No, as I have stated previously, I'll have others (especially keaft ) do the idea creation and planning (and finish it) before I get down to the code.Mithrildor said:Will this game ever release? And is there any coding done at all?
victorsavu3 said:I' like to help code for this project, i have know c++ pretty well, but i have done very little regarding 3d graphics (but i want to learn). i have jusgt one question: how will the planets and stars be arranged in the universe? something ike the real world where planets orbit around stars and stars orbit around the center of the galaxies and galaxies orbit around a central black hole or something, or will the stars simply be scattered all around with no organised movement?
I've been thinking about this in C++ terms already.
If we're talking universally, we'll probably just make a 2D plane with Entities on it. An entity can be a ship, planet or whatever, and move in any direction (if it has movementspeed > 0). It would also be possible to add simple 2D physics to simulate gravity etc, we all know the formulas so it wouldn't be difficult .
This would enable us to create time-limited maps where a planet slowly gets pulled toward a sun, and only planet speed upgrades can save you
The probability of us doing it like this depends on if Keaft decides to add any ground-breaking ideas that change the whole system of course
victorsavu3 said:but by doing it this way it is impossible to create really huge maps. stars could be scattered on a 2d plane and you could have huge fleets battling in space not just a few ships. planets would simply orbit around the stars and only be visible when you zoom in enough.
If you're talking about something of the size of Galactic Artifact then it wouldn't be a RTS game anyways. Maps can't have more than ~6 stars and ~30 planets if you still want control over the game.
And I don't know about the others, but I imagined the game to be more interplanetarian and not interstellar, so I put suggestions etc considering that.
victorsavu3 said:ok, about the coding: are we usind a full blown 3d-engine like ogre or simply SDL, because it-s only 2d and physics will be easier to implement?
Well, I personally think that GL is easier than SDL. Just my opinion. But we can make multiple front-ends for all I care; the game logic stays the same and is independent from the graphics layer.
Physics can be done in 15 min however we implement it. Remember that we only have circular objects (planets or ships), constant masses and a 2D plane (so we don't need 3D physics even if we make 3D graphics!). We give every Entity a Vector2 velocity variable and a mass variable and add 3 lines of code to the engine and bam, we have fully working physics.
victorsavu3 said:i'm talking about using SDL for opengl, because it also has a simple event system for mouse and keyboard (it basicly does everything by itself) and already works on the pandora.
Oh I see, I just read your post wrongly. Well, OGRE isn't ported yet, but I would prefer to use something like that (Irrlicht would be a good alternative, for instance, with a much higher probability of being ported) since we'll need easy-to-use model loading, and I don't fancy having to handle stuff like draw order etc by myself if we want shaders and things like that.