Post by The_Wayward_Admiral on Sept 27, 2015 2:08:49 GMT
I didn't see this on this particular subforum, but it might have been addressed in an obscure location. But it's my current understanding that vision will affect what a player will see. So, my question then, if a player does not have eyes, will their screen be blank? Limited to a scent map and ambient sound? Just a passing curiosity, and I understand that plans aren't firm for Aware so this might not be something that's come up yet. Thanks in advance!
Best regards, The_Wayward_Admiral
Edit: Also, in reference to echo location, would that be treated like "vision"?
That's a very good question, and actually something that's still up for debate. It was discussed first way back when, and then we recently brought up the topic again here (http://thrivegame.canadaboard.net/t1540p15-achieving-sapience#31995). After the forum transitions I then moved the discussion over to the new developer forum (http://forum.revolutionarygamesstudio.com/t/organism-intelligence/104), where we'll talk about it as we approach having to implement it. There are several problems because making vision first person puts a lot of restrictions on the player, but making it entirely third person makes a lot of mutations towards vision pointless.
I have read the development forum thread and I think that the solution is simple. I guess that the game will have different difficulty levels. The hability to swich to third person and see everything as a human would should only be available on easy and average difficulty, and in hard you can only see the world as your creature would.
You may say "But gronked up senses are difficult to program, and we shoukd use our limited programming time to features that most people will use" Well, there is a point there, so I would add the gronked up senses once all the other multicellular and aware stage features are developed.
I remembered when I was younger, there was an issue of a magazine I was reading at that time about how certain animals see. For example, cows have a rather blurry vision and they can't see colors. They are also sensitive to glare and fast movements, and takes time to get used to the darkness. Another example is the eagle, which is able to see red, blue and green as well as colors humans can't see. It is able to spot a prey at 1 kilometer.
Also, could creatures see like an insect if they have compound eyes? I also seen that animals have a different viewing angle depending on the type of eyes they have and where they are placed...
I would positively love working on all sorts of obscure modes of vision, I just don't think most people (even myself) have computers capable of actually running a lot of it. For example, to make it actually useful to have different photoreceptors (for example, to better differentiate, say, the pigmentation of camouflaged prey from the coloration of the background), we would need to make the rendering system d all sorts of extra calculations with multiplying specrta and stuff, and while there are a bunch of optimizations that are possible, this is probably still something that would make a high-end gaming rig work hard to render what look like simple scenes.
There are other things that should be much cheaper though, both on developer time and on the computer: - Stuff like eye placement or eye number could be done by having a few more cameras in the scene, and stitching together what they see, in the simplest case, just putting one eye's view beside the other. - FOV would be easy, it's a simple thing to do in Ogre3D - Compound eyes: Could be easy, could be hard, depending on whether we simply do a fisheye FOV with a hex-grid overlay, or we try something where every ommatidium has its own fisheye distortion of the FOV, or if they even use different cameras for very wide fields of view. - Focus/blur: Blur, particularly depth blur, is a pretty common trick, so I'm sure we could figure out how to use it without much innovation necessary.
But this is all just spitballing ideas, of course. No promises
IMO it comes down to this. Building Gronked up senses is a risk. If we build gronked up senses and they don't work (no one actually wants to play like that etc) that it as huge amount of work that isn't going to pay off. So yeah I think the person who can decide to add them is a programmer who wants to put that work in.
I agree that vision will be a hard game mechanic to add. however, most of the other game mechanics will be hard to implement as well. for example although i really like the idea, adding tissue and skeletal structure strategically will be pointless unless we can find a way to evaluate each individual structure for its unique physical bonuses. the way the muscle is placed in real life effects the mechanics of the creature which is vital for combat and interacting with its surroundings. for example a certain neck structure may may have adapted to be very good at holding a predator to its prey so it can suffocate it(like lions having specially strong necks for attacking their prey), however,this is not realistic to implement into a game because there are alot of physics behind it (our computers wont be able the handle it at a reasonable speed) and it is difficult to program into a game. therefore many physics aspects will have to be left out since it is a game. instead of losing limbs before death and having specially adapted mechanisms like in real life, the game creatures will have to be more attribute based.( bite attack, graple attack, poison, health ect.)
I may be wrong about this it is just what i think from my experince with games and programming. pls let me know if programing a game like this is possible as i am by no means an experienced game engineer.