Iso maps in maptool

Phergus · Post by **Phergus** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:02 pm

Micco wrote:Wow. Tough call. Is it possible to begin an "early fork" now of what it would take to get 3d? In my line of business it is fairly typical to have one development team working on implementing/improving the current version of a product line while a separate team begins to scope out the next generation.

*envisions Trevor getting cut in half to form two teams*

And you realize by 3D he means using a 3D engine to improve the rendering of the 2D representation.

Micco · Post by **Micco** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:46 am

Yes, I think there was discussion about moving to a 3d engine to get to Iso-like 2d, but that it being along the development path to a 3d MapTools.

You don't want to take all the talent and put on the generational product, but you'll need a product architect and some technical talent to help with initial implementation. Meanwhile, you keep some of you best talent focused on making the next rev of the current product so that it stays relevant.

Sorry for all the work-speak, but I could envision Trevor taking on the role of guiding both teams with leads for each one. We'd still need Trevor's coding prowess, but it seems to me we've had an influx of talented coders recently and now might be the time to begin the next generation system.

At the least, it would be interesting to knock out the specification for the next version (2.0) so that you guys could get an idea of the challenges associated with making the code changes.

UntoldGlory · Post by **UntoldGlory** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:49 am

We've had some new blood show up with some skillz to lay down, but I wouldn't think there's enough to split into two dev teams.

Phergus · Post by **Phergus** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:20 am

There isn't enough for a dev team.

Post by **trevor** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:04 am

Micco wrote:Wow. Tough call. Is it possible to begin an "early fork" now of what it would take to get 3d?

I've already started tinkering

Micco · Post by **Micco** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:56 pm

There isn't enough for a dev team.

Hehe. I guess by "team" I meant >1.0 people

But I understand. I've got "learn Java" on my ToDo list (seriously), but unfortunately right now it is just behind "stay employed." But I hope to pick up Java fairly quickly and be able to contribute a little.

UntoldGlory · Post by **UntoldGlory** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:12 pm

trevor wrote:I've already started tinkering

I somehow figured you had. Once that seed was planted... I mean, you've already been chomping to make maptools all pretty, so the soil was fertile.

loogie · Post by **loogie** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:42 am

nice work

i'd still much rather 3d then iso... but its fun to play with
i think iso would be much easier to work with if a free layer system were implemented (as in you can make as many new layers as needed) this would allow for easy mapping of multiple floors etc...

Brigand · Post by **Brigand** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:39 am

Pure 3d with a nwn1 like toolset. :drool: I bet if you posted about it over at the Bioware forums, you could get some modelers to "jump ship" and find a way to start converting all their old NWN1 tilesets and stuff into a maptool version.

Ryss · Post by **Ryss** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:08 am

dorpond wrote:To answer your question Trevor, I think we continue making Maptool 2D the best we can, with all the requested enhancements, with all the wall items, with all the bug fixes.... And when we are done with Maptool 2d, we look at changing to 3d. By then my friends will have hardware acceleration built into their laptops.

There are so many things we are waiting for with the tool we have now. I couldn't imagine starting over.

I vote that we wait until we are sick and tired with Maptool 2d. I think that is far from being soon.

When done with MT 2D? You really believe that day will come?

However I second you on this. Currently there is a lot of stuff is missing IMO like scripting for example.

Micco wrote:Wow. Tough call. Is it possible to begin an "early fork" now of what it would take to get 3d? In my line of business it is fairly typical to have one development team working on implementing/improving the current version of a product line while a separate team begins to scope out the next generation.

That's a little hard cause there is *no* team, just a bunch of people

Fork = less work done in each fork in our case.

UntoldGlory wrote:Tough call trev. But I'd say wrap up 1.3 and make 3d engine the starting point of 1.4. Seems to be right in line and a flagship feature for the "make maptools pretty" version.

That is an option.