Mushware
SightSavers
     
Home • Forum • Check your PM • Register • Log in
             
Board Navigation
Go to the homepageHome
Download Mushware games, documents and applicationsDownloads
Index of the forum.Forum
Images from Mushware games and applicationsScreenshots
Frequently Asked Questions.FAQ
Links CategoriesLinks
Read the rules of this websiteRules
View website statisticsStatistics
Members of our staffStaff
Information for software developersDeveloper Info
Contact information for Andy and MushwareContact

User Info
Username:

Password:

 Remember me



I forgot my password

Don't have an account yet?
You can register for FREE


Google Ads

Search

Advanced Search

An "Actual" First-Person Shooter?
 
View previous topic View printer-friendly version Search Display number of posts for each poster in this topic Export topic thread to a text file View next topic
Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
Klope3

USA
PostYou have posted in this forum: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:36 pm   Post subject:  An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

Alot has been said about the narrow appeal that this game has in terms of getting registration (or even a market). I was just thinking--what if an "actual FPS" adaptation of the game was to be made?

Technically, yes, the game is FPS as it is now--it's a shooter, from a first-person perspective. But when most people nowadays hear "first-person shooter," they probably think of "gun in the right hand corner," "playing as a character," "firefights," and things like that. This is what I mean by "actual FPS."

I'm definitely no coder, so I don't know anything about how hard it is to modify an existing game like Adanaxis to such an extent. But morphing it into an "actual FPS" would have, in my mind, two advantages.

- It would make it easier to understand what it is to move in the fourth dimension. By allowing the player to embody a character that walks around in a 3D world, it would be much easier to imagine/understand "real 4D". It would potentially even allow the player to imagine themselves moving in 4D. (For example: you could leave a building without opening any doors if you moved in 4D, but this is not an obvious connection to be made from playing a purely space-based game.)

- It would make the game more appealing to a wider audience. With the right marketing and execution, the game might gain popularity as both an FPS and a 4D simulation (since FPS is very popular right now). In fact, if enough features were added, you might give the player the option of playing in a 3D mode OR a 4D mode. This way more people would feel comfortable buying it (obviously, not everyone wants to bother with 4D, something that none of us have actual experience in), and funds could be steadier.

In my mind, the only changes/additions that would need to be made would include: gravity; static, land-based maps; and world textures for those maps. This is, of course, the bare bones (gun models would be nice, as would enemy *character* models and a 3D/4D option), but the shooting already exists, the first-person mode already exists, and the wonderful motion engine already exists. It seems to me that a lot of the basic things for an "actual FPS" are already in place.

Of course, keep in mind that this is a suggestion. I understand that money is tight and that marketing is a fickle prospect. But if something like this were realistically possible, I think it would be a good thing for the game as well as for its players.

Download Post  No rating    
admin
Site Admin

United Kingdom UK Cambridgeshire
PostYou have posted in this forum: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:52 pm   Post subject:  Re: An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

Hi!

Yeah, I did think about this quite a lot. Interior environments do pose a bit of a problem though, in that the screen would get very 'busy'. You'd get an awful lot of stuff rendered on top of other stuff and blended with it. I've never seen and can't really visualise the result, but the best I can do is this thought experiment:

Imagine you take a normal displayed frame from a 3D FPS. Then squash that down to a single horizontal line, so that colour of each pixel in the line is the average of all of the pixels in the vertical line that's been squashed into it. Render that as the top line of your display. Then, move the objects in your 3D scene about a tiny bit and change their shape slightly. This represents a small step in the direction of the 4th dimension. Now take this frame, squash it down as before, and use that as the second line of your display. Continue this until the screen is full.

An Adanaxis-style rendering of a 4D interior would be something like that, and would move much like the space scenery in Adanaxis when the player rotates. There was an FPS demo playing in a 3D slice of a 4D environment - I'll try to dig that up.

Download Post  No rating    
admin
Site Admin

United Kingdom UK Cambridgeshire
PostYou have posted in this forum: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:15 pm   Post subject:  Re: An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

This one I think:

http://cnslab.ss.uci.edu/fourdim/index.html

There used to be a .exe but I couldn't find it.

Download Post  No rating    
Klope3

USA
PostYou have posted in this forum: Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:38 pm   Post subject:  Re: An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

admin wrote (View Post): › Imagine you take a normal displayed frame from a 3D FPS. Then squash that down to a single horizontal line, so that colour of each pixel in the line is the average of all of the pixels in the vertical line that's been squashed into it. Render that as the top line of your display. Then, move the objects in your 3D scene about a tiny bit and change their shape slightly. This represents a small step in the direction of the 4th dimension. Now take this frame, squash it down as before, and use that as the second line of your display. Continue this until the screen is full.


So that's is what composes ONE frame of the normal Adanaxis gameplay? My computer is fairly modest (relative to today's standards in the market of gaming computers); it has trouble in many games with nVidia stereoscopic gameplay (where the video card is told to render two slightly different viewpoints for every frame, thus theoretically cutting framerate in half). What you described sounds like this, but a thousandfold! How does it render so fast?

To the best of my knowledge, ordinary 3D games render 3D scenes through a standardized knowledge of how shapes appear to morph based on positioning, so that instead of raytracing every point on a 3D model, it just morphs the 3D model's 2D "screen-shape" realistically to give the impression of three dimensions. Why wouldn't this be possible for 4D scenes, as well? Couldn't there be a set of rules for how 3D objects appear to morph during a rotation/movement in 4D? Yes, it would require twice as many calculations because it would need to render those 3D shapes before morphing them, but wouldn't it be alot more efficient?

Download Post  No rating    
loki_clock

USA US New Mexico
PostYou have posted in this forum: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:09 pm   Post subject:  Re: An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

I'm not sure what you mean by that, so I can't say if that's an accurate portrayal of non-raytraced 3D rendering, but it works through projection matrices.

Download Post  No rating    
Klope3

USA
PostYou have posted in this forum: Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:19 pm   Post subject:  Re: An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

Yeah, matrices, that's right. I'm just talking about how 3D objects are made out of 2D surfaces. Those 2D surfaces are projected onto a 2D surface (the computer screen) and then morphed in 2D ways. So, for instance, a cube rotating from face-on view to corner-on view is essentially just rendered as a single square and then three parallelograms.

So if we can do this kind of transformation to groups of 2D shapes to make them look like 3D shapes moving/rotating, why can't we apply another transformation on top of that to transform the 3D shapes (or, technically, just transform the 2D shapes again). Does that make sense? Rotating a square in 3D could appear on the screen as just skewing it into a parallelogram. So rotating a cube in 4D could appear on the screen as skewing it into the 3D equivalent of a parallelogram (whatever it may be called.)

So, two steps the the render: 1) transformation matrices to make a 3D shape, and 2) transformation matrices to skew the 3D shape as it would appear to skew when rotating/moving in 4D. Sound right?

The link below is a VERY nice, interactive stereoscopic hypercube applet I found. Cross your eyes or wear anaglyph glasses to view the hypercube to the fullest extent humanly possible, then rotate it any which-way you want. Its source code is provided, so maybe it would be a demonstration of such matrices.

http://harmen.vanderwal.eu/hypercube/

Download Post  No rating    
admin
Site Admin

United Kingdom UK Cambridgeshire
PostYou have posted in this forum: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:12 pm   Post subject:  Re: An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

Transforming vertices with matrices is fairly straightforward, as is rendering in wireframe, if you don't worry about what hides what. Solid surfaces are the problem. In a 3D FPS, walls are 2D surfaces, can be displayed as (say) a 100x100 pixel texture, and the player has to be able to see all 10,000 pixels otherwise they might miss something on the wall. In a 4D FPS, walls are 3D surfaces, and would need to be displayed as a 100x100x100 texture, and the player would have to be able to see all 1,000,000 pixels (voxels?) otherwise they might miss something on the wall.

Adanaxis cheats, and renders the 100x100x100 as six 2D textures where the walls of the cube are. It's a rough approximation but is OK when objects are far away.

Download Post  No rating    
Guest
PostYou have posted in this forum: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:56 pm   Post subject:  Re: An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

Klope3 wrote (View Post): › Those 2D surfaces are projected onto a 2D surface (the computer screen) and then morphed in 2D ways. So, for instance, a cube rotating from face-on view to corner-on view is essentially just rendered as a single square and then three parallelograms.


Well the end result is 2D, but you don't actually get a 2D figure until after the backface culling, unless your Z-buffer is just a painter's algorithm. Transformation matrices don't have to be 2D transformations, and the ones in ND rendering are mostly for ND transformations. First the 3D coordinates of polygons are fed in, then a matrix "flattens" them, at the same time distorting them for perspective. The part where it's just skewing, rotating, etc. 2D shapes to make them look 3D is the texturing, where the texture coordinates are manipulated to match the coordinates of the flattened polygon it's on. Even then, you still need the polygon's depth information for smooth rendering.

Quote: › So, two steps the the render: 1) transformation matrices to make a 3D shape, and 2) transformation matrices to skew the 3D shape as it would appear to skew when rotating/moving in 4D. Sound right?


You could... but that's slow and unnecessary. You don't need to go through 2D to get to 3D, nor 3D to get to 4D. You only need to go from 3D or 4D to 2D to display the shape on a 2D screen. That's what a projection is for in the first place. It can be entirely abstract until the moment of visualization.

admin wrote (View Post): ›
Adanaxis cheats, and renders the 100x100x100 as six 2D textures where the walls of the cube are. It's a rough approximation but is OK when objects are far away.


This is one of the many things I've been thinking might be able to benefit from this: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.48.7678

I don't understand it (haven't had the time to read it, though, either), but if I did, I think I could use it to simulate a 3D texture. 3D texturing has been a frequent subject of thought for me since I started learning about how Adanaxis works.

Download Post  No rating    
Klope3

USA
PostYou have posted in this forum: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:10 pm   Post subject:   Reply with quoteBack to top 

Guest wrote (View Post): › You could... but that's slow and unnecessary. You don't need to go through 2D to get to 3D, nor 3D to get to 4D. You only need to go from 3D or 4D to 2D to display the shape on a 2D screen. That's what a projection is for in the first place. It can be entirely abstract until the moment of visualization.


Well, yeah. So create a rule for creating properly 4D-morphed 2D shapes right off the bat. I guess my two steps I listed weren't so much the steps of the render as they were my explanation of the process. Razz

Download Post  No rating    
Klope3

USA
PostYou have posted in this forum: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:28 am   Post subject:   Reply with quoteBack to top 

Okay, the following is based on dimensional analogy, and has always helped me at least get closer to what it would be like to move into 4D.


- Any n-dimensional is, in theory, composed of (n-x) dimensional components. (e.g. 1D line is composed of 0D points; a 2D square is composed of 1D lines, which are composed of 0D points).

- When moving from an nth-dimension into (n+1) dimensions, all components (and therefore any interiors) of any nth-dimension would suddenly become visible to you, though you would need to turn in n-dimensions to see all the shapes that had been around you in n-dimensions. (i.e. you're looking at a square from 2D, so it's a line. As soon as you move up, though, you're already getting closer to a 3D birds-eye view of the square, so you can instantly see all four sides to some extent.)

- Therefore, if you are looking at some solid cubes/spheres from 3D (they appear as groups of parallelograms or circles) and you move very slightly into 4D, all components, as well as the internal makeup, of those objects will become instantly visible, to some extent. This would always happen, regardless of whether you moved "nim" or "bor" (or do we use ana and kata here?).


What do you think? It seems sound to me. I still can't really visualize it, since I'm still not sure in what way the opposite face of a cube could suddenly become either fully visible or slightly visible. But the theory has been, at least, an imagination aid. Maybe you can pick up where I left off.


Last edited by Klope3 on Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

Download Post  No rating    
loki_clock

USA US New Mexico
PostYou have posted in this forum: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:18 pm   Post subject:  Re: An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

Klope3 wrote (View Post): › Well, yeah. So create a rule for creating properly 4D-morphed 2D shapes right off the bat. I guess my two steps I listed weren't so much the steps of the render as they were my explanation of the process. Razz


What I meant to stress was, basically, that 3D and 4D shapes are only as much deformed 2D shapes as the 2D shapes are deformed 1D shapes. So yes, you're right, but that can be said of any positive, integer dimension.

Klope3 wrote (View Post): › - Therefore, if you are looking at some solid cubes/spheres from 3D (they appear as groups of parallelograms or circles) and you move very slightly into 4D, all components, as well as the internal makeup, of those objects will become instantly visible, to some extent.


Yeah, that's the gist of it, except it's 4D rotation, not movement, that does that. Of course, things would still clip just the same in the W axis as they do in the Z axis in 3D, so not everything's visible. The main thing to take into account when trying to understand how this works is the progression of right angles. All non-negligible axes in Euclidean space are at right angles to each other. So you can see a whole 3D slice at once because you're at a right angle to it and because you have 3D vision (if you're a 4D person). So say your range of vision spans three dimensions. If you're looking in a 3D space like ours, the whole world takes up one slice from your perspective, because you have a whole axis of vision for which you see nothing except along a single point in the middle. When you rotate ZW a full turn, you at first see nothing at all (you're still in the center of the slice), but then if you back up the whole thing becomes visible, because the W axis (depth) has been rotated so that it now spans your third axis of vision.

Quote: › This would always happen, regardless of whether you moved "nim" or "bor" (or do we use ana and kata here?)


Everyone has their own terminology. In fact, I'm trying to finalize my own right now. It's obvious what you're referring to, even if you're not familiar with the specific terms, because they're two nonsense words that almost never appear separately, and.. well.. it's a 4D forum. Options are kind of limited.

Download Post  No rating    
Klope3

USA
PostYou have posted in this forum: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:29 am   Post subject:  Re: An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

loki_clock wrote (View Post): › Yeah, that's the gist of it, except it's 4D rotation, not movement, that does that. Of course, things would still clip just the same in the W axis as they do in the Z axis in 3D, so not everything's visible.


But since all movement is relative, it seems to me that rotation and movement are always similar to each other. With rotation in 3D, only the object that you're viewing is "in motion" (in terms of most points on it having a linear velocity), and you progressively see different numbers of sides, based on which way you're rotating it. With movement (still in 3D), meanwhile, there is essentially the same effect regardless of whether you move in one direction or the object moves in the opposite direction. Most of the time, in either case, the object will begin moving out of your field of view, but more sides of the object will become visible, because of shifting viewpoints. So based on dimensional analogy, wouldn't these same properties apply in any n-dimension, as long as the rotation/movement is occurring in n-dimensions?

And why do you say that not every component of a cube would be visible from a 4D vantage point? If you view a 1D universe from 2D, you can see all components of any line at once, no matter what, unless you move into the 1D universe. If you view a 2D universe from 3D, you'll always see every component of any square, unless you view it side-on, which would imply viewing from inside that 2D universe. So why wouldn't dimensional analogy still apply here? Based on these properties, wouldn't all components of our 3D universe be visible at once from a 4D vantage point (ignoring the need to turn your head to see everything)?

Download Post  No rating    
Guest
PostYou have posted in this forum: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:56 pm   Post subject:  Re: An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

Klope3 wrote (View Post): › But since all movement is relative, it seems to me that rotation and movement are always similar to each other.


That's kind of an oversimplification. Not all kinds of movement are alike. I'm referring to linear action, not rotational, and their effects aren't equivalent from any observer's point of view. Basically, if you're viewing a 3D slice at exactly the right angle to make it invisibly thin, and then you just move in 4D instead of moving and turning to see the object, you're just going to sidestep. With an orthogonal projection, sidestepping any amount in either 4D direction is going to reveal nothing more. With realistic, angle-based projection, sidestepping will show you some of the side of the cube, but that wasn't in mind and overcomplicates the example.

Quote: › And why do you say that not every component of a cube would be visible from a 4D vantage point?


I didn't say that, I said "not everything's visible."

Download Post  No rating    
Klope3

USA
PostYou have posted in this forum: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:04 am   Post subject:  Re: An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

That might be where our thoughts are differing. Orthogonal projection is a means of conveniently viewing an n-dimensional shape on a 2D (or even 3D?) surface, right? Isn't perspective taken out of account, because it only distorts the shape? I'm talking about WITH perspective. If you sidestep due east from a cube floating with a face-on orientation right in front of you, you will be able to turn your head and see one more side of the cube, because your viewpoint has changed. The same effect, at least to some extent, would occur if you rotated the cube while standing in front of it. You would see one more side. Remember, this is in real-life, perspective-filled 3D, not an orthogonal projection.

And what's the difference between "not every component of a cube would be visible in 4D" and "not everything's visible"?

Download Post  No rating    
Guest
PostYou have posted in this forum: Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:17 pm   Post subject:  Re: An "Actual" First-Person Shooter? Reply with quoteBack to top 

Klope3 wrote (View Post): › That might be where our thoughts are differing. Orthogonal projection is a means of conveniently viewing an n-dimensional shape on a 2D (or even 3D?) surface, right? Isn't perspective taken out of account, because it only distorts the shape? I'm talking about WITH perspective. If you sidestep due east from a cube floating with a face-on orientation right in front of you, you will be able to turn your head and see one more side of the cube, because your viewpoint has changed. The same effect, at least to some extent, would occur if you rotated the cube while standing in front of it. You would see one more side. Remember, this is in real-life, perspective-filled 3D, not an orthogonal projection.


Yeah, okay, then. I wouldn't say orthogonality is about convenience. At least not in modern terms. More about the ability to make measurements of objects without corruption by the depth distortion.

[/quote]And what's the difference between "not every component of a cube would be visible in 4D" and "not everything's visible"?[/quote]

If the cube were spanning the three non-depth axes, it would be visible in entirety, but nothing behind it would be. That's what I mean.

Download Post  No rating    
Display posts from previous:      
 
Post new topic Reply to topic


 Jump to:   



Quick Reply:
Username: 

Quote the last message
Attach signature (signatures can be changed in profile)
 
  View previous topic View printer-friendly version Search Display number of posts for each poster in this topic Export topic thread to a text file View next topic

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum