MUD-Dev
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
RE: [MUD-Dev] 3D engines for MUDs
> Doesn't really answer the current topic of exceptions on height
terrain
> maps but take a look at Command & Conquer 2: Tiberian Sun. It uses
voxels
> for everything including the units themselves allowing irregularly
shaped
> thingibobs (technical term).
Voxels look great at a distance, and start to "pixelate" really badly
as you get close to them. Also, most data files I have seen for voxel
objects (as opposed to voxel terrain) are really large. Lastly, if
you're doing anything flat, voxels are a waste, as one poly can handle
flat very easily, but you need hundreds of thousands of (individually
tracked) voxels in current voxel engines.
Not to say voxels are bad--they are phenomenal looking in any sort of
overhead view application, or fixed distance application. They also do
great at terrain as long as you can't get too close to the terrain.
They're currently getting trendy in computer game development
circles, though the concept has been around since the 70s.
-Raph
- Thread context:
- Re: [MUD-Dev] META: Broken mail headers, (continued)
- UML/Commercial v Free Muds,
Greg Munt greg#uni-corn,demon.co.uk, Wed 25 Mar 1998, 03:07 GMT
- RE: [MUD-Dev] 3D engines for MUDs,
Koster, Raph rkoster#origin,ea.com, Tue 24 Mar 1998, 15:23 GMT
- Re: [MUD-Dev] World Persistence, flat files v/s DB v/s ??,
Chris Gray cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA, Mon 23 Mar 1998, 07:06 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]