[Done for V0.38] 500 hours of work for George!

[Zyx]

Ok, here are more dreams:
1. I don't know what differenciates a monster from an object, but what about a pickable monster ?
I'm not thinking in a dragon, something more like a chicken, for example:
If you drop it, it walks away, but you can pick it up and put it in your inventory
(which leads us to 2. the animated icons topic, in the inventory screen...cough...)
Who would like to hurl a chicken at lord Chaos?

Another example, a magic seed that transforms into a plant;
or some guardian device that invokes a non aggressive golem.

3. Also what about a spell that creates a fire elemental for example?

4. Is it possible to customize a particular object, like a sword ?
(change its name to "Rusty Sword" and make its characteristics worse than a common sword)
I mean any object, any name.

5. About the lighting, how difficult is is to add a depth level, that is to see 4 tiles ahead
instead of 3? I think it wouldn't be a problem about the memory space (small pictures) and
a simple scaling function would produce the needed images.
The only problem is the side view of wall objects, as the perspective would be different...
And the backround view (the one with floor and ceiling) would need to be to be completed in
the horizon part. (I think Drake can answer better this question than me).

6. And how difficult is it to generalize this algorithm to allow up to say, 10 tiles(!) ? (...cough...)
At least we would have a use for
the "permanent light" spell, which could allow a 5 tiles range view,
while the normal light spell would allow 4 tiles,
and a common torch would allow 3 tiles.
The short-range view DM bothered me a lot when I played it for the first time.

7. How hard is it to add the features of DM2 to RTC?
(I didn't play it, but from what I've heard it's quite the same view, a similar interface,
8. monsters have a 2 stepped movement - not a real challenge to implement, I guess-, some new
graphics for outddors, some merchants, some new characters)
...hmmm, I guess several "somes" make a huge much, cough...

9. Also somebody (Badmunky?) mentionned an adaptation to Bloodwych with the consentment of George.
For the ones that are expert in this game, they should look for
the differences with RTC and functions not avalaible, but that could be implemented.
10. I have the feeling that a 2 players screen means several tough changes in the code and interface,
and the experience system doesn't look very compatible with the DM one,
but maybe 11. the spells are worth being recreated and 12. the party splitting option not so hard:
a good start would be the possibly to leave a character behind:
he just stands on the same tile
(maybe eventually fight back against attacks and sends an alarm message to the party...)
Then the possibility to switch the views between the 3-members party and the 1-member part.
This means we need the picture of the body of all the characters, front,back, side and attacking, though...cough....

13. At least, I suggest you release the script files for the dungeons, George, so we can start designing CSB, DM2, and Bloodwych
dungeons. It should light your work, and show up the missing functions needed. What do you think?
I guess there are several dedicated ones willing to work with you and to help on this project more intensively than
just by testing the new release and waiting for the next month release!
This proposal intends to keep RTC engine your own project, but should allow the dungeons designing to be shared by the
community. I hope it doesn't sound like a pressure:
I have a growing feeling of frustation as RTC shows more and more
potential and nobody is using it! (I'll try to be patient, promess).

14. What I fear is that RTC becomes a dead product as soon as V1.0 is released, the objective reached.
On the other hand, I'm not waiting for 2010 to see the release of RTC V8.1 either.
I think RTC will stay alive (and keep our caprices satisfied) if we can dedicate to the dungeon building and playing, and
the customizing of sounds and graphics. After all Dmute has resurrected the interest for DM.
I don't mean to be rude or aggressive, BTW, but the only english I know was learned from the Hollywood movies, so I'm
not very smooth with words. Sorry if I offended you.


15. and PS: These suggestions are clearly not about cloning DM, so if you're not interested into upgrading RTC,
George, just stop me madness!

[George Gilbert]

Hmm - lots of work! I'll reply to 13 only for now (as it's the easiest).

I fully intend to release the scripting part, but not until i decide on a definitive format for it. The problem is that I keep changing it with each release 9for example this next release will include support for fireball shooters that only put out one fireball at a time, for V0.07 it's 2 or nothing). I really don't want to release a format, then people design dungeons about it, and then I change it - it'll only lead to complaints - never a good thing!

Waiting for a full editor will take ages, and as you say, I'm not keen to see RTC die in the mean time. Publishing the full definition of the script though will allow everyone to create their own dungeons (albeit in notepad.exe and so not exactly intuative) in the meantime (or if anyone is enterprising enough to do their own editor to create the script files, then that can be done too.

Anyway the answer is definitely yes, but not just yet

[beowuuf]

Is the scripting language the same as the original NewDM engine?

[Gambit37]

<b> 3, spells:</b>
I agree about a flexible spell system - this is something that has been discussed on the board a lot in the past. Personally I'd like some kind of spell scripting language, where a pre-defined set of effects are available to the dungeon designer that can be combined into new spells. I imagine if anything like this ever ended up in RTC that it would be implemented way after the first version is made available. George?

<b> 5 and 6, lighting:</b>

RTC is based on DM and CSB which use a very simple light model: All light cast (whether it's magickal or from a torch) is centred around the party. That's why the light doesn't go very far, and it's why you can't see too far ahead in the dungeon. Of course, all this is simulated using the graphics - there's no ACTUAL light model in DM at all, other than the darkness effect...

I think that changing the coding for this would be a major undertaking at this stage of the project and I couldn't see George implementing it now - it would be too much work for too little gain. I would suggest that if you want this level of realism, then you should play Unreal or Half-Life...

<b> 14, Obsolescence:</b>
Well, I can't imagine RTC being obsolete as soon as the final version is released. The only danger of that is if it's released without the requisite tools for people to build their own stuff. Clearly, for George to do all that on his own is a major undertaking. I'm not a programmer - if I were, I would have offered to help out a long long time ago. But perhaps as George pointed out, this would be a time for people to start thinking about how else they can help... I'm busy working on a graphics update for RTC as that's where my skills lie. Anyone else?

[beowuuf]

Lots of free time atm but no skills : (

[George Gilbert]

> Is the scripting language the same as the original NewDM
> engine?

Very similar, but as I said I keep changing it so NewDM scripts won't work with RTC, but with minor modification they will. For example the monster definition is the same as it was for NewDM, but there are extra fields tacked onto the end for objects carried.

[cowsmanaut]

Dm is based on a false perspective.. something Called 1 point perspective. that Means that there is a single vanishing point that exists somewhere near the center of the main view. In DM allowing for a advanced light model you could use most of the same objects as for the further images it would not change in perspective as you suggest. the only area where perspective changes is when you see something 2 over and 3 down. ever look at a mirror or fountain on a wall at that location? It's a little messed up but since that is the only place you'll see that angle it wasn't a big deal and so left alone.. However for each tile you advance the more you need to deal with that angle.

If you advance the light modem to include 3 more spaces you get a 6 down and 3 over image.. a new angle to be included however it would be very small and such low detail it wouldn't be a big issue.

So all in all .. yes you could do it with graphics in the same style as DM however this would seriously tax the engine in figureing out where each image is in if it should be drawn and if it has Tanslucency .. keeping track of more visable and moving things like spells and monsters etc. It's at this point that a ray cast engine becomes easier. Something like the doom engine (the Quake engine being beyond this model) That would require a rewrite of the core of RTC and so really not really a viable idea.

If it were to simply add one additional tile level to RTC that could work but it would still require a large rewrite I would imagine.

Now At the mention of DM2 there is something that George could do to simulate smoother movement. It involves intercepting the current screen writes for the Dungeon view.

for a forward step the current image is grabbed from the screen and scaled up 1/2 then cropped to fit in the dungeon view area again, displayed and then the actual 'step' occurs as usual. this is a really cheezy effect but worked for DM2.

The other part which is not in DM2 but is in annother DMclone for the Amiga which also did the scale thing.. it added in a turn. what hapens is that the image is cut down the middle and shoved to the side the next view is cut in half as well and pasted beside it to make it look as if you are half way between them then the full image is put in it's place. this simulates turning by Inbetweening.. badly but what do you want from 2D?

I think these Hacks could be put in fairly easily and turned on or off depending on your preffrence (or the speed of your computer <wink>)

anyway.. that's my lot on this topic for now..

Drake

[Gambit37]

I hated that extra half step movement in DM2 - it just confused the issue and you ended up clicking more or less than you needed to. I personally don't it's necessary for these kinds of games.

[Zyx]

I think lands of lore used this effect. Not bad.

[beowuuf]

That was it! i knew something else used the effect. It's been ages since i played that, but i do rememer it being much smoother than dm2, even though it was first?

[cowsmanaut]

the scaled images probably were antialiased and also probably didn't stay on the screen as long as in DM I think it's really down to te timing of it if it stays up too long it seems sluggish.

I think that was part of DM2's problem.. the other part was that it didn't do the turns like I suggested so you have sudden jarring turns and smooth steps.. it doesn't seem right together. it's either both or none.

Either way from Gambits comment it shows this really would need to be a switch in the init file. Some people like it (so far just me and ZYX?) and some don't

[George Gilbert]

All of this can now either be done in V0.38, or now have separate threads suggesting them (lighting, monster animation, bloodwych stuff).