The Bears Pit - Bear's Pit Forum

Subject: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:48:29 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Improving Original JA2 graphics

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:51:29 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

OK people, waiting for your opinions

Also, can someone sticky this (if it gets popular at all )

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:18:38 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Hi lisac didn't realise you were into Fallout as well until I wandered over to the NMA forumsrecently!

I like the idea as its something JA2 deserves. The only request I would have is that the scale beincreased a little as with the higher resolutions detail is lost. If it cannot then don't worry butdefinately make the multiple image sprite. The ultimate way would be using dcc from D2 as thatallows for easy modding and the engine doesn't need to do all the colouration. Failing that FOTwould be fine.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by tbird94lx on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:25:51 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

this is the sorta thing i've been hoping for..in would allow for at the very least..a community versionof ja3 using updated graphics etc etc and keep within the style and feel of what a ja should be tosome of us..go for it lisac..bring us in to the mid-90s please


Late 90's tbird I am sure...

D2 was 2000 and FOT was 2001.

of 190 ---- Generated from The Bears Pit

//thepit.ja-galaxy-forum.com/index.php?t=usrinfo&id=3457

//thepit.ja-galaxy-forum.com/index.php?t=rview&th=12186&goto=163777#msg_163777

//thepit.ja-galaxy-forum.com/index.php?t=post&reply_to=163777













//thepit.ja-galaxy-forum.com/index.php

We have only had 3D for the last 9 years though...

Edit: Also a question for the coders. Would it be possible to upgrade to 16 directions rather than8? That would allow much greater flexibility for animations and also looking around. Unless itnegatively impacts the game.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Marlboro Man on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:39:12 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Hey Lisac

Nice to see your still kicking. And your idea is really great. I guess I need to get a copy of LightWave 3D or equivilant. I had also been thinking "not too hardly though" along the same lines thatyou just expertly described above. This is great, and hopefully a few people will jump on board.

No need to wait to sticky this. I'll do it now. I know it there will be alot of feed-back. "I hope".

Peace

Edit: Dammit...now I got an urge to install BOS again.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by tbird94lx on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:11:55 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

i got the urge to install my Diablo 2 and add-on

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Mordul on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:11:51 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

This all sounds great to me, and even better, I actually understood it all. The only thing I can seebeing an issue is the scope of it. Replacing the way the sprites are managed seems like it wouldbe quite a task, though I don't have any experience in coding myself. Anyway, I offer my (moral)support, and I hope this project gets off the ground.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics












Posted by lisac on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:00:59 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Thank you all for showing interest about this thread.

KaerarThe only request I would have is that the scale be increased a little as with the higherresolutions detail is lost.Sorry, but no. We'd have to rescale the tiles too, and that would be a lot ofwork.

KaerarThe ultimate way would be using dcc from D2 as that allows for easy modding and theengine doesn't need to do all the colouration. Failing that FOT would be fine.Yes, that'd be nice,but we can't use other formats than STI (legal reasons and what not). Once again, the message tothe coders: we need to force the JA2 engine to use ("emulate") layered sprites, which would bemade from several (4-8) normal STI sprites.

KaerarAlso a question for the coders. Would it be possible to upgrade to 16 directions rather than8?Good question, but I think this would be humongous amount of work, since the whole game isset to work with 8 directions... I wish I'm wrong.

MordulReplacing the way the sprites are managed seems like it would be quite atask...Completely right. Don't expect this to be finished over night, it's a lot of graphical and codingwork. Probably months.

Also, I'll get into sorting out existing merc/soldiers animations today. Wish me luck

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Sibben on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:39:23 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I really think that JA2 deserves an overhaul like this, but the scale of this is quite an undertaking,and the complexity is quite easy to underestimate.

But, more importantly, if the characters are updated to a quality similar to FOT for instance, therest of the game will look really bad. It would need to be accompanied by a complete overhaul ofall tile sets and maps. That I guess is less of a risk in term of complexity, but it would takeenormous amounts of work. In essence building the game again, which is something SF did notdo for instance.

And, I personally think the quality of the characters is the least concern. It's the rest of the gamethat looks really dated in places. But, I'd love to see major things done with the game, and I'd bemore than happy to help out.

BTW, lisac, that was a really informative post and some impressive research.









Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by zed on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:40:05 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

in the way we can add new engine that will give more power and options (multi levels buildings, 4views (like in commandos), etc...)there is a free one that is very close to the fallout so we can try it out together with the newgraphicsthe link is :http://www.fifengine.de/


Trouble is with fife is that it emulates the Fallout style engine. Even though its similar its weaponhandling is at best rudimentary compared to JA2 original let alone 1.13. Its a good engine butwouldn't work with JA2 system unfortunately.

The engine I believe best suited to an overhaul is the Cryengine2 for various reasons:1) It can be set to isometric viewpoint as a fixed level (which can be made dynamic according toplayer position)2) It has accurate size dimensions. A gun that fire 200m will do that ingame.3) Destructible everything...4) Massive flexibility - you can put your own HUD (think bottom bar in JA2) for starters5) You can use the strategic screen like a frontend and have multiple maps OR6) Have one huge map that encompasses the game and have a grid referencing system.

I could list more but this is just off the top of my head. Other thing is its free to create games on aslong as you don't sell them. The 3D setup would look amazing with a fixed Isometric viewpoint andallow lots of neat tricks too. Traps could be far more complex. Claymores would work

Just my 2 cents

As for the sprites redoing that would be great just to have different armour, guns, headgear, etc...

I wish I had the time to join in

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by zed on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:24:41 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

for 3D engines there is the OGRE and there are some for but i think we are missing the point -












imeplementing everything from scratch in my opinion is out of the scope - unless we can create aconvert script for the maps or something like that to give backward competability. creating all from the start is something very very hard to do.another option is to enhance today's engine, take example from other engines and port it to theengine code. at least this is my idea.BTW,i have looked at crytek web site i didn't see that it is free for non profit use - maybe for academicuse

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:18:30 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

SibbenBut, more importantly, if the characters are updated to a quality similar to FOT for instance,the rest of the game will look really bad.That won't happen. The characters might get moredetailed, but the degree of quality shown in FOT is far far away from the concept I'm suggesting(anti-aliased sprites are almost impossible to achieve with current code).

SibbenAnd, I personally think the quality of the characters is the least concern. It's the rest of thegame that looks really dated in places.Right... But we need to start with something, and I'vedecided to try this (sprites) out first.

zedthe link is :http://www.fifengine.de/I'm quite familiar with it, actually the FIFE project leader ismy long-time contact. It's a nice alternative, but I'd like to stay in the "JA2 modding frame" for now.

zedanother option is to enhance today's engine, take example from other engines and port it tothe engine code.Couldn't have it said better myself. Maybe not a classical "porting", but borrowingof the ideas/solutions for sure.

Anyway, I've updated the design document with (still incomplete) table of all animations, check outthe end of my first post in this thread. In a few days I might come up with the first graphics...Depending on my free time

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Gotthard on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:10:32 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Changing the number of directions from 8 to 16 shouldn't be much of an issue code-wise, but fromthe posts I've read, it is exceedingly time consuming to create a new animation. Even justchanging it seems to take a while, so because it doesn't add much game play wise, I'drecommend leaving it out.

It's an excellent idea, and ambitious, but saying someone can pick up the coding (I'm still dusting









off my c++), how time consuming would it be to remake every animation in the game? I believe itis possible to code new animations in already, yet we have few new animations implemented...would this sort of problem carry over?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:39:16 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Gotthard...how time consuming would it be to remake every animation in the game? I believe it ispossible to code new animations in already, yet we have few new animations implemented...Idon't know, but I guess a skilled coder might use parts of the old code and (hopefully) upgrade it.How long would it take - only the coder assigned to the task could estimate it.

The other path would be implementing a new animations code, which would probably take longerthan the previous option.

I really don't see any of our current coders expressing their opinions about this, but let's bereasonable - they got other things to do, and the whole concept is still fresh. Patience, my friends

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:36:48 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Yes a project like this will take a long time, but the end result will be worth it

Keep up the good work Lisac

PS are you intending to allow for multiple layers to be implemented over the same body type.Thus allowing far greater variation in guns and armour etc?


Kaerarare you intending to allow for multiple layers to be implemented over the same body type.Thus allowing far greater variation in guns and armour etc? Exactly.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Gotthard on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:19:49 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message















What I mean is that it sounds like the problem with new animations currently was that it was ahuge PITA to make them, not to implement them code-wise. So even if we had new code for theanimations, if there are new animations, it's a moot point. Good code changes have been made,but it seems there hasn't been as much work done with animations. Is it due to difficulty or lack ofinterest?


GotthardIs it due to difficulty or lack of interest? Both.

I was just sorting out the old animations and making descriptions for each of those, and it's quite amess. There are those that are not used/implemented, while others repeat 2 or even 3 times...Some animations doesn't exist (e.g. female Kung-Fu fighting), the palettes (colours) capacityusage is at ~50% and the naming conventions are hieroglyphs. It's really hard to work with themess the devs left behind.

The new sprites system should bring more structured animations, more colours, clear namingconventions and (the most important and the hardest part at the same time) - the layered sprites.

Edit: Just finished the default merc (S_MERC) table of animations, it can be found in the designdocument.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:00:43 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

OK, the new version of the design document has been released. Switch to the first post in thisthread to download it.

What's new?

- updated info about STI files, palettes and coordinates- new, higher quality example images- updated the new sprites/animations system chapter- one new milestone set

Hope you won't mind my grammar

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Pustekuchen on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:32:20 GMT










View Forum Message <> Reply to Message

hi lisac,

very tasty idea.

recently i

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:54:27 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

pustekuchen

edit explosiondata.xml to use any custom made explosion animation in 1.13

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Pustekuchen on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:28:42 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

thx scorp

i wrote a reply in your rr discussion, interested in new explosions?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:05:38 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Hi Pustekuchen,

Unfortunately, my RL obligations left me zero to none time to keep working on the sprites rightnow. Hopefully it should change in a few weeks.

Thanks for the "contribution" (discovering the limit of the fixed frame rates and number of frames),this will probably be investigated and included in the design document.

Subject: this project sounds great.Posted by redgun on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:11:17 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I'd like to contribute to it (but i can't code C++).

















Does the Engine allow to zoom out? sometimes i'd like to see a bit more of the surroundings. azooming out feature would also be useful, if the 'big maps project' gets realized.

changing to 16 or 32 directions would also sweet, but i guess thats going to be just too muchwork.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by lisac on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:03:13 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Sorry for the late answer... Better late than never, I guess.

I can't code either, you know? If you want to contribute, you might begin by downloading thedesign document (see my first post) and reading it.

Zoom function? Out of the scope.

16 or 32 directions? Yes, probably too much.

On the other note, I'm still working on the list of animations needed for the new sprite system.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Khor1255 on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:13:34 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I like this idea a lot. I would go for a much simpler approach at least until we see where we cango.

I think my favorite part of this system is the idea about having different weapons and armourappear on sprites. To this end I would offer participation maybe and animation guidancedefinately.

I like the whole idea but I am more of a crawl before you walk kind of builder especially when theidea is so far from the conventional.

I really like this and hope to see some progress.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Dekar on Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:19:36 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

this would be a big change in the whole graphic rendering engine...maybe you should completely rewrite it instead of patching the old one












you could add more features like free zoom (and dynamic texture scaling).maybe an alpha channel for softer edges and free to use transparency?the scaling feature would make it completely resolution independent!i think the graphics could be pre-scaled when setting the resolution optionso the game could use the pre-scaled ones while playing.(could pre render several sizes for different zoom levels)maybe my whole idea sucks and resized graphics would be ugly,i'm not into this stuff and i've even skipped most of the thread.this was just everything i had in my mind after reading the first post

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by lisac on Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:49:00 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Thanks for your opinions, people.

Implementing features that Dekar has suggested would mean implementation (possibly inventiontoo) of a new graphic format and a lot (and I mean A LOT) of megabytes containing additionalgraphics (for each level of zoom). Also, we'd need a coder who's mastering the graphical segmentof the JA2 source code better than Houdini the escape from a chain-wrapped and tight lockedchest thrown in the water.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Luftzig on Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:24:53 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Wow, that's cool. It'll specially go well with the new inventory system, as sprites will be able torepresent the items carried by mercs or enemies.I really wish to help with these, but I'm no programmer (despite my endless attempts to learn) andI have rather limited experience with computer generated graphics of any kinda. On the otherhand, I really do want to help with these, and my current bad health leaves me with considerably alot of free time.Cutting things short, I'll do, just show me how!

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by lisac on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:23:28 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Thanks for offering your help. Too bad I can't dedicate myself to it right now, give me a few moreweeks (my job along with the university is trying to kill me).

You could start learning Blender or obtaining Lightwave3D somewhere for the start... I'll providesupport for LW3D later, but skilled people shouldn't have problems using 3dsmax, Maya orBlender along with it.












Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Dekar on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 06:04:12 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I could help with 2d stuff, I've been working with Photoshop for years...I'm not that good in programming, but this will hopefully change since I just started to studycomputer science And if the traffic would be a problem... just pm me, I've got around 2gb free webspace withunlimited traffic and around 900gb unused traffic per month on my dedicated!

greets Dekar

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Luftzig on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:37:05 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

well, I'm not quite sure now that I really could help as much I thought. Appearantly, JA2 doesn'twork on wine as well as I thought, And I don't have any plans involving a second OS on mycomputer... Well, I guess it could work out somehow, just need to figure out how.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Telpscorei on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:05:01 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Hey, I'm very interested in making this project a reality, and have just downloaded the designdocument. Still, I was wondering, what is JA2 coded in (I'm thinking C++ based on these posts,but is there any other languages I should be aware of) and where can I get a peek at the sourcecode / development kit? My coding skills are fairly rudimentary, but I'd like to at least have a lookand see if I can be of any help.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Kaiden on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:32:36 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Check the 1.13 homepage/wiki for a look at the source code/tools/sdk.

If you want the most up-to-date, then you'll have to install the SVN and keep it updated.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by zed on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:59:34 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message


















hi kaiden,i have looked all over the wiki no desing doc.... the most importent thing for me is to understandthe layering in the code and the interface between them.i have allready the latest SVN and it is compiling. two question though:1. how can i get the SVN of the MAP editor - i think it will be the easiet way to understand thegraphics engine from it.2. where can i find more details on the tile engine of JA2 - i have read most of CNC_GUN postand started to go over the source code.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Kindred on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:08:18 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I know it's a lot of work for little gain, but would it be possible to make a BigMale bald set of spritesfor Bull. He looks like he shaves his head in the portrait, but in the game he looks like he has a fullhead of red hair.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by the scorpion on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:38:19 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

sure it would be possible. Even without editing any sprites. you require ja2pal editor and define ahair color that is identical to the skin color bull uses and then in proedit assign it to bull's hair.

i know it's not what you wanted to do, but it might cause a similar effect.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Kindred on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:02:50 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I'm open to any and all suggestion. Thanks Scorp, I'll look at doing that.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Khor1255 on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:28:32 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

This touches on a good idea though.

An expanded choice of pallettes would be a great step toward making sprites appear exactly like the modder wants them to.















Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Telpscorei on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:51:45 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Just finished reading the design doc. and was thinking that it would probably be easier foranimators if the hands were kept with the weapon layer. I'm not an animator, so I don't reallyknow, but it seems to me that if you want to show all kinds of different weapons, you're probablygoing to want to switch hand positions a lot, and hence keeping the weapons and hands asseparate layers may make the situation a little bit more fiddly than is necessary.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Thor on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:41:41 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

@Khor

About the pallet:If it would make a more complex placement of colours possible..

What I mean is that hair could be given a second (partly overlapping) replaceable colour, makingit possible to show that people wear a helmet or not (in the last case the helmet colour beingtransparant or hair-coloured)

In the same way this could be done with shirts, boots, pants... so that you could havelong-sleeved shirts etc. Maybe body armour (for if you see allies & enemies from closeby) andthey don't wear a shirt... So maybe not armour...

Of course I totally stand behind the idea of a system that would allow to replace weapons anditems too. Some animations (like for a machinegun) still would have to be made, but at least youcould just replace them.


the problem with drawing in any body armour and such is that you'll have to edit each and everysingle animation. And almost each frame.

unless you can get some 3dmodelling procedure working, it'll take ages.

there's a couple of ideas how to depcict body armour. since i don't see manual drawing in of bodyarmour possible (again, this is unless the 3d model and rendering and all is being done) i'd say amore precise use of the pallets would help: camouflage pallets currently effect the skincolor, thepants color, the vest color and probably even hair color (not sure there though)












if we could define color palettes just for each of this colors, we could at least have body armourdistinguished by color, maybe one color representing one specific body armour class level


I wouldn't bother about body armour. People wear it beneath their clothes... The character shouldjust have to be a bit puffed up around the body if anything.. (Which should only be visible from upclose)

A helmet that's a different story.

What do you think?


not sure. i can imagine my Mercs to wear commando tuques, barrets or even bandana's

large helmets are so WW1- ish. me personally i'm not too fond of it

the hair color usually has only some 10 max. pixels per frame... i think we can't be very creativethere. but that's just me. i guess that can be seen totally differently


Totally agree on that. I also like the ammo bandoleros across the chest in your RR mod. What Imeant was the armour. Kevlar & shit. They don't have to be seen.

We can always try and give a merc green hair... see how that looks


hehe yeah.















i hope you don't mind if i pick up a point i was referring to earlier: camouflaged items, such asvests, pants and helmets give camo only to the part of the body they actually cover.

it would only require the game to check what armour type (armours.xml has already thosedistinctions) an object is. a camouflaged helmet would then just modify the haircolor palette, avest only the vest color and pants only the pants color. We already have like 4 or 5 camopatterns... snow, urban, woodland, desert, stealth as far as i remember.

what i'm implying is that in such a way, we could customize the optics of our mercs manyfold, as awoodland camo vest plus a desert camo helmet plus an urban camo pants would make ourcharacter look much more unique.

we have 3 body parts and 5 possible camouflage patterns... that would give a large span ofdifferent possible looks. If somebody wants to portray specific armies in his squads, he may do soby adjusting the palettes in question...

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Khor1255 on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:06:01 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

The idea originally posited was to have armour and such 'layered' on to each animation as perDiablo (I think). Although I can forsee some real nightmarish xy coordinate tweaking to get'floating' armour and the like to look right I think this is a great idea.

Now if 'layers' were introduced into the sprites you could do that highlighting idea you have by justadding a few pixels of another colour.

One of the things I'd really like to see is more colours to choose from so we could introduce somedrab colours without having to overwrite existing ones. About ten more would be plenty and I canhardly see this as being a big coding problem.

But then, my talking about code is pure conjecture.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by lockie on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:09:22 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

hey dan , im sure we're just glad you seem to be fired up again :ok:

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Dekar on Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:25:48 GMT











In reality helmets just suck... the only thing they can protect you from are graze shots!So yeah, pro bandanna/barret

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Andris on Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:12:48 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Too bad I dont have time to help with this:( I bet this project is as important as NEW INV:) Way togo guys:)

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Luftzig on Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:57:31 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Got blender, and hopeful I'll manage to run the Linux port, and in a few years I might be helpful

On the discussion note, I feel that the sprites should go hand in hand with the new inventory, andallow us to represent the LBE.And about the vests, the two kinds I saw were way to big to be wore under a shirt, unless yourshirts usually 2 or 3 sizes bigger. I don't know what kind of vest they were though, I only know theIDF jargon for them...

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by free8082002 on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:38:50 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Just come back after month and I see this post. Excellent analysis, nice idea, and a pity I don

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by tazpn on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:06:32 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

New user to the forum and boy was I pleased to find this gem still alive and kicking and evenbetter open source. I've always ranked JA2 up in my top 3 favorite games of all time with Falloutand Planescape.

Anyway, I'm no expert in blitting but I think most of the request is possible but still not exactlyeasy. Between stiedit and ja2pal many of the base tools are ready but the remaining manpowerseems a little light.

















1. Updating Palettes This is relatively straight forward. Basically, all of the customized merc palettes are held inja2pal.dat and are referenced by name in the code. The animation palette is then altered withthose colors. This still means that the available colors are fixed but very flexible. More selectionsand the ability to customize in the IMP screen (or inventory screen) is probably the biggest job.

2. Separate items Again still possible to do with the STI format but definitely a lot more work. The currentresolution of the images are poor enough that I'm not sure allow that to be more fancy would beuseful. It would be nice if we could block off part of the palette for the gun colors and then use thecolor substitution code for slightly different colors. Still not easy but probably easier than creating5x more STI files with only the requisite body parts.

Given that every soldier already has unique color combinations for Head, Pants, Vest, Skin, Misccolors that is almost enough for a lot of interesting customization.

3. Unique color control based on armor Color control based on items should be easily doable. One difficulty here is that there is no goodmapping of items to color palette that I can see but I'm sure this could be added to the XML files ifsomebody wanted and then if it was missing default to the original color or something. We couldeasily introduce a bunch of different color shades here to get the most bang for our buck. Thisalso fixes a lot of interface problems. I would recommend introducing new attachment items thatalter color here for extra flexibility.

4. Camo items I can't really tell how the replacement works at the moment but it looks like its just another formof palette replacement. The colors types are hard coded but specified in XXX.COL files for someflexibility.

5. Arms Looks like arms use the same palette as the face so it looks like trouble to allow for sleeves.

---I would take the approach of:1. Adding meaningful palette replacements to ja2pal.dat for use in the XML.2. Adding references to those color strings to the XML for all armor items to allow custom colors.3. Adding color attachment items for the Head, Chest, Leg armor (using the XML color strings)4. Altering the "Soldier Control.cpp" code to update palette from the items worn by the soldier.5. Adding a setting to disable this code in the INI file so its not forced on users.

Having said all this, I dont know if I have the time for this kind of project but could be fun and lookssimple enough that it could be manageable.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.



Posted by lisac on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:23:18 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

tazpnBetween stiedit and ja2pal many of the base tools are ready but the remaining manpowerseems a little light. Right, one of the biggest problems.

I find the points 2 and 3 rather interesting, since those are the first progressive thoughts towards acheaper solution, but which indeed would need less time to get finished. Point 5 is just anotherlimitation of the original system, which I'd rather to see replaced than slightly upgraded.

And the whole approach seems pretty reasonable to me. We do have two ways of handling thisnow, let's see what can be done about it.

Thanks for your contribution, tazpn!


concerning point 3

the scorpion

camouflaged items, such as vests, pants and helmets give camo only to the part of the body theyactually cover.

it would only require the game to check what armour type (armours.xml has already thosedistinctions) an object is. a camouflaged helmet would then just modify the haircolor palette, avest only the vest color and pants only the pants color. We already have like 4 or 5 camopatterns... snow, urban, woodland, desert, stealth as far as i remember.

what i'm implying is that in such a way, we could customize the optics of our mercs manyfold, as awoodland camo vest plus a desert camo helmet plus an urban camo pants would make ourcharacter look much more unique.

we have 3 body parts and 5 possible camouflage patterns... that would give a large span ofdifferent possible looks. If somebody wants to portray specific armies in his squads, he may do soby adjusting the palettes in question...

i think this is a promising idea. instead of checking for the 50 percent camo bonus, the gamewould have to trigger a special palette according to the item's type or maybe even by an externalvalue

"ItemPalette" tag that points to a palette.









i used camouflage as an example in the above posting, but basicly, any kind of palette isthinkable.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Kaerar on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:24:03 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

The main question is how much detail is going to be portrayed on the characters.

To start with the new LBE gear could easily be replicated (admittedly lots of boring Blender work)but it is possible to add the items in a reasonable fashion.

Also the Backpacks would be great to have. You have your Merc start with the backpack on andthen when combat starts drops it. Would be great for atmosphere.

For guns are you going to put all in? Or just the M16/AK47 for the start and add the more uniqueshapes in one at a time?

I am looking on this project with great anticipation

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Khor1255 on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:02:32 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I think as much detail as possible should be put into each layer. Perhaps we start with the1024x768 resolution in mind because detail will naturally 'blur' with other resolutions. The trick - ofcourse - when dealing with so few pixels is to figure out which pixels need to be which colour soas not to make the layers look cluttered.

I also don't like the top heavy American Football player exadurated look that some of theselayered images have. Rule of thumb = even if it is a covering layer it does not have to extendpassed the silhouette of the original image even one pixel in some places to keep this unrealisticproportioning to a minimum.

A wider selection in pallettes would go a long way toward depicting the illusion of a covering layerwithout having to inflate the image to cartoonish proportions.

I think these layers would be pretty easy to crank out (but time consuming as hell because youneed to adress every frame of every animation) but the xy coordinate tweaking seems a beast onthis particular project. Perhaps the best way for this would be to use the whole sized sti for eachframe of each piece but just make everywhere your layer does not appear the 'invisable' colour tomaintain some reference to xy coords.

Which brings me to a question I may know the answer to but clarifacation here would be helpful:









Q: Where is the reference corner (the x-0 y-0) located on each frame?

I believe the top left corner of each frame represents the point at which an sti is 'zeroed in' but Iam not 100% sure here.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Kaerar on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:10:22 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

"Khor1255"Perhaps the best way for this would be to use the whole sized sti for each frame ofeach piece but just make everywhere your layer does not appear the 'invisable' colour to maintainsome reference to xy coords.

Thats exactly what I am experimenting with for guns at the moment. Using a base 117x46template for Bigitems and a 60x23 template for MDGuns or 30x23 for small slot MDGuns. I triedwith 59 but they didn't actually fill the grid apparently.


That's great but the only frames you need to reference are the animation frames, right?

We are talking about the same thing here aren't we?

What needs to be done animation wise is to provide the illusion of different weapons and armoursappearing on the in game sprites. In order to do this we need to work with the existing animationsas a reference/template.

The good news is that this negates the need for three different sized depictions (we are inessence only working with the smgun sized images) the really bad news is that these depictionsmust correspond to every frame of every animation.

Sometimes you will see only a small part of your image (the rest being blocked by the soldier'sbody when he has his back to you for instance) sometimes the image will 'float' low on the tile(crouching and prone) sometimes high etc.

I don't see the need for different sized item pics for this project but only a lot of repetative imagingwith very few pixels at any resolution.

Right?









Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Dr-D on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:10:24 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

My wishes related to this topic:

being able to know if armor is being used just by looking - seeing helms, seeing the vest in top ofthe shirt, seeing larger pants

dynamic weapon picture - By default, every weapon would be shown with the current weaponpicture. but if the weapon xml entry has "custom_picture=" then the weapon would appeardifferent. (i just wanna see my P90!!!!)

those are my only requests.


I do not see how it would be possible to depict weapons in full detail when held by the in gamesprites. The best - I think - we could hope to do is make differences between the different types offirearms (you know, pistols, machine pistols, smgs, assault rifles, sniper rifles, shotguns) becausewe are working here with very small sprites.

Certainly - especially if we introduce more colours to the available pallettes - we could depicthelmets and maybe even vests (by bulking up slightly etc.), pants and possibly even web gear.This is what I am aiming for and would be willing to work on.

Please let me know if there is any way you think we could add such precise detail withoutcluttering up the scree with some floating bigitem pic or such. I don't see how this would bepossible and would not even want all this information at any kind of long range.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Kaerar on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:40:05 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Khor1255 I believe it is possible to have the best of both worlds. Yes there are a majority of gunsthat will look to similar to bother having all iterations, however unique guns like the P90, AN94,etc... should have their own. That way its easier to see them. The C7 and the M16 for examplewould use the same sprite.

Armour and other gear thats worn should be done too, they are all feasible but if we canimplement lisac's ideas for multi-part sprites then that would make the different bodyparts all thatmuch easier as you wouldn't have to have a different body anim sprite for every combination ofarmour and clothing.












Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Khor1255 on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:06:46 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Certainly bullpups for example could be represented differently (although there would have to besomething that triggers this particular animation as opposed to any other assault rifle) but if youtake a look at how many pixels you have to work with at that scale you will quickly see that only somuch detail is possible.

The animation tag is one problem, the ammount of different animations another but the smallscale and the fact that you often only see a part of the weapon clearly make providing any indepth detail impossible as far as I can tell.

If you have an idea or better yet an example that is done to scale I'd like to see it.

I think this project is very possible but only likely to actually happen if we walk before we run. Ithink the individual weapon classes being illustrated is definately enough at this scale but amopened to any suggestions about how we might increase detail but to start, having two handedsmgs take on a different look than any other two handed weapon, having sniper rifles appearingdifferently than assault rifles, etc. is a great start.Having EOD armour (or any armour for that matter) appear differently from regular clothing, etc.etc. are all asthetic improvements and will improve gameplay as well so I'd like to offer a methodof doing this that might get done.I am also willing to contribute although as anyone who has had the displeasure of working with meknows that my contributions are often slow in comming if I'm able to work around rl commitmentsat all.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Dr-D on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:04:01 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

lucky for you, you have me

I explain, i am a paint fanatic. i love mspaint!!! I know how to make photoshop art in ms paint, callme crazy but i like to imagine layers, since paint does not have layers, we have to imagine them,and do copy pastes in order.

JA2 is alike MsPaint in that way, It does not uses layers, but i know how to emulate layers withsimple changes in the current engine. Just need a coder to read my idea.

You guys interested?













Well here i go here is my approach

The 1st thing we must do is to remove the weapon(in all images) and remake the damaged partleft by the weapon, like this:

2nd: Add 2 new color codes to the images, 1 to difference the skin near and the skin deep, 2 todifference 1 leg to the other, like this:

3rd: Alter the image-creation's functions to write the image in frames in a total of 16 frames.The impair ones will come from the correct images created in step 1 and 2.The pair ones will be custom ones, like this:

4th: Make a new xml tag in items.xml to be able to add images to the custom frames, like thisP90.slf

And the outcome of that tag being there should be this:

I hope this helps the codersGood luck in coding


With this method items could use several frames:

an example of this is a vest that covers the arms:frame12 - left arm of the vestframe13 - torso part of the vest (this would overwrite the standard frame 13)frame16 - right arm of the vest


I think there are good things to be gleaned from this idea.

However, one huge problem is that if we separate the gun sti from the sprite sti we must makedifferent animations for each silhouette of weapon. Just representing the weapon in it's 'clean'sideview is not good enough because we must also represent it turning away, facing away, prone









north, prone south and all directions in all stances for all weapons.

A huge ammount of work and that is before even making sure every frame fits in the proper xycoordinate.

If you are volunteering for making these animations my hat is squarely off to you.

We do of course need a coder on board but please be clear about what it is going to take to makethis work for every frame of every animation.

I think the close arm far arm distinctions would go a long way toward making these animationsproperly appear when parts of the weapon would be blocked from view because - for instance - anarm was in the way so in essence all you would need to do was to draw the guns themselves inseveral angles (working with very few pixels) and tweak the xy coordinates to make this work.

It is a lot of work given the ammount of weapons available in the 1.13 and I wish you the best ofluck.


Dr-D3rd: Alter the image-creation's functions to write the image in frames in a total of 16 frames.

Please note that this part is not as difficult as it appears, the game already divides the picture bythe color code to recolor it, I'm just asking for more 2(3 with feet) color codes and an sequentialadding.


Khor1255However, one huge problem is that if we separate the gun sti from the sprite sti we mustmake different animations for each silhouette of weapon

thats not an issue, we just have to make 5 default weapons(pistol,gun,knife,law,mortar) and if ""tag does not exist, force them in the original place


Khor1255I think the close arm far arm distinctions would go a long way toward making these












animations properly appear when parts of the weapon would be blocked from view because - forinstance - an arm was in the way so in essence all you would need to do was to draw the gunsthemselves in several angles (working with very few pixels) and tweak the xy coordinates to makethis work.

I evaluated that issue, but i think thats the animator problem, the engine that way can supportevery single position of the gun, in every direction, if the weapon pack is done correctly.

the divisions i made cover all louse members that can have things between them.

but, hey, if you think more frames are needed , I have nothing against it.


since weapons will also need multiple frames, maybe the xml tag sould be:P90.sti

with P90.sti having several folders one for each frame

so if does not existand item is a weapon, add default animation (to cover the huge amount of weapons issue)


If you say we only need 5 weapon types than I am afraid I did not follow what you initailly said. Itseemed to me you were proposing making a different animation for at least each silhouette type(a p90 looks remarkably different than any other smg for instance).

If you are saying we only need to separate the weapon type animations than that is closer to whatI had in mind. Less exacting than your method yes but it would only require altering existinganimations slightly than coding in the new animation that seperates - for instance - a sniper riflefrom an assault rifle.

This is what I had in mind and the solution may lie in whole new animation sets for the differentweapon classes.

But I like your layered method much better it's just that the xy tweaking does not sound like fun atall.









Do up a custom animation and rename it to an existing one. When you test it it will appear to jumpwiggle and or shimmer if your frames get any bigger or smaller than the original animation'sframes.

Placing a weapon into the hand of a sprite means manouvering this animation into a very precisespot on each frame so of course frame by frame tweaking is the only way I can see to make thishappen.

Is there maybe some imaging software that makes this process easier?

It is not just a question of how each weapon is angled in reference to the 'camera' but where theyexist within each frame of each animation. They rarely hold a stable plane and aren't alwaysangled exactly the same way either.

So again if there is a program that makes this process easier than just photosuite or shop etc thanI sure hope you have it.


At the beginning we would make exactly what we see right now but with the new engine.

that would support any kind of custom animation. but that would not be added. we would only addthe already existing 5 weapon types, as defaults for all weapons.

But as animators got work done we would add the animations and the xml tags to the game.

for example:

If some one makes the AK animation, we would add in all AK type guns the same xml tag andonly one animation(not one for each weapon, all AK would use the same animation).If later some one thinks the AKM is different form the rest of AKs and makes the AKM animationthen we would add that animation and change the AKM tag from the AK standard file to the newone.

That way we can make the engine changes with only 5 animations work, but still be compatiblewith 1000 different animations if there are ppl wiling to do it.










Another problem I can see is that the computer would need to know when the torso should blockthe weapon and when the weapon should appear over the torso.

Perhaps making the back of each sprite a different colour (we might even be able to make all 'far'parts of a sprite the same colour) could be the solution?

EDIT:

Sorry, just saw your post. That is the only way I could see thins thing actually getting done. That isprecisely what we need to do.

I am wondering how you got all that detail into the sprite sized p90?

Is this by using the highest resolution and if so how to I generate the extra pixels necessary tomake images in this resolution?

I'm sure it is probably just a simple mathematical formula but what is it?


Khor1255Another problem I can see is that the computer would need to know when the torsoshould block the weapon and when the weapon should appear over the torso.

Perhaps making the back of each sprite a different colour (we might even be able to make all 'far'parts of a sprite the same colour) could be the solution?

well thats not up to the computer, thats up to the animation, i explain:

when the weapon is in front of the torso, the animator should use frame 14, when its behind thetorso, the animator should use frame 8.

so in the same place that frame 8 is used, the frame 14 has nothing(in this case, in other cases itmay have).

Its all up to the animator, if he choses the right frames, it appears correctly

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Dr-D on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:05:21 GMT








Khor1255I am wondering how you got all that detail into the sprite sized p90?

Is this by using the highest resolution and if so how to I generate the extra pixels necessary tomake images in this resolution?

I'm sure it is probably just a simple mathematical formula but what is it?

Nope, I'm a paint fanatic, i painted it, pixel by pixel, from memory.But if you want a good (and free) draw tool, get Gimp.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Kaerar on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:07:02 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Is there any news on this project from lisac or Dr-D?

Its a very good project and I look forward to seeing it implemented at some point.

Unfortunately it does highlight the single most limiting aspect of JA2. The graphics engine. Ah wellseeing as its JA2's 11th birthday this year I think its perfectly ok

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by circ on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:30:33 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

interesting that you brought up FOT, as i played that for a week or two just recently. anyway, ithas some cool sprite animations and the gear changing your appearance is nice. but noteverything is painted in so you get crowbars and spiked bats and cattle prods that look like eachother. ive never played d2 because diablo 1 was utterly boring, however, lately ive been playingToEE, the temple of elemental evil, and it too has some cool layered sprites. i think it uses 2dmaps and 3d for the tiny chars, that end up about the same size as JA2. it looks pretty cool, anduh barbie doll like, you put on say a fullplate, and it shows up, and then slap on a robe and itcovers the whole thing up.

the 1.13 did alot for JA2 graphics just with the higher resolution possibility imo, but ah, to have theliving scenery of ToEE or even the shell craters from FOT would be nuts. but lacking that, morelifelike sprites would be cool.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by lisac on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:49:32 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message














I'm sorry to report that the constant lack of free time keeps me away from starting anything seriousregarding this question.

There's always hope, though... The interest of the community shows there could be somethingdone, with or without me. I'd prefer the first option, of course

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritesPosted by rasz on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:29:14 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

>Yes, that'd be nice, but we can't use other formats than STI (legal reasons and what not)

??? is there something in the JA license that says you cant use any other file format? I think not(after all xml IS another file format ). I understand we cant just copy STI to new format anddistribute it, but using our own new data is ok. I suggest PNG/MNG (free open license, tons ofsample code).

Why not go one step further and introduce openGL? If you are going to build 3d models you arealready doing half the work, maps can be converted on the cheap (after all they are made fromcube like blocks with tile textures, it will look like crap at the beginning, but will be easy to tweak).You get scaling and rotating for free.

example engine ioquake3http://ufoai.ninex.info/gallery/albums/ingame-screenshots/grenade_launcher.jpghttp://ufoai.ninex.info/gallery/albums/ingame-screenshots/ingame003.jpg

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritesPosted by Kaerar on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:32:57 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

If it is to be transported to a 3D engine why not use one of the better ones. You could easilymodify Far Cry or Crysis (now the mod tools are out) for the JA2 style. The biggest problem wouldbe getting peeps to do the coding for it to make it turn based.

Maybe even going back to the Earth 2150 code base would be better. That was designed withsome damn clever physics for trajectory and on the fly shooting. Similar to TA and SupCom forthat matter, though those games are not very compatible with this idea.

Personally I could easily get involved with a TC for Crysis or Far Cry 2 engine to update JA2.Allowing multiple story buildings, beautiful scenery and some of the best damage physics yet.









Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Ar1z on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:56:15 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I think we should use an open source or free engine (with source code). This way coders canmodify the engine if they need to. ufo:ai engine should do the trick

I can help with the images also

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by zed on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:15:00 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

i have looked on OGRE in the last weeks and it may be very nice to implement.first the code is rather easy to understand + since it is C++ we can "teach" the engine to supportour current formats. of course OGRE is supporting most of today animation formats + platformindependent.the engine is LGPL which means that if we will use it as DLL we are not violating any agreementof sharing the source code.there is an implementation of tile engine based on OGRE tile engine based on OGRE and it looksrather nice.beside that since OGRE has very large community we could have good support.i think (due not sure) we even don't have to change JA2 gui system since the OGRE is renderengine and we can limit it to the tactical screen only.i think to build a tile engine instead of today tile engine will do the trick.any solution that will try to add features in the graphic will probably harder to do then to replacethe whole layer (everything in JA2 tactical map is build around the tile engine)

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:30:47 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I understand wanting to use Open source engines, but I don't see the tradeoff as being worth it. Ifyou can utilise an engine like Crysis or Far Cry (seeing as the Far Cry engine is now proven andvery stable) why not?

To be free of their copyrights to the game all that is needed is a 10% difference in the coding andcontent. By the end of the project there will be far more than that, so they couldn't make a claimeven if they wanted too. Remember Valve had to buy the rights to Counter-Strike from thecreators. However seeing as we are dealing with someone elses IP we would have to adjust it tosuit. Are the original games abandonware now? If so we could use the IP from them without fear.That would give us the ability to continue the JA story on some other place that needs a cleanup.If necessary we may have to drop the JA name as whoever has the IP may squeal foul play, butseeing as the IP hasn't been used properly in years and doesn't look promising in doing so then itmay not be an issue.












If the project is successful the dev team may even be invited to be the JA3 team. But thats all piein the sky stuff.

Personally I would like to give the Far Cry engine a go. If there were coders who knew how tomake it turn based then that would be great. I am more of a modeller than a coder so that's whereI would contribute if I had the chance. From the Icandy view Far Cry is fine. With the ability tocreate maps that would link on the Strategic map etc. Would need a Strategic section created togo with the Tactical (which already supports Isometric viewpoints and rotation + height change forthe camera). As a base it is a good start with some good ballistics for the weapons. Just need tointroduce bullet drop and Rocket arcs and it would be great


can you give some links on the far cry engine? were did you read the 10% change?lets read, learn and go forwardBTW, is it free? i can't see how we could manage with payments to adding a commercial license


zedwere did you read the 10% change?That is a standard in copyright law. If the new article deviates from the original by 10% or greaterthen it can be considered a new article for copyright and patent purposes.

Well that's what it was last time I checked. It wouldn't surprise me if companies try to claim stuffanyway but at the end of the day they create EULA's to be self executing and unfairly against theend user. There are many easy ways to resolve the issue though. So its more of a case of workwith them and not worry about releasing it as a retail title.

Here's a link to the Crymod site for Far Cry http://farcry.crymod.com/portal.php

The SDK has been out for ages and I think the engine is superior to most others available exceptthe most recent ones. Certainly better than Source. Only ones I think are better atm are Crysisand CoD4. But that is purely subjective.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Ar1z on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:05:31 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I don't know how could we use a closed source "FPS" engine and mod it to be something like JA2or Silent Storm even... Silent storm is already almost the same engine as JA2 3D , but noone












used it to make a JA2 TC. How could someone add features in a closed source engine? HasCrytek released farcry source code? OGRE seems a lot faster to use, does it support 3D objects?


I see what you mean Ar1z, to overcome the closed source problem would be an issue, however itis possible (one guy on the forum has got a working base which doesn't use any Far Cry scripts orassets. To do that you need a pretty intimate knowledge of Far Cry. That is a problem I don't knowhow to address at the moment, however Cryengine1 is Crytek's old engine. If they go the sameroute as ID and release the Source to old engines it would be helpful. Either that or we make acommunity JA fund and acquire licensing from Crytek

As to OGRE I have no idea. Haven't looked too deeply into it. Silent Storm by Nival Interactive is avery difficult engine to work with and mod by all accounts. Also Nival being small are veryprotective of their property.

For Far Cry couldn't you add functions through the DLL's? Using custom DLL's to get the desiredend result?


Kaerar,i think you are looking on th crytek engine as a good solution from the designer view you shouldactually specify what sort of things you would like to have in the JA2 game editor. maybe weactually need to aim at creating a game editor based on JA code.please specify your "dream list" - what do you think JA2 editor should have. use crytek engine asrefernce.after specifying the features lets us check what is the available platform today in the market thatoffer it. compare between them and then choose the one most appropriate for us. sprite was oneof the features (the one that is the main cause for this thread...).i suggest (even if this is more academic approch) open a new thread in this subject - lets extractagreed feature list and the platform to make it from this thread and define what can be done inwhat phase.i think that using crytek engine without paying anything or paying a constant one time fee for theengine (i.e. not buying far cry for each player as a tool to base JA on it) is not very reallistic..













Fair enough it should probably go in the JA3 section though. I'll start it there.

Engine discussion for next gen JA based mod/community game

There ya go link added


put a link so we can go there

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritesPosted by rasz on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:27:36 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

far cry is not free, you have to pay real MONIES for itQuake 3 engine is free and open sourced (ufo:ai is based on quake 3 engine, so is Enemyterritory, Tremulous and so on)there is a big difference between doing a mod (far cry) and having open sourced engine, with amod you are constrained and need a TON of documentation, engine creator support is also agood thing. With os you can always look into the code and modify it if needed.

Free as in beer is the biggest requirement imo. OGRE, Q3 or something totally different, doesntmatter, as long as its free.

btw I like Altair UFO:aftershock/afterlight engine (apart from lame coders leaving super stupidbugs for >year, or company doing paper bancrupcy and then immediatelly setting up anothercompany with same people and name just to get out of support contract). This is how I would likeJA2 to look.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:29:45 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Take the engine discussion to the thread above rasz.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:25:42 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message















Hehe...

Frantic discussion has been started here, I see. Let me try to clarify a few things first.

2D or 3D, no matter since the models once done and animated can (and should) be transformedinto sprites. Once (IF EVER) it gets possible to represent the current game engine in 3D using anyof the above mentioned engines or any other 3D engine as the final solution, the models and theanimations can be easily tweaked and suited for the new purpose. The only problem are exporters(plugins), but with a bit of luck, all the tools needed for such a plan will be available, sooner orlater.

But let's find the rabbit, before we start sharpening the spit....

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:12:45 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Exactly. I would love to see the sprite system you have detailed above as a stand in for a fulldetailed 3D engine mod/TC/Full Game.

Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Hinka on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:20:07 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

DekarIn reality helmets just suck... the only thing they can protect you from are graze shots!So yeah, pro bandanna/barret

helmets arnt designed to stop gunshots!

they are to stop shrapnel, rocks and other debris throw up by explosions.

not relivant to JA2 but even wood splinters will penetrate the skull if flying over a certain speed.

in a battlezone a helmet CAN save you statisticly, but in a battlezone its all down to luck mostly

oh yeah, great idea too about the sprites, id like the mercs to show what gear they are wearing









Subject: Re: this project sounds great.Posted by Czert on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:06:58 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

To helmet use - helmet have started wide use in WWI - earlier only occasional (Im talking oboutsteel helmets, not decoratice helmets) - and brits (or belgians?) esimeted using of helmets savedcca 5% of causalties. And 5% means many thausends of lives.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by llvi on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:08:44 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

@Hinka;

Just some forum etiquette. Please don't change the Subject line when you post. It changes thethread title. (I learned this the hard way too).

Thread title changed back

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lockie on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:18:25 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

one thread , one title please ,thanks llvi :type:

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Obscuritan on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:55:58 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but provided that you can open these sprites inPhotoshop, you could create an automatic script to select the color range for each "part", andseparate them into layers in PS, to make it easier to work with. If you have the exact color rangefor each body part, you can manually input the color range to select, copy and add to a new layer.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:40:24 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

The sprites are not directly readable by PS unfortunately. Once they are extracted to .bmp thenyou can do what you suggest. I have a batch extractor here, problem is I have no idea aboutsprite editing beyond doing lasers for the post apoc mod years ago.


















Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:50:27 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Obscuritan...you could create an automatic script to select the color range for each "part", andseparate them into layers in PS...That's right. Most of the work could be automated using the right software, like Photoshop. Theproblem with "implementing" the multi-layered sprites and making them using a 3D softwareremains the biggest hand-brake in this project.

In other news - yes, I'm still bothered too much with my RL to push the thing a bit forward. Sorry.Things shall change soon, in a few weeks, hopefully.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Arethusa on Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:33:18 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Given the enormous difficulty of doing sprites, which are by pretty much any account very, veryoutdated, has anyone talked about implementing a full 3d engine? Anyone who can do sprites iseither going to know how to do textures or can learn fairly easily, and the results would beconsiderably better. Implementing the engine is obviously far from trivial, but I'm just curious ifanyone's talked about it.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:05:39 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Yeah in the JA3D section at the bottom of the main forum.

Problem is what engine to use and finding people who can code and convert all the guns, maps,interface, and ammo to 3D.

I think it would take about the same amount of time but its finding a group willing to do it.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Lt.Havoc on Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:37:42 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Well, what about the HL Source Engine? It fairly modabble and you can do RTS games with it,see Iron Fist The Opression and HL2 Tactial. They also have a full SDK and lots of people aremodding for it, so it shouldnt be that difficult to get people for it. The only problem I see isregarding the copyright stuff. The licences for JA is in the hands of Strategy First and I could seetrouble coming ahead if somone does a mod that uses the brand name Jagged Alliance.















There are also several other free enginges out there that could be used, why no check the ModDatabase: http://www.moddb.com/engines take your pick, there are lots of engines there, evenfree ones that are easy to code, thanks to C++.


The HL2 engine is not capable enough to compare with the Far Cry or Crysis engines. Also thereis the UT2/3 engines flying about plus of course the Q3/4 engines. All of which are better thanSource. The reason source is a dog is the link to steam. If it can be separated and then hitboxesand the like changed to actual polygons rather than the square box system it seems to haveretained from HL then ok but it still doesn't seem to lend itself to a TB game.

Then there is also the new engines on the block. Stalkers engine looks very interesting withballistic calc's and so on getting to the LoD of the TA/Supreme Commander madness. Whichwould make for a very accurately modelled game. Then of course there is the TA/Supcomengines. TA is polygon limited and can't handle complex joint systems (like arms and legs).Supcom however can and also has nice features like global zoom and so on. Both could witheffort be TB based engines (tho I think TA would be a lot of hassle).

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:54:25 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I looked at that site and mainly saw fps engines. What is a good turn based engine (preferablyone as close to ja2 as possible)?

And are there engines already set up so that a non coder like me could just design a mod (orwhole game) using guis and or text based modifyers like xml files?

It would be cool to have a look at especially if it was free from licencing.

As for this project, I think as long as noone is making any money from it we can do whatever welike. The 1.13 is fine for making this new sprite system but a little coding and a lot of graphics arerequired to achieve the layering that has been proposed.

I don't think we need 3d here because it would change the very nature of combat to such a degreeone could hardly call it Ja. Besides, most 3d engines look very shitty especially in face rendering.A lot of the charm of Ja for me comes from the characterisations and I think cheesy roboticlooking faces would blow it.









Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Wil473 on Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:43:58 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

There's an open source "homage" to XCOM that uses the Quake 2 engine. http://ufoai.sourceforge.net/Still a work in progress, but I believe the tactical system is partially complete.


Yeah been there but that is inadequate for the needs of JA style games.

Closest thing is the Silent Storm engine which is unwieldy and has a lot of shortcomings. This isalso being used for JA3/JA3D so we might as well look elsewhere so no toes are hurt.

I personally think the Quake, UT or Far Cry engine series would be fine. They both can accept aform of turn based (based on increments of time similar to AP's but just measured in parts of asecond). This would be more beneficial I think too as realistic values are easier to come by. Theonly issue with it all seems to be copyright/ownership after mod is created. If no money is madethen it would be no issue, but if it got to the point of developer/publisher interest then deals canalways be made.

Then there is the newbie on the block which I read about today which is Stalker. That may also bea possibility but it is limited by lack of tools atm. That will change as the engine progresses.


Well, I would say that UT and Far Cry are both intresting engines and we should riskexperimenting with it. The Cry Engine 1 is till very cable and there are also modders out there forit. Skinning and modeling isnt a problem but ghetting it into a turne based game would be themost difficult aspect. The code needs to be chaged a lot for that, but I still think its a intrestingidea.

Stalker would be aswome too, but the engine needs a lot of hardware and all, so I do not know ifits a good idea. Graphically it would be a real quantum leap, but we have to rember that noteveryone has a high-end pc.

Also, we need to wait all bugs are fixed and a full SDK, then we can look into it again.













Posted by Kaerar on Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:36:37 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

The other thing is that the dev cycle for this is going to be at least 1-2 years with a team working alot of the time. So the Stalker engine by then will be quite normal compared to now.

If we look just at the now then we may miss the boat in by the end of the project.


Ah, I see now. Well, of course it takes time, but I think we dont have a deadline here, so its notthat much of a problem. I agree, we need to look int the future, otherwise we work again withoutdated an outdated engine wihch would again bring up the topic of chaging the graphics and all.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Arethusa on Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:08:37 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

None of the mentioned engines are really viable. Crysis' SDK is a joke, and while that issupposed to improve, that's hardly a rasonable basis for building a mod. UT3 is solid, but you stillwouldn't have access to the source as you would if you were to buy the engine (obviously not anoption), which is pretty limiting. STALKER's engine is simply terrible and not even remotely worthconsidering. The game is interesting and salvagable with a mod like redux, but the technology isjust bad. Doing something like making it turn based isn't difficult at all; there have been turnbased mods for UT and even games like Max Payne, and it's not hard to do that. The problemsare elsewhere.

Really, if this is to be considered seriously, you'd need access to the engine source, which eithermeans writing your own (and from the responses, I'm guessing there aren't any dedicatedgraphics programmers here) or finding an open source graphics engine and adapting it, which isprobably the better idea. It's possible, but without someone who knows graphics engines,somewhat insurmountable. But a sprite redo for the game would be an enormous amount of workon its own, and the results are pretty much guaranteed to be very 1999.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Lt.Havoc on Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:20:52 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Well, whats the problem with the Stalker Engine at all? What would you suggest insteadArerhusa? What about this engine here: http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/















The other thing we could do would be to wait till JA3 is out and make the whole 1.13 mod for JA3.Also, it was stated that it would took at least 2 years to get aquired with the eingie, until then wewould have the tools and everything.

I still dont know why the HL source engine cant be used at all. Its very moddable and everything.


Source has a lot of critical limitations for what modders have access to. Among other things, mapsize is very, very limited, which just about defeats this from the start. To be blunt, it's not verymoddable, and that's sort of where things go wrong. STALKER's sdk is also terrible, and the waythe engine is put together is beyond confusing. Just getting new models into the game issomething that very few people have figured out (and best of luck to you if you want to try; theonly tutorials are in Russian). None of these is viable. Of the big engines mentioned, UT3 is theonly possibly viable one, and the wealth of problems you'll run into trying to deal with an enginewhere you don't have access to the source is not worth it, in my opinion.

I'm not familiar with Irrlicht. An open source engine is definitely preferable, but a lot of the shots ofdeveloped projects look pretty bad. A couple look possibly slightly promising, though, so maybeit's worth looking at.


But the UT3 engine is completly new and we cant aquire a licence for it. What about previous UTengines like the one of Unreal 2? Or what about Quake?

Well, here are several more engines to consider: http://www.moddb.com/engines

No idea what else exists out there, but there should be a lot of Open Source engines. On ModDBthere are also several indie games hosted, maybe take a look what kind if engines they use.


Only the original UT has had its source released. I believe Quake 3 has as well. These enginesare ancient, but then again, the produce somewhat similar results to Irrlicht (albeit without shadersupport). You aren't getting a license for any new engine, hence why you either want an opensource engine or you're recreating the whole game in UT3, which is far from simple.












None of this is worth discussing if there's no one here who knows graphics programming (or, ifpeople end up really wanting UT3, the UT engine).


Look at Qfusion, which is one of the most promising projects to comeout of the id source releases.

If you (or anyone else) wants this to happen, though, it's going to require more than enthusiasmand hours reading freegamedev. Find someone who can code, or this is dead in the water.


So, all we need is somone who can code, is that right? And we talk about c++ coding etc.? Well,then why not ask around in the specefic community? There should be somone who can code.Mod DB has a big forum, there should be somone who has the knowledge of coding.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:14:53 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Without proper financial support, such a project would vanish in no time. Trust me.

Please people, get back to topic. If someone wants to discuss possible 3D conversion of thegame, please do it in the proper thread - thanks in advance.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Arethusa on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:45:29 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I don't think it's any more likely to disappear than what you're suggesting. I think they end upbeing about the same amount of work (which is certainly quite a bit), unless there's a already beenlot of progress with redoing JA2's sprites that I'm not aware of.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 04:16:21 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message


















The sprite system can be adapted pretty easily, its the introduction and editing of sprites that istime consuming.

As for the Crysis SDK being useless, well yes it is at the moment. BUT if you got to the 3Dthreads you will find that the Far Cry SDK is well advanced and a very useable tool. The biggesthurdles would be introducing the Strategic frontend and then linking it to all the maps, then gettingthe game to turn based mode.

Stalker has one of the better ballistics engines hence why I mentioned it. It doesn't have much inthe way of an SDK as the game and engine are very new. It will get better if people show interestin modding it.

UT3 is a great engine but again the source is pretty hard to come by without your own privatebank!

Q3 engine is solid reliable and old now.

Source is crap.

Anyway as lisac said lets take this to the 3D forums.


Fair enough, but sticking on topic, how is redoing the sprites at all manageable? I haven't donemuch work with sprites, but pretty much everything I know about it makes this sound like a prettygargantuan task (not in terms of coding; I'm talking about content creation).


Setting it up in the way that lisac outlined in the beginning of this thread would help for flexibility,but I agree that the amount of work needed is massive. Especially as all models have to be madein 3D then captured at the right angle and position for each frame. Makes life very hard when youhave 6 different body types and hundreds of different weapons and poses. If a team got ontodoing it (say 4-5 people) then it would be a 3-6 month job to overhaul the whole lot and add themissing anims. With one person doing it you are looking at 2-3 years.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by sphinx on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:01:25 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message












So it's a massive amount of work. Can we have shortcuts? I mean, if there are 6 body types, couldit be cut down to 3 (slim fem & male merc and bodybuilder merc) and make every character in thegame use those body types (except bloodcats, creps and kids of course)?Same for armor and weapons. Is it really necessary to recreate every weapon and armor graphicor could it be limited to, say, 3-6 models per item class, meaning 3-6 pistol, rifle, assault rifle,SMG, MG, shotgun etc.. models; 3-6 legging, vest, helmet models?

Pistols: short barrel pistol, long barrel pistol (2)Revolvers: ditto, but revolvers (2)SMGs: Uzi/Mac-10 type, MP5 type, P90... anything else? (3)Rifles: rifle or a scoped (sniper) rifle (2)Ass. rifles: M4/M16 type, AK type, Steyr, Groza (4)Shotguns: buttstockless pump-action, street sweeper, USAS-12 (the drum magazine), other two(SPAS-15 and M870) could use rifle M4 and rifle models (5)MGs: FN Minimi, RPD... (2)

I mean really, from a distance, how accurately can you make out what kind of weapon the otherguy is using? Oh well.. I suppose underbarrel grenade launchers, scopes and suppressors shouldbe visible too.On a related note, I (and probably few others), would be happy to NOT see certain animations,like the ludicrous karatekid-esque martial arts finishing move and the strong merc firing an assaultrifle with one arm stretched out.Edit: Edited last sentence a bit. Not fast enough though.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lockie on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:08:47 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Quote:On a related note, I (and probably few others), would be happy to NOT see certainanimations, like the ludicrous karatekid-esque martial arts finishing move and the strong mercfiring a 2-handed firearm with one hand

well , it gave me a laugh , the game IS supposed to be fun :armsfolded:

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Lt.Havoc on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:08:56 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

KaerarSetting it up in the way that lisac outlined in the beginning of this thread would help forflexibility, but I agree that the amount of work needed is massive. Especially as all models have tobe made in 3D then captured at the right angle and position for each frame. Makes life very hardwhen you have 6 different body types and hundreds of different weapons and poses. If a team gotonto doing it (say 4-5 people) then it would be a 3-6 month job to overhaul the whole lot and add









the missing anims. With one person doing it you are looking at 2-3 years.

Well, yeah, so in short, we need a sperated mod team that works on the graphics. I just ask mewhere we could find people willing to do it....

Well, you also want to give children adult bodies then, or what? We need the 6 body types so wehave a real diffrence in the look. Same goes for weapons and armor. The idea is that you can tellfrom a single look what they merc/solider/xivillan wears and is armned with. Limitng it wouldcreate the same effect we have now: a "one-fits-all" graphic and I think thats not the idea.

The idea is, to re-do the graphics so it looks better and finally can see the diffrence between theequitment.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by sphinx on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:23:13 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I'd remove the kids completely for now. Maybe add them later if someone really really wants tosee kids running for their lives during combat or worse.I was trying to come up with a middle-ground option (compromise) for creating every single pieceof equipment. You really want to have different graphics for all the dozens of AK variants? A mercon my screen appears now about 1 inch tall. How far does a person has to stand so that heappears 1 inch tall? 50 meters? 100 meters? See that assault rifle he's carrying? The best youshould be able to make out is if that rifle is an AK or M16, whether it has a scope or anunderbarrel GL.As for the civilians, let them have their clothes... sleeveless shirt, t-shirt or a jacket? Maybe add abaseball or a fedora? Skirts for the ladies? How much do you want?

Edit:If it's the weapon/armor info you want quickly, maybe request tooltips on mouseover revealingexactly the equipment a character is wearing? That's been done already though. Visuallyidentifying -exactly- what the other guy is wearing requires close proximity, binoculars or a riflescope. And that the target stays relatively still.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Lt.Havoc on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:27:45 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Thing is, I can see it coming that the gun nuts here on the boards start ranting about the fact thatthier merc carries a M60 but the in game graphic shows a M249 SAW etc.

At least I would like to see what my Merc carries.

Say, I rember that we had a similar thread some years ago. I rember that I suggested or at leastasked, if it wouldnt be possible to import some graphics from the Fallout series. THe graphics are









similar and these games had lots of detail at least regarding the Player and NPC modles/spirtes inthe game. Maybe that would be a option.

I still dont understand really why SirTech used that old graphic base anyway, while games likeShadow Company existed that had full 3D polygon engines. It would have made things a loteasier if JA2 would use something similar, then its not much of a problem to use 3D Max modelsand convert them into the eninge then. Anyway, that is just a side note from me.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:59:59 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

if you look at ja2 1.13 and see the hundreds of items and guns, i'd have to say that it is probablyfaster not having to model/ skin hundreds of objects for little gain.

i suggest everybody to have a look at animations.slf just so you guys know what level of detailwe're talking about here.

also i suggest having a look at older animation-themed threads for example of how little variationis possible at all given then engine

so what can be done is have one gun sprite for each weapon class. that is something i wouldn'trule out. But i think that none here is ready to invest months of freetime for it, not even thegun-nutties gun-nut.

we should especially forget armour, clothing, gear whatever becasue this is used in eachanimation, while weapons are only used in a limited number of animations (still too many for mostof us to ever deliver anything)

so different weapons is from an artist point of view not unthinkable. But then somebody wouldhave to draw it and somebody would have to code it and we have neither ;-/

plus it would mean even more restriction. The more anims are added, the more works it is to addnew things or overwrite any existing stuff. On that subjects, there's various animations already inthe animations.slf that are unused. So if nobody bothers to code them into the game, how can weexpect people to bother about this at all anyway.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Obscuritan on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:06:39 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

It's pretty safe to assume that the original JA2 devs made the sprites by animated 3d charactersand converting them to 2d sprites, right? I think that's what they did for Diablo and such as well,made 3d models of the characters, put them in a fixed isometric angle, played the animation and









dumped each frame to an image file.

Maybe the key to improving JA2 sprites is to get a talented 3d animator, and an automatedprocess to dump the sprites, rather than the wasteful and often inaccurate hand-editing method.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:18:05 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

you'd require the model for this and the tool and a guy who does it.

it will still be much work because somewhere, the detail comes from. i'd like to see just ONEexample of this method and i'd be cool with it.

i haven't seen anybody pulling it off, maybe this community being iso-game themed, lacks 3dpro's.

and please, if you compare this to diablo 2, then ja2's sprites are way beyond this detail level. Youhave them climbing fences/ roofs with dozens of frames per angle, you have them jump down therope, fall down from roofs, this is not the typical diablo 2 generic minimalistic animation that onlyhas breathing running and a generic slash with one hand and everything mirrored to the otherside, this is ja2 and its animations are pieces of art EACH direction of each bodytype.

so even with a very efficient process, you'd have to be 100% behind this to get anywhere.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:08:59 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Khor1255Although I can forsee some real nightmarish xy coordinate tweaking to get 'floating'armour and the like to look right I think this is a great idea.No need for tweaking coordinates, since all the layers of one animation will be "fit" into one"master frame" (see the pics in my first post). The only problem would be amount of space takenby the new sprites, but I believe that, in terms of today's modern era computing, this would beacceptable.

SphinxSo it's a massive amount of work.Nobody said it isn't.

SphinxI suppose underbarrel grenade launchers, scopes and suppressors should be visible too.Are you kidding me?









SphinxOn a related note, I (and probably few others), would be happy to NOT see certainanimations, like the ludicrous karatekid-esque martial arts finishing move and the strong mercfiring an assault rifle with one arm stretched out.On a related note, you've missed the point of the clich

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:27:51 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

If the frames exactly matched the existing ones (in terms of size) and the overlays were placed inthe precise position in each frame you are correct. If not, I don't see how you would get around thexy tweaking.

I think we could do exact frame matches if there were a photoediting tool that easily switchedbetween 'ghost' overlays and the actual image. I know there is a workaround with my photoeditingtool but an easier way would sure be nice.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:17:56 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Actually there is an easy way to avoid xy tweaking. That it to have the same size frames for eachframe and make sure you get the position of the sprite right each time (easy with the right tools).Only reason they did the xy tweaking was to save on valuable space by having smaller frames.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:51:08 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Do I hear an echo in here?

Just kidding. I know that is the way but the problem there is that you must position your overlayimage animations in the exact pixel location for every frame instead of making a more generic'cutout' overlay animation set that could be reused for several animations.

Also, getting the actual overlay animations to sit in the exact pixel location requires a function myphotoediting program lacks.

Something like a mirror image drawing tool or a semi transparent overlay while you are workingon the animation would go a long way toward speeding up the process if you had to do overlaysets for every animation in the game = a few years of part time or a full season at 40hrs per weekin the best case scenerio.












Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:35:23 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Khor1255Also, getting the actual overlay animations to sit in the exact pixel location requires afunction my photoediting program lacks.No worries, old wolf. Lightwave 3D alows work with layers, where certain objects (layers) can beturned on/off, blended in any manner you like, even edited and added/removed with ease.Post-processing sprites really shouldn't take that much time - once the sprites leave the LW3D,they should be (almost) ready for conversion and use.

This is what I meant when I've said "I can promise you a half-automated process and a moderatespeed of doing it".

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:22:04 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Excellent. I'll try to get a copy.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:02:31 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Yeah LW is a great program. I need some more practice with it though. I was thinking maybe youcould get hold of the models from some different FPS games like CoD 4 and such like to give arelatively realistic sizing to the body as they have all the kit needed to make full Ghillie cammo,SAS look, Marine, rag head (sorry terrorist), Soviet military etc...

Thats just CoD 4 too! Then of course you have BF2 et al to choose from for models. Dunno whereto get martial arts from though. Maybe Max Payne with the Matrix mod?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Arethusa on Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:05:20 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I honestly have to say that I'm surprisingly fond of the idea of stealing CoD4's character modelsfor this. Would save enormous amounts of time, and this project is non profit and really very, verylow profile anyway.

To address a few things that have been raised so far, if the system is well set up someone has theright tools for this (which is more than being familiar with 3D content creation, which I am; doingsprites from 3D is a pretty specific skill and tool set), making attachments visible isn't really thathard. It's just a bit of additional tedium for each weapon, and I suppose it is a geometric increase,















but it's not terribly worse than what you already have to deal with. The real difficulties, as far as Ican see, are in animations, which you cannot take from another game and will need to bothcreate, orient, and render. Far from simple. New gun models take a fair amount of time, butgiven the resolution (even if you were to increase the game's resolution significantly to 1600x1200or something, which I think is a good idea), it's not that hard to make new, individual ones forevery gun. It's the animations and the rendering setup that are hell; the rest, if it can bereasonably automated, will take a while, but isn't impossible. I think there's also a reasonableargument here that this might be a better idea than a new engine if everyone's pretty much waitingfor JA3 so that that can be ripped apart and modded to 1.13 standards when its inevitableunimpressive release comes.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Berserk00644 on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:28:34 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I'm afaid that we are losing focus on this subject. the way i see it we could go 3D we could get anew game engine and we could even make our own version of JA2 and call it something else. butlets face it we love JA2 for what it is(even with its stupid karate-chop action sprites) andsometimes it's nice to go back and play a good 2d game IMO they sometimes seem to havesomething that 3D games dont... solid artwork! it might not be top of the line graphics but it suremakes us love our mercs. im not saying all 3d games have weak artwork but some do.I reallydon't want to see a blockfaced Raven

anyway if we want someone to really work on this we need a foundation... let's start smalli say we make a complete sprite set worth adding to the game (i.e. why not start with a sniper rifleor a shotgun seeing that there isn't one) if it works, and looks good maybe a coder will take thetime to add it and maybe(given all the good ideas stated above)work on a way to add moreguns,items,armor etc etc then the rest would be up to us, if we want it bad enough we will make itwork! and if the coders see us working for it maybe they'll be a little more inclined to work on it too.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Arethusa on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:27:46 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

It just does not work like that. There is no starting small with sprites. To even get to the point ofputting a single weapon ingame, you need a near complete set of animations, and you need all ofthis to be fully rendered and dumped to sprite frames. Far from trivial. Coding is the least of yourproblems here.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:56:11 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message












I see your point Arethusa, but what Lisac was proposing actually combated some of that problem.The original proposition was that we update the way the sprites work to a multi-layer version. Stillcan be used with STI's but easier with a format that can use Anti-Aliasing. If it was switched toPNG I would be a happy man! So much easier to work with, plus you can have soft edges andtrue transparency.

That would mean that adding a single gun would not mean a whole sprite set for each body typebut a single gun added to the already existing multi-layered sprite setup (so you just get the M16,replace with a M24 in all positions and you are ready to go). This would be simpler especially ifpreference is given to sprite sections allowing you to place the whole image of a gun in its spritesection and the body obscures it properly when it should.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Arethusa on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:52:34 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Yeah, we really do need a switch to png, which should have happened a while ago. I loatheproprietary formats.

The problem with lisac's proposal is that it multilayering doesn't make things as easy as it mayseem. Principally, it does absolutely nothing for the animation problem, and every weapon orcarried object is going to need to be rendered for every animation frame, which, as you canimagine, is not pleasant. What it primarily helps with is animation redundant rendering, such asattachments on guns (which is why they're not as much work, though attachments are a pain ifthey change animations, like a vertical foregrip or grenade launcher) or different clothing (which iswhy visible armor and equipment is a fair amount of work, but not as much as it may seem). Admittedly, it's hard to say how far this is worth going through with; it's a lot of work, and if JA3Dcomes out (and sucks, which it will, but is moddable and therefore fixable, which we all hope for),then we might as well jump 1.13 to that and deal with graphics that are not stuck in the lastcentury. But if lisac has the tools and people who know them (I know models and texturing, but Idon't know sprites, Lightwave, etc), then at least some amount of this is worth doing. JA2'sgraphics were pretty damn awful in 1999, after all.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Mauser on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:53:44 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

guys, allthough i am nowhere involved in this or any form of JA2 dvelopement, i suggest, that youjust let it be.

there really is no point in improving such an old engine this far, especially when it










Posted by Tobias on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:16:34 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Hello,

if someone would ask me ... I would like to use Comandos 3 graphic engine + JA2 game engine(but latest software version) = all-new JA3 - JA-Galaxy-Edition 2008!

But unfortunately I have no clue about programming. I'm just happy with editing XML-files!

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lockie on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:54:55 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I'm with mauser on this one , who has time or money to spend on this when it doesn't reallymatter!the guys who really are worth helping are scorpion , will and the polish guys and khor, new stories, characters and quests. All this blether about basically building a new game , when identical (ja3 /jazz ) games are on their way already , just seems a waste !(ok , ok , its not my time I'm wasting ,but...) sorry guys , rant over :rant2:

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Dr-D on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:02:05 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Then why even make 1.13 if its based on a old and complicated code?

the anser: Becouse we love this game

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BirdFlu on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:28:11 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

OK, now that i have a little bit more time, i can contribute something to thisdiscussion too.

First, i don't think that a switch to a 3D-Engine is going to work (very fast), because you basically don't have any 3D-content. And the newer games don't look great because of a special engine, they look great because of high-resolution 3D-models and textures. I meanit is just an engine, not a wonder machine. No high-res content -> no good looks.

But high-res data is one thing, the other thing is the required 'horsepower'. Whatwould be the target group of such a project, only those people with uber-computers?What about those who have smaller pcs or even laptops with very little 3D-rendering power?















Then there is the Direct3D issue. You would again have a hard time to port it linux orMacOS systems (or you just wouldn't do it).

That was the bad part, now the good part.

I was working on an OpenGL 'engine' and already have a very basic prototype.

Right now it is just a small part of the laptop. The strategic view would be basically the same. But the hard part is the tactical view. I haven't look too close on theworld rendering, so i don't know yet how to structure my engine, because as it is nowit would probably be too inefficient for rendering maps with a lot more content.

So, if those, who know, could point me in the right direction, it could speed-up developmenta lot. The 'right direction' would be the important data structures, how maps are stored, loaded,rendered (a basic outline of the algorithms would be very helpful), or just anything else ofimportance.

BTW, is there anyone else who hates to scroll through files with 5 or more thousandlines of code, or is it just me?


Its exactly the reason people are still modding really old games like Fallout 2, and JA2. We likethe game, the atmosphere and there are just a few niggling problems that need fixing. Personally Ithink it would be better to just try to work on a 3D version, but the problems with that are finding agood engine that we can modify without the hassle of legal crap and also having an engine thatcan perform to the expectations of the people who will play it. Not an easy scenario. We do havepeople who can modify and remake the sprites for the current engine now (well when Lisac getssome spare time to get started ) and for a stop gap I for one would appreciate a few redone andupgraded animations. Its a lot of work, but then why on earth have we been making 1.13 for thelast 2-3 years?

Sorry Birdflu didn't see your post. I wish I could help with the data structures, but all I can offer atthe moment is damn that looks good for something you have just been playing around with. As itsan interface you could probably port it over to another engine if we actually get a group together towork with a 3D engine. Would speed up the dev a lot.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Berserk00644 on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:18:52 GMT








i gotta agree.

whats the deal with ALFA:Antiterror? is it dead? work in progress? even worth looking at?it seems to be pretty close to JA2 but with better graphics. moddable? game engine worth lookinginto?

but then, i really know nothing about it. just what i read, which was not much, nothing really... atall... (

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lockie on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:24:40 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

In response to: Poster: Dr-DSubject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics


Well its not that pointless. If it works well it may take off like other mods. Its all to do with what isfeasible at the time and who is prepared to work on it.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lockie on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:01:03 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Quote:Poster: KaerarSubject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Marlboro Man on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:41:23 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

This topic is not about creating a new 3D world. It's about revamping and improving the sprites wehave now in the 2D, 3 quarter overhead world. Lisac's idea's are really good and do-able. We justneed people focusing on that aspect, not the 3D aspect. Which BTW is ok for something otherthan 1.13.

















Create a new topic somewhere else if you want to discuss 3D graphics.


@ Mauser

Nothing to bash about what you said really but I think you may be missing the original point. Lisacis talking about adding layers to the existing sprites to illustrate armour and weapons being used. Ithink this is a good idea because it improves - in my opinion - gameplay immersion.

The only possible issues I have with it are:

Will it create new bugs?

The player will get some tactical advantage by knowing at a glance what the enemy has while theai could hardly take advantage of this. I would really like to see some offset to the advantage theplayer would get from these illustrations but have not come up with even a theoretical bonus wecould provide the ai with in this aspect.That doesn't break the idea in my opinion. But it is something worth looking at.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Mauser on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:15:51 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Khor1255@ Mauser

Nothing to bash about what you said really but I think you may be missing the original point. Lisacis talking about adding layers to the existing sprites to illustrate armour and weapons being used. Ithink this is a good idea because it improves - in my opinion - gameplay immersion.

granted, under this perspective, it may be a good thing to do. as long as it doesn

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:45:23 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

i can only speak for the medieval approach ;-D

i think the main problem is how detailed ja2's sprites are not in terms of resolution or colors, but in












the number of frames and sophistication of the portrayed movements.

even with a semi-automated process and a highly motivated and skilled guy, it's still a HUGEthing, especially if the idea was to multi-layer every animation!

this would become necessary if things like armour/ clothing should be portrayed too. Weapons isone thing becasue they aren't used for the most difficult animations (e.g. falling from the roof,climbing a roof, jumping over fences etc)

there are many of even today's 3d games that don't even have things like that, jumping fences orclimbing onto things (without the use of ladders... step-by-step)

so i'd say even if armour, clothing and such stuff is left away, the workload will still be quite high,even in spite of the semi automated process. i mean every desired item will have to be modeledfor each of the moves for which it is used. For a normal number of guns, this is thinkable IMHObut for all equipment and armour i doubt it is doable.

i think the guy(s) who'd made the anims for ja2 was doing this as a full time job over a longerperiod of time. So i think lisac should get some help there.

i received some custom animations lately (yes, there are people working on that... the medievalway) and personally i wouldn't mind if more actions/ movement would be added rather than items/layers. i'd say it might add more to the gameplay but then that's probabl a matter of taste.


I agree with that assessment to a point. However, the inspiration for modding comes from an ideathe modder wants to see happen. If Lisac is willing to do the coding and some graphics guys arewilling to do the sprites who are we to say it does not warrent so much attention?

I agree that a simulated 3d environment (NOT A 3D ENGINE BUT THINGS LIKE TRENCHES) isa more interesting idea for gameplay and I believe a Polish coder has made some progress here.I also agree that starting small is the only way this could possibly get done.

Perhaps a simple armour overlay could be tried to show when a sprite was wearing a helmet,vest, etc. Then we could elaborate once the bugs were worked out of this. But I like the overallidea and think it would add a lot to some mods.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:59:08 GMT








if you look at ja2's real-existing sprites.

how would you portray the difference between a guardian and a spectra vest on a female ornormal merc? i mean on the big guy, i could see it, but on the small bodytypes, let alone civilians, isee only 3 things:

like they are now. A thick thing to portary armour. a coat.

these are the 3 distinct shapes possible for the torso

now the head: headgear or not.

2 options. try to make a different sprite for different helmets or even helmets and caps or booniehats... with 4-8 pixels, there is no much you can do

legs... well... uhmmm...

thinkable are weapon classes. a sniper rifle vs. submachinegun, there are visible differences.

but armour is not of much use. i made a suggestion one time that camouflage (from clothing)should only apply to the bodypart where an item that gives the camo is worn.

if we now expand to 255 camouflage patterns, we gain a lot more than what we can with the 4-8pixels for headgear that have to be applied in some way to tens of thousands of pictures.

if we had this feature (camo only to the bodyparts effectvily covered by it), i could alsready visuallyportray the biggest number of vanilla ja2's armours.

and i think the workload for coders to add a big number of exceptions for the different parts of thebody would be MUCH less than for drawing armour onto every sprite. (with or without thebackground sprite... the layer must still be drawn)

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Da_Fazha on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:04:25 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

:wave:Hello all!

I have 3 questions: :headscratch:








1. Are you guys including the NIV mod in your new pictures? :exactly: 2. Is it possible to use paint (default windows program) to change these sprites? :computer3: 3. I forgot my third question, but I'm sure it will come to me... :placard:


1. NIV is part of 1.13 now and doesn't affect animations anyway.

2. Yes if you are very skilled with it like Dr-D.

3. .....


Kk Thnx! I will try some of this stuff if I get a chance later. :bluecool:

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Starwalker on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:29:04 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Kaerar1. NIV is part of 1.13 now and doesn't affect animations anyway. I believe he was asking about modeling sprite layers to actually show LBE...


If thats the case then yes it would show, but its gonna be like a pixel here and there in the schemeof things. Going on current sprites though not even armour is shown. Hence I didn't rememberLBE :S



















Star walker is mostly right, I would like to know that but my primary reason was to see if you aremaking sprites to include all the different variations in the NIV as well as the original inventory, ie,LBE, new weapon shapes, etc.

I'm probably outta my league here, so some of my questions might seem wierd, or odd. Sorrybout that, but its not like I'm gonna get to it yet anyway so I might as well learn what I can, when Ican.

Again thanks for all the help you guys have given!

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:36:09 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

If we can show armour there is no reason we can't show LBE, but there would be coding neededbefore either can work. The weapons are first on the agenda

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:35:26 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

If we could have new colours to portray armour I don't see a problem. Also, a pixel here and apixel there (extending the silhouette) could go a long way toward this portrayal.

I find Dr. D's gun renderings at sprite size hard to believe. But if he really was working with thesame number of pixels we get for sprite sized weapons armour would be a piece of cake.

I don't see the problem.


Its not the sprites being the problem. The coding is there to change the guns on cue but it isn't forarmour and LBE. I agree that it would be great if Lisac and Dr-D could work on this together toupdate the sprites, but we will probably need 4-5 people helping them too. If a coder or two couldwork on adding calls to change armour and LBE gear, we can add almost whatever we wanted.Hell maybe even a set of pliers and a gun lying on the ground while someone repairs!!
















Augh. By the time you finish this, computers will have 3d holographic displays.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Starwalker on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:06:58 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

ArethusaAugh. By the time you finish this, computers will have 3d holographic displays. Well, that does not matter, as JA2 1.13 will still rule over all of the official JA2 successors!

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BirdFlu on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:34:19 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I. PNGs I think the main problem with png images will be the blitting. If i have seen it correctly,then almost every blitting function works on 'ETRLEObject's (these are the compressed .STIsubimages). That is you cannot just push an arbitrary block of data (unpacked image data) intothe function and expect it to work. You would either have to convert pngs into ETRLEObjects (not really an option) or you would have to change the blitting functions, which should not be thaaaaaaaat big of a problem, as the STI/ETRLE compression is by all means trivial. The actual problem is the inline assembler code.

Another point is transparency. Can someone give me a specific example of what you would dowitha 50% transparent image. I could think of some examples myself, but just want to know whatothers are expecting.

II. 2D vs. 3D There is this discussion about a 3D engine and as I see it, there were mostly requests for anengine and there was almost noone who actually knows how a 3D engine works or how Vertexprocessing orFragment processing works or how GPU shaders work (I may be wrong in that point). Thisknowledgewould be really helpful to program an engine or even to use it, as it might help to find where the problem lies, if something is not going as expected. If there is noone who could work on it(or not enough people), then the 3D engine will stay a dream for a very long time. Well, unlessyoutake the JA3 or JAZZ: Hired Guns or a similar engine. But then again, you don't have access tothesource code of these engines and thus the possible modifications would be quite limited.

And by the way, what's wrong with 2D?









III. My Engine The main ideas of my engine are these. - replace the current rendering engine as a combination would be impossible (directx -> opengl) - definition of all elements with local coordinates -> no more global '#define'-crap - simple setup of all graphical elements - extensible and replaceable graphical elements

As the topic of this thread are layered sprites, let me use them as an example. You would have two graphical objects that can render normal sprites and layered sprites. Then you could justreplaceold objects with new ones, image by image and animation by animation. You would get a funnymixtureof rendering results in the first place, but at least you have something. You replace the mostcommonanimation first and the least common animations last. Thus the mentioned 'problem' wouldgradually go away.

Then there is the objection of why doing the layered sprites stuff anyway if they are going tochangeonly a couple of pixels on a given object. That is true, but it also doesn't have to stay this way.We could use larger objects (higher resolution), and i am also thinking about zooming in and outof the scene, you know, supreme commander style. That would make the visibility problem alesser problem.


Transparency to allow anti-aliasing for the edges of guns (less hard edged jaggies) mainly. But itcould also be put to use in the interface for transition effects and thing like superimposing theinventories over the top of the rest of the GUI for instance.

To change a couple of pixels is pretty much all us gfx boys do! There is only a couple of pixelsdifference between bad and great, but mainly its for the immersion in the game. If your IMP picksup a G11 and the image on your character is an M16, it kinda removes that immersion. So if youhave layered sprites and a good 3D engine (or a pseudo 3D plugin for PS allowing 2D to berotated in 3D) then you can change the sprites very quickly.

As for your engine I think its a great idea. Can you link in more realistic maps and more detailedcharacters? Will you use 3D and limit it to the 2D iso viewpoint? That may help for creating newguns and characters. Someone mentioned disliking block faced characters from 3D, but withgames like CoD4 and GRAW2 they seem to have faces done really well so I don't think that is an






issue any more.

If you could do the Supreme Commander zoom you would be classed in the realm of humangods! Please do that would shut the CQB vs Sniper battles up


BirdFluAnd by the way, what's wrong with 2D?The biggest problem is extensibility. If I want to make a new gun and add it to the game, it's prettytrivial if it's 3D. I make a model, uvmap it, and skin it. A bit of quick coding for stats followingestablished guns already ingame, and I'm almost there. If I'm feeling exceptionally ambitious, Ican make a few animation sets that will be blended into existing animations (ie I'm animating atmost parts of the upper body). That's it. With 2D, the process is an excruciating geometric hell ofrendering every possible combination by hand.

There are plenty of other problems. It's hard to update. Visibility is bad, especially with thestandard set by games like Silent Storm, which may have been far from perfect, but it did do avery good job with a number of things, including its use of 3D. Everything else you said I more orless agree with. I just think people should take a 3D engine more seriously and balance thatagainst a consideration of the enormous disadvantages 2D represents. There's a reason no oneuses it anymore.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:10:23 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

the reason probably is development ease and speed, (costs) and customer expectations. Formany games, it might not even be the looks themselves (3d often looks poor too)

for the characters alone, 3d might be an option. But then, there should be a way to keep theadvantages of isometric games, especially the very large maps

in 3d, you either have tiny ranges like in silent storm. i think this is a no-no

or, you have characters at a couple of meters distance look tiny. No-no as well.

so probably the best thing would be if only the characters themselves be a 3d model but with fixedsizes so we'd get the advantages of both systems, iso and 3d.

some hybrid kind of thing if just ja2's animation system is replaced by 3d. But then, layered spritesmight have a similar effect, but be more work art-design wise, while the 3d character engine mightcause more coding effort.









but that's just guessing. can't judge these things myself.


Have you read what Birdflu said earlier about his engine? He is thinking of implementing aSupreme Commander style of zoom interface. That I believe would solve all the range issues.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:16:51 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

i doubt it. many players hate having to zoom in and rotate cameras and all that crap, that's whythey play ISO games.

i personally would want the game perfectly playable without any zoom. Zoom only for showingsome details (whatever nature they might be...) to give an additional bonus. But the importantdesign decisions must be taken before the zoom feature comes into play, otherwise you get thesame mess many modern games have with their cameras.


KaerarHave you read what Birdflu said earlier about his engine? He is thinking of implementing aSupreme Commander style of zoom interface. That I believe would solve all the range issues. That is impossible with 2D. I imagine he was talking about something else.

the scorpioni doubt it. many players hate having to zoom in and rotate cameras and all that crap,that's why they play ISO games.

i personally would want the game perfectly playable without any zoom. Zoom only for showingsome details (whatever nature they might be...) to give an additional bonus. But the importantdesign decisions must be taken before the zoom feature comes into play, otherwise you get thesame mess many modern games have with their cameras.No one complained about Silent Storm's camera, which pretty quite good. It's not really that big ofa deal.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Mauser on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:22:00 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message















concerning useable and powerful 3D engines (which is not the topic of this thread anyways)maybe checking out the open source freespace 2 engine could prove worthwihle?

http://www.hard-light.net/

http://scp.indiegames.us/news.php

it

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BirdFlu on Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:14:00 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

some thoughts and questions about the 3D engine

1. considering graphics ONLY, what would or should be the difference to, let's say, Brigade E5?

2. what should be the minimum requirements for a possible 3D engine?

3. should the actual game (mapwise) be in 3D or just a subset of it or should it be a whole newmapset? -> if it is the whole game, then it can't be fully released until ALL maps are converted

4. if there is a 3D engine, then fixing the camera for isometric view is quite simple. It is actually much simpler than creating an interface for arbitrary viewing directions.

5. don't underestimate the memory requirements for large 3D environments, especially asmemory on graphics board is quite limited (alse see point 2). In 2D you just have a bunch of textures, but in 3D you have at least the same amount of textures and you also have a lot of geometry data.

6. If you go the 3D way, then you have to convert almost every graphical element (maps,weapons, animations) to its 3D counterparts. If you stay in 2D you could reuse old stuff and upgrade or replace itgradually. I would say, that the gradual approach is more motivating for the creators (i.e. US) as you see that development is moving forward (slowly, but usable all the time) in contrast to the"leap"-approach, where you have only 20% of the work done and still have to do 80% until you can call it remotelyusable.

7. A 3D engine will probaly require a modified or even a new physics engine. Don't know howmuch work this would require.

8. I would say a combination of "2D-Background" with 3D foreground elements (weapons, mercs,etc.) is an idea worth






thinking about. I mean we have limited resources and using a simpler approach would probablybe more fruitful.

---------------------------Quote:Quote:Have you read what Birdflu said earlier about his engine? He is thinking of implementing aSupreme Commander style of zoom interface. That I believe would solve all the range issues.

That is impossible with 2D. I imagine he was talking about something else.Why would that be impossible? You have a bunch of texture that you render on a bunch of quads.Zooming in and outwould require some scaling of the quads and use of a mipmapping-mechanism for the textures(so it doesn't look like shit).Are we talking about the same thing?

Quote:but then, there would still be the issue with the very limited and outdated JA2 2D engine andespecially the very limited color palettes. it


BirdFluAre we talking about the same thing?I don't think so. I think you're talking about the ability to switch between tactical and global view,then? Not impossible in 2D (and an exceptionally crude form of this exists in JA2 already), but notvery useful, I think, without a much better (3D) engine and graphics implementation.

Anyway, if this is seriously possible and worth discussing, I think we should at some point soonstart a new thread specifically for this. Somewhat more importantly, as I don't know thiscommunity very well, are there people who knows graphics programming? To call this ambitiousis an understatement, and it requires people who know this stuff and have the time to dedicate toit.


Already did Here

As to the zooming have you played Supreme Commander? I love the zoom ability in that, it goesa little too far out but its a step in the right direction. No need to constantly baby the minimap anymore.









Lets continue 3D discussions in the link above.

Back to sprites. I would be happy to see the old ones updated along Lisac's ideas, hell that can goon and be added at the same time as work on Birdflu's or a full 3D engine.


Given the limited number of people here, honestly, one of the two projects should be decided on. People who can do the kind of sprite and 3D work necessary for working on lisac's 2D revisioncan do content creation work for a 3D update, and there's some overlap in the other direction. Ifwe had more people, it might be another matter, but trying to do just one of these is gargantuanenough; both at the same time is pretty much suicidal.


Another problem i forgot to mention before are the comments from other users.

- If we stay in 2D, then it will be "so old-school", "so last century|millenium", "not up-to-date", etc.

- And if we go into a 3D world, then we will have "mediocre graphics", "why don't you use XYZ",and "ABC did it better anyway"

These are built-in frustrating moments. It has to be taken seriously or this project will die faster asit came up.

And i agree, we should concentrate on only one project.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Lt.Havoc on Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:57:25 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Well, I think that any graphic improvment, even if its just 3d Medicore graphics will still look betterthen JA2
















If we really are only 4 months from JA3, I don't think either of these is really worth pursuing unlessthat game is expected to not be moddable at all.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Berserk00644 on Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:05:17 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

just my 2 cents but has anyone tried Myth II's engine it uses 3d maps with 2d sprites for units

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Mauser on Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:44:21 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Berserk00644just my 2 cents but has anyone tried Myth II's engine it uses 3d maps with 2d spritesfor units

so does the total war engine. but that


Quote:If we really are only 4 months from JA3, I don't think either of these is really worth pursuingunless that game is expected to not be moddable at all.So, am i seeing this right. When JA3 comes out and they don't screw it up and the engine ishalfway moddable, then development of 1.13 will just shut down (completely)? And does that mean that all projects,that are in development right now, basically futile?


No I don't think JA3 will hold a candle to JA2. Its going to be different so there is really gonna beno comparison. We should look at them as separate games wit different design concepts (Don'tthink any of the Sirtech crew are being used at all).

1.13 on the current JA2 platform will still be played by most people here on the forums as a lot ofthem had a say in what happened during the development. It won't stop me playing JA2 I knowthat much















Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Arethusa on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:43:02 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

If JA3 is moddable, why not just move 1.13's conceptual advances over? JA3 should at leastprovide a much more robust engine and amount of content to work with.


That is the hope. It uses the Silent Storm Engine though which while designed for the rightreasons is about as bad as JA2 initially was to modify. I remember the hacks we had to do to getstuff to work! I hope its more moddable but there is no guarantee, so why not continue working onsomething we know is moddable and we have the source to, rather than worrying about a gamethat isn't released yet.

We can also translate what has been done over to other engines given the time and people. Its alla matter of where we want to go with the project, if we ever really start instead of gassing about it

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:09:58 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Nice to see there are people interested in seeing this finished. I really don't have time to go intoevery aspect of the previous posts, so I'll just leave an interesting link for all of us:

http://tionline.ru/

And a screen:

This is how the game could look like after the face-lift. Is it worth it? Depends on it how much youlike your JA2 copy...

And I'd definitely go with the existing 2D source code (which even might be upgraded to a certainlevel, using 3D objects on a 2D background, OpenGL - thanks goes to BirdFlu) rather than with aor half-(or non-)moddable game for which you'll have to crack the hard-coded pieces of theexecutable in order to achieve the simplest thing in game (yes, I'm talking about the upcomingJA3).

Zoom is a nice idea, but not the imperative. Original system with two maps (strategic, tactical)worked perfectly - no repair needed.

I'll be around, keep jabbering













That LoD would be perfect. The zoom I would be in favour of for maps that allow decent sizing. Soyou can zoom out to a max level for Sniping and zoom in for CQB. More engaging I think.

Can multiple above ground buildings work?

That game also looks like "Worms" with humans instead!

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Lt.Havoc on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:40:13 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Now, that screen looks impressive. What kind of engine is that? Fallout? You really think itspossible to get JA2 to look THIS good?`

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:47:55 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

That does look cool but it would require quite a bit more than just sprites. In fact the spritesthemselves look cartoonish compared to the scenery. Those brightly coloured vests stand out likea sore thumb.

I don't see anything like this getting done for at least 5 years. But it would be nice to be wronghere.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Mauser on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:07:55 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

@ lisac: mate, if you can really make JA2 look like THIS, including real 3D characters, i

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by KeldorKatarn on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:55:18 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Have you considered the FIFE engine for this?


















http://www.fifengine.de

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Marlboro Man on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:00:46 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I had always thought the FIFE engine would be ideal.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:04:35 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Hmmmmm...

@Kaerar: the game is heavily inspired by JA2 and Fallout (Tactics), it's the best match currently Icould find to show what I'm up to. 2 or 3 LODs wouldn't bother me (as player), I beleive.

@Lt.Havoc: it's really hard to say how much we can do to make JA2 look like that, but ATM thismight be something we're streaming to.

@Khor1255: stop nitpicking, you old fart Yes, it'd go way beyond sprites, I guess.

@Mauser: you're absolutely right. Just don't forget it'd take far less time and work to recreate allstatic objects (crates, walls, doors...) than our animated beloved heroes containing thousands ofanimation frames. The biggest problem organizing and leading such a project is my free time.Only thing I can estimate right now is that I'll have more of it in a month or two...

@KeldorKatarn: FIFE is exactly what we need... Graphically. Adapting the current JA2 v1.13source code to it, especially regarding the LUA scripting system, wouldn't be that easy, don't youthink? On the other note, the progress of FIFE development is somewhat slow (slim alpha releaseup to date), so we'd be very dependent on the FIFE devs and their milestones.

@MarlboroMan: give me a cigarette (although I've quit 8 years ago )...

Seriously, people, don't expect wonders. What we need here are talented coders more thananything (i.e. BirdFlu) - making new sprites can be learned quite fast (in a few hours, with a propertutorials and tools), and it can be learned by almost anyone (my cousin excluded).

Question for a talented youngster: is it possible to use OpenGL to represent all graphical elementsin the game? Examples:

Laptop screen: bunch of textured rectangular polygons.A ground tile (tactical map): one textured square polygon, put in isometric perspective (iso)









A crate (tactical map): one textured 3D box containing 6 polygons, isoA chair (tactical map): one textured 3D object containing 40-50 polygons isoA character (tactical map): one textured 3D object containing 400-500 polygons iso

And I don't want to hear NO as an answer :axe:

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Arethusa on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:31:42 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Yes, it's possible to recreate everything under opengl.


ArethusaYes, it's possible to recreate everything under opengl. Yes, theoretically it's possible to represent my grandma's ass using OpenGL too, I know that.

Actually, when I look at that screenshot, I guess BirdFlu has already managed to recreate laptop.What amount of work would be needed to support other objects, like walls, crates, trees..?

Also, what kind of 3D format can be supported within OpenGL? Lightwave's native format is LWO(for objects) and LWS (for scenes and animated objects). We need to think about conversiontoo...

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by KeldorKatarn on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:13:52 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

OpenGL is just an API. I doesn't have native support for any file structures or something like that.It can support any file as long as you write an importing routine for it.

Anyway.. about FIFE again. I think it would be easier to use an already existing engine thanwriting a completely new graphics engine.

Dependency of an engine is, well.. pretty much game business standard. Making a game with acustom engine is not very common because it simply takes too much time.

About their progress.. well nobody stops the people using this to integrate it into JA2 from helpingthose guys complete needed features..

And about their alpha status.. well.. what they have is alpha.. yes.. but what is everything elsewe've got so far aside from not existing?













lisacArethusaYes, it's possible to recreate everything under opengl. Yes, theoretically it's possible to represent my grandma's ass using OpenGL too, I know that.

Actually, when I look at that screenshot, I guess BirdFlu has already managed to recreate laptop.What amount of work would be needed to support other objects, like walls, crates, trees..?

Also, what kind of 3D format can be supported within OpenGL? Lightwave's native format is LWO(for objects) and LWS (for scenes and animated objects). We need to think about conversiontoo... Can you elaborate? As KK said, opengl is just an api. There's a lot of room in there, and I'm notclear on how you would want to implement "support other objects, like walls, crates, trees" or whatyou specifically mean by that.

Additionally, from personal experience and what I've seen in basically every engine I've everencountered, editor formats (like the .lw* formats) are not generally suitable for realtime use withgames. Depends on a lot of things, though, and exporters are not difficult to come by.

In any case, I also agree with KK that working from an existing engine, even one of the strongeropen source projects, may be the most viable route to go with.


This is actually quite easy..

you need to ask yourself one thing first.. do you want the game to be real 3D or 2D

(this doesn't mean hills or 3d terrain or something like that, it means, what ENGINE do you wantto use. One can just as well make a tile based 3d engine, but it is a completely differnt approach.

3D Will mostly use meshes for buildings and characters, a 2D engine will mostly use sprites.While sprites can be done with a 3D engine too, using a 3D engine to replicate a 2D game doesn'treally make much sense since without 3d objects you cannot use any 3d effects like dynamiclighting, shaders and the like (except postscreen shaders and stuff like that).

If you want to remain true to the game and keep it completely 2D sprite based and just want toimprove the graphics, then this is a different thing.

For both solutions I'd really recommend using existing engines. There are engines for both andone can work with both and improve them or modify them for the purpose, but the codebasealready exists.Writing something new is a project that will probably take years.









And the questions about OpenGL... OpenGL is nothing but an API, not more not less. It just offersa simple way to talk to the graphics card, just like direct3D although both API's have a differentapproach to that.

OpenGl will let you do pretty much anything, as long as you code it.. making walls or treed orbackgrounds is not something OpenGL does understand. OpenGL lets you draw lines, points,triangles, colored textured and lit. and that's it. everything else you must program on top of that.THat's what's called an engine. OpenGL is no engine. OpenGL is the tool you write your enginewith and engine programming is among the hardest things a game programmer can do.

So depending on what you really want to achieve here, go for an existing engine.

I don't really understand concerns like "we must modify something for LUA support" or stuff likethat.. if FIFE has support for LUA.. fine.. nobody forces anyone to use that. From what I see hereall that would be used for JA2 would be the graphics, possibly map generation and GUI widgetparts.

The only job would be to identify all graphics engine parts of JA2, eliminate them, and replacethem by the new engine and adjust the interfaces so they fit together. the game itself should notchange one bit.

If you plan to programm an entirely new engine.. to be honest I wouldn't really go that way... but ifthen I personally would go for a complete port to C#. The language is easier, cleaner and hasmore IDE support for rapid development and complete Object Oriented approach. Porting thegame logic is the smallest part in this and I never tried this becasue porting the engine would be apain in the butt, so I'd only do that if a complete redevelopment was in order. So if you planned ondoing that I'd go this way (oh and please don't anybody start any discussion how games cannotbe made in C# and .NET or how C# is a MS toy, go read up on things first before starting aprogramming language bashing).

I still wouldn't recommend this though since as I said, either way this would be years of work for a5 man team.

Porting to an existing engine should be easy, and since FIFE was based on the Fallout enginewhich it seems to be able to replicate already I don't see how this could not be used for JA2.

But the most important question is.. how many people are available for this job?

THis would be a 6 month 5-10 hours a week job for a team of about 5 people which have at least2-3 years of C++ (AND C!) experience and at least 2 of them should have experience in gameand graphics programming to at least understand the new and the old engine and their interfaces.







KeldorKatarnI don't really understand concerns like "we must modify something for LUA support"or stuff like that.. if FIFE has support for LUA.. fine.. nobody forces anyone to use that. From whatI see here all that would be used for JA2 would be the graphics, possibly map generation and GUIwidget parts.Lua is exceptional as an external scripting language (doesn't hurt that you can write a lot of otherstuff in it). That's where it's useful; it's not strictly relevant to the graphics except in that it makesmaking the graphics a lot easier once you get to content creation


I know about LUA. All I was trying to say was, if the JA2 code structure doesn't allow for LUAusage for the game content, then nodody forces one to use LUA, just because FIFE offers supportfor it.An engine offers services. A game can use as many or as few of them as it wants.

And after all this is mainly about changing the graphics part, not the scripting part. That would bea different project (although with that in mind FIFE would at least already support that for a futureusage)

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:20:49 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

That looks full 3D mate! Is it? I've heard of FIFE before but I can't think of why or where from :s


I see your point now KK.

Sorry for misunderstood, I thought you're talking about "porting" the current source codecompletely into FIFE (forgive me for choosing this verb, I'm not a professional coder). If I'veunderstood you correctly, you're suggesting us to take only a part of the existing FIFE code, andthat specific one concerning graphics, and to implement it in the JA2 source code. If that's true,then that might be a good option.

Are you fond of the FIFE engine then and to what extent? How about JA2 source code? Anythingyou could help us with? Anyone you know (or could recruit) for the cause?

Also, what do you think about BirdFlu's idea/progress?












From my point of view (my point of view, as a graphic content creator) I'd always prefer 3D objectsover 2D sprites. It takes less time to create it and is a way easier to control, not to mentionadvanced effects (zoom, lighting, LOD etc.) and the screen resolution problem.

Talking about the whole work... I guess two teams will be needed, the graphic team and thecoding one. I can take care about the first one, but in a few weeks only. I believe there's peopleinterested in doing that part of job, and I'm gonna show them how to. The coding group... Well, Ican't tell right now, but we need it too.

I surely wanted to say something more, but forgot it. Oh, what the hell...

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BirdFlu on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:14:20 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

OK, i downloaded the FIFE engine and looked at it (not too closely).

KaerarThat looks full 3D mate! Is it? I've heard of FIFE before but I can't think of why or wherefrom :sDefinitely NOT 3D. Well, not in the sense that it uses 3D-objects.

My thoughts about it are somewhat divided. Sure, it has video, sound, intput and everything (?)what you need to start with. But it doesn't know anything about JA2 file formats

My 'engine' is more like in a pre-pre-pre-pre alpha stage, but it loads and displays JA2 files (sti[sti-animations], pcx, slf),has some limited input handling capabilities and has no audio whatsoever.

So far so good (or bad?). Then I looked a little bit closer at the rendering stuff. The FIFE engineuses SDL_Surfaces orOpenGL textures and the rendering itself is "old-school", that is just drawing a rectangle at a givenposition. The handlingof all the rectangles (especially visibility determination) has to be done in the 'non-engine'-code, isuppose. As i said,i have not looked at it too closely, so i may be wrong in some parts. Then i apologize and hopethat those, who know better,can correct me.

I am using a Scene-Graph, which is (as i think) a more modern approach.

And now comes the part where i think that the FIFE angine could give us more trouble than weneed.All the images are saved as single textures and the rendering of basically everything is done inOpenGL's immediate mode, that is calling glVertex3f, glTexCoord etc.So, first we don't have multitexturing available, so applying palettes has to be done prior torendering,which is not bad by the way, it just consumes approximately four times more video memory.






Second, immediate mode is slow as hell. Honestly, i have to admit that i am using immediatemode as well, buti plan to change it. The problem is that with large and complex scenes and many very smallimages you haveto call OpenGL functions too often. And this can really kill rendering performance. I have seen it in my engine. Depending on how much is actually happening on the screen, i hadframeratesbetween 50 and 2000 fps, and it was just the gui. Rendering a map with a lot of tiny tiles and ahuge amountof little images in immediate mode could bring performance down to one digit framerates,seriously. ThisHAS to be taken care of.

BTW, you should not only show the great images

but also the other images, like

Again it is not only the engine that gives great results, it is also the data you use.

Quote:Question for a talented youngster: is it possible to use OpenGL to represent all graphical elementsin the game? Examples:

Quote:Laptop screen: bunch of textured rectangular polygons.Yes.

Quote:A ground tile (tactical map): one textured square polygon, put in isometric perspective (iso)Yes. Depends on the data you have. If it is ONE big texture, sure. Beware of exceeding maximumtexture sizes.If you have a lot of "ground elements" you would have to build the texture first.Perspective, or orientation of the texture in this case, doesn't really matter.

Quote:A crate (tactical map): one textured 3D box containing 6 polygons, isoYes and depends. yes for a static crate. A crate that can be opened needs more consideration.can the insidelook like the outside of the crate? Animation itself has to be done and can be done via geometrytransformations.Is the moving part even (one rectangle) or concave/convex (probably more than one rectangle)?

Quote:A chair (tactical map): one textured 3D object containing 40-50 polygons isoYes. But 40-50 polygons for static isometric perspective and a texture of not too large size?Not worth the trouble.

Quote:A character (tactical map): one textured 3D object containing 400-500 polygons iso



Yes. Characters are important. But then again, it depends on your zooming capabilities. Creatingand using polygons that fall on one pixel only is just wasted effort.

----------------------------

Quote:using a 3D engine to replicate a 2D game doesn't really make much sense since without 3dobjects you cannot use any 3d effects likedynamic lighting, shaders and the like (except postscreen shaders and stuff like that).A 3D engine would OGRE or Irrlicht or something similar. FIFE is a 2D engine, even if it uses a3D-API.And just because you don't have 3D objects, it doesn't mean you cannot use dynamic lighting (inthe sense of definition).Postscreen shaders can create some nice effects too.

Apart from all this, OpenGL just undestands vertex coordinates and plain bitmap data (of variousformats).


I still don't quite get where you are really going with this.. are you planning on making this 2D withbetter graphics or convert to 3D..

if you want to keep it isometric and tile based then I absolutely don't see why a 3d engine isneeded.

And the statement that 3d meshes are more easily created than 2D sprites is IMHO a veryquestionable argument, or simply wrong.

I also do not know why the talk is about a complete game engine with sound, input andeverything. Why would that be needed? Ja2 has that already. I thought you just wanted toimprove the graphics, so why kick the complete game engine and write that completely new. Therendering part would suffice...

If you guys are actually planning to go full 3D with meshes for everything I'd strongly adviseagainst this. To have a good 3D engine, to design the shaders and effects, to model the meshesand texture them... I don't think you have the people for that, and if this is not done professionally,it will look really ugly.Not to mention that I see absolutely no need for a full 3D approach. Zooming in is no problem in2D, games like commandos show that. rotation is not really necessary, and IMO usually confusesthe player more than it helps in an isometric game.Please keep one thing in mind.. 3D graphics ages a lot faster than well done 2D graphics.. look atgames like Panzer General. That game still looks ok today, and Panzer General II still looks greatexcept for the resolution. Look then at Panzer General III and IV which introduced 3D engines forthe hex-based game.. crappy models, totally blurred textures, horrible interface looks.






Stick to what's natural to the genre. There are lots of great 2D engine games out there. There isno need to make everything 3D just because 3D sounds cool. JA2's entire game mechanics arebased on the fact that the game uses an isometric tilebased approach for its game world, and itworks great. All that's a little aged is the looks, the resolution and the tiles.

So using a modern 2D engine that is able to use a higher resolution and better lighting (per pixellighting for the tiles instead of per-tile lighting for example, and a few other effects) will totallysuffice.

If you use OpenGL for this, fine, NP, but using OpenGL doesn't mean one has to make 3Dmodels.

Let's say you take (or build) a 2d engine that has nice lighting (e.g using lightmaps andmultitexturing for the tiles), supports some nice animated tiles for water and stuff like that, that uses some post-screen shaders for stuff like rain or storm and night, and other stuff, some bloomeffects and things will really look great.

I can promise you one thing.. with a good 2d engine you have the chance to bring to nearcommercial level looks in no time.In no way will you be able to get this to look commerical level using 3D. for that 3d enginedevelopment is way to fast developing and to competitive.

Use sprites but use them well, that's what I'd recommend. Take a good engine (FIFE or whateverelse is around) or if you really want to, program one yourself, if you have the people for it, but stickto 2D.

Concerning my personal attitude towards FIFE.. I have nothing to do with it, nor do I use it foranything. I just ran across it a while ago and I was very impressed by it, not so much the looks orthe features, since I never tested it or any project using it, but the very professional approachsoftware engineering wise. they have a very very clean code base which is very seldom out therein open source or even commercial country.

About using parts of it or "implementing it into JA2".. I think you really don't know what an engineis really.. you don't take parts of an engine or implement it into anything.. an engine is no game.An engine is an engine that provides services like rendering, input, sound, scripting, file handlingwhatever.

WHat I suggested was using the FIFE rendering engine to replace the current JA2 renderingengine (not game.. rendering engine!)JA2 uses its own engine, a game isn't a complete source thing, it is made up of modules and JA2is build on top of an engine just like any other game, only that JA2's engine was probably speciallywritten and only used for that game, except unfinished business.

think of an engine as a programming library. it is nothing more. An engine is no application nor is ita game. It offers certain stuff that a programmer can use or not use, depending on what he needs.

I also wouldn't really care about what API the engine is based on, but only on its features and



ease of use. THat's exactly what an engine is for. So you don't have to worry about the underlyingAPI crap. If you wanted to worry about that you could have written the stuff yourself.

And I really really doubt the FIFE people have written anything that is going to produce single digitframerates. I didn't really follow your argument in that direction. All I know is, that whoever wrotethat code and documentation knows quite a bit about modern software engineering approaches.

Btw.. what a scene graph should be good for in a 2D tile based game, using 3d rendering or not, Ido not have the slightest idea, unless you define a scene graph different from what I think of whenI hear the term.

WHat the other screenshots was for I don't know either. I didn't post the screenshot to show howgreat the engine looks, since an engine doesn't look at all. It provides services, it is the game andits ressources that produce the looks.The screenshot was simply to demonstrate what level of looks for game the engine does support.Every engine in this world can produce crappy looks, even the CryEngine, so I don't reallyunderstand what the second screen was for.That the game has to actually use the features before it looks good should be self-explaining Ithought.


Actually JA2's was used in a few other games like the Wizadry series (I think it was no., but thatsbesides the point.

I think I am swaying more to Birdflu's work at the moment as it combines both the 2D and the 3D.If it has compatibility for old STI's and things it will speed the process up as 3D objects need to bemade and the implemented.

Personally if we can recreate JA2 style in 3D with a more modular feel (maybe increase the detailin things like character progression etc..) then I'm all for it. Glad to help if its needed. Ready tolearn what is necessary.


When modernizing the graphics engine, then I don't see the point in staying compatible with oldgraphics files which won't be used anymore anyway.

I also still don't see why 3d is needed for this.

As a personal remark.. if you plan to go in a Brigade E5 direction with this.. eeek.. please don't.









We're talking about improving graphics not making it worse. Decent 2D is far superior to mediocre3d. Many developers found that out the hard way.


The thing is to improve as well as ease the pain for creation of objects, items and other graphics,which is not kind in 2D. 3D is much simpler in that respect and using the right LoD for the texturesand stuff will go a long way to making it look a lot better than E5

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BirdFlu on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:31:53 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

KeldorKatarnI still don't quite get where you are really going with this.. are you planning on makingthis 2D with better graphics or convert to 3D........I agree with you. 3D if not done properly can look like crap.My idea was to 'replace' the current 2D-GRAPHICS engine with another 2D-graphics engine, butone that is easier to handle (whatever that means in any special case).The 3D 'extension' was brought up in this thread and whether it will or should be implemented, is, isuppose, one of the points in this discussion.

As i asked earlier: What is wrong with 2D? .. I would say nothing, or at least not enough to justify acomplete change (we can believe in, or not).

---

Concering the FIFE engine. (I am not sure if this all was addressed to me, but i will try to answeranyway)

Quote: .. professional approach software engineering wise .. agree

Quote: .. general engine stuff .. I think i know what an engine is and am not sure what i wrote to make you believe that i didn't.I agree with most of what you said besides one point - replacing ONLY the rendering engine. If therendering 'sub'-engineis clearly separated from other parts, then yes. But if there are dependencies, then this wouldrequire to either removethem or to actually change more than the rendering engine, which may be easy or difficult.

Quote: .. single digit framerates .. I agree that this sounded a little offending, but it is really not about modern software engineering.









It is about onesingle aspect of OpenGL's API usage. OpenGL's immediate mode IS slow. There is no pointdiscussing it.Just read the documentation from Nvidia and ATI/AMD. A supporting argument for my point is thatOpenGL 3 will not haveimmediate mode anymore and DirectX 10 does not have any similar capabilities either.

My point is that FIFE engine has (or will have) its limitations, whether we meet them or not isanother topic. I amjust pointing out that it might be a problem in the future (like in the big maps project). Quote: .. scene graph .. A SceneGraph (a tree in a simple case) is about data organisation and about implicit ordering ofobjects that have to be rendered. I believe that it is easier to use, but that may be only my perception.

Quote: .. screenshots .. The thing is, with the data we have, we are likely to get results comparable to the second image,not the first image.That was the whole point of it.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by zed on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:03:14 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

here is a suggestion:take OGRE which is 3d engine extend it with your openGL formats for the different files.above the OGRE we will use a tile engine written already. fix the camera so the view will be firsteasy to port from 2D.the large number of work will be to tailure todays tile engine API to the new engine.here is the link to the tile engine:http://www.ogre3d.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12951&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=c06a308188ec67e78550bbae38f982c3i myself know very little in graphics but since extending the OGRE is somthing many have donebefore + the vast amount of editors, tools and so that support it i think it will be fitted to our use.beside that in terms of converting images from today's engine since the camera is in fixed postionit will be easier (not sure of it at all but i think it will) to create a script to convert todays objects to3D objects that sides that are not part of the view will be black.this later will open the option we could do - tarrain and true water effects, more animation formats,advanced animation tools support and more.it is a big task but i think sice tiles engine work pretty much the same way it may be easier thenexpected.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – Sprite






Posted by Mauser on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:24:27 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

with all that planning, don

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:51:25 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

1. Mauser: I agree completely, although I believe that if we (ever) see the new face-lift of JA2 onenice day, there won't be nothing to stop the talented people who made it to extend the code andprovide an editor of some sort.-------------------------------------

2. BirdFlu: good to know we have such knowledge on board. I have further questions regardingyour version of the JA2 graphic engine:

Do you suggest us to use full 3D objects for characters, interactive objects (crates, lockers) etc -and simple rectangular textured polygons for widgets, trees, ground tiles etc..?Also, do you have any experiences with the 3D graphic formats used in games, anything specificto elaborate?

Irrlicht doesn't sound bad, although I didn't check its status more than a year ago for sure.-------------------------------------

3. KK: Talking about choice between 2D and 3D, I think it's still too early to say which path wemight take. Of course it was meant to be 2D at the very beginning, but now some other optionsare available. Let's analyse the alternatives and decide.

I'm currently advocating the 3D approach, simply because it IS easier to make and control 3Dcontent from MY perspective (or any other game graphic content creator/designer). Let me giveyou some basic examples:

a) Once I've modeled, skinned, rigged and animated a character, all I need to do to use it in 3D isto export it using the right plugin/tool, the engine will take care of the rest. If I'd want to use it as a2D sprite, a long session of setting up the scene, rendering, post-processing (including cropping),adjusting and finalizing it in an appropriate 2D program should follow. Did I mention conversion toanother format? Yes, that too.

b) I don't like a part of my character. His legs are too short! Extending the legs in the appropriate3D software and slightly adjusting the animations won't take too long - export it, and my characteris ready to be tested! On the other hand, making a bunch of new frames for my long-legged spritemust go through all those painful processes mentioned under a)

c) My character wears a red Hawaii shirt (FarCry, anyone?), I want him to change it to camo-shirtonce he picks up the appropriate item (camo-shirt?) in game. If using a 3d object, I may simplyswitch the texture of its torso. Can you imagine how hard it'd be to make it with a 2D sprite?









Making a new layer (sprite) containing camo-shirt and going through all the processes under a)and so on...

These are just a few things that first come to mind. Please, don't think I'm against 2D sprites - I'mjust trying to save the time and resources and to simplify the graphic creation process. I don't haveCrytek graphic department available, just a few volunteers.

Regarding latest (shader-)effects and the beauty of 2D comparing to 3D in long terms... I agreecompletely. Some 2D games looks beautiful today, even years after they were released. However,I think someone mentioned already that having a mediocre 3D engine would be make him/hermore than happy. And i think we might do better than mediocre. The old JA2 engine survived for10 years, I guess our Frankenstein can live that long too

But if both of you, BF and KK, suggest a 2D version, I'm open to hear what you can offer me. Justdon't forget - I want to make it easy for graphic-grunts as it gets.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Mauser on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:05:28 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

guys, one more thing to consider:

there are only relatively few capable 2D graphic artists out in the game modding communitys, butquite a lot capable 3D artists.

so finding external support for generating 3D models and content should prove much easyer.but, of course, also all the 2D content would have to be modeled and rendered in 3D for a decentand uniform looking graphics style. it

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:24:31 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

To me, it is not just a matter of the look. A 3d game would require a 3d physics engine. Thismeans an entirely new game. If that is the point here than carry on by all means. But I would beinterested in seeing just the sprites idea be implemented. I think it is the only thing that mightactually get done in a couple of years compared to all this pie in the sky that will likely never seethe light of day.

Again, I hope I'm wrong at least about making a cooler looking gameworld. But I like 2d isometricjust fine.

It is true that 3/4 isometric is difficult to pull off because if you work with an image that is justslightly off angle or perspective it doesn't look right in game. I think it is a helpful tool to 2d imagers









to have a screenshot saved to .bmp so you can try out your new tile against the proper backdropbefore going into all the work to actually make it appear in game.

Some of my own tiles look a little off. I'm really having a hard time finding a 2d isometric PanzerMk IV though I know it must be out there somewhere. And my JU 52 looks as if it has damagedlanding gear on one side because it appears to be pitching slightly. I have been sucessful makingother tiles though so it is not impossible. Just a lot of trial and error work.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Lt.Havoc on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:42:48 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Why do we need a 3d physics engine? This is not a FPS game, so we dont need any physics atall. It would be cool to improve things, but its not needed. Games like Shadow Company or SilentStorm also dont have a 3d physics engine and it dosent affect the gameplay at all.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Arethusa on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:01:09 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Uh, Silent Storm has a physics engine.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by KeldorKatarn on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:21:57 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I really think nobody who has said anything so far in favor of 3D has any idea what he is REALLYtalking about (no offense).

Saying that creating a 3d character is easier than creating a sprite.. sorry.. that's crap.. if you wantto create a new sprite, the basis WILL be a 3d character and you simply render certain animationkey frames into the sprite, and use it. Changing clothes can be done with layers.I am pretty sure all of JA2's characters, buildings and whatever were first created in a 3d modelingprogram and then rendered down into the frames of the sprites, since that's simply what you do.THat's how WIng COmmander 1 created its ship bitmaps, that's how Panzer General II made theircombat unit sprites.

You make it sound like 2D was the old school approach and 3d is the modern approach. That issimply wrong. 2D and 3D are a design choice, none is more modern than the other.

Now let me summarize for you what switching to 3d means.

You have to get a 3d engine, you have to make models. and I mean models.. that means modelsfor every single weapon, for every bulding, table, door, roof, lamp, tree, lake, whatever.












Then you have to write shaders (how many of you here know anything about GLSL or HLSL orCg? If none, then forget about it. Fixed function pipeline is a decade old by now, not using ashader based approach will make the game look 10 years old and will not improve a thing.

Then you have to create or learn to use an existing 3d physics engine, since without physics,nothing moves, neither character nor bullet. Collision detection must be worked out, and yes, thena character can be blocked by a door if he is slightly out of standard shape and collides withsomething.Then a damage system has to be worked out, since now the bullet will actually collide with stuff. Ifyou plan on making explisions.. forget about the way it currently works.. if you don't makestructures 100% destroyable in 3D, then forget about looking like a modern 3D game. You cannotgo 3D and make explosions stay the same, meaning just blend it an explosion sprite and make apart of a wall disappear. THings must fly around, tons but roll around, physically correct (back tothe physics engine we are).Then the AI must be adjusted, since pathfinding is different in 3D, line of sight is different, sincenow it must be calculated with ray tracing. Taking cover is different, climbing roofs is different..remember.. with a 3d engine, there are no tile layers.. there is no 1st level then 2nd levelanymore.. you have 3d. there are no distinct height levels in 3d.Shooting will be different since now the bullet actually flies and isn't just a fake animation for apure probability based shot anymore...

If you plan on doing this.. good luck, you have just decided to create 80% of a full 3d game all byyourself.I hope you have 10-20 people on a 10h per Week basis available and the motivation on actuallyworking on this for the next 2-3 years.. and no.. you won't be able to do it in much less than thattime and still get satisfying results.

PS: Oh.. and did I mention this? Flat ground looks horrible in full freeview 3d, so you better starton terrain making, line of sight and path finding in full 3d terrain and oh.. try to get some goodvegetation shaders going, and you better make your water look great if you don't want to upset thefans.......

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:14:39 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Thats a pretty negative post there KK. For a start a lot of the work can be alleviated by objectsbeing already made from other games, object modellers, etc...Then with a few good coders I am sure that we can get the physics to work at least as well as FarCry. That game is years old and still looks reasonable. Only games out in the last 6 months havereally started to show the age of Far Cry. So to say its gonna be a failure before anyone has evendecided to go that route is sheer lunacy. Personally I would like it to end up similar to that picposted on the previous page before the FIFE pics (whether in 3D or 2D) as that is a good cleanlook, which can be worked on easily (from a graphics pov).






I am sure that if the project did get going in the 3D direction that a few people could be foundwilling to work on the project. If the project does go with its own design and engine it could beeventually sold to the public too (maybe then get licensing for the Havoc physics). The realm ofpossibilities available is large. Instead of destructive criticism more constructive would beappreciated.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by KeldorKatarn on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:45:35 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

It wasn't meant as negative devastating criticism. It was just speaking from experience.

Also.. even considering being able to produce a commercial level 3d physics engine with just afew guys in a matter of months borders on insanity. if you want to have a chance at that I stronglyadvice to use already existing open source engines like Newton or Bullet and the like.

But I will stick to my original opinion that a decision to go full 3D will result in a complete rewrite of75% of the game code.. you can just as well recode the entire game then, and I don't even knowwhat that's going to achieve.

The original reason for this thread was the idea to improve the original 2D sprite engine to getbetter looks out of the engine. This suddenly has turned into such crazy thoughts (sorry but yes,they are) as to make an engine that is Far Cry like.

I've seen enough projects both commerical and open source community, that ended up nowherewith such ideas.I strongly advice to stick to the original game design and simply improve the 2d engine instead oftrying to recreate the game.

I don't understand why a 3D engine would be needed, I don't understand why you even want to tryputting that much work into such a huge project. The complete code base would be renderedpretty much useless, nearly every single feature would have to be changed from map editor via AIto scripting and the end result would be have baked 3D looks that can't even compete with 20year old games.

This may sound totally negative, but sorry, I've seen projects like that before and only 1% of themturned into something at least playable, the rest vanished into the abyss and not one of themturned out to the commerical style killer game people originally intended it to be.

From my point of view I see a great game design, whose only aging problems are the graphicsand possibly the sound engine. The rest of the game design would still work when released today.There ARE actually great 2D games release every day and they look great.I don't see why the complete game design, that is proven and tested and fully accepted, should bechanged, with the sole argument "makind 3d models and animations is easier".Changing to a more modern 2D engine is geoing to bring a proven concept into a more modernage, making the game 3d will completely replace the entire game concept, wether you want tobelieve that or not, and I don't see a simple valid argument that supports a decision that will






replace a proven design by something developed from scratch.

3D-itis is what killed a lot of very good franchises in the late 90s, and this discussion is going inexactly that direction.

Again.. you can think this sounds negative and destructive all you want, but I still think if that pathis taken, the result will be a JA2 that will vanish from the screens since the result will be worsethan what we have right now.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Mysterious Dr.X on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:56:39 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

The whole 3D-approach seems a bit heavy to me. I don't want to say, that 2D would mean muchless work, but at least some less I hope.

Let me explain my idea :I don't know how you guys think about that, but I would be totally satisfied with an engine like in'Fallout Tactics'. Here's an example. As far as I know we would have to increase the size of thesingle tile, in order to get higher quality tilesets (obviously ). Problem is that I really have no ideahow much coding is required for this or whether it is possible at all.The next step would be to increase the colours, which can be displayed by the engine. Doesn'tsound too easy but I can't estimate the amount of work.Finally of course the sprites, to display different armors and weapons etc. Pain in the ass, butrewarding as hell!

Okay I hope these three steps would get us closer to the Fallout-engine.

This approach requires us to make every single tileset from scratch in a 3D-program. Animatethem if needed and then render them. On the other hand, these models could be used for future3D-conversions.Think of a wall-model in a 3D-program. All you would have to do to make a new wall-tileset, is tolay a new texture on the wall-model, then render it and finally bring it in the STI-format. So once amodel is made - which can also be found on the web - the work is getting much easier.

Many problems wouldn't be solved by this, like brightness per tile or the ugly water, but in myopinion it would be a huge step in the right directory.

What do you think?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:11:54 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

KK I see what you mean (it was kinda crystal from the post before ) I was meaning instead of just









pointing out something most here already know (i.e. that most projects based on such thoughtsare failures), the energy would be better spent in thinking up solutions to the main problem of the2D aspect. The biggest being the tilesets and graphics from that pov. For 2D it will take a lot ofwork (even with the tools and so on) whereas we can adapt other engines to suit what we areafter, not many are gonna be easy to do that way either. Personally I think moving away from STIformat will be a blessing (use 32bit colour or at least 24bit) so resizing and palettes are no longerlimitations. Increase the resolutions available and the detail of the sprites. The whole lot will takeas much effort as the 3D job. The good thing is though it would probably end up looking real goodtoo. I think a level above Fallout Tactics is possible if we put our minds to it. But we would need agood team to start either project.


KaerarPersonally I think moving away from STI format will be a blessing (use 32bit colour or atleast 24bit) so resizing and palettes are no longer limitations.Nobody can disagree on that one, I guess.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BirdFlu on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:09:16 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Quote:moving away from STI format will be a blessing (use 32bit colour or at least 24bit) soresizing and palettes are no longer limitations.

Increase the resolutions available and the detail of the sprites.

- 32bit or 24bit : meaning RGBA and RGB or something else?

- resizing : meaning like making an image 10 pixel larger?

- palettes : get rid of it?

- resolution : resolution of images, not screen resolution?

What is the exact problem with colo[u]rs? The fact that you cannot have more than 256 perimage?Would you prefer 16-Bit index values with 16-Bit palettes or full RGBA images?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:27:36 GMT











- I think he meant just that- no idea (?)- yes, if possible, by any means- probably both of those

I'd prefer full RGBA over RGB/16-bit format, especially because of the alpha-channel (anti-aliasingcomes to mind). It means BIGGER files, yes - but better overall quality. Also, renderingscenes/objects in Lightwave supports rendering to all channels (including alpha), so that wouldn'ttake additional work to be done.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Starwalker on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:29:08 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

BirdFluWhat is the exact problem with colo[u]rs? The fact that you cannot have more than 256 perimage? The multipage STIs like MDP1ITEMS.STI (which uses one(!) common pallette for over 700individual pics). As we have only three of these MDP#ITEMS.STIs, there's only three pallettes,and if your items do not fit one of these three pallettes, you are screwed.


Getting rid of the STI format would be fantastic.

Increasing tile/sprite size would make firearm combat even more claustrophobic than it already is.You would have to represent gun ranges even smaller to have any chance of missing = not worththe sacrifice for this or any other feature.

I think you guys looking to work from a different engine ought to try building an entirely new game.I like Ja2 MAINLY because of it's physics engine. Everything else takes a distant back seat tothat. So throwing away this engine or even seriously revamping the core of it is 180 degrees awayfrom what I would like to see done. If you like FOT so much why not make a mod for that game? There is still an active communityand I think there is even a Ja mod that has been in the works over there.

It is not blind negativity to just want a simple solution to layering sprites. Just because some wanta complete and utterly new game does not mean that most of us do. I think 3d is a terrible ideahere first because it is too much work and second because it WOULD require a new physicsengine and therefore create a different game.

I don't want a different game I want an improved Ja2.












Quote:The multipage STIs like MDP1ITEMS.STI (which uses one(!) common pallette for over 700individual pics). As we have only three of these MDP#ITEMS.STIs, there's only three pallettes, and if your items do not fit one of these threepallettes, you are screwed.And why don't you just split these files?

These files are loaded here : BOOLEAN InitializeTacticalInterface()and used here : UINT32 GetInterfaceGraphicForItem( INVTYPE *pItem )

the main variable in this case is INVTYPE::ubGraphicType

this variable is set in : static void XMLCALL itemEndElementHandle(void *userData, constXML_Char *name)

and is also used in : - UINT16 GetTileGraphicForItem( INVTYPE *pItem ) - BOOLEAN LoadTileGraphicForItem( INVTYPE *pItem, UINT32 *puiVo ) - BOOLEAN WriteItemStats()

So, if you change the graphic type from 3 values to more than 3 values the changes in the codeshould be quite minimal.


Well, everyone wants a improved JA2, but with the current STI files and the limits the JA2 enginehas, there isnt a good way to improve it. Also, its just an idea to use a 3D engine, so its nothingfinal. Point is: improving the existing JA2 engine is a pain in the ass, so we need a solution thatsuit the thing and pleases the diffrent opinons.

Well, does anyone know the game Abdomination: The Nemessis Project? They had a intrestinggraphic approch to this: the world the figures where in, is drawn, e.g sprites, while the animatedPlayer and NPCs where 3D models. That looks like this:http://uk.pc.ign.com/dor/abomination-the-nemesis-project/11551/images/abom002.html

http://uk.pc.ign.com/dor/abomination-the-nemesis-project/11551/images/abomination010.html

Well, not the hit, but my question is: could something like this be done with JA2? The gameworlddosent need to be 3D polygons, but the player modles and NPCs could be 3D models, includingpick up stuff. Intresting is, that the enviorment could be destoryed too, you could blow up cars andstuff even if they where not 3D.









I think it could work. That way, we wouldnt need to completly change everything, including pyschisand have a better way to get stuff in the game object wise. Its only an idea, but I think its aintresting one.

Also, FIFE seems to be the most suitable for this whole thing, everything else would be too big Iguess, even if ORGE 3D and co look intresting, I think the task would be too big.

The other thing I think we should keep in mind, would be a 1.13 Mod for JA3, but that would bethe same for the JA2 and would not be a rremake of JA2.

Any other suggestions?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Dr-D on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:08:51 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Lt.Havoc That looks like this:http://uk.pc.ign.com/dor/abomination-the-nemesis-project/11551/images/abom002.html

http://uk.pc.ign.com/dor/abomination-the-nemesis-project/11551/images/abomination010.html

No no no ..

Those are the very ugly 3d engines I am afraid of.

If any one in this forum thinks about changing the engine to such an ugly engine, count me out.

Now, this:

lisacNice to see there are people interested in seeing this finished. I really don't have time to gointo every aspect of the previous posts, so I'll just leave an interesting link for all of us:

http://tionline.ru/

And a screen:

Now, this is a good looking engine.







Well, if it is a complete change of engine definately count me out.

And everything in the background looks better in that screenie but the sprites look waaayyyyworse.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lockie on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:34:29 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Quote:Well, does anyone know the game Abdomination: The Nemessis Project

yup , I've got it . game not too bad , bit repetitive though and graphics ARE dog ugly !


Well, it was worth a try, but I still dont know what kind of engine that is, that these russian guyshave use.

Maybe I didnt made myself clear enough: I didnt said that you guys should use the Abdominationengine, I said, if it would be possible to moc sprites and 3D models in a engine and use that forJA2. Something similar, but way looking bettter. Point is, you could the at least use 3D rendermodels for weapons and stuff and could use all those stock models that you literally findeverywhere. It would also not a problem to recompile models form other games and change theformat so you could puit them into the engine.

Ya know, its possible to use CS models for C&C Generals and Zero Hour (the SAGE Engine) andif thats possible, then I see why people want a ture full 3D engine. Hell, some modders evenmanaged to put BF2 player models into Generals. If that dosent speed up tjhe process of gettingthings done, then I dont know.

I also dont quite understand Khor

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Khor1255 on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:02:06 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

The reason I am interested in modding THIS game is largely because I am a fan of it's engine atthe exclusion of any other I have played. Therefore, using a different engine is not acceptable to















me unless...

You want to build a new game from the ground up. In this case I would suggest building a newengine using the best aspects from any existing engine we know of and maybe a few goodiesmade entirely by us. I would be extremely interested in this since that is my ultimate goal in thegaming community and would provide a valid excuse for spending so much time in pursuit of thishobby. I have several ideas for new games that I am sure would have mass appeal but this is not what Ithought we were talking about here.

What I thought the point was, is to improve on the 1.13 mod by adding layers to the existingsprites. Doing away with the sti format would be a huge graphic improvement and I doubt if itwould require adjusting any other part of the code. Making the game 3d would require a newphysics engine and since the physics engine is what primarily draws me to the Ja2 system I findthat approach completely unacceptable.

I would be interested in working on sprites for the Ja2 engine or helping develop a completely newgame but replacing Ja2s physics engine just to accomodate a 'better' graphic quality is of nointerest to me.

Why not just make an entirely new game?


BirdFlu So, if you change the graphic type from 3 values to more than 3 values the changes in thecodeshould be quite minimal. Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case. ChrisL already tried to implement a 4th set, but sofar the smallest part of the set (tileset-pics, used directly on the tactical map) makes problems.BigItem and MD-pics seem to be comparatively easy, though

As my former boss was so fond of saying: "If it was easy, then someone else would have done italready".

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:36:13 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

someone else HAS already done it.










I'm not a coder, so a professional opinion on this what I'm about to say would be helpful (KK,BirdFlu, someone)...

Nobody is changing JA2 physics engine (if such one exists in general - if not, then we're talkingabout certain pieces of code scattered throughout the source code), nor it is relevant for us. Readonce again:

KeldorKatarnThe only job would be to identify all graphics engine parts of JA2, eliminate them,and replace them by the new engine and adjust the interfaces so they fit together. the game itselfshould not change one bit.This is imperative.

Everything else is distraction from the right path and can cause highest probability that this projectdrowns in its own excrements.

The problem is: how the new sprites (graphics) should look like and what kind of enginegraphic-wise should we use to achieve that? Obviously, there's no perfect solution, each approachhas numerous (dis-)advantages.

What I'd like to hear during this discussion are definitive, available options we got at the moment.And people who can judge these things are coders. New characters will be made in 3Deventually, there's no doubt about that, however extending the work to 2D and creating the spritesdepends on the new "graphic" engine and the way it uses graphic content.

So far we've got a few different, but interesting options, like:

- good ol' 2D (just like it is), with "layered" sprites and a new graphic format instead of STI- combination of 2D and 3D (2D background, 3D for interactive objects/characters)- 3D (which is definitely a no-no, according to the most, if not all of the, people here)


the scorpionsomeone else HAS already done it. Why does he not share his experience with ChrisL?


Of course I like option 1 the best. It seems the only way this might possibly get done.












A change from the sti format would be a huge help to the entire project as well.

What we mainly need to get the layers working is more clours for sprites and making the layershave a pixel extra here and there to simulate the extra bulk armour has. I don't see a problem withusing the existing scale as long as we have more colours to make armour stand out from regularclothes.


Starwalkerthe scorpionsomeone else HAS already done it. Why does he not share his experience with ChrisL?

what do i know??

do i look like a fortune cookie? --> graemlin "achtung"

maybe these guys don't talk to each other. which is a shame. But not a problem of my pay-scale.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Marlboro Man on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:43:43 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

the scorpionStarwalkerthe scorpionsomeone else HAS already done it. Why does he not share his experience with ChrisL?

what do i know??

do i look like a fortune cookie? --> graemlin "achtung"

maybe these guys don't talk to each other. which is a shame. But not a problem of my pay-scale.

Who the hell are you talking about then? You always act like everyone should know what'sblowing between your ears.


Quote:Nobody is changing JA2 physics engine (if such one exists in general - if not, then we'retalking about certain pieces of code scattered throughout the source code), nor it is relevant for us.












Lets say nobody wants to change the physics engine. There is (or has to be) a world representation in the game. We render this world and we let thephysisc engine operate on this world (compute vesibility, collision detection for bullets). The problem might be, that if we change howrendering works, we may also change the internal world represention. And this could result in trivial or not so trivial changes in the physics engine.As i don't know how physics works in JA2, i can't say how many problems we could get. I just hope that we don't have tochange the internal world representation at all.

Quote:3D (which is definitely a no-no, according to the most, if not all of the, people here)I think, it is not worth the trouble.But you may want to look closely at "Hired Guns". Is has a 3D engine and pretty much every file isin the open, at has no packages. There are over 25000(!!!) files distributed over some directories (that's why it takes so *ucking longto install), and many of these files are xml or lua files. So i would say it could be moddable if the executable doesn't screw uptoo much.

Quote:combination of 2D and 3D (2D background, 3D for interactive objects/characters)The combination itself could be a little bit tricky. I wouldn't rule this option out, but i also can't saythat it will work. The problem that i see is the Z-Buffer. 3D-objects have real depth, but 2D-objects are actually flat rectangles in3D-space. I can't say anything specific until i am more familiar with the current graphics engine.

Quote:good ol' 2D (just like it is), with "layered" sprites and a new graphic format instead of STIProbably the way that's easier to go fo the coders and one that would preserve the nature andspirit of the original game.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Arethusa on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:56:11 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

KeldorKatarnI really think nobody who has said anything so far in favor of 3D has any idea whathe is REALLY talking about (no offense).

Saying that creating a 3d character is easier than creating a sprite.. sorry.. that's crap.. if you wantto create a new sprite, the basis WILL be a 3d character and you simply render certain animationkey frames into the sprite, and use it. Changing clothes can be done with layers.I am pretty sure all of JA2's characters, buildings and whatever were first created in a 3d modelingprogram and then rendered down into the frames of the sprites, since that's simply what you do.THat's how WIng COmmander 1 created its ship bitmaps, that's how Panzer General II made theircombat unit sprites.






You make it sound like 2D was the old school approach and 3d is the modern approach. That issimply wrong. 2D and 3D are a design choice, none is more modern than the other.At the highest level, the entire point of using 2D over 3D, with rare exceptions for artistic license(and with more advanced shaders, the usefulness of this is increasingly limited) is trading difficultyin content creation and much more limited visuals for faster realtime processing. 2D absolutelytakes more time to get off the ground with content creation. If I need to not only create a 3Dmodel but then render it in all animation frame positions and from all angle (conservatively, let'ssay the eight the game currently uses), that's a lot of work. Even with layering, the number ofpossible permutations is just geometrically difficult. Moddability is simply not an option with 2D;for example, just look at this thread and this game: nothing has been changed visually in all theyears the 1.13 project has been going.

KeldorKatarnNow let me summarize for you what switching to 3d means.

You have to get a 3d engine, you have to make models. and I mean models.. that means modelsfor every single weapon, for every bulding, table, door, roof, lamp, tree, lake, whatever.You would have to do this for 2D as well. Granted, terrain generation is simpler when you'redealing with 5 tile brushes in the JA2 editor that's a decade old, but good tools can make 3Dcontent creation reasonably painless, especially when you don't need exceptional detail.

[quote=KeldorKatarn]Then you have to write shaders (how many of you here know anything aboutGLSL or HLSL or Cg? If none, then forget about it. Fixed function pipeline is a decade old by now,not using a shader based approach will make the game look 10 years old and will not improve athing.I am familiar, but certainly not enough to be useful. This is actually (part of) why I agree with youand why I think that making a 3D engine is as bad an idea as redoing a 2D engine. Just rewriteJA3 when it hits in four months.

KeldorKatarnThen you have to create or learn to use an existing 3d physics engine, since withoutphysics, nothing moves, neither character nor bullet. Collision detection must be worked out, andyes, then a character can be blocked by a door if he is slightly out of standard shape and collideswith something.Whoah, what? A physics engine is necessary if you want ragdolls and physical objects, but it'shardly necessary for actor movement (that can be quite static and simply animation driven).Collision detection is a non issue; all game world interaction would be handled by the establishedturn based mechanics, which really aren't that hard to port. I guess you'd have to write newpathfinding (especially because the current pathfinding is garbage), but that's really a separateissue. There are a lot of people confusing the issues of realtime games with turnbased games,and they're just not engine related.

KeldorKatarnThen a damage system has to be worked out, since now the bullet will actuallycollide with stuff. If you plan on making explisions.. forget about the way it currently works.. if youdon't make structures 100% destroyable in 3D, then forget about looking like a modern 3D game.You cannot go 3D and make explosions stay the same, meaning just blend it an explosion spriteand make a part of a wall disappear. THings must fly around, tons but roll around, physicallycorrect (back to the physics engine we are).You don't need a new damage system. That, again, is a turn based mechanics issue and notrelated to the engine. However, I agree about deformable and destructible terrain. Even Silent



Storm is really crude by modern standards. Granted, UT3 doesn't have anything like this, but in aturn based strategy game, you really can't get away with this.

KeldorKatarnThen the AI must be adjusted, since pathfinding is different in 3D, line of sight isdifferent, since now it must be calculated with ray tracing. Taking cover is different, climbing roofsis different.. remember.. with a 3d engine, there are no tile layers.. there is no 1st level then 2ndlevel anymore.. you have 3d. there are no distinct height levels in 3d.Shooting will be different since now the bullet actually flies and isn't just a fake animation for apure probability based shot anymore...Again, not true. If you just have 3D rendering and the same internal mechanics that you have inJA2 currently, there's no change in the way these things function. Silent Storm had distinct heightlevels. It also had gradients, which do require that sort of calculation, and I think this sort ofproject would be better with it, but it's not strictly necessary. You absolutely can just fakeanimation for behind the scenes mechanics; that's how every single turn based strategy gameworks in 3D, even the ones that take 3D terrain into account.

KeldorKatarnIf you plan on doing this.. good luck, you have just decided to create 80% of a full 3dgame all by yourself.I hope you have 10-20 people on a 10h per Week basis available and the motivation on actuallyworking on this for the next 2-3 years.. and no.. you won't be able to do it in much less than thattime and still get satisfying results.

PS: Oh.. and did I mention this? Flat ground looks horrible in full freeview 3d, so you better starton terrain making, line of sight and path finding in full 3d terrain and oh.. try to get some goodvegetation shaders going, and you better make your water look great if you don't want to upset thefans....... So, yeah. Give up both projects now and mod JA3. I've seen custom 3D engines made, and theytake time and still to look spectacularly crude. It might be worth it starting from one of the opensource engines I linked to, but with JA3 not far off, it really, really, really isn't.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Starwalker on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:11:09 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

the scorpionStarwalkerthe scorpionsomeone else HAS already done it. Why does he not share his experience with ChrisL?

what do i know?? Well, obviously you do know something, and it would be nice if you divulged your informationearlier, and not piecemeal

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by KeldorKatarn on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:58:50 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message









I'm going to repeat this again.. yes you can switch to 3d, yes you can do that without completelyrewriting the world representation.. but let me ask you this...

if you want to create the worlds in 3d, but let all objects basically behave as if they were 2D sprites(since that's what they'll do unless you rewrite the physics engine and the world representation),then why bother with 3d in the first place? Because content creation is easier? Sorry but thatbuffalo bagels. Creating a sprite and a 3d object is one and the same process. You create a 3dmodel then export it into a format the game can read. For a 3d engine this would be a 3d meshwith anymation keys if it was an animated character, for a 2d engine it would be a picture themodel is renderd to from a certain camera angle, possibly a series of such pictures representingthe animation frames for an animated sprite.. how one is more work than the other I fail to see. Doyou honestly think that a sprite is commercially drawn by hand these days? It is simply a matter ofeither making a mesh file or a picture file from a 3d model, that's all. The texturing and modelingwill have to be done in both cases. Ground textures will have to be done too, whether they'd beput on a ground mesh as a texture or on a tile.. again.. how one is more work than the othereludes me.

Now.. people here seem to think 3d is the non-plus-ultra and that the 2d approach is usually madeto trade speed for graphical quality.. I have never heard bigger crap.

There are games that genre wise simply work better with 2d graphics than with 3d and simply lookstunningly good.. It is also a well known fact that old 2d games usually look good a lot longer than3d games, since it is extremely difficult to make a fully blown 3d engine really look good, sinceevrything has to be rendered realtime and needs a lot of shader programming, shadowcomputation and what do I know.. in 2d this can be prerenderd and will look just as good sinceyou have a fixed perspective which is for many genres more than enough.

If you want to stick with JA2's general gameplay and its isometric looks, then I fail to see onesingle argument for going 3d. Saying stuff like "that game does it too" and "it worked for them" isbringing no arguments at all. Other game = other game = not Ja2. Ja2 has a certain interface andlooks and gameplay the players love and want to keep.

The original reason for this thread was to improve the sprites of JA2, possibly get rid of the crappyfile format and also probably get better lighting for the maps instead of the old looking per tilelighting. All this can be easily done by either improving the JA2 rendering engine, or replacing itwith a more modern 2D isometric engine.

How some people think, keeping 2D automatically implies keeping STI files is something I don'tunderstand either btw, and that has been said a lot in the past pages of this thread.

I don't want to sound like Mr. Wiseguy or tell you guys what to do, but giving my personal opinionand speaking from experience of having seen a lot of fan projects and commerical franchises goto ruins.. if you go 3d.. you'll kill JA2. You'll change looks and gameplay in such a radical way thatpeople won't recognize the game anymore and you'll have to recreate and code a volume of stuffyou cannot even begin to overlook yet, and you'll still end up with not only a different looking gamebut a crappy looking game since you have by no means the manpower or knowledge it takes toget the looks of games like Far Cry as some people here might think this community could.If they could they'd earn big bucks at a game studio now and not talk here.



If you go 2d you have all possibilities you want. You can simply try to improve JA2's renderingengine by introducing a new file format like PNG, by using 32bit tiles and by introducing layers. Allthat can be easily done.You can also switch to a rendering engine (JUST the rendering engine, nothing else) that alreadyexists and already provides those services and that was written with isometric tile based games inmind.

Btw.. how bigger tiles would improve looks I fail to see. Bigger just means bigger. That doesn'timply more colors, more layers or anything, nor is it required for that.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Mysterious Dr.X on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:06:56 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

KeldorKatarnIf you go 2d you have all possibilities you want. You can simply try to improve JA2'srendering engine by introducing a new file format like PNG, by using 32bit tiles and by introducinglayers. All that can be easily done.Then what are we waiting for? Let's do it!

KeldorKatarnBtw.. how bigger tiles would improve looks I fail to see. Bigger just means bigger.That doesn't imply more colors, more layers or anything, nor is it required for that.I also mentioned the idea of bigger tiles, because I associate bigger tiles with more detailspossible to show. I play 1.13 on a 800x600 resolution, because the 1024x768 one makeseverything too small imho. With bigger tiles, we could reach the same overview like in the800x600 - which means: not too small - version combined with better details. If we now also getrid of the old file formats and add sprites, this sounds very good to me!This is why I say let's start! Of course, I'm not a coder and have no experience in this whole thingat all, but when it comes to tileset-creation I could learn everything that's necessary to make someprogress and push this project further.

Another question: Let's say we really change the file format and as a result are possible to displaymore colours etc. Would this mean that we would have to change every single picture in thegame? If yes, what would really cause a huge amount of work, we could also begin to rearrangethe interface. Imho it would be great to use the current bigitem-pictures as MD-pictures, which areshown in a mercenaries inventory. Same idea like the bigger tiles -> more detail. To realise this,everything would have to be redone, but if we anyway had to change all pictures, then why not doit that way right from the start?

To all pessimists: many guys here don't believe in this idea or forsee that it will likely be droppedanyway, but hey! We're now on page 26 or something and it didn't go offtopic, as far as I see,which shows me - and should show you, too - that there are great interests in this. Let's not goofon this, but instead start something already!







Posted by Berserk00644 on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:40:15 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

this is all getting to be a bit big for me... i'm still learing MS paint (anywayif we wanted faster results how hard would it be to recolor the mercs i.e. make the handsone color, forearms another and shoulders a third??? so if a merc has a black shirt on make thevalue of all those colors black except the hands? could this work for the armor? then maybe wecould find a way to add hats? i think for the current LOD this would work fine... and yes i would bealot of work but lees then a 5 year project!

also maybe instead of worryin' bout the guns looking different, maybe we could add more to thegame like better explosions, dogs? alot of patrols use them IRL, claymores? different vehicles,choppersthe list goes on... one thing i would really like to see is mercs dragging wounded mercs to safetyor enemys for that matter, i think this would add to the game play greatly... maybe even make itworth your effort to heal enemy soldiers? maybe 10% they'll give you info on enemy sam sites orsomthing?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:46:27 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Now one thing nearly everyone is forgetting is map creation. If we do manage to replace the stiformat (god I hope so!) then we also have to contend with the JSD format for tiles. This holds thedata regarding cover and height. They are a b*tch to work with too. We possibly need to eithermake them more user friendly or externalise the data so we can set heights and coveragesseparately.

As for the 2D, 3D argument well its all bonkers. The 2D can look great (as shown by that picearlier), but then so can 3D. I for one would love to see 3D implemented with a proper physicsengine too. That way you can have bullet trajectory, drop off, deviation, damage vs distance,hitting objects in the way, etc...To be against it because it won't be JA2 is kinda silly. Things evolve and if you play vanilla andthen 1.13, you will notice 1.13 is a new game in its own right anyway. Very different and containsthe features that the community wanted. I personally can't play vanilla anymore, its too boring!

And I am now too tired to continue typing. Will talk later...

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:42:55 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Kaerar...then we also have to contend with the JSD format for tiles.I agree totally. We need all the (technical) info about STI and JSD files we can get.

Volunteers?












Please write it down in this thread and I'll update it in the design document.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:33:49 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I don't think changing image format from .sti will require anything more than exporting all imagesto .bmp than converting to whatever format is agreed upon. Sure, this will be tedious work andlong hours but that's all there is to it as far as I can see.

Changing to 3d will require rewriting all the graphics for almost to none improvement. Simply put,if the idea can be done in 2d isometric why not start on this NOW. We can always switch formatlater but if this idea loses momentum it will never happen.

I don't see any advantage to bigger sprites except the ability to get more detail. If I thought moredetail was essential to this project I might consider the bigger sprites issue. But you have toremember, with bigger sprites comes a smaller map view. I know for higher resolution this maynot be an issue but what about those of us who don't play on maximum res?

I'd like to see this idea happen with minimal complications. That means keep it simple sweathogs.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BirdFlu on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:24:51 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Khor1255I don't think changing image format from .sti will require anything more than exporting allimages to .bmp than converting to whatever format is agreed upon. Sure, this will be tedious work and long hours but that's all there is to it asfar as I can see.Starwalker"If it was easy, then someone else would have done it already"Well, first you have to convert the sti files to some other format. Then you need a loader for thatspecial file type to getthe image data into the game. And when you have the data loaded, you have to render itsomehow. And here comes the problem.The blitting functions of the current rendering engine require the STI's special ETRLE format, soyou would have to change the blitters too, and that is inline assembler code. And as far as i noticed nobody wants toget involved withassembler code. But if we are going to change/replace the rendering engine, then this problemshould disappear automatically(more or less).

lisacWe need all the (technical) info about STI and JSD files we can get.What exactly would you consider as "technical" info? The bitwise locations of every data-'object' in









the file or the 'compression'-algorithm or something else?Anyway, i think i can give that info for STI files, as i already handled them. I can't say much aboutJSD files,but i am at the point where i am starting to look into them. What would also be interesting is a description of the map format, maybe a rough overview for astart.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Berserk00644 on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:29:25 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

im not sure i'll be much help from this point out seeing that im new to all thisbut i must agree there nothing wrong with 2d if its modernizedin fact i really like the idea of keeping it 2d... if i wanted somthing else i'd play somthing elseand yes vanilla JA2 is nothing like 1.13 but thats from a gameplay pov.i also think that with the available 3d moddels out there that converting them to 2d would be aloteasyer then most think. we could use any number of games out there (COD4 BF2 CS:S Rainbowsix vegas and vegas 2 Ghost recon games etc etc etc) plus there are plenty of 2d games we coulduse

but 2d seems to be the way most of us want to go just better 2d

P.S. i agree lets do somthing already... i'll help however i can, just don't expect much i got 2 kidsboth under 5 and a FT job

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:42:37 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

BirdFluWhat exactly would you consider as "technical" info? The bitwise locations of everydata-'object' in the file or the 'compression'-algorithm or something else?Yes, something like that. I thought someone on the board should give you a hand with theformats, that's all. However:BirdFluAnyway, i think i can give that info for STI files, as i already handled them. I can't say muchabout JSD files,but i am at the point where i am starting to look into them.I see you're getting along just fine with those formats BirdFluWhat would also be interesting is a description of the map format, maybe a rough overviewfor a start.OK people, you heard the man...

I'm signing out for the next few days, sorry.









Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by zed on Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:03:25 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

there is a guy named CNC gun - he gave a stunning lecture on the JSD engine and it seems heknows best this part of the code. i recommend contacting him in PM to give his inputs and advise.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by KeldorKatarn on Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:50:49 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

About switching to a different 2D rendering engine:

FIFE has discussed here quite a bit.. but one thing nobody has done.. why not simply go to theirforums - FIFE - Game creators' corner - and ask them whether their engine would be well suitedfor this task and how much work they think this would be.

I am very sure that they'd be thrilled to know that their engine is considered to bring a well knowngame like Jagged Alliance 2 to a new modern look.One thing should also be remembered here. their engine was originally designed as a modernizedmore flexible remake of the Fallout engine. Since fallout and JA2 are genre wise very related Ireally doubt that it would be so hard to make this work.But as I already suggested.. why no simply ask the developers.

Edit: Well, thinking twice I took the liberty and just opened a thread there:

http://forums.fifengine.de/index.php?topic=116.0

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Mauser on Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:28:04 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

guys, one thing i want you to take into consideration when planning on a new/improved graphicsengine, would be the following features, from which every future mod would greatly benefit:

1. multiple height levels to allow for trenches, 2 story buildings and cliffs/slopes

2. destroyable and animateable light sources (spotlights).

furthermore, i think it would probably be a good idea, to make a community-wide poll, on whichroute to take. i.e.:

1. try to improve JA2 original engine












2. make complete new 2D engine

3. use new 3D engine

4. use a combination of 2D engine with 3D engine for characters

5. use FIFE engine

let the people decide or at least take their wishes into consideration.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Lt.Havoc on Tue, 08 Apr 2008 05:58:44 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Well, you should join the FIFE forum and ask there if the engine supports multiple hight leves anddestroyable light etc. The devs of the engine can surely answer these questions.

Well, a poll would be fine, but I guess the poll wouldnt hardly representative because not everyJA2 player is here in the forums and not everyone who is in Bears Pit will answer the poll etc.


I'd rather go for a poll among the senior players and specially among the developers,since after allit is them who have to implement it. It doesn't make much sense to ask for the development of acompletely new 3d engine (a no-go in my opinion anyway since such a thing takes years) if thedevelopers cannot do it.

About the features.. the FIFE guys already told us that they are open for such questions andwould really like to know what we expect from the engine. Stuff like multiple levels and movablelights is certainly something they might like to hear about. Whether their engine can do it yet or notI don't know.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Lt.Havoc on Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:43:50 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Well, thats also true. I just hope that if they coose FIFE, a lot of problems and limitatons vanishthat the makesrs of te mod have to deal with a the time. Like the bigger maps thing or the idea tobe able to hire more Mercs etc.












Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Daecraban on Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:15:19 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Hi Guys!Im new here!But i


I was trying to understand the .JSD file format. But looking for some values of a given file in thedebuggeris not really convenient, and so i converted all JSD files to XML files. I'm not sure whether theconversionwas correct, but maybe someone who worked with structure data can look into the files and tellme if somethingis wrong. I'm especially not sure about the flags, because they are defined as #define expressionsand their connection to the different data structures is done by name (or not?).

Anyway, has anyone a need for these files, and if yes, where should i upload them?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by zed on Thu, 10 Apr 2008 05:12:13 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

PM CNC gun and look in this thread:http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=152399&page=1#Post152399this explains some of the things you are dealing with

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:53:10 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

birdflu

sure i'm interested to see that conversion. i think CNC gun has been inactive lately (very busy withjob, etc...)
















Quote:http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=152399&page=1#Post152399interessting thread (still reading)

here is a small example of a XML structure file : "tilesets\0\CAVHOLE.JSD.xml"

J2SD STRUCTURE_FILE_CONTAINS_STRUCTUREDATA 3 3 304 0 0 0 0 6 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0






0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0 0 0 -1 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0 0 0 -2 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0 0 -1 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0



0 0 -1 -1 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0 0 -1 -2 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0 10 8 100 1 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED



1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 15, 0, 15, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0 2 7 100 1 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED 2 0 0 0 0 0 0



0 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 4, 4, 7, 4, 4 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0

While, i was dealing with writing the structure xml files, i thought i could do the same for maybeprof.dat or other .dat files. The problem is that i can easily create these files, but i can't read (parse) them again. So they areof limited use right now.


wow

that's awfully long for such a small .jsd file *omg*


Quote:that's awfully long for such a small .jsd file *omg*Well, that is the problem with xml files vs. binary files, they tend to be huge. The amount ofinformation is small, but all the surrounding tags make it so long. And your program can't read these files "just so", it has to parse them (more or less slowly). Butxml files are "human readable" (really?) and can be changed/processed with a simple text editor. I think for modders it is still a good thing, as they don't have to rely onsome binary editors (which may not even exist).









Edit : all converted xml files take around *** 40 Mbyte *** in total, but only around 2 Mbyte whencompressed


jsd editors do exist, and the file you took as an example is rather a small entry there. That's why ifear working on larger files would be extremely hard.

current jsd editors can only load "normal" jsd's, not special jsd's like buildings, doors, animatedobjects, etc basicly everything out of the ordinary is currently not possible to do.

So maybe if the xml data would allow working on those files, that might give them a big edge.But for a simple object, a jsd editor is probably way easier and faster to handle. Is it thinkable tohave some sort of dual-system, where both a packed, human-unreadable .jsd file is supported aswell as expanded, readable .xml texts?

probably very unelegant i guess ;-D

or maybe it's just a question of having a top notch jsd/xml editor tool along with these suggestedxml's.


The .jsd or .xml file is just a representation of structure data on disc. Internally you still use thegiven data structures. Changing the way how to read or write data is not that big of a deal, but if the jsd-editor can't showthe non-normal files, their xml representaion won't help either. Then the gui of the editor has to be changed.

BTW, what is a normal jsd? I've seen files that hava the flag STRUCTURE_FILE_CONTAINS_STRUCTUREDATA or STRUCTURE_FILE_CONTAINS_AUXIMAGEDATA or both.

As i create the xml files automatically, i have not looked into all of them, so maybe somethingwent wrong somewhere. The files that CONTAINS_AUXIMAGEDATA look half-empty to me and have no flag most of the time, butmaybe that's the way they should be. Can you give me some examples of normal and non-normal jsd's?










for example, basefrn1.jsd in tileset 0 is a very generic file containing nothing special, a bunch ofsmall items that can only be placed individually and have no relation whatsoever to each other

build_01.jsd, and, any "house" (labeling is usually build_"number""eventualletter".JSD) on theother hand is, in my terminology, a very complex .jsd as you have to be able to create a houseusing those, not just a single wall tile or a single piece of roof.

also, when certain tiles are destroyed, e.g. a wall, a different object from within the same .jsd willtake its place, as opposed to "normal" jsd's, where the destruction partner is an structurelessexternal graphic (without any jsd information linked to it)

intuitivly, there must be a lot of additional code/ different file structure/ info storage with these jsdfiles that with the other files because when builing houses in the editor or destroying housesingame, much more complex actions must take place.

then next in the "0" tileset, "fence.jsd" is, if i remeber correctly, not loadable via editor and it musthave that "fence" tag somewhere or "canjumpover" for certain structure objects which currenteditors don't display.

interestingly, sandbag.jsd can be loaded and edited, just the "canjumpoverobject" thing apparentlycan't be controled that way.

i never tried loading a cliff jsd but it may also have special data

roof_01.jsd, as well as any other roof, has special info to it as well, not loadable via current editors

satdish.jsd, which can be found for example in tileset 28 finally, is an animated tile that cannot beloaded either. It even has another .jsd file for its shadow, as the shadow is animated too.

i guess from a coder point of view, that terminology might not help at all, be misleading orwhatnot. But logically/ intuitivly, there must be noteworthy differences between these files.


i'd guess from the terms used that STRUCTURE_FILE_CONTAINS_AUXIMAGEDATA is used for









example in satdishs.jsd, while satdish.jsd has both, structure data and auxilliary image data?

and i think these types of jsd's are so far unsupported... at least i wouldn't know of a tool thatcould handle them, but others may know more than i do.

the STRUCTURE_FILE_CONTAINS_STRUCTUREDATA type jsd is probably the normal, by jsdeditors supported type.but that's just my guess based on the terminology.


I don't know, why the editor cannot handle all the types of data. They look all the same to me. Imean the flags are different but the rest has pretty much the same structure.

here is an example of : tilesets\28\SATDISH.JSD.xml

J2SD STRUCTURE_FILE_CONTAINS_STRUCTUREDATA STRUCTURE_FILE_CONTAINS_AUXIMAGEDATA 10 10 10 480 0 0 0 0 0 8 AUX_ANIMATED_TILE 0 0 0






1 8 AUX_ANIMATED_TILE 0 0 0 2 8 AUX_ANIMATED_TILE 0 0 0 3 8 AUX_ANIMATED_TILE 0 0 0 4 8 AUX_ANIMATED_TILE 0 0 0 5 8 AUX_ANIMATED_TILE 0



0 0 6 8 AUX_ANIMATED_TILE 0 0 0 7 8 AUX_ANIMATED_TILE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 42 100 1 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE



STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 0 21 42 100 1 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED 1 0 1 0 0 0



0 0 0 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 0 21 42 100 1 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 0, 3, 3, 3, 0



0 21 42 100 1 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 0 21 42 100



1 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 0 21 42 100 1 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED 5 0 1 0



0 0 0 0 0 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 0 21 42 100 1 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 3, 3, 3, 3, 3



3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 0 21 42 100 1 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 0, 3, 3, 3, 0 0



21 8 100 1 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0, 1, 0, 0 0, 0, 2, 0, 0 0, 2, 2, 2, 0 1, 0, 2, 1, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0 21 8 100 1 STRUCTURE_GENERIC STRUCTURE_OBSTACLE STRUCTURE_BLOCKSMOVES STRUCTURE_TYPE_DEFINED



9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 1, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 2, 0, 0 0, 2, 2, 2, 1 0, 1, 2, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0

I watch the files in the internet explorer, where i can fold or unfold single sections, so it doesn'tlook so cluttered.I may me a little harder to work with viewers or editors that don't support folding.


then the editor doesn't support the flags (obviously i'm not a programmer so i'm already lost here)

but the terminology makes sense, satdish contains both the actual structure data (size of object,hitpoints, etc.) as well as the tie to other graphics (animated).

Makes perfect sense.

What about build_1.jsd or fence.jsd, do they also contain AUXIMAGEDATA? or auxobjectdata atleast?






so, auximagedata is in fact more than just

AUX_ANIMATED_TILE

my simplistic conception was way to shallow as it looks.


You have one or two flags in the header of the file(STRUCTURE_FILE_CONTAINS_STRUCTUREDATA,STRUCTURE_FILE_CONTAINS_AUXIMAGEDATA).

With flag "STRUCTURE_FILE_CONTAINS_AUXIMAGEDATA" you have as many"AuxObjectData" sections as is said in "usNumberOfImages" (see header)and as many "RelTileLoc" sections as said in "usNumberOfImageTileLocsStored".

With flag "STRUCTURE_FILE_CONTAINS_STRUCTUREDATA" you have as many"_STRUCTURE" sections as said in "usNumberOfStructures" or "usNumberOfStructuresStored" (these two differ sometimes, not sure why).Each "_STRUCTURE" section contains one "DB_STRUCTURE" section and several"DB_STRUCTURE_TILE" sections.

Build01.jsd and Fence.jsd have both StructureData and AuxImageData. I will not post thecontents of these files,as they would look like the examples above just with different values, but i can upload all filessomewhere so thateveryone can take a look at them.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Lt.Havoc on Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:45:09 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Well, I

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:25:50 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I have tried to contact CNC_gun, but he's not responding... Probably too busy in RL.












I guess BirdFlu scratched the surface of the problem with the graphic formats in JA2,congratulations for a good work (although it's just begin)!

I'm not a programmer (yeah, just a modder like the scorpion), but according to the complexity ofthe JSD files just presented, I'd say the parts of the graphic engine controlling them is just ascomplex as the files themselves (just a guess, of course). I mean, all those flags must be properlyused and controlled, right? The good news is that we know more about the way JA2 draws andcontrols graphics than before.

I'll see if I can fork out a SVN branch for you BirdFlu, so you can keep working on yourexperiments and keep in touch with the public at the same time


OK, here are the files http://www.plunder.com/xml-structure-files-download-125609.htm

Quote:I'll see if I can fork out a SVN branch for you BirdFlu, so you can keep working on yourexperiments and keep in touch with the public at the same timeWell, i'm not working on THE code. I am pulling files or classes or functions that i need from the1.13 project and put them in an own project(, that is far away from being a game).So i try keep the size of the project small and manageable, but with the latest additions it seemsthat i partially failed my intentions.


BirdFluBuild01.jsd and Fence.jsd have both StructureData and AuxImageData. I will not post thecontents of these files,as they would look like the examples above just with different values, but i can upload all filessomewhere so thateveryone can take a look at them.

okay. things start to fall together in place due to those enlightening comments. current editorsprobably work only for jsd that exclusivly contains structure data.









auximagedata is in that case everything that has to do with graphic frame dependencies within thesame jsd. Every complex or animated jsd probably has them

i guess they will be the key for deciphering the more advanced jsd files and i'm very glad birdFlu istackling those issues.

Lisac

i think that the impact that jsd's have on actual graphics is limited. Basicly the structuredata onlyjsd's have almost no impact on the graphics except for the destruction partner graphic (which canbe edited using existing editors)

AuxImageData files however feature interdependencies and "rules" between graphics of the samefile

Usually, these dependencies are quite clear, but also very complicated, especially when it comesto building compounds (animated graphics, switches and doors (trees? tees as well i think) areusually quite evident, first is the close door, then the slightly open door, then the wide open dooretc.)

however, many a graphic designer might want to be able to tweak how many frames his animatedtile has, what relations between the different frames there are etc.

there are still many ugly limitations in the tile engine itself, so there's another key issue there. Ithink chrisL was already scratching these issues when trying to add an Mdp4items file.

also, if you have alook at the tilesets/0 folder, you'll see plenty of files that would help modmakers/designers to add things, and you can easily figure that more control over those, and addition ofmore such files could dramatically add to what's there right now.

for example, the destruction partner graphics for destroyed tiles currently are simply a multipageof graphics. If we'd just add a .JSD file to them, we could far better simulate the destruction ofgeneric objects.

See, the auximagedata files often contain rules as to what happesn to them if destroyed.

the structuredata only files on the other hand, only feature such a "debris" graphic of choice withno structuredata reamining once the object is destroyed.now imagine what happens if we could add structuredata to the objects that get generated whenanother object is destroyed. We could for example have a generic object like a pillar turn not todust but into a smaller pillar. and then that pillar could fall into a bunch of rubble is destroyed andonly once this bits are pulverized, there will be no more structure data.

if auximagedata entries can do such, maybe their functionality can be used for a HUGELY moreinteractive map design.

but this example is from the tile engine itself. Another example would be added bullet holes and



blood decals on walls.

but i stray off the topic. I guess when it comes to a more versatile engine, the auximagedatasection and the functions in there could hold blueprints for very interesting things to be achieved.


I was looking into the AUXIMAGEDATA files. The "AuxObjectData" sections are referencing"RelTileLoc" sections via "usTileLocIndex", but if you want to find any specific section, you have to count them. So i thought i could add anexplicit index number to the "RelTileLoc" sections. These indices are not explicitely stored in the actual jsd files, but they could really help to find thecorrect referenced sections. What do you guys think?

Edit : I am 100% sure that "usTileLocIndex"-values are actually references, as not all numbersbetween 0 and valueof(usTileLocIndex) appear in the file. But the are some modifications in the code that change the value of mentioned variable, somaybe then all 'RelTileLoc's can/will be referenced.Anyway, could someone confirm that my assumptions are valid?


Time to bring this topic back to life.

I received a PM from PFM a few minutes ago. He recommends using different animation sets fordifferent weapons, in other words using existing sprites, just adding them extra animation set(s)depending on the weapon they're using. I've been thinking about this possibility for two weeks, butdidn't want to post anything about it before I do some calculations...

Speaking of those, I think the new animation sets would bring more "weight" to the currentgraphical content, extending it to hundreds of MBs of data. Although this shouldn't be much of aproblem today, I guess it's worth mentioning as a drawback.









The greatest advantage would be coding this feature, since the current graphic engine should beforced to "switch" between animations (sets, respectively) according to the weapon equipped,which is far away easier than adapting it to represent layered sprites...

Oh, one more question: any restrictions in the filenames? Can we use more than 8 chars for thefilenames (highly recommended feature for adding extra animation sets)?


Thanx for bringing this one back up man.

My first question is would it be possible to implement one layer at a time?

For instance, if we could start with different weapon classes being illustrated differently I think thiswould go a long way towards

a) improving the look and feel of the game (it blows when you can't see a difference between ansmg and a long rifle)b) add enough interest to get momentum rolling on the rest of this excellent idea.

I have a feeling the first task might be to remove all weapon illustration from some existing spritesso you can use the same sprite to hold an smg, a rifle and a long rifle.

Whatever the weight, I think this idea has so much potential it is worth it.

And you are right, todays computers will hardly bat an ion at the increased weight. Still, everyeffort should be made to streamline animations if for no other reason than to speed up the endproduct.


the scorpion









it deals with different long (two-handed) weapon animations

from left to right:

1. AK, 2. Submachinegun (e.g. MP5), 3. bullpup assault rifle (e.g. FAMAS, 4. Shotgun (note largermuzzle flash), 5. sniper rifle with scope (maybe like the M24), 6. GPMG (could be a PKM or such)

just think the coat wasn't there ;-D

Lisac

i think you shouldn't think about "all" animations necessary for new weapon classes. If you think ofa typical battle, there is only a few animations that are used often and that focus on the gun, theseare limited to basicly shooting, standing idle and running/ walking.

The weapons in most other animations are not very prominent and wouldn't be shown much inbattles so for a long time, placholder could be used there.


With the layered idea we don't even need whole new sets of full animations. Most of the framewould be background colour so I think the files would be smaller than each animation they effectanyway.

But in any event, with layers you can make this happen a lot faster.

@scorp

I had not seen those before.

They look very cool.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by PFM on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:04:48 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I would start with weapons first because there isn't too many animations compared to "normalbehaviour"(walk, run, breath etc.) And on the other hand we could see result, if it worth trying to -"can you see difference at current resolution?"









but first thing first - is here a coder or coderess for answering a few questions?


Khor1255With the layered idea we don't even need whole new sets of full animations. Most of theframe would be background colour so I think the files would be smaller than each animation theyeffect anyway.

But in any event, with layers you can make this happen a lot faster.

we all know that but layers would involve a lot of coding. I can't do it. Can someone else?


Adding new animations also requires coding.

Besides, the game already/ sort of/ adds layers in the way it adds colours to sprites.

Maybe some borrowed code here?

In any event, something that can cut down on the workload is worth exploring.

Coders?


Khor1255Adding new animations also requires coding.

true! but I think it requires less coding than layers. But I never saw the source code so I may bewrong
















pfm

think of it: there are many weapon classes and there are 3 bodytypes

we can do at least 3 different sets of animations before anything is redundant (truly needs to beadded by code)

e.g. big male --> shotgun , female ---> submachinegun , Normal male --> sniper

(just examples)

then there are shooting stances, brth stances and running stances, 3 times, standing, crouched,prone... there could be a lot of work done before any coding is involved to "add" things.

(assuming we're ready to overwrite the default anims for the time being)

yes, one question was raised, seeing much of a difference at higher resolutions:

to be honest, only the frames where the weapon is shown straight (see my above examples) allowfor a lot of detail to clearly show what weapon class we use.but difference between submachinegun and sniper rifles for example will be nicely visible in800x600

let's assume that work is done without layers first because no coder has expressed interest inadding it yet. If layers would be added later, maybe the "non-weapon" part of the pictures thatwere made without layer system could still be erased?

i mean the new weapons must be drawn anyway, whether there's a merc around it or not...doesn't seem to be that important at first sight...


the scorpioni think you shouldn't think about "all" animations necessary for new weapon classes. Ifyou think of a typical battle, there is only a few animations that are used often and that focus onthe gun, these are limited to basicly shooting, standing idle and running/ walking.

The weapons in most other animations are not very prominent and wouldn't be shown much inbattles so for a long time, placholder could be used there.

Right, exactly my thoughts... However, adding a few armor variations to each merc (F,S,M) couldcause the ANIMS directory to get really heavy.

Luckily for us, we don't need to add those right away. A few variations with weapons (like those






you've shown in your previous post) would be a step forward and a definite improvement over thecurrent system.

Now, we need a coder to answer a few simple questions...

1) 8-char filenames?2) Switching the animation sets according to the currently equipped weapon?

P.S.I'm about to make a female character next week and try to rig it (prepare it for animations). Thenext goal would be remaking the original female sprites using the current "sprite colored bypalette" system... Let's see what can be done with it


the scorpionpfm

think of it: there are many weapon classes and there are 3 bodytypes

we can do at least 3 different sets of animations before anything is redundant (truly needs to beadded by code)

e.g. big male --> shotgun , female ---> submachinegun , Normal male --> sniper

I am aware of that. there are pistols, SMG, shotguns, rifles(assualt and normal), sniper rifles andLMG. That's 6 times (stand, crounch, lie) times (idle, walk, run(only stand), hit, shoot, jump, climb,water etc) So we come with 6 x 3 x 6 for the begining and in 8 directions = 6 x 3 x 6 x 8 equals864 animations. Am I right? :gaga: Or am I crazy? :crazy:

probably both :placard:


that's discouraging PFM ;-/

now mulltiply this 864 with 13 average animation frame number and you get an approximation ofwhat the workload would look like ;-D

but then, it has to be taken with a grain of salt: "getting hit" doesn't show a weapon, jumping









doesn't show a weapon, swimming doesn't show a weapon, climbing and dying (these anims aresometimes over 200 very detailed frames long) don't use a weapon etc.

this is why doing a complete set of weapons is easier than a complete set of armour

yet armour, as well as weapons, doesn't matter in each and every situation.

e.g. when your character sleeps, when your character dies, climbs or falls from a roof, there's littleneed to show armour.maybe we could up some examples. Like in my screenshot, it's a black hat and a coat ;-D

Lisac:

i see good potential in using palettes. Do you remember my suggestion to have palettes fromarmour only apply to the bodypart where they are worn?

e.g. pants to the "pants" part, vests to the "vest/ shirt" part and headgear on the haircolor (lackinganything better)

this would allow to combine 4 camo patterns with 3 bodypart in many different ways.

armour class could also be shown by camouflage pattern/ colour ;-D

i mean every char has colors defined for bodyparts, so i should not be sooo tricky to have camodefined by the bodypart as well. it would in fact even make a lot of sense.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by PFM on Thu, 01 May 2008 06:35:58 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Khor1255Adding new animations also requires coding.

Besides, the game already/ sort of/ adds layers in the way it adds colours to sprites.

Maybe some borrowed code here?

In any event, something that can cut down on the workload is worth exploring.

Coders?

yes, it does! but somewhere in the source code there have to be part of the code that should looklike this:(translated from C langueage )

1. merc doesn't have weapon in his hands - use animations without weapon2. ooh look, merc has weapon in his hands - use animations with weapon

now from my point of view we could modify these lines(easily? :whoknows: ) this way:






1. don't change anything2a. ooh look, merc has weapon type8 in his hands(shotgun) - use type8 animations(animationswith shotgun)2b. ooh look, merc has weapon type3 in his hands(SMG) - use type3 animations(animations withSMG)

problem - I don't know how the code handles animations. Does anybody? :help: Maybe itinvolves a lot of coding(pointing engine to every animation). How about externalizing it?

weapon types are already defined in the code(or externalized). So in my opinion it's easier to do itthat to code layers. Although layers are more comfortable and I don't have any problem withlayers.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Thu, 01 May 2008 10:27:44 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

other examples i drew some time ago

(s merc sniper, f merc SWAT, M merc firing supressed Mac-10/ Uzi)

one problem is the lack of detail in S_merc and F_merc. The anims of those bodytpyes oftenappear a bit "washed" compared to the M_merc that i'm used to.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Thu, 01 May 2008 12:20:25 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

@pfm

You could always do your full animations then later wash the bodytype out with the backgroundcolour to make the layer.

A coder should really chime in here and let us know if these is any interest.










Posted by the scorpion on Thu, 01 May 2008 14:03:23 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

for how long has the thread been active before?

how much coder feedback did it get?

i think whoever has the lead on the idea (Lisac i think) would have to individually contact thecoders.

i only know that bugmonster managed to implement custom animations in ja2005 and 1.13. if he'snot around, there's probably nobody who has taken a lot of research into the animation engine.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BallerDave on Thu, 01 May 2008 18:18:32 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

heyy, here comes the modder noob (who actually doesnt mod at all)

i really REALLY aprreciate what u guys are trying to do here and i admire the amount of work urputting into it. i would help if i had any idea of how this works. anyway if i may make a liitlesuggestion?

i find it wierd the way the mercs are supposed to wear armors or helmets, but only have theseshirts on?! maybe (doesnt really have to be a new set of textures for every type of armor) u guyscud try to develop generic textures to show that they are wearing armor (and what would really beWHACK is if they wore ghuille suit). anyway, its just a small observation, i personally think it wouldbe a great addition.


lisac1) 8-char filenames?2) Switching the animation sets according to the currently equipped weapon?

I AM NOT A CODER but looking into source code, I can tell for 100% sure that:1) yes, there is a limit for 8-char filenames right now2) yes. the code is checking if merc has a gun, if the gun is twohanded and if he has two pistols inhis hands

I looked into the code for 5 minutes to figure this out. I don't see ANY DIFFICULTIES in adding












addtional types of animations, although I AM NOT A CODER(I have little to know experience with scripts and macros and functions in excell )

EDIT: grammar, grammar, grammar


PFM1) yes, there is a limit for 8-char filenames right now2) yes. the code is checking if merc has a gun, if the gun is twohanded and if he has two pistols inhis hands

mmm, looking into animation folder - there are animations with longer names M_SHOEDUST.stifor example. So I am wrong on the first one. But take a look at this:define MAX_ANIMATIONS320This should mean we can onyl have 320 animations? Am I right this time?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Berserk00644 on Fri, 02 May 2008 01:56:39 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

maybe we should work on other anims for starters, like maybe one new death animation for aknife attack to neck... if we did it from all 8 directions at lets say 13 frames or so thats 8x3x13 =312 thats alot less then the 800 or so above... then if its easy to add into the game, then we couldwork on adding all the guns...

imho it seems like to much work to make all these gun animations if nobody wants to even see ifthey can add them.

dont get me wrong i think it would be great to add them and armor, but maybe baby steps is theway to go with this project.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Mauser on Fri, 02 May 2008 03:37:16 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

another good and useful animation that shouldn
















another comparatively easy thing to do would be a binocular animation and pose.

a derivation of the weapon rising animation, one handed. lifting the binocs to the face, thenscanning the horizon left to right just like with the gun.

right now, when using the binocs nothing happens animation wise. which is odd, because youoften don

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by PFM on Fri, 02 May 2008 08:00:57 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Berserk00644maybe we should work on other anims for starters, like maybe one new deathanimation for a knife attack to neck... if we did it from all 8 directions at lets say 13 frames or sothats 8x3x13 = 312 thats alot less then the 800 or so above... then if its easy to add into the game,then we could work on adding all the guns...

imho it seems like to much work to make all these gun animations if nobody wants to even see ifthey can add them.

dont get me wrong i think it would be great to add them and armor, but maybe baby steps is theway to go with this project.

do you know how to make those animations? OR can you make them? Making them ISENDLESS AMOUNT OF WORK!!! doing them pixel-by-pixel is worthless because you will spendweeks maybe months by making one animation in one direction.

other problem is implementation. adding NEW types of animation is a trisky one! (what the hell istrisky???? :gaga: maybe RISKY and TRICKY in the same time ) you need to define newanimation and conditions which must be meet to use NEW animation. For example new"death-to-wall" animation. conditions:1. must be played instead of "back death" animation2. must be played only when WALL is behind the merc3. I DON'T KNOW how is wall defined in the source code - is it the same as any "obstacle"?3a. is WALL equal to ROCK? you don't want to play "bouncing of the wall" animation when merchit rocks behind him with his legs, do you?4. are death animations played random? (well they are played in right direction, but any otherconditions?) I DON'T KNOWand so on - more questions than answers

adding guns animations is easier!1. we have all the animations we need - the only thing we need to do is "swap" M4/M16 styleweapon with different one (AK style like Scorpion)2. engine is already testing what kind of weapon merc holds in his hands. ADDing another typesof "weapons"(I should say items, binoculars aren't a weapon, right? ) should be easy - I can try itby "watch and learn plus trials&errors" approach but I won't have much time next 1 or 2 months -university studies...






so I vote for additional weapon animations(ONE or TWO for the beginning - we can use scorpionsBIG_MALE_AK and test it) unless we FIND A CODER who will take a look at animation part. Ihaven't found him yet!

binoculars...I was thinking about it. BUT(!!!!): how you will make those animations? lisac is tryingto make animation by 2D->3D->2D approach(we need to have the same animation, not differentone for weapons, differrent one for binoculars, different one for death etc) but I don't know how farhe is. We can even change whole animations for new one, BUT WHO WILL MAKE THEM?

EDIT: grammar...

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Fri, 02 May 2008 08:32:32 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

interestingly, there is a dilemma between

a) adding single new movements/ actions to the game that need new anims

like suggested in several threads e.g. here

http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=127403&page=1#Post182314

which would require a lot of unique new code

and b) what is suggested in this thread where in similar ways as the existing code works just newanims, not new functionality should be added (where tons of new anims and still a lot of new, butnot-so-specially-unique code is required)

personally i think either option provides quite some cool stuff. Either option seems hard to do.

--> dilemma

disadvantages

bloating filesize itself doesn't seem big an issue these days... but imagine we actually did the newweapon stuff. If then, a new movement is added, if it is with a gun, it would require 8 times asmuch work as it would now to completely add it.

so this is actually a very tricky issue overall, game-development wise.maybe we should comfort ourselves to offering alternative animations first before we want to have






them added to the game and see what we can come up with.

i'm especially curious as to the detail level that good artists like Lisac can achieve, especially forthe smaller bodytpye animations. (you've seen my examples, a mediocre artist like myself can'tachieve a lot of detail very easily there... and it is only one of usually 112 frames there)

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Lt.Havoc on Fri, 02 May 2008 11:07:32 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Well, what happend to the idea of using the FIFE graphic engine at all? Was that dropped all of asudden or evlated that it wont fit the game? I mean, using the FIFE graphic engine might slovesome of the problems you guys are currently facing.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Fri, 02 May 2008 12:11:05 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Lt.HavocWell, what happend to the idea of using the FIFE graphic engine at all?No human resources available.


Pardon? Can you elobrate that for me, please? We have a forum full of mebers and in this threadare a lot of people discussing the idea of improving the orginal graphics, so you cant really saythat there arnt any human resources avalible. And if thats the case, you have to ask around andget some people intrested in it and the problem of resources gets sloved.


@ Lt.Havoc : how many of the posters here are really able coders and graphics artists? most ofthe people here, including myself, cannot contribute much to the developement at all. and thosethat can, often are also involved in other projects and sometimes have a real life and jobs too.

good and devoted coders and developers with plenty of free time are VERY rare indeed!

One thing the stable milestone release was meant for, is to attract more able devs and helpfulhuman resources to this project.















that


Well, what I trying to say was, that it is talked about how to improve the orginal, current graphicsof JA2, wihch I think will take the same amount, if not more time then totally replacing the engine. Imean, every 2 or 3 posts I read how difficult it is to add new animations and whatnot and how thefilesizes gets increased etc. and then wehn I say "People, why not use XYZ instead?" there iseither no answer, or short answers like "No human resources avalibe". The whole thing wansteven discussed, no one of the devs even looked into the FIFE forums at all nor did anyone of thecontacted the FIFE guys.

If you really dont like that idea, then just say it, say that my idea sucks ass and that I should go tohell, its that simple. There are more graphic artists and coders out there then you think, there arelots of forums where somone can ask around and get intrest in this project and whatnot, C and C+are the standarts of game coding for years now, so you cant tell me there isnt a coder out therethat dosent know about it.

I know they also have jobs and real life occupations, but thats typical for all modders out there andall mods. I dont know any single mod where the people are jobless bums that work 24h on it, sothat isnt really the problem. With proper organisation and planning, the time issue can be slovedand no one says the coders and graphic artist have to work like slaves on it everyday in thier freetime.

Yes, promotion of this project is a nessecary thing toi attract more people to it that can helpimrpove the mod.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Fri, 02 May 2008 13:52:35 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Well regarding FIFE, I like the engine but earlier in the discussion the subject of an engine switchwas ruled out basically cos of the issues of which engine and 2D/3D and how it wouldn't be JA2any more. So even though it may help in the long run it isn't really a valid solution cos at the endof the day its 10 years old and if we were gonna use a new engine (with money and coders) youcould use any number of far more advanced pieces of kit.













No one will ever pump any money into this, because that wouild mean you need a realdevelopment rteam and whatnot. This is a free mod, not a full scale game, so I soubt that this willever get real professional. Also, who is able to license a good graphic engine that will cost you atleast 10.000 Dollars and more? You can pretty much forget that, expect you are the son of DonaldTrump and have cash to spend or something. And you wont be able to sutain such a project fromdonations alone.

A fre engine ala FIFE is the only avalible solution, expect improving the orginal graphics, wihchwas pointed out, is a pain in the ass.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Fri, 02 May 2008 14:13:09 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

The only real pain in the ass is the ammount of frame by frame work you have to do to make ananimation.

If you are saying fife somehow automates this process than perhaps it is worth looking into(provided we can still use the same physics engine). But even if we were to use a new graphicsengine, t5ons of work would have to be redone.

Using the existing engine just means making the new animations (which we have people willing todo) and coding them in (which we get very little input and even less cooperation on).

But changing the whole imaging format would require massive ammounts of coding. Coding is themanpower we are in very short supply of.


discussing is fun, but moving a finger isn't huh?

meh, i can't code for shit, but i can tell you guys, modding gta4-to ja2 would solve all our problemsforevah

i would be one thing if people that seriously can port ja2 to the FIFE engine would be suggestingand starting to do it, but looking as it is just the wet dream of a single forum person...

...what real chances are there?










guys, just think how much work and time have gone into 1.13 project until now just that we got tothe point we are now.

what do you think will it take in terms of worktime to port over the comnplete 1.13 projet to anotherengine and then redoing most of the graphics and animations, so we get a real visibleenhancement out of it?

can you imagine, how long that might take and how many people would have to work on this,which all need to be coordinated?

i just sincerely doubt, that this can be done with the ressources we have now at our disposal.

but if someone could find and assemble another dedicated coding and graphics team fromsomewhere...

i really think we should restrain ourselves to things that can be realistically done with our currentresources.

and concerning FIFe engine, please also remember that FIFe itself is a project in developementstatus and far from being a complete and stable base to build a game on. could you imagine thechaos of 2 projects in constant change to be merged together?

also we


Moving a finger isn't? Are you talking about me?

I will not move anymore fingers animating things that will likely just end up on my hard drive likethey've been for years now.

What's the point?

So I can post screenies of things that can't even function in game?

No thanx.

And when I do go to try to collaborate with some people - wink wink - there is often a pig headedreluctanct to do it any other way than EXACTLY the way the other guy wants to do it (on my ownmod I have been guilty of this as well).









So if - for instance - I'm willing to collaborate on a set of long sleeved animations but the guy Iwork with does not want them to use the universal hot blue colour so they can take a variety of ingame pallettes I lose interest.

If someone wants to do a few months worth of animating with no coder even saying they MIGHTfinally make this work in game I am similarly not interested.

So until we hear from a willing coder this is all just talk. Interesting idea, but just talk.

But if you guys want to do all those animations, by all means do so. You may even catch theattention of a coder.


There is more then one who suggested the FIFE engine and you can keep your sarcasticcomments to yourself. I asked around in the FIFE forums and they said that it would be possibleto use FIFE for JA2, but because I dont have any insights of the mod development and who ismaking what, I can not give them any detailed informations, so the dev team mebers themselfshave to ask the right questions instead of general jibber jabber of "is it possible?" and "Can it bedone?" etc. posts.

You guys are developing the mod, not me, so what can I do as a single person? All I can do is aksaround and find people who can code and ask them if they would be intrested int working on thismod.

And yes, Scorpion, proting it over to GTA 4 would be really aswome, that is an idea that weshould look into and I


the "not moving a finger" comment was not aimed at you khor. i know you do/ did may things. Thecomment was aimed at people interrupting our custom animation discussions with their ideas of a"wet-dream-game", the crysis engine or whatever...


But what does it help to add custom animations wehn you cant add them properly? Kohr said youguys need a coder, is that correct? Then I













lisac asked a few simple questions over a day ago that are still unanswered. We need at least alittle cooperation or this will likely never happen.

It is a great idea. Bravo to lisac for initially bringing it up and hooray to anyone who works on this(whether the work turns out to be mothballed or not).

I certainly don't want to poo poo this idea but the simpler and more practicle we make it the morelikely it will actually happen. Remeber, most people here have very limited part time to do this sortof thing. Even when I think I have lots of part time my infant son sometimes decides it's time tocheck out what daddy's doing and my attention goes to where it is most needed. I'm sure justabout everyone else has similar factors placed on their free time.

We need a streamlined approach to this or maybe a huge ammount of coding work initially(porting to a new graphics engine) followed by a lot of porting of Ja2 images to the new format. Itis much easier for me to concieve of this getting done using the existing graphics engine simplybecause it is familliar territory both to animators and coders but I may not be seeing somethingclearly here.


Yeah, but you people didnt even looked into FIFE at all. No one of you guys seemd to haveposted a question in the FIFE forums and the thread link was posted more then oince here. I askme, how much more streamlined it can get, really? Yes, its work, a lot of work, but its the sameamount of work as fiddeling around with the existing engine.


Because we would have to code the game to use another graphics engine.

Since I don't know how to do that it would be a waste of time.
















guess different people are talking different issues here...

i think the one(s) who actually care for the fife engine should be pursuing this very promisingapproach as well as they can.

The others migth still do things to which they can contribute. Me, i can't and thus i won't contributeto the entire "let's port ja2 to engine xy" issue. So when i discuss a different issue, i'd like to be leftin peace about the engine discussion.

it is adifferent matter and i think it has it's own thread, doesn't it?


Probably right.

Porting Ja2 to another graphics engine is/ should be / another topic so it can either be adressed orignored by the actual coder who would have to do some things to make that happen.

If someone can get a guy from the FIFE boards or wherever to take on the job that is great. Butmaybe this thread should be used to discuss things that might actually get done and I have notheard any coder say they are even very interested in this project let alone in porting to anothergraphics engine.

But if there is a better way to do it (without having to do away with Ja2's physics engine) it soundslike it is worth a try.

Start a thread and see if a coder replies.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BirdFlu on Fri, 02 May 2008 19:52:33 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Quote:Yeah, but you people didnt even looked into FIFE at all. No one of you guys seemd to haveposted a question in the FIFE forums and the thread link was posted more then once here.Really?

mvBarracuda, FIFE ForumNo ja 1.13 devs contacted us directly AFAIKIs a question on the forum not direct enough?

Quote:No human resources available.Was there anyone else working on this, besides me. And since i am busy with another projectright now, this one has to fall short. I can't work on two projects at the same time. So, when i'm done with the other project i can start









to work an this one again, unless someone else start before.

---

Anyway, i can tell you something about the graphics system. Basically speaking, there are videoobjects that represent video memory and hold data like images or framebuffers. When you draw something you have to do three steps1. Load image data2. Blit (copy) that data into the framebuffer.2. Delete image data.

Our image data is stored in sti files and every sti file can contain multiple subimages. Ananimation is such a sti file. So, an animation consistsof a number of images, but it has also some timing information attached to it, i.e. when a certainsubimage has to be drawn.

The timing information for every animation is hardcoded and all image data for ane animation is inone file only. Thus the animation data structure in the code only references this one file (or the loaded image data from that file). When you renderan animation, you know which subimage you need (because of the timing information) and you just blit that image into the framebuffer.

Now, if you would want to draw multiple layers, you would need a list or vector of "sti files" (ideallywith an equal number of subimages).And where you drew one subimage before, now you have to draw a subimage from all "sti files" inyour list. When you change your weapon in the game you also change one (or more) "sti files" in the list. Changing other animation controlstructures should not be necessary. And if your datastructures can hold multiple image files they can hold only one file too, i.e. the one layer caseis a special case of the multiple layer case.

So, we have to initialize an animation properly, i.e. find image files that belong together.Rendering should be straight forward. Changing weapons and armor and stuff like that could be a little tricky, since these changes are executed somewhereoutside the animation or rendering code.

Another tricky part is to ensure that you can work with one AND with multiple layers at the sametime, otherwise you would have to redo all animations (and then find out that there was a misconception somewhere and you have to redo all animationsagain after that misconception was fixed).

The determination which files "belong together" or are part a of a multilayer image is important tooand we have to decide what the filenames should beand where these files should be located in our directory structure.

---

So, on the one hand not thaaaaat hard, but still requires some (a lot) of work and some problem



solving abilities when something doesn't work as described.


Thanx for the response man.

Your current project is - in my opinion - waaayyyy more important than this one and I do not wantto see you get disracted.

I do; however, have one question that might help animators decide on what route to take:

Do you think it is a better idea to do the layers or to make seperate animations for every gun typefor instance?

Bear in mind that if armour were also to be implemented as new animations we would then haveto make a seperate animation for every concievable gun and armour combination.

I think I already know the answer but there may be people starting to work on these animationeven now and it would be good to point them in the right direction.

But even if they do start making full animations we could always erase anything but the layer at alater date. So maybe even this question can wait.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BirdFlu on Fri, 02 May 2008 20:30:57 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

You have to consider the distinguishable and variable objects in an image( like bodytype, weapon,armour, hair etc.). Some of these objects can be varied by using different palettes, others can not. In these other cases you have to create ananimation for every combination of objects.If you want a flexible system, i would propose layers, because then the combinations would bedone at runtime (let the computer do the hard work).

And i can offer you this. Since i can render animations (to a certain extent) in my own codealready, i could easily extend it to render animations in a layered fashion. So you can create some example layers and send them to me and we can try out how itlooks before we start to integrate layers into the ja2 engine.










BirdFluAnd i can offer you this. OK, I got you now, you won't escape me this time :shake: BirdFluSince i can render animations (to a certain extent) in my own code already, i could easilyextend it to render animations in a layered fashion. So you can create some example layers andsend them to me and we can try out how it looks before we start to integrate layers into the ja2engine. Dammit man, I'm starting the whole GFX thing next week... You need layers? You got'em!

Anyway, on a side note, how long should it take to finish the first project (estimated)?

Thanks for sticking to us till the end

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Sat, 03 May 2008 05:17:47 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Thats really good to hear lisac and Birdflu. Wish I had the time to offer some help to you guys.Instead I'll just offer my support.

@scorp, sorry if my ideas about using other engines cause you annoyance, but I don't see thepoint in updating to and already out of date engine just for the sake of it. If we would update theengine it may as well be to something at least semi-current and FIFE is never going to be that.And trust me if I had the money available I would fund a full scale update to JA2, though theremay be licensing issues. Who cares, its almost abandonware now for as much as SF care aboutthe series and the abomination thats coming. But hey its all hypothetical so doesn't matter.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Sat, 03 May 2008 07:36:18 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

@Birdflu

It is really great to hear that layering animations is really no more difficult than adding a newanimations (if I read you correctly).

It may not be necessary to use the base weaponless animations I mentioned earlier. It mayperhaps be possible to instead use some colour to block any part of the silhouette that extendspast the silhouette of the weapon.

In other words, if you are replacing a rifle animation with a gun that is smaller in silhouette we maybe able to use some colour to block out the parts of the rifle that extend past the new weaponimage.












What do others think?

The alternative would be having to make some base animations with the rifle silhouettes erasedso that any pixel that extends passed the desired silhouette would not be a problem.

I am thinking of first making some 'guns floating in the air' animations that would be used to layeron top of the existing rifle animations. The method I think that will work is to use the exact framesize of the existing animation (although it might be possible to just use the top half or so of theframe?) but place the gun image (or partial image as the animation might require) exactly where itneeds to be xy wise to layer into the animation.

It would be very helpful if I could find a free imaging tool that supports layers. I may even be ableto get one that is not free - any suggestions?

I'm pretty sure lisac will beat me to the first animation set but I may be able to help.

Any ideas that might correct any misconception I have would be appreciated.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by PFM on Sat, 03 May 2008 10:30:55 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Khor1255It may not be necessary to use the base weaponless animations I mentioned earlier. It mayperhaps be possible to instead use some colour to block any part of the silhouette that extendspast the silhouette of the weapon.

In other words, if you are replacing a rifle animation with a gun that is smaller in silhouette we maybe able to use some colour to block out the parts of the rifle that extend past the new weaponimage.

What do others think?

I don't understand. Are you talking about layer animations with and without weapon? You said wecan shorten current weapon? But muzzle animation is in the file so we would need to shorten theweapon, not "block out" part of it. Or you are taliing about "blocking out" weapon part ofanimation(layer one) and blocking human part of animation(layer two). I'm lost

Khor1255It would be very helpful if I could find a free imaging tool that supports layers. I may even be ableto get one that is not free - any suggestions?

sorry I can't help you






Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Mauser on Sat, 03 May 2008 11:23:28 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Khor1255It would be very helpful if I could find a free imaging tool that supports layers. I may even be ableto get one that is not free - any suggestions?

are you talking about an graphics program like photoshop?

then get paint.net! http://www.getpaint.net

it


The weapon blocking idea is gonna cause issues as PFM points out the muzzle flash will be in thewrong place. So stick a P90 image in the mercs hands and the flash will be many pixels out due tosize differences.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Sat, 03 May 2008 13:30:42 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

make the muzzle flash part of the same layer as the gun.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Sat, 03 May 2008 17:41:30 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Right.

You obviously have to get rid of any part of the existing gun image that is going to stick out intoyour new image.

The options for doing this are:

A)first make a base image of all merc animations with a rifle (some smaller weapon animationmay have to be redone as well. Maybe not) erasing any part of the gun that might exterd passedthe sihouette of the smallest new gun image layer.Make your 'floating' weapon animations.Then add the gun layer over the rifle-less 'base' animation..















= simple but a lot of extra work because all the base animation would have to be redone.

B)make silhouettes of each weapon type but use a different transparency colour for areas of yourweapon layer that tells the program to overwrite any 'underlying' pixel with the transparencycolour. This way any longer or wider part of the old image would overwritten by backgroundtransparency where necessary. It could be as easy as the transparency using it's own palettecolour but just adding a few pixels of the base transparency colour to any area the old rifle imageprotrudes passed your new silhouette.

= maybe the better way but I'm not sure if it is possible

In either case you would - of course add the mussle flash at the end of each animation directionjust as it is done in the existing animations.

Any ideas?

Could the second method work or should I start 'erasing' rifles from animations?

Is that more clear?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Sat, 03 May 2008 23:24:51 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Khor1255The options for doing this are:

A)...B)...I've already made a concept how it all should look like, it's in the updated "design document". Itshould be something similar to the A) option. I've also updated the new filename convention...

The problem is, I didn't finish all of it and it should be available in a few days. I'll let all of you knowabout it as soon as it gets online.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Sun, 04 May 2008 01:28:52 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

That's cool.

You don't think 'b' is possible or is it just problematic/undesireable?









No argument intended. You are the leader or this project as far as I am concerned. But if there isa simpler solution it would make the concept more likely to happen.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BirdFlu on Sun, 04 May 2008 10:45:50 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I don't think that option B is possible for more than a handful of objects, because then every objectthat is encoded in an image depends on all other objects. So if you change or fix one pixel for one object, you might break something foranother object.

----------------

I would propose that you guys start small, work on one animation maybe even only one direction.So you can create prototypes faster and we cantest them earlier. If we will run into some problems then it is easier to change small prototypes.Once the basic creation process is established,we can move on to larger or longer animations with multiple layers.

BTW, how do you plan to "assemble" the animations. I suppose it will be one layer per file, right?And how do you want to get the results back? There are more or less obvious options, but i will let you guys "vote" first.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Sun, 04 May 2008 12:46:56 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Would colour remaps be an option that can be added too? Similar to how Diablo 2 works so youcould add in say (total speculation here) a golden desert eagle and it chooses the colour map forthe gun image (say a total of 64 colour maps possible for each gun) to match the equippedweapon? 64 would be more than enough and is just an arbitrary number chosen for examplepurposes.

The other thing is are we going to enable a different file type? Preferably one allowing multiplelayers/pages with full 24 bit colour and transparency.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritePosted by Mauser on Sun, 04 May 2008 13:04:06 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Kaerar












The other thing is are we going to enable a different file type? Preferably one allowing multiplelayers/pages with full 24 bit colour and transparency.

well, if you

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Sun, 04 May 2008 13:44:13 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Agreed


@ Birdflu

Overlapping layers that sometimes run into the weapon silhouette (I can see vests and helmetsdoing this a lot) is a great reason not to use option b.

That had not occoured to me.

Yikes...and thanks.

I think the idea is to start with the base animations depicting the sprite with the weapon 'erased'from the image.

Then a seperate file (seperate file name as well) with 'floating' weapons.

Please correct me if I am mistaken here. It is important.

lisac is actually working on this and says he'll get back to us in a few days. In order to keep thework from being redundant I plan on working on whatever he does not work on (preferablysomething that can wait since even when I have the time I work slow).

I do not understand what you mean when you say 'how do you want to get the results back'? Doyou mean how do we want to test our animations?

If that is the question I would ask for a test .exe that runs the new layer so we can makeadjustments 'on the spot' so to speak.

I would also suggest that if there is any possibility that MORE than two layers (the base animationand the weapon animation for example) can cause an unforseen problem down the road we might









also try just one other layer early on. But this is more of a coder/filename concern so I'll of coursedefer to you about that.


Quote:I think the idea is to start with the base animations depicting the sprite with the weapon'erased' from the image.Then a seperate file (seperate file name as well) with 'floating' weapons.That is what i was thinking. Is it possible that the displacement values for 'floating' weapons could/should vary for differentbody types?

Quote:I would ask for a test .exe that runs the new layer so we can make adjustments 'on thespot' so to speak.I would say that you send me the layer images for the first tests. I will make the necessaryadjustments to my program and make sure that it doesn't crash or something. Then i can give you the exe so that you can actually work.


I don't think the floating animations could be completely recycled due to likely differences ofstance and height, etc. With any luck a very small amount of adjusting will be all it takes but thatstill means seperate layer files for each body type. Maybe not.

I would really like to hear from lisac here before I do anything to prevent redundant or erroneouswork.

He has likely not visited here today. I think he is Austrian which means English is maybe not hisfirst language. These boards may not his main point of contact with the Ja community. I wouldventure to say Ja Basis might be but that is a guess.

In any event, if I don't hear something from him in the next day I will work on a standing femaleanimation (probably the one where she is holding the weapon then raises and fires since I thinkthat would have all the essential elements) erasing the weapon. I will then make a floating smganimation since this should look remarkably different than the generic long rifle silhouette inexisting animations.

I would also like to make a helmet layer but if you do not want to get in to that yet even for testing









purposes I understand.

Remember that I work pretty damn slow so....

I hope in the meantime lisac has something.


Quote:I would also like to make a helmet layer but if you do not want to get in to that yet even fortesting purposes I understand.Don't understand me wrong, you can do any animation you like. It would be even better for me asi can test my program with more examples (and eliminatemore bugs). I was just thinking that you may not want to do redundant work when some problemsarise and their fixing requires redoing animation files.

I don't expect any problems that would have these consequences, but you never know.


Cool. I'll keep it just guns for now.

I just thought giving you one more test layer might help to ensure that multiple layers would work.

But I guess if you say 2 layers are no different than 10 as far as the coding goes I don't need to dothat just yet.


Quote:But I guess if you say 2 layers are no different than 10 as far as the coding goes I don'tneed to do that just yet.i was not plannig to restrict the number of layers, so i guess 2 would be no different than 10 or N.
















I don't think you understand me. I was offering to make the extra layer in case more than twolayers might be necessary for your code testing purposes.

If you can get by with just the base sprite animation and a gun layer that is better for me. I just didnot want to find out later that additional layers were going to pose a problem.

It sounds like you already answered that.


Quote: I was offering to make the extra layer in case more than two layers might be necessary foryour code testing purposes.The more the better.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Marlboro Man on Sun, 04 May 2008 22:07:33 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

BirdFluQuote: I was offering to make the extra layer in case more than two layers might benecessary for your code testing purposes.The more the better.

Like a menage a trios? :playboy: :biglaugh:

Ok, I'll byte, where is Lampukistan? :headscratch:


It is a crisis-ridden country in the Zepettel-region 6000 km east of Tuttlingen.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Sun, 04 May 2008 23:53:30 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Damn, people, I let you alone for 24 hours and you fill the thread with 20+ posts... Jokes aside, I'mfinished with this hard-working weekend, time to do something useful for the game.















"Floating weapons" - there's problem with those. Actually, we need everything floating. Accordingto my original idea, each "merc"-type sprite should consist of several "floating" areas. The initialvalue was 6 (head/hair/beard, torso/vest, arms/hands, legs/feet, weapon, helmet), meaning 6layers. Which means that a weapon held by female merc PROBABLY WON'T be the same layeras the same weapon held by strong male merc. I need more time to think this through...

This makes the filenames convention very complex, also there's a bunch of graphical stuff to beadded, but the results are "optimal".

Gotta go to bed now, I'll continue tomorrow.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Mon, 05 May 2008 03:12:54 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Unless the silhouettes happened to line up perfectly for two different body types I don't see apossibility of using the same layer twice.

The naming conventions might be as easy as a progressively higher number or letter at the end ofeach animation file name to represent layer 2, 3, 4, etc.

Possible?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Mon, 05 May 2008 14:31:36 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Khor1255Unless the silhouettes happened to line up perfectly for two different body types I don'tsee a possibility of using the same layer twice.Yes, there will be occurrences where this should be possible.

Khor1255The naming conventions might be as easy as a progressively higher number or letter atthe end of each animation file name to represent layer 2, 3, 4, etc.

Possible? Actually, I've already made a concept how it should look like. It might look confusing, so feel freeto ask/suggest/flame/whatever.

Everyone, the updated version of the design document is available. What's added:-New filenames convention-Filenames example for a 7-layered female merc sprite-Table with the new names for the female merc(s)










Since you are here, what would be a good file or set of files for me to work on?

I don't want our work to 'overlap' because that would be a lot of wasted man hours.

I was thinking of working with the female sprites but really just want to work on anything you aregoing to take some time getting around to. Hopefully you work much faster than me.

It sounds like even though he is busy with another project Birdflu is wanting to go ahead with thisright away (or at least start coding for it) but needs one base animation with one layer to use in histests.

If you have something already you might want to send it to him.

But in any event please tell what file or group of files you are going to wait on doing and I will startthere.

Thanx man.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BirdFlu on Mon, 05 May 2008 15:44:11 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

What if we would define "attachment coordinates" for layers or objects in an animation. Then wecould use these "displacements" to position for example weapons in the hands of a merc. Different body types would have differentattachment coordinates and thus could reuse weapon layers.This probably wouldn't work for vests, because they vary in size (?) depending on the body type.

I think if we could spare some work by using some tricks or shortcuts, then it's worth trying, andwe will finish earlier.


That might work. If the overlay image could be made to move down or over a pixel or two thatmight be all it takes to make some reusable.

I think lisac already has something in mind but I haven't read his document he posted yet.












Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Mon, 05 May 2008 17:23:41 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

lisac

small comment on your updated design document (on the issue of palettes): the dark red color asrefered here

Hair or Unused (???)

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Tue, 06 May 2008 00:06:18 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Khor1255Since you are here, what would be a good file or set of files for me to work on?To be honest, I have no idea :whoknows: My concept foresees that all sprites should berecreated in 3D, then converted to 2D. I'm starting with the female merc sprites tomorrow, so all Icould recommend you is to start working on one of the male merc animation sets... However, bearin mind that those animations sets will be remade in 3D and converted to 2D eventually, just likethe others.

If you want to provide quick layered sprites for BirdFlu, you could try decompositing one of theexisting male merc animations and send it to him - for testing purposes, of course.

BirdFluWhat if we would define "attachment coordinates" for layers or objects in an animation...Certainly one of the features we need to discuss about. The problem is the merc's position andthe way he/she holds the weapon, including all 8 directions. The advantage of using the sameweapon layer for all mercs (F, M, S) would be a great deal, however I can't say if this shall bepossible without further modeling/animation set creation. My estimation is, that the most of theanimation sets (or at least a great part of those) will be available to use the same weapon layer.The same applies to helmet layer, but (most probably) not to armour layer - as BirdFlu said, thedifferent models cause this layer to be more specific than the others.

the scorpionsmall comment on your updated design document...You old nitpicker :bluegrin: Anyway, you're probably right, they wouldn't throw away dozens ofcolours in the palette just like that. However, the inconsistency of the developers can be seeneverywhere - in the source code, filename convention, even the unimplemented features... Nthingto wonder about, they've made mistakes with the palettes too, I'm pretty sure.

Talking about palettes... Question for Birdflu: Can we count on the engine-driven recolouredpalettes in the "new layered sprite system" or not? In other words, is it going to be possible torecolour a layer in the fashion the whole sprites were recoloured in the original game or not?

This is important for us to take the proper approach with the creation of the new sprites... I guess.

Thanks goes to the scorp for pointing out the issue with the palettes :newstuff:









Schedule for tomorrow: I'll make a new female model and set up the default scene in LW3D(camera, lights, zoom, aspect etc...), try to rig the character (set up bones, inverse kinematics)and eventually try to make an animation set.

Wish me luck :ok:

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Tue, 06 May 2008 00:30:58 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

You completely lost me there. I guess I am going to have to wait for you to do it.

The way I see it, all we have to do is take existing sprites and erase the parts that do not apply toeach layer.

For instance:

For the base animation you would only erase the gun (this would be sort of trick because not onlywould you have to use background colour to erase any of the weapon that went outside of thesprite's silhouette but you would have to erase the weapon that overlapped the body withappropriate body shade.

No big deal but way more involved than the other layers.

Birdflu just wants the base layer and the accompanying weapon layer to make his tests.

I get the feeling if I do it my way and you do it another it could end up being a hassle on his end.

That is the last thing I want to happen here.

Oh, and good luck.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritesPosted by Navetsea on Tue, 06 May 2008 01:45:23 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Hi,

I'm so excited to see this idea close to be realized, BTW here I tried to quickly edit the sprite with pencil tool in Photoshopin the psd file, I made them in layers.I added the knee protector in the same color as the bootsand there is also vestand helmet.









Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by PFM on Tue, 06 May 2008 08:56:24 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

NavetseaHi,

I'm so excited to see this idea close to be realized, BTW here I tried to quickly edit the sprite with pencil tool in Photoshopin the psd file, I made them in layers.I added the knee protector in the same color as the bootsand there is also vestand helmet.

GREAT!!! Now repeat it 13 times(average) per "side animation" times 8 (directions) and you willget one and only one animations. 13 x 8 = 104Multipli this number with diferent stances (3) and diferent weapons (pistol, two pistols, rifle = 3)and you will get 104 x 3 x 3 = 936 So come back in 5 years when you finish it

no offence. It's great to see lot of enthusiasm but your approach is worthless trying. That's whylisac is doing 3D -> 2D animations And we are close only for testing! Hopefully it will work

btw I think we should improve ingame sprites and not only "paint" them. Am I right lisac?


Hello Navetsea,

the pixel-art you've made looks fantastic, however I'm trying to automate the whole process andlet the machine do the hard job for us. Generally, it's good to have you around here anyway,because we will need people working on the 2D sprites later (adjusting, cropping etc.)

PMFbtw I think we should improve ingame sprites and not only "paint" them Painting the sprites is an improvement nonetheless.









What we're going to try is to bring the whole thing to a new level :welder:

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Shanga on Tue, 06 May 2008 12:35:15 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Speaking as someone who experienced the pain of modifying graphics for UC, pixel by pixelsometimes, it's not worth it.

All animations are actually frame-by-frame exports from a 3D program, as I later discovered(when I got into 3D stuff myself). Such program allows you to export BMP files of each frame. Idont remember if they used Maya or 3D Studio, but something around those parts. To modify theanimation you would need the original 3d model and a bit of info of the settings they used(although they can be guessed by trial and error) such as lighting and camera position.

At one point I was able to replicate a model of a vehicle animation quite decently, but hit the wallwhen we discovered that STI's were at least two kind (aka static tiles and animations). The toolswe had back then supported only static STIs so the project was scraped. You see... you can haveall the 900 frames ready, but if you dont have a tool to re-assemble them properly into ananimated STI all it's for nothing.

Bottom line, thumbs up lisac, thats the way to go! :rulez:

QUESTION: I've been away for a couple of years so I am a bit behind... has the STI/JSDanimation been cracked?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Tue, 06 May 2008 13:12:59 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Dunno about JSD but multiframe STI's are possible with STI-Edit. Whether there is a specialanimation version I have no idea but I believe Bimbo had a multi-import version of STI-Edit to helpwith the anims. Which I happen to have a copy of and is called Project1. If anyone needs it justpost and I'll upload to Kermi's FTP.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lockie on Tue, 06 May 2008 13:21:40 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

was just reading a post about you , ( I assume ) about racing cars . How did that go / Exciting stuffI suppose :redracer:













Last time I had the funds to race was in 2004, but I am building a car up for next year. It wasexciting and a feeling I couldn't shove away into the back of my consciousness any more Did alright for my first time out in a full race situation that wasn't karting though. Got 7th form 15thon the grid. Was in 4th but made a minor mistake which lost me 3 places. Ah well you gotta learnsomehow

Where was that post cos I dunno where that would have been :s


In private forum mate , you privates don't get to see it , only us nco's and above :biglaugh:

the secret life of kaerar ehh , good on you mate , would love to try racing. ..... :blah:


Its great fun, I kinda want to do it for a living though rather than just the enjoyable aspect

Find I'm a bit of a fish out of water when it comes to normal jobs.


I know about STI-edit, but try updating 900 frames with it.. I was wondering if anyone cracked the code so to crate a tool that automatically assemblesanimations accepted by the game.

To explain a bit... in the old days we vaguely knew/assumed that STIs and JSDs handle allanimations. I at least didnt have the chance to read any info about how much of the animation ishardcoded and how much can be externalised. In the end, editing single tilesets was quite easywith STI-edit, but once you got into animated stuff, you had a lot of probs.

The best way to do it would be, imho, to get rid of the damn JSD and STI files and make theengine read from external files that can be easily moddded. IF thats not possible, at least make a















tool that assembles BMP frames back into a valid animation.


sorry for being off topic here folks , cheers kaerar . :wave:


I never had a problem assemebling an animation.

It would definately be cool to have a tool that automatically extracted all the frames of an .sti to.bmp format then 'reassembled' them back to .sti format when you were ready.

Because all you need is multiframed .stis extracted frame by frame to .bmp. Do yourmodifacations to each frame then load it back frame by frame to .sti edit remembering to checkthe key frames in the right places (at the beginning of each of the 8 directions the animation startsin).

The real work is the frame by frame drawing. I can't imagine a program that could automate thispart but if there is such a program whooo freakin' hoo! I might even break down any buy me thatlittle miracle.


Khor1255The real work is the frame by frame drawing.Nah... you dont draw each frame. Unless you're working on JA3 and have a strict deadline tofinish the game in the next billion years. :devilaugh:I have a feeling any serious 3D tool has that feature. You just animate the subject and export eachframe and presto! you have 900 frames. I haven't been doing any 3d modelling for years now, butI am pretty sure. The hardest trick is to match the hardcoded colors and exact isometric stance,but a pro would easily do it.

Khor1255Do your modifacations to each frame then load it back frame by frame to .sti

Not feasible when you are faced with hundreds of frames. Again, the idea is to allow people tomake their own models, not only alter ready-made ones. Editing STIs on a huge scale is not a












thing for the weak of heart. That comes from someone who spent half a year on some modelsonly to have the game spit them back into my face.

I do hope the knowledge in this area has evolved a bit more than 3 years ago. Otherwise I thinkwe need to start a JA2 v1.14 soonish


OK people, I want to introduce GINA, our newest fancy 3D testing model... She'll be posing, actingand stunting for us in the weeks to come. She's bald ATM, but I assure you she can wear any wigyou can think of. Also, she'll be wearing different rags, protective gear and operate variousweapons untill her contract expires...

Say hello to Gina!

Now onto lighting and rigging the model...

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritesPosted by Lt.Havoc on Tue, 06 May 2008 17:30:55 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Guess that brings us back to the topic "Do we need a graphic engine change?"

Edit: forget what I said, it brings us back to the topic: "Is lisac aswome or is he aswome?"

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Tue, 06 May 2008 17:42:01 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

ShangaI know about STI-edit, but try updating 900 frames with it..

900 frames is fairly kiddy-stuff. That'd be less than 9 average animations. i've done the (almost)entire big male bodytype ;-D












Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Slax on Tue, 06 May 2008 17:49:25 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

lisacOK people, I want to introduce GINA, our newest fancy 3D testing model... She'll be posing,acting and stunting for us in the weeks to come. She's bald ATM, but I assure you she can wearany wig you can think of. Also, she'll be wearing different rags, protective gear and operatevarious weapons untill her contract expires...

Say hello to Gina!

Now onto lighting and rigging the model...

Here comes the revolution


I tried to determine the proper lighting for the model and there are the first results...

I tried to copy/paste the new sprite into an existing STI, just to try it out combined with the JA2standard f_merc palette. It works fabulous :welder:

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by wanne (aka RoWa21) on Tue, 06 May 2008 18:20:11 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

@lisac: Very well done. Keep up the good work!

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Marlboro Man on Tue, 06 May 2008 18:37:41 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Neat! :ok:

But is she anatomically correct though? :blah:
















Yeah, all over the place.

I think our dear sweet little sprite has been to Hollywood and had some 'work' done.

Anyway, I don't know anything about 3d animating so I'll sit this one out.

edit

Baby got back.

Sorry, couldn't resist.


@scorpion - I've edited hundreds of frames by hand too. But us Haywire types are only theexception to the rule.

@lisac - here's a pro when you need one! Can I ask what you're using for 3d modelling?


Lightwave 3D

I'm gonna need some more time to rig the character, cause I've forgot most of the principles ofcharacter animation. Also, I've lost awesome video tutorials about it a while ago and can't find itnow... :wb:

Never mind, I'll come up with something already.
















Is it just me or does GINA have a really big arse?

lol

I was thinking for models is there any way models from contempory games may be used to helpexpedite the process?

@Shanga - Project1 had the ability to batch add files. It was a little buggy, but it works well andwas designed for animation use.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BirdFlu on Tue, 06 May 2008 22:45:28 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Khor1255It would definately be cool to have a tool that automatically extracted all the frames of an.sti to .bmp format then 'reassembled' them back to .sti format when you were ready.Extracting is quite simple, but reassembling could fail if after the modification the palettes are notthe same for all sub-images. And you lose the displacement values for the sub-images, unless you save them somewhere too. You couldwrite the modified images into the old file, but this wouldonly work if the resolution has not changed.


About models from other games - you would need a "importable" model so to say, compatible withLightwave... and due to the way JA2 is structured I think it would eventually take as much time totweak that to work in JA2 as you would making new chars from scratch. Lisac's work isgroundbreaking due to the facts I've mentioned. Once he refreshes his 3d skills exporting framesis a kid's play.

Regarding Project1, don't think I remember it... I might have tested it but in my time all tools hadnasty bugs due to the experimental nature. Crashes and lost work were our middle names. If itworks so nicely as you say, we're in business! What I can say? Fingers crossed...

Off to play 1.13 for the first time and be awed...

Quote:Is it just me or does GINA have a really big arse?

The man said we can compensate that by using really big wigs... :venus:










Posted by lisac on Tue, 06 May 2008 22:53:42 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

KaerarIs it just me or does GINA have a really big arse?With so "many" pixels given, it's a matter of perspective. Rendering with anti-aliasing option OFF(and we must do it this way) forces the rendering program to place the object approximately insidethe 2-dimensional matrix. This makes the arse look big from one perspective and normal (or evenflat) from another.

Can you think of placing 3 apples in 4 cans - only one apple in one can and it's not allowed to splitany of the apples? One can will always be empty, you just have to decide which one. So does therendering engine too - it decides to render additional pixels (and make the arse big), because itcan't manipulate with them.

I wonder if I've chosen the right example to explain this :headscratch:


Melons, you should've used melons as example. :headbanger:

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritesPosted by Mauser on Wed, 07 May 2008 00:15:47 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

well guys, this looks very promising indeed! i am thrilled to see new, better animations, newbodytypes and all that layered stuff, i really am.

but wouldn

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kaerar on Wed, 07 May 2008 00:38:11 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

lisacWith so "many" pixels given, it's a matter of perspective. Rendering with anti-aliasing optionOFF (and we must do it this way) forces the rendering program to place the object approximatelyinside the 2-dimensional matrix. This makes the arse look big from one perspective and normal(or even flat) from another.

Can you think of placing 3 apples in 4 cans - only one apple in one can and it's not allowed to splitany of the apples? One can will always be empty, you just have to decide which one. So does therendering engine too - it decides to render additional pixels (and make the arse big), because itcan't manipulate with them.















I wonder if I've chosen the right example to explain this :headscratch: I understand exactly where you are coming from lisac, have the same problem resizing guns. WayI got around it was to do three types of each image. Type 1 was the hard no AA type. Type 2 wassoft AA and Type 3 was sharp AA. Then using a combination of the three you got a goocomposite image to work with.

Problem is to do that with 20000 sprite images triples your work, so I think a new format for spritesis going to be needed so AA can be used, possibly even having an alpha channel so transparencywill work properly.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Wed, 07 May 2008 09:37:36 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Kaerar...I think a new format for sprites is going to be needed so AA can be used...Using AA directly on a 2D sprite is a way too complicated for us right now.

Kaerar...possibly even having an alpha channel so transparency will work properly. This is what I hope for. Alpha channels can be easily rendered altogether with the bitmaps(sprites) in any 3D-software, including LW3D. Also, alpha-channel can be used to "simulate" AA in2D, the results would be more than satisfying.

ShangaMelons, you should've used melons as example. :headbanger: Mmmmmm... Watermelons.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Shanga on Wed, 07 May 2008 10:56:32 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I doubt major improvements can be done to JA2 gfx engine. I think for its time was a technologystretched to the limit already. Everyone back then agreed the graphics were revolutionary. Butplease... pretty please... say I am wrong!!! Someone?... Anyone?

On a serious note, I see the TO-DO list for the graphics engine as following:

1. new body types2. new vechicles3. moving vehicles (inside a sector)4. enhanced colors/details










OK, I've rigged Gina, gave her a small short-haired wig and armed her with AK-47:

As you can see, the problem with (exact) lighting remains. I'll keep on working on this.

What bothers me more are the proportions of the original model, which is - by the way -completely disproportional. However, such model looks better in game than our Gina (less jagged,more pixels...)

I'm waiting for the feedback...

Edit: Just an example, how it looks like in the game. Don't mind the red hair pixels, these are theresult of bad conversion (so the dark red hair pixels take the palette values from "blood" and arebeing considered as "blood" by engine - not as "hair"). Also, you may notice Gina's breasts showless shadows and bumps due to the lighting problem I've mentioned earlier.


The first thing I see is the difference in the shading (lighting causes it) but it seems in theconversion process the filter is too harsh. If you are using a the nearest neighbour style it won'tcome out any different. You need a combination of an AA filter over the top of the NN filter. Theproportions of the NN are needed and the softer shading of the AA filter solve that issue (thatshow I do gun conversions). Maybe the sprite models can be slightly larger too to get a little moredetail. Or you could stay slightly disproportionate to get the desired result (though the originalfemale merc always was a little too butch).

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Kindred on Fri, 09 May 2008 09:35:46 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

It's a great start. As I am crap at anything that doesn't involve the actual hardware of a PC, I can'toffer any suggestions on improving it.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritesPosted by Mauser on Fri, 09 May 2008 10:21:09 GMT














@ lisac: allright, which of the two is the new one? or is that both pictures? could you perhapsmake those pictures somewhat bigger, so one can see the differences and details better? maybedouble size?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritesPosted by Lt.Havoc on Fri, 09 May 2008 10:57:24 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

The left one is the 3D modle, the right one is the orginal sprite.


New one is on the left and original is on the right Mauser


Ya beat me Havoc lol

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Majek on Fri, 09 May 2008 12:47:37 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Now go edit one post and use the delete function on the other. I'll delete this one too after that.


Can't delete as you replied. Thats gotta be one of the few double posts I have done

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritesPosted by Mauser on Fri, 09 May 2008 14:50:01 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message























moderators to the front!


hrmpf. hundreds of spam postings each of them and all of a sudden, a double-post bothersanybody

+1ii

btw Lisac what you say is something that bothers me as well. sometimes, 3d character modelslook "odd" even though being nicely 3d and all

sometimes, "cute" proportions look "more pictoresque" and also allow for more detail (i might wantto mention your own gun graphics for this lisac)

but other than that ja2 speciality, i think Gina comes pretty close to the ja2 model.


Thanks for the feedbacks...

I've continued to work on the matching of colours/shades, and here are the results:

Hopefully it looks much better than the old one. I must put all of this on ice during this weekend,sorry. RL bothers me too much...

See ya in a few days.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Marlboro Man on Fri, 09 May 2008 15:27:47 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message












That looks like much nicer Lisac.

As for the double postings, I don't see anything other than useless off topic comments like usual.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Nixou on Fri, 09 May 2008 20:55:37 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

lisac

.

We are entering a new step in JA1.13 developping.

Congratulations Lisac and go on with that quality work.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Shanga on Fri, 09 May 2008 21:03:32 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Great work mate. Checked the stuff you did for the other big favourite of mine, Fallout, and all Ican say is we're damn happy to have you working on JA2.

Make sure you document each step so in the end we can have a full guide on creating newsprites. Heck if it works so well in Lightwave 3d I might get back to modelling. But for now I amhappy watching the master at work... shhh.. everyone... quiet...


That looks much better. Do you have an ingame fully coloured version to compare?

The GINA pose is a lot better than the original (I know I am gonna have to adjust my view for thenew models cos I don't mind the old ones too much except the large male one!)

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Slax on Sat, 10 May 2008 09:21:19 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message















The good thing about this community is that most started projects get finished, eventually.I'm just so stoked about this. Glee!

I used to dabble in 3d some time ago and learned that Lightwave isn't the way to go.It's probably fine if you've used it enough but I just want to add that 3DSM or Maya might makesome things a bit easier.

At least you'd get better control over shadows/shading Animation could also be stepped up a bit. You could "cheat" with 3DSM and use the walking bipedfunction it's got integrated. No need to bother with those those pesky leg animations

Oh well. This probably wasn't a very helpful reply, sorry

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BallerDave on Sat, 10 May 2008 12:21:43 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

wow, last time i looked into this thread was a month ago or so. now take a look at all that. u guysare just great, u should get paid for this or something.

soon as this gets finished theres gonna be another ja2 orgy


I think lisac is relatively fluent in LW3D so lets not confuse the issue with other programs.Personally I'd use Maya as it generally is better for natural looking objects and lighting (plussubsequent animations), but thats me.

I am just happy its going ahead (slowly but thats better than backwards ) and people are willing tohelp

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Nixou on Sat, 10 May 2008 15:56:20 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

dave17wow, last time i looked into this thread was a month ago or so. now take a look at all that.u guys are just great, u should get paid for this or something.

soon as this gets finished theres gonna be another ja2 orgy

Some years ago i was wuch a huge fan of JA that when i knowed there would be a JA3, i was justoverwhelmed. I would overplay it like a fool even if objectively a bad game, i was such a JA fan.












But now with that much improvements that have been and are to make on JA2 im not even sure iwill like JA3.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritesPosted by Lt.Havoc on Sat, 10 May 2008 16:19:16 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

I

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BallerDave on Sat, 10 May 2008 19:38:03 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

hey guys. what do you think when u can make it that it is visible when u wear the ghillie suit? i knoit would take an awful lot of work but it would just look amazing. what do u guys think?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Mon, 12 May 2008 02:16:05 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

the scorpion...sometimes, "cute" proportions look "more pictoresque"....Yeah, too bad we have soooo many pixels to work with, no?

KaerarThat looks much better. Do you have an ingame fully coloured version to compare?Not yet, in two days (hopefully).

SlaxI used to dabble in 3d some time ago and learned that Lightwave isn't the way to go.It's probably fine if you've used it enough but I just want to add that 3DSM or Maya might makesome things a bit easier.

At least you'd get better control over shadows/shading For this project, almost any 3D software (like Anim8tor) will do. The reason I've chosen LW3D,aside from it that I've been a rabid fan of this piece of software, is the fact I've been most skilledwith it :vader:

Kaerar...Personally I'd use Maya as it generally is better for natural looking objects and lighting(plus subsequent animations), but thats me.Personally, I hope you're gonna bite your tongue so hard to get unable to speak such heresyagain! :trooper:

dave17...what do you think when u can make it that it is visible when u wear the ghillie suit?...This feature has been discussed before and might be (eventually) implemented. But it'll take time.Humongous amount of it.












Thanks to everyone for your support and please don't mind my replies, I've drunk a few beersmore than usually :cheers:

Gotta work tomorrow all day long, I'm about to have 3 days off after it, so keep your fingerscrossed and stay tuned for the new updates.


Lol I have played with LW3D and Maya, still prefer Rhino3D for making models then exporting towhichever. But LW is very powerful in one way and Maya in another. Having learnt more Mayathan LW I would choose Maya

Anyway look forward to seeing the new stuff

Have a good one

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritesPosted by Mauser on Tue, 13 May 2008 13:48:46 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Lt.HavocI


one more thing i thought of: would it be possible to add another kind of layer to the sprites, whichhives them some sort of bright, clearly visible outline? or maybe a colored marker above the headlike in the sims? so you can find your mercs position easyer at night and in dense foliage?or maybe make their silhuette pulse from light to dark or red or something.

of course all optional and only per hotkey.

but i think this would improve the ergonomics of the game quite a bit.













Posted by Shanga on Tue, 13 May 2008 14:10:57 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

@mauser: There's already an option in game that allows you to find the mercs ... mercs lights orsomething... it's selectable in game options. That adds a layer of light around you mercs. Now,imagine you switch that light to a better indicator, like a circle around your merc? Sounds easy, don't know though if the respective lights are a tileset graphic or simply generatedby the engine. A coder should be able to answer that.

The real breakthru of finding the proper 3d settings for generating JA2 sprites is adding a new,fresh "look" to the game. No more red-shirt/yellow-shirts/black-shirts. With some wizardry and alot of work you could in theory add uniforms or at least bullet-proof vests to the bodies so theydont look like tourists. For example i'd remake the bodies like this:

1) yellow shirts - should wear a guard/police uniform, no body armour, no helmets2) redshirts - should wear standard cammo army uniform, no body armour, with helmets3) blackshirts - should wear black specops gear with body armor and helmets

Now, I dont remember if the standard body is shared among your mercs/civilans/enemies... If so,unless you change the code, we have a major show stopper (at least regarding my idea).

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by KeldorKatarn on Tue, 13 May 2008 15:09:07 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Whaaat? No more redshirts?? That's blasphemy! j/k


KeldorKatarnWhaaat? No more redshirts?? That's blasphemy! j/k

nope, that

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by JaM1977 on Tue, 13 May 2008 15:23:47 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

finally somebody came with that idea!

Yes, standard soldiers shouldn't have armor,just helmets and some uniforms. On the other handelites should be equipped with best stuff.















is it possible to give elites different equipment as it goes for other? isn't it currently in one file?

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Majek on Tue, 13 May 2008 15:25:37 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

no redshirts no ja


How about red arm-bands, yellow, black. Or helmets if they wear any or bandana's if they don't.Or........


how about we get Armani or Gaultier to design a little something :venus: :openmouth:

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BallerDave on Tue, 13 May 2008 16:28:47 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

how about we stop this sarkasm and stop behaving like children?


Who says Arulco Army cannot have red uniforms? But those must look like uniforms, not T-shirts! PS: The bandana idea is already used in one of those scrapped JA3 projects.


if we call for 3d models, why don't we scream for individual skinning?





















IF the anims engine gets re-written, which i think is necessary for the new GFX the way iunderstand it, then i see little need to maintain the same "palette-fills-blanket-colors" system thatis in place right now in every instance.

what keeps somebody who'd build up in lisac's works to simply reskin his model and re-render thedifferent scenes according to the steps lisac had already taken? i think the very hard initial workby lisac could help follow-up designers to make their own versions of custom models/ skins.

there would have to be a way to add them to the game though. I think the new engine whatsoeverit should be "open" to such amendments.

the idea how the generate dozens of different uniforms has been brought to the plate a long timeago, it would be using a system similar to current camouflage effect but limited to the bodypartwhere the item causing the camo-like effect is worn, you'd get uniform depending on whatcharacters wear with only a slight modification of how it currently works.


just make them look like soldiers and not like a basketball team...


nahh... soldiers usually look very boring and totally anti-cinematic

ideally, enemies would look like thugs (early on) and later on like soldiers while Mercs would havemore or less individual looks. I mean flo wouldn't look like a soldier. Neither would haywire orbubba. The sleeveless shirts might actually fit these characters better than any uniform everwould

ever counted how many of the ja2 mercs truly have a military background (explicitly)? i think it's aminority especially if we consider MERC and the RPC's.

focussing ont he military theme seems a mistake IMO. Ja2 lives of how original and diverse their









characters are and conveniently distances itself from the ever boring generic-soldier charactersmost combat-oriented games unfortunately restrict themselves to.

but i guess nothing would keep innovative people from doing additional work after the sheer"redesign" has been finished.


i was talking about Yelow/Red/Gray shirts... I'm fine with how Mercs looks, just those unmilitarycollors drive me crazy... why we dont replace them with Green/Khaki/Grey instead?


Quote:how about we stop this sarkasm and stop behaving like children?

nyah , nyah :blah:

anyway , there's a c in sarcasm..... :/


I was reffering to ENEMY bodies too. But as I said, I am not totally sure they are two separateentities, my days of JA2 modding have ended years ago.

But ideally, if someone could externalize the code that controls the animation used for a specificmerc (if I remember well there are only a few archetypes now, like STRONG, NORMAL, THIN),you could model a complete new look. Make Flo wear something to match ther IQ... give Ivan aSoviet army uniform, etc...

Speaking as a modder, I would love to be able to make bodies that fit the storyline. Like ragtagsomalese milita for an African mod or nicaraguan rebels look for something placed in LatinAmerica.

EDIT: Did some googling after modern mercenary "looks":













I like the James Bond suit look. )))))))))

Edit: You could have different colored ties for different merc levels. ))))))

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by BallerDave on Tue, 13 May 2008 20:08:55 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Marlboro ManEdit: You could have different colored ties for different merc levels. ))))))

lol. arent we getting ahead of ourselves with ties?

i like the idea of the individual merc looks, still i think that armor should be visible when worn.otherwise its just foolish to assume that a money-making and self-respecting mercenary wouldleave the house without armor


@ MM - Lol I was sure one of you jokers would say that But the posibilities are endless. You donteven have to search for ideas, the people have already added different looks thru inventory items,they just dont show up in game.

EDIT: Lol, the bald one on the right does look like he's carrying a weapon on his back ,doesnt he?hehe...

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Mauser on Tue, 13 May 2008 22:34:59 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

guys, all that is fine and dandy. but let
















I say. Bring all idea's to the front now, while it's all fresh in everyone's minds.

Besides, I know Lisac's work is going to be good. And having thoughts and idea's floating aoundnow may help in the process as well, and may help from having to back-track. Gee I wish I wouldhave thought of that earlier, ah well, too late now.


if you say so Marlman.


I've been re-modeling the Gina for a few hours and adjusted the rig a bit, here's how it looks likenow:

I'll finish the first "regular" animation set soon (F_BRETH2), so everyone can test it in-game.


Oh, cannot wait looks like you added nice details to the weapon.

Btw, I've tried storming my memory about the content of Anims.slf and there ARE separateanimations for enemies. Actually the animations are divided like this:

3 male sets - used by mercs and RPCs like terrorists3 female sets - used by mercs and RPCs like Queena couple of civilian we can ignore so fara couple for misc stuff like robot, bugs and vehicles3 sets for each type of militia3 sets for each type of enemy(*) might be an extra set for Hicks faction















Now... if i could find SLF Explore and check this... But if I am right it looks good.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Majek on Wed, 14 May 2008 16:51:51 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Use Dragon UnPACKer 5 to extract .slf files if you can't find SLF explore


@majek - thanks for the idea, great tool.

Well I was wrong it seems. Anims.sfl has this:

- ANIMALS- CIVS- CORPSES- F_MERC- M_MERC- S_MERC- MONSTERS- VEHICLES

There are some variations inside F/S/M merc files, but I cannot remember which is which. I'll lookinto it tonight. So far looks like JA2 uses the same 3 body frames (female, strong male and normalmale) for all RPCs, with color variations (stored elsewhere) for factions and stuff.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Wed, 14 May 2008 18:08:10 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

yes it does

only bodytype (which is not really a bodytype in its own right but just a flag for some anims)restricted to the player only is the big male badass.

for the past couple o' years i was hoping that the big male badass "flag" would be changed to abodytype in its own right so a new type can be used (independantly from the the Big Male)












interestingly, not all differences between big male and big male bad ass are actually implemented.


[color:#660000]Example of one new animation in the VERY EARLY stage of development(F_BRETH2.STI - female.idle.with.rifle) DOWNLOAD HERE(ZIP ARCHIVE)[/color]

Again, red pixels of hair are being recognised as blood (and accordingly to that drawn in redccolour by the engine). This problem is caused by the palette colour values, simply because thered "blood" nuances come before the red "hair" nuances, so during the conversion of the newsprites the pixels take rather the value before, than the one coming later. I already got a solutionfor it, don't worry... :doctor:

On the other note, the current sprite is a bit too tall comparing to the old one, right? I'm renderingthe next (fixed) version right now, this shall be eliminated soon too. Also, the new sprite shall havea "belt" of some sort, I think it might look better for the characters lie Raven, where both the shirtand the pants are in the same colour. I've noticed the male characters already have one of those,so...

Also, I'm about to suggest a new naming convention (which is close to the old one), keep an eyefor the updated design document! :animread:

@Shanga:My current idea is to let the engine paint the base sprite - the body - as it does right now, and laterwe'll add more layers (vest, helmet, weapon...) which could be, *but don't have to be* painted bythe JA2 graphics engine as well. this way the mercs and the soldiers won't look like tourists, Iguess.

About the individual properties of mercs... One layer shall be assigned for HAIR/BEARD only, soin conjunction with the specific colours and the body type each merc already owns, it should beenough to make them at least a bit different than the "generics."

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Wed, 14 May 2008 19:07:38 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

The work looks very good. I am looking forward to the 'blood' being cleaned from the hair.

Could it be possible to add a long sleeved layer to just the arms so we could depict actual militarylooking uniforms?










@lisac - well if that can be done...mmmm... champagne is in order. I mean if we could paint morethan one layer over the default bodytype that is... mindblowing. Will keep an eye open for thedesign document as you said, you seem to have a damn good plan in mind. If you somehow couldlink inventory slots to these new layers, that means we could see dynamicly loadedarmour/clothes?

Like Buns in the famous "Swimsuit Edition" that was never published? Now if that doesnt driveJA2 modding forward I don't know what....


Khor1255The work looks very good. I am looking forward to the 'blood' being cleaned from thehair.In a few hours... :scan: Khor1255Could it be possible to add a long sleeved layer to just the arms so we could depictactual military looking uniforms? Yes. What, you're working on an antarctic mod?

Khor1255If you somehow could link inventory slots to these new layers, that means we could seedynamicly loaded armour/clothes?That's right. However, I can't do [code] it myself. But I know a guy who could...

Khor1255Like Buns in the famous "Swimsuit Edition" that was never published? Now if thatdoesnt drive JA2 modding forward I don't know what...Watch out for Majek!

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Khor1255 on Wed, 14 May 2008 20:42:28 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Wow. I don't even remember saying that last bit.

Thanx for the answers.

As for the long sleeved animations, they are fitting to just about every military uniform I can thinkof. They would really come in handy for my project because Nazis in tank tops just don't seemright.

Now, if we could link animations to what is in the inventory we could really see some cool












depictions of different uniform types even on sprites of this size. That would add a lot to the feel ofmy mod and I think it would look better for a lot of applications.

For instance, on snow maps I always found the sleeveless sprites very out of place. It would havebeen cool if they would have at least fixed the sprites for UB but this approach has way morepotential.


@Khor - lol, good ideas mate, how did you think of them? It's like in that joke with old men, "whenyou can do it, have with whom to do it, but dont remember why to do it"....


F_BRETH2.STI Animation once again >> :welder: DOWNLOAD HERE

Update:- New colour range for hair (purple), instead of red - altogether 6 nuances- Added watch on the left hand of the model (with compass, matches and all that stuff...)- Lower character - and less pixels for the LW3D to draw the sprite (less details, but overall hardto notice)- Slightly adjusted coordinates

Enjoy testing!


This shouuld go into:

Data-1.13\ANIMS\F_MERC

right? mm yes...

Ok tested it. Looks good, but you should look into these small details:

- right arm and wooden stock of weapon merge too closely, so she looks like she has huge arm.I'd say stick to black stock to be safe.- ... mm.. yes, her behind is impressive...












- maybe the shoulders should be a bit wider.- check the left hand pose... are the feet/boots oriented in the same direction or I am seeingthings?- i'd recommend Sir-tech's "safe" solution of adding long hair so you can tell the merc is a female ifyou miss other anatomical details; the details are too low imho for a short haired woman

Here's a screenshot:

Progress is awesome... simply awesome.


Yes, I know what you're pointing to, and I think I finally nailed it down.

Here's the deal:1) Sprites MUST be rendered with anti-aliasing (AA) turned on, it minimizes pixelation and givessome more weight to the character2) The background colour MUST be BLACK. Rendering with some other coour and AA on willcause "wild pixels" (check out the yellow parts of Raven's t-shirt)

Problems:- Rendering shadow on a black background (looking into it right now)- Additional problems with anti-aliased shadow (post-processing)

The latest update (from the left: the latest Gina sprite, original F_MERC sprite, New Ravenin-game, New Fox in-game):

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by the scorpion on Wed, 14 May 2008 23:24:03 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

lol shanga. you can't point at a women's "problem zones" with such a big red flash


@scorp - dunno about meh, but lisac is nailin' those problem zones as we speak in his ownwords...












Quote: I know what you're pointing to, and I think I finally nailed it down

@lisac - the "models" aren't that important as proper rendering and coding is to JA2 modding;ignore the arse comments keep up the good work.

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Marlboro Man on Thu, 15 May 2008 00:07:38 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

Wunnerful :thumbsup:

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics – SpritesPosted by Mauser on Thu, 15 May 2008 00:23:07 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

the scorpionlol shanga. you can't point at a women's "problem zones" with such a big red flash

the one

Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by lisac on Thu, 15 May 2008 00:52:35 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

OK, update once again...

The sprite can be found in my first post (together with the design document link). So far the onlyproblem is area between "shirt" and "skin", which gives nuances of purple with AA turned ON.Since the purple nuances are considered as HAIR, the engine colours it accordingly to it (e.g.yellow pixels with Raven's sprite).

This can be easily repaired by pixel editing (manually).

The other problem is the shadow which has to be rendered separate, and than added to sprite inan image editing program. This can be done very fast with Photoshop by creating actions.

In the end, the 2D RBG images should be converted to Index (256 colours) using the specificpalette and cropped to a proper size (both of those can be easily done - again - with actions inPS).

Gotta go to sleep now...












Subject: Re: Improving Original JA2 graphics Posted by Marlboro Man on Thu, 15 May 2008 15:04:35 GMTView Forum Message <> Reply to Message

@ Lisac

Please start a new thread. This one is fat. Don't want to lose any of this.






The Bears Pit - Bear's Pit Forum

Documents

Transcript of The Bears Pit - Bear's Pit Forum