Iso maps in maptool
Moderators: dorpond, trevor, Azhrei
Forum rules
PLEASE don't post images of your entire desktop, attach entire campaign files when only a single file is needed, or generally act in some other anti-social behavior.
PLEASE don't post images of your entire desktop, attach entire campaign files when only a single file is needed, or generally act in some other anti-social behavior.
- lmarkus001
- Great Wyrm
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:30 am
- Location: Layfayette Hill, PA
Yeah I use all the maps from the Infinity Engine as they are gorgeous. I just let MapTool slap a grid on and call it "good enough".
http://forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php?t=3720
http://forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php?t=3720
- UntoldGlory
- Great Wyrm
- Posts: 1649
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
You know, that is a great point, people are going crazy over DDi and it really is nothing new or that fancy. Trevor, how hard would it be for MT to take a flat map and display it in an automatically set iso way? Essentially using Torstan's numbers he posted and then taking that diamond idea to properly set up the grid system?Note - DDI has not shown any 3D walls, just 2D floorplans rotated to an iso view with a couple of 3D tokens dropped on it. And people are falling over themselves to call it pretty. There's not a huge amount of eye candy required to impress people.
• snikle •
snikle.wordpress.com
snikle.wordpress.com
After a quick look back over at the game table I have to correct my earlier statement - there is the ability to move the camera and it is a perspective view rather than iso. However I still think the iso view is awfully pretty and I'm going to have a shot at doing an iso encounter with maptool in its current form to see what my group thinks.
If maptool were to implement a 'simple' iso view it would be the diablo to DDi's NWN. Now remind me, which of those was the better game ....
If maptool were to implement a 'simple' iso view it would be the diablo to DDi's NWN. Now remind me, which of those was the better game ....
After talking to trevor about this, I think we should drop it because when I asked how hard it would be, he said:
What do you guys think about that? Would going to a 3d engine be bad as it might limit the user base of MT over some of the other VTs?
One thing that came up, was that a move to a true 3d environment will make those older machines attempting to use it suffer, possibly not even able to run it, where as the current 2d model allows for a much wider audience to employ MT (where as DDi should require a decent machine to run).although it will take nearly as much work to simply move to a 3d engine
What do you guys think about that? Would going to a 3d engine be bad as it might limit the user base of MT over some of the other VTs?
• snikle •
snikle.wordpress.com
snikle.wordpress.com
While I would lose me. Er, not really, but it is my hope that MapTool will always offer a lightweight experience to those who do not have 3D acceleration available, while making it available to those who do.dorpond wrote:To answer your question Snikle, I would lose 2 of my players at the gaming table. They have old laptops - just enough to run MT pretty much.
0+0=1, for very unstable CPUs.
- UntoldGlory
- Great Wyrm
- Posts: 1649
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Congratulations go to torstan and Vry for their initiative Well done guys.
Quoted from another thread:
Having said that a "simple" iso like in your screenshots is certainly doable. It doesn't require drastic changes. But the question is, which one looks better? Top down or iso? Iso is definitely fancier but is it also more beautiful?
@snikle: The real question should be "will a move to 3D improve the MT experience?" IMO. If yes, then yes Mt should go 3D. If no, then scrap it. As you know 3D stuff takes a lot of effort so the end result should justify the costs. 3D isn't something "nice to have". Either you sort of must have it, or you don't have it And by costs I don't only mean development costs. Designing 3D maps, tokens and objects is costly as well. So there is a burden on the community as well.
If we only had a tool like NCSoft's 3D environment creation program...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1MuK9W-v6I
@UntoldGlory: Maintaining 2 different branches of a program is a pain in the you-know-where. So I wouldn't count on it.
Quoted from another thread:
I was always talking about the code, not the concepts.torstan wrote:*just means this is conceptually easy - not that it is easy in the code.
As you can see in this thread, there are a lot of problems no one has thought of before like transparent walls (and also map design), Z-order, isometric VBL and FoW that take elevation into account and many other little things as well. Again as snickle and Trevor has said, slapping a real 3D engine instead will be comparably difficult. However the return of investment would be enormous.torstan wrote:This changes waypoints and all other aspects that deal with movement. However it should have no effect on the rest of the maptool mechanics that you mentioned. It definitely does not change all of the elements that are to do with 2D as you claim.
Having said that a "simple" iso like in your screenshots is certainly doable. It doesn't require drastic changes. But the question is, which one looks better? Top down or iso? Iso is definitely fancier but is it also more beautiful?
@snikle: The real question should be "will a move to 3D improve the MT experience?" IMO. If yes, then yes Mt should go 3D. If no, then scrap it. As you know 3D stuff takes a lot of effort so the end result should justify the costs. 3D isn't something "nice to have". Either you sort of must have it, or you don't have it And by costs I don't only mean development costs. Designing 3D maps, tokens and objects is costly as well. So there is a burden on the community as well.
If we only had a tool like NCSoft's 3D environment creation program...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1MuK9W-v6I
@UntoldGlory: Maintaining 2 different branches of a program is a pain in the you-know-where. So I wouldn't count on it.
I agree with you.Jector wrote:Personally, I think true 3D will bring to much complexity and difficulty to the system to be worth it. While it will look spiffy, it would take too much time to make maps to warrant the transition, never mind the time to implement 3D and try to make enough objects.
A middle way can be found though: Switching to 3D engine but keeping everything else 2D as the way they are with support to add 3D token macros and objects.
What's the point of going 3D if you're not gonna use it you ask? Well we are gonna use it for fake iso like torstan's proposal, camera rotation, some flashy 3D effects, real lighting, real spell templates etc. All the beauties without the complexities (for the community that is).
- thelevitator
- Dragon
- Posts: 963
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:10 pm
- Location: "The Biggest Little City In The World!"
- Contact:
Wasn't there also discussion about a "feaux" 3-d, that could basically be a flat map, but give the user the ability to show elevation? That conversation was some time ago, so my memory may be failing me. I thought it was something similar to Torstan's idea. All of the objects on the map would be flat (like chests, beds, etc.) but you could place tokens "in the air" to show elevation, perhaps with a line extending down from the token to it's place on the map, kind of like a token on a stick on a real battlemap. Would this be any easier than going full 3D?
"Neither hexes nor squares can confine me!"
James Anthony
"It's all in your head....."
http://www.spelz.net
James Anthony
"It's all in your head....."
http://www.spelz.net