Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:39 am
I have to say, I can't really even tell a difference. If other people can, though, I can easily make this change in the official data.zip. Thoughts, pd?
ThanksGeoff the Medio wrote:http://freeorion.sf.net/data.zip
I have to disagree. IMHO, Paralax make it easier to distinguish the foreground, interactable galaxy from the eyecandy. If there's anything in the background, besides pure black, the paralax makes it easier to differentiate. I do agree that more could be done to distinguish the background stars from the explorable ones. I also think paralax looks cool, especially if you switch the graphics as previously suggested.Geoff the Medio wrote:...I don't follow why you want the nebulae to scroll separately from the stars though... They presumably part of the same galaxy, so would be on the same plane and would move together.
But regardless, IMO the whole parallax scrolling thing is a bad idea to start with... It makes it harder to see what's going on with "real" stars, it makes no sense astronomically, and it doesn't even look very good.
I want to remove the background entirely, not make it non-parallaxed.eleazar wrote:IMHO, Paralax make it easier to distinguish the foreground, interactable galaxy from the eyecandy. If there's anything in the background, besides pure black, the paralax makes it easier to differentiate.
To me, a flat galaxy is a reasonable approximation that is self-consistent. The infintely-large planes of "background stars" don't make any sense, however. Are these stars part of the same galaxy as the forground? If so, why do they extend infintely far in every direction on the sides? Are these real stars, or something different? How are they different from the forground stars and why don't they affect gameplay?A usable galaxy map is compelled to make "no sense astronomically". It's esentually 2D after all.
Right; even though they're presently just eye candy, eventually nebulae could be strategically important features of the game map.pd wrote:In future [nebulae] could even have effects on the stars they cover. Nebulae could also work as 'fog of war'.
Please try my nebulae in-game. After the fact, i don't think my preview is very good.pd wrote:I like the nebulae to be as intense as they are now. It's a nice colorful galaxy this way, and not a dead boring part of open space. I think theay should be part of the star layer. In future they could even have effects on the stars they cover. Nebulae could also work as 'fog of war'.
Rather than larger images, i think it would be better to have a few randomly mixed star-images per layer. That would better fight the uniformity. I'd also limit all background star sizes to 1 pixel, and indicate distance, by having the futher layers generally dimmer.pd wrote:I also like the paralax effect a lot, and it looks great in my opinion. It could need some tweaking and use some bigger images to prevent the tiling effect. I would even add some layers(like 10). To me, it adds a lot of depth to the galaxy map.
- Limiting travel speed (differently from normal) or preventing travel until appropriate tech is researchedI have trouble thinking of an effect nebulae could have on this type of game.
Then they'll have to be replaced. Maybe some volumetric fog could be generated instead.Yet, if it were of strategic importance, the current type of graphics are lousy indicators, since they fade out so gradually, it will be unreasonably hard to say if many planets are "in" or "out".
More complicated, yes. I'm not sure what you mean by "homogenous", though in a sense yes, as they're confined to the volume of the galaxy and react properly to zooming, rather than spreading out infinitely in all directions for no logical reason.eleazar wrote:Geoff: It sounds like what you want is a much more complicated, less homogeneous paralax view.
Definitely fixes the confusion issue, though there are still a few obvious repeating pattern bright stars, particularly on the front (slowest scrolling) layer. I suggest making the front layer less densely packed with stars than the middle or back layers. It might help a bit... and look a bit better, as a realistic 3D depth projection of a uniform volume of stars would appear to have them packed more densely per unit screen area on the more distant planes.eleazar wrote:I've tweaked the starfield graphics to look less like the game stars. As you scroll around the repeating patterns are less obvious with these files. These pixel sized stars make the screen look sharper, IMHO, and the starfield deeper.
Someone posted an example of multiple independently-rotating layers for stars. I think a bit of animation would look pretty good... I'd suggest trying that before the core / halo distinction... or perhaps try to do both.Earlier i read (somewhere i can't find now) someone suggesting that the game star graphics be separated into 2, a small core that doesn't scale, and a halo that does scale. I feel that might look a little better, but it probably less important than a lot of other things. However i could provide some graphics if tzlaine wants to mess with it.
True, but a realistic 3D depth projection would also take into account that more distant stars are less likely to be bright enough to be seen. And i agree with the project's stance that realism is not a game virtue. However i added more dim stars to the back layers, and it looks a little better. The previous link now contains the new images.Geoff the Medio wrote:Definitely fixes the confusion issue, though there are still a few obvious repeating pattern bright stars, particularly on the front (slowest scrolling) layer. I suggest making the front layer less densely packed with stars than the middle or back layers. It might help a bit... and look a bit better, as a realistic 3D depth projection of a uniform volume of stars would appear to have them packed more densely per unit screen area on the more distant planes.eleazar wrote:I've tweaked the starfield graphics to look less like the game stars. As you scroll around the repeating patterns are less obvious with these files. These pixel sized stars make the screen look sharper, IMHO, and the starfield deeper.
Can you link me, or are the images gone?Geoff the Medio wrote:Someone posted an example of multiple independently-rotating layers for stars. I think a bit of animation would look pretty good... I'd suggest trying that before the core / halo distinction... or perhaps try to do both...
The point isn't to realistically simulate a three-plane scrolling starfield... Rather, it's that a better sense of depth and reduced obviousness of the repeated starfield pattern might be / is achieved with more densely packed stars in the back rows. Most people don't actually scroll around space fast enough to see differential star parallax, though they do drive next to fields of crops and see how the closer ones move faster and are less densely packed per solid angle than the slower-moving far away ones...eleazar wrote:True, but a realistic 3D depth projection would also take into account that more distant stars are less likely to be bright enough to be seen. And i agree with the project's stance that realism is not a game virtue.
I concur, though now it seems like there's just too many stars... they sort of blur together into "noise". That said, it looks a bit more like the title splash screen starfield now as well... so maybe that's good...? Or maybe not... as I'd rather err on the side of less noise / cleaner in-game presentation (ie. fewer discrete stars).However i added more dim stars to the back layers, and it looks a little better.
Check the link at the bottom of this post. And actually, much of the thread is probably relevant and/or otherwise worth your reading.Can you link me, or are the images gone?Geoff the Medio wrote:...multiple independently-rotating layers for stars.
I've created a new thread to discuss improving the playable stars here.Geoff the Medio wrote:Check the link at the bottom of this post. And actually, much of the thread is probably relevant and/or otherwise worth your reading.Eleazar wrote:Can you link me, or are the images gone?Geoff the Medio wrote:...multiple independently-rotating layers for stars.
In MOO2 (and possibly MOO3, I don't remember) nebulae prevented shields from working in combat. MOO2's "Hard Shields" ship component allowed you to bypass this restriction (along with other benefits). Star Trek consistently has nebulae both making shields not work and greatly hampering sensors.Geoff the Medio wrote:- Limiting travel speed (differently from normal) or preventing travel until appropriate tech is researchedI have trouble thinking of an effect nebulae could have on this type of game.
- Preventing use of certain weapons / defenses / misc. ship parts
- Hiding fleets within them
- Damaging ships that spend time in them
- Nest for space monsters
- Being a source of a resource for players... eg. set up a Nebular Gas Refinery in a system inside the nebula, get supply of Verteron Particles or Metaphasic Anti-Omega Radiation used to unlock / speed production of a particular building / ship part