Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

thelenian · 07-11-2002, 07:37 AM

The only problem with pure coordinate-based systems is that in order to actually achieve results that are noticeably superior to a room-based system is that your coordinate resolution would have to be in the neighborhood of <1m. Anything less and effectively all you have is a bunch of rooms labeled by coordinates. You'll also have to implement 3d visualization algorithms in order to calculate what each person is able to see (You would actually have to use many of the same algorithms used in raytracing, just at much lower resolutions and minus the graphical rendering). Not only that, but everything you make will have to be modelled in 3d space. If not, it becomes impossible to accurately model line-of-sight (i.e. buildings will need to specify the locations of vertices in 3d space). In other words, it's a massive PITA, and will bring your host machine to its knees if you achieve anything resembling a respectable pbase. Also, rendering a 3d scene through a text-based interface is going to present some very difficult challenges. In room-based systems, the builder has complete control over the player's perspective. In a 3d system, the builder must design his/her areas with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about the player's perspective. What does this mean? It means that you need seperate descs for every seperately identifiable aspect of an object, which must be modelled in 3d space. Let's look at what this might mean for a building:

Room-based system:

A large wooden shack, worn with age, sits here on the grassy knoll.

examining the shack might yield:
The old shack, its wood bleached grey by the ravages of time, leans to one side as if cowering from the elements. Faded yellow curtains are visible through two windows that seem to be gazing mournfully out onto the prarie.

looking at a window might show you the inside of the shack.

Coordinate-based system:

What you'd see would have to depend on where you are in relation to the shack. In order for that to happen, the builder must specify a different desc for each part of the shack, your visualization system would need to calculate what parts of the shack are visible from your perspective, and an AI system would need to determine what parts of what you can see are important enough that you should see on a toplevel cursory glance.

Closer inspection would tell the AI filter system that more information should be passed onto the viewer, such as more details about each visible object.

Looking at the window, you would have to calculate, based on the coordinates of the windows' vertices (which your builder did specify, right?), what the viewer can see from where he/she is located.

Building a passable description based on the parts of an object that are visible given the relative orientation of the viewer in MUD-style text format is a nontrivial task. Actually, it's far harder than doing graphical 3d visualization. Instead of employing relatively simple 3d->2d transformation algorithms and other well-documented procedures, you'll need to build an extremely powerful AI system that is able to interpret spatial data and produce a dynamically generated description that could pass for something written by a person. I may be mistaken, but I doubt that current AI technology is anywhere near being able to accomplish something like that.

Although the second case does indeed model RL more accurately, I prefer the first. The thing I like about MUDs is that much is left up to your imagination. Just enough information is provided to maintain suspension of disbelief, while letting your mind "render" all the parts that (current) technology will never be able to get quite right. One trend I've been seeing in many new MUDs is the attempt to migrate more and more of the experience from player imagination to hardcode. While understandable, as, in moderation, it provides the consistency and structure needed for a cohesive themed RP environment, this tendency, at least in my opinion, largely defeats the draw of a text-based game. I play MUDs because I'd rather leave most of the details to my own imagination. If I wanted realistic modelling of 3d space in realtime, I'd play a graphical MMORPG.

07-11-2002, 07:37 AM	#7
thelenian Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 122	The only problem with pure coordinate-based systems is that in order to actually achieve results that are noticeably superior to a room-based system is that your coordinate resolution would have to be in the neighborhood of <1m. Anything less and effectively all you have is a bunch of rooms labeled by coordinates. You'll also have to implement 3d visualization algorithms in order to calculate what each person is able to see (You would actually have to use many of the same algorithms used in raytracing, just at much lower resolutions and minus the graphical rendering). Not only that, but everything you make will have to be modelled in 3d space. If not, it becomes impossible to accurately model line-of-sight (i.e. buildings will need to specify the locations of vertices in 3d space). In other words, it's a massive PITA, and will bring your host machine to its knees if you achieve anything resembling a respectable pbase. Also, rendering a 3d scene through a text-based interface is going to present some very difficult challenges. In room-based systems, the builder has complete control over the player's perspective. In a 3d system, the builder must design his/her areas with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about the player's perspective. What does this mean? It means that you need seperate descs for every seperately identifiable aspect of an object, which must be modelled in 3d space. Let's look at what this might mean for a building: Room-based system: A large wooden shack, worn with age, sits here on the grassy knoll. examining the shack might yield: The old shack, its wood bleached grey by the ravages of time, leans to one side as if cowering from the elements. Faded yellow curtains are visible through two windows that seem to be gazing mournfully out onto the prarie. looking at a window might show you the inside of the shack. Coordinate-based system: What you'd see would have to depend on where you are in relation to the shack. In order for that to happen, the builder must specify a different desc for each part of the shack, your visualization system would need to calculate what parts of the shack are visible from your perspective, and an AI system would need to determine what parts of what you can see are important enough that you should see on a toplevel cursory glance. Closer inspection would tell the AI filter system that more information should be passed onto the viewer, such as more details about each visible object. Looking at the window, you would have to calculate, based on the coordinates of the windows' vertices (which your builder did specify, right?), what the viewer can see from where he/she is located. Building a passable description based on the parts of an object that are visible given the relative orientation of the viewer in MUD-style text format is a nontrivial task. Actually, it's far harder than doing graphical 3d visualization. Instead of employing relatively simple 3d->2d transformation algorithms and other well-documented procedures, you'll need to build an extremely powerful AI system that is able to interpret spatial data and produce a dynamically generated description that could pass for something written by a person. I may be mistaken, but I doubt that current AI technology is anywhere near being able to accomplish something like that. Although the second case does indeed model RL more accurately, I prefer the first. The thing I like about MUDs is that much is left up to your imagination. Just enough information is provided to maintain suspension of disbelief, while letting your mind "render" all the parts that (current) technology will never be able to get quite right. One trend I've been seeing in many new MUDs is the attempt to migrate more and more of the experience from player imagination to hardcode. While understandable, as, in moderation, it provides the consistency and structure needed for a cohesive themed RP environment, this tendency, at least in my opinion, largely defeats the draw of a text-based game. I play MUDs because I'd rather leave most of the details to my own imagination. If I wanted realistic modelling of 3d space in realtime, I'd play a graphical MMORPG.