runtime to save on video memory which also rotates the shadows.

Really? I don't see any rotated sprites in the image he posted. Rotating a sprite doesn't actually make sense since it would only rotate it around the view direction.
For example, this wall shadow mask is wrong:



It should go straight to the right, not diagonally.

[Godmave]

It doesn't work that way. You would have to runtime compute the shadow for all 360 orientations which is the same as using a 3D model.

Have you ever thought about just that, replacing the whole 2D/Sprite stuff with a 3D render engine? You already got the models, textures and shaders.

[aka13]

Also for better view upper terrain should be little bright.

terrain.gif

I think you can have a "cliff on a cliff", and therefore "2 levels" of land. I think its alright that gameplay-wise the cliff remain a natural impassable wall.

[RobertTerwilliger]

Also for better view upper terrain should be little bright.

terrain.gif

I think you can have a "cliff on a cliff", and therefore "2 levels" of land. I think its alright that gameplay-wise the cliff remain a natural impassable wall.

Also what to do with NOT-O shaped cliffs? Say, L, C or I shaped? How to make transition between brightness levels?
Even if it is possible, result probably won't be worth efforts.

[palmic]

Is it possible to have 0.16 before Christmas?

[Godmave]

Is it possible to have 0.16 before Christmas?

Depends on which year I guess

[Twi]

The cliffs look really good...


But I think it shouldn't be just as easy as placing some explosives there and blowing the stuff up, just as landfills shouldn't be as easy as they are currently. Maybe it would be worth its own topic.

Because I think it probably should be done Factorio-Style... you have to mine the cliffs away... in a slow, but not too tedious, process which gives you stone in return of a flat surface. And landfills in water should work exactly the opposite way... slowly filled up bit by bit.

I mean, the obvious analogy for landfills (and possibly water-fills?) would be the Buildcraft-style mining/building machines of modded minecraft, right? Plop down a machine, define an area adjacent to it somehow, and then pump in stone and watch as it slowly fills in the land. Maybe have it return (waste)water you have to deal with somehow.

I like the idea of being able to mine down cliffs, or maybe build a ramp up cliffs. Or maybe both? Hrm!

(also I know this is a bit late probably but I literally just made an account ;~;)

[winged_doom]

Can the cliffs evolve in the future to the z-levels, as it is realized in the dwarf fortress?

[-scv-]

no problem??
If 2 slopes are opposite, what will the connection of underground pipes and underground conveyors look like?

fff-219-cliffs-05.png (315.33 KiB) Viewed 7856 times

connections??
if 2 Cliffs are opposite, what will the connection of underground pipes and underground conveyors look like? bad english, sorry.

[Oktokolo]

if 2 Cliffs are opposite, what will the connection of underground pipes and underground conveyors look like?

As they try to avoid doing any sort of height map or z axis, i would expect the green version.
This years XMAS update will be great regardless!

[vanatteveldt]

Can the cliffs evolve in the future to the z-levels, as it is realized in the dwarf fortress?

For the love of Armok, don't!

<rant>I think a lot of problems in DF that ultimately turned me away are caused by the z-levels. It is almost impossible to have any overview of what's going on in sloped terrain and the logistics and planning are so much more boring in 3D. I think DF would have been more fun had they stayed in 2D and concentrated on the parts of the game that are fun (after 20 years of development, we now have 3D and libraries but invaders (including clowns and dragons) still can't destroy a wooden wall or raised drawbridge?</rant>

Sorry for that. I really think the 2D nature makes the game more enjoyable by creating nice logistic puzzels and by allowing you to have a good overview of what's going on. TTD-style 2D+elevation would also be fine and would allow real cliffs and rivers, which might have added value, but going full 3D doesn't add fun, only trouble.

[ske]

Also for better view upper terrain should be little bright.

Great! Once you see, you cannot unsee. Like that clicking sound when you swallow.

[Jap2.0]

Not without sacrificing performance by a large amount.

Do you not pre-render the shadows? Does it not just entail re-rendering everything with a consistent light source direction? Why would it affect performance...?

Because sprites are rotated runtime to save on video memory which also rotates the shadows.

I'm wondering just how much video memory this saves. Would it be viable to add pre-rotated graphics with consistent shadow orientation for players with enough video memory? How much memory would that require?

It doesn't work that way. You would have to runtime compute the shadow for all 360 orientations which is the same as using a 3D model.

You shouldn't need 360 orientations of each shadow - just give each entity one shadow but give all the shadows the same orientation (say, have all shadows going to the right or something)- only one orientation needed per shadow.

[SquarelyCircle]

Those cliffs look amazingly cool!!! I love where this is going, and I hope more is coming!

[tarou00]

Now we have cliffs.
We need hydro electric power !

[Korusho]

These cliffs remind me so strongly of classic Command and Conquer terrain cliffs. Like, they are spot on.

[Ohz]

Ok this is very very cool. I was about to say "underground pipes/belts should not work, cliffs are simply impossible to get through, to avoid fixing the problem" but here the solution is incredibly elegant. Underground belt that switch to this form like does mining drill on uranium ores.

Factorio Team you are astonishing.