I decided to participate in the fun.
I am really impressed by what has been achieved with Openclonk so far.
I am aware that there are certainly no shortcomings in great ideas for the course of Openclonk so I'd mainly like to help with some ideas for a more consistent appearance.
What I really liked about the "old" Clonk was that there was a sense of architecture that the buildings followed. There were certain structural elements that would appear in different buildings, like how the clonks would build a stone wall or how they would use the same building structure for the workshop or the sawmill.
I think something like this is important to create a believable appearance and I would like Open clonk to have that.
Maybe we could for example think about how Clonks do scaffolding and then apply it to the buildings. Scaffolds in the clonk world have a use and the clonks found their way to do it with the materials they have. Right now for example I have the feeling the scaffolds in the buildings don't hold for what they are made for. After all clonks should look proficient in what they are doing.
I don't mean we have to follow a scheme no matter what, but just to have a guide how things look and work would be handy. From that the structures can be modified for the task at hand. In 3d modeling you could even have blocks to insert and modify.
I would offer to gather the ideas of the community an compile them into a consistent document.
The goal would be to have a reference document for the visual style of the clonk culture.
The benefit is faster generation of models, a consistent appearance and a more believable and alive Clonk world.
What do you think?
Attached some examples of what I am thinking. In this case an attempt for scale and size references.
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license
What is the typical way for clonk masonry?
How do they use their Stone to build walls, pillars, roofs, etc
How do they make their roofs? Stone tiles, wood, hay?
The use of wood. Do they use beams or planks or wood tiles
Chimney/furnance building
How do they build reservoirs like tanks?
Scaffolding
Pipes and fittings
Attached some more stuff I did. I like the idea to have different chassis and vehicle types...
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license
Now its more the time to get the basics straight.
In fact, we could make it so you can combine two transportation slots (two wheels, two ballons, etc.) to carry one arbitrary building.
Here are my ideas and sketches (sorry for the bad quality, I don't have a scanner here):
Chassis:
- Wheels
- Balloon
- Elevator
- Building
- Boat
- Submarine
Vehicle
-lorrie (container up open)
- dropper (drops the items on activation while holding or connected by line kit)
- bomb
- catapult
- cannon
- liquid tank
- mobile home
- platform
- pump
- steam engine
- sail
- tower
...
Also:
Wood version burns when vehicle is destroyed, metal can be recycled
You can put the together? Put horses in from of them.
> Sketches
I like the sketches, especially the liquid tank and the derrick look cool. Perhaps it is also possible to alter the display of the pipes from being grey 1px-width-lines to look like real pipes like in your sketches.
I don't understand the second sketch fully - what is that building on the right side of the balloon? So you can put a lorry or bomb on a balloon? Whats happening at (4)?
The with the building next to the balloon I had nothing special in mind... don't like it either...
(4) is just again a vehicle size reference...
The sketches below are an idea for an inverted elevator. Its basically a small platform which will pull an release a vehicle (normally a balloon) on a string. You could also have two of these buildings pulling a ballon to either side of a canyon. Or attach a train which will constantly try to drive off but gets pulled back.
With different vehicle types you could realize other structures. A bomb on a ballon could be fused from the station when another ballon gets near same with a car (sketch to the left) with a dropper vehicle on a ballon you could dispense objects like shown to the right
I took the lead of the settlement development and therefore had a great deal to do with the structure conceptioning.
Thanks for the input. I don't think anyone will object to you gathering ideas and compile them into a document. Before you start however, it would be nice if you read the graphical guidelines for buildings (which actually exist!) in the settlement design document. This may be found here: http://wiki.openclonk.org/w/Settlement_Design_Document#Graphical_Guidelines
On a second note, collecting your input will certainly be appreciated but not necessarily or quickly inserted into the game for a very simple reason: modelling is our most undermanned task. I was happy for every building that made it to the final stage but there are still more pending (as you will see from the design document). Revision of the existing buildings will take a while even if it will be done. But if a designer is content with his or her model, we have but little chances of forcing someone into changing it. After all, our project is dependant on voluntary contributions. If you want to change anything, your arguments shall better be convincing therefore ;)
If you are by chance a modeller, your contribution will be appreciated the most :)
And on a last note: Welcome to the community! I will look forward to your ideas.
I saw the existing guideline but to my mind it lacked the visual part :)
I also don't expect anything to enter the game its just like I said the models shouldn't be rushed. I think its a good thing to put some planning into the graphics before modeling...
If there is a set of chimneys ready it will be much faster to model them and then put them in the buildings.
Also I understand the argument about the finished work but I think there must be a way to have a consistent visual appearance. There must be a kind of art direction. I also understand that there certainly can't be one person deciding that this is why I had the idea of a style guide. You want steam punk? So, design some steam punk elements like chimneys in the style or a roof with cogs looking out.
This way later the development of new structures is not about a single artist doing a single building in his style but its choosing the different elements. For example you want a house? Choose a wall style (like the one I attached) then take a roof (our clonks normally use wood tile (or whatever we decide)). So you have the basic building finished in a consistent style and you can add elements specific to the building. In real clonk world they wouldn't think how to build windows every time they need one so we also have a window style.
So I would be glad to have a discussion about clonk culture in terms of graphics. How do they make liquid containers? Don't like my idea? post photos or sketches of an alternative style like a wooden barrel or so. then we could change the Liquid wagon, the Liquid storage and the barrels to that style.
I just offer to compile this ideas into concept art. i think modeling will be much easier later because there the problem is less how you model but what to model.
I can actually also model but I have no experience with low poly modeling so far.
>modelling is our most undermanned task.
Maybe because there is really no guidelinie how you wanna it! Which models are necessary for the next milestone and why, which format should they have, how to animate that modelled stuff?, whats the min/max polycount, who is the reference guy and so on. Maybe the information are outer there, but I couldnt find them.
There you will find that I am the person to speak to (but I'm scarcely asked what is to do) and of course the link to the Design Document which I keep up to date. Everything which I did not strike out is still missing :)
Also, one can easily join the IRC channel (if you don't want to open a topic in the forum). It's even written on the frontpage. In there, you will always find help if wanted. You would even get this wiki page: Artists Guide (I at least do admit that this very page is a bit hidden).
>You might ask yourself if there is a guideline of how many polygons a model should max have. Yes, there is one: So many, that the object looks both good ingame with a 3x zoom and on it's picture graphic (whichever is bigger).
Personally, I dont accept the examples on that page as 'good'. So what now? :(
And then again, what looks good and what doesn't is obviously highly subjective. Make it so that it looks good to yourself, the modeler. If you are concerned about other models, such as the foundry, feel free to grab the blender file from the resources repository and modify them so that they actually look good (to you) and suggest them to be changed accordingly in the game.
>I don't know if this is supposed to be a troll post or not.
No, its not.
>And then again, what looks good and what doesn't is obviously highly subjective.
Yeah, that was the thing a wanted to point out. Subjective terms makes absolutely no sense in that case. A modeller need a clear goal. I dont wanna make a model and then suddenly a dev screams "oh gosh, our game lags we need to reduce polycount on ALL objects!" Correct me if I'm wrong, but change the geometry of already uvmapped and textured objects is very bad idea.
As a developer I don't want to give you rigid constraints on how the models should look like. You are a creative person, right? This is not like in a business relationship where the customer dictates all the facts. A bit of initiative is required by everybody involved. In any case the modeling process will likely take a few iterations where feedback from the community is fed back to the modeler. And a model that is not optimal is still better than no model and should be used in the game until someone (yourself or another modeler) is annoyed enough to improve the model (using the existing model as a basis or starting from scratch).
... and on a similar note, are we sure that our performance is polygon-bound? I was always a bit surprised how fast performance seemed to slump with OC.
> ... and on a similar note, are we sure that our performance is polygon-bound?
No. And actually I believe that this is indeed not the case at this point and, therefore, that throwing arbitrary numbers around would not be of much help. Also, the situation might change with future engine changes and of course also with improving hardware.
Why do we have 3d models anyways when the buildings don't change appearance?
Couldn't we just pre-render the models like before?
>so they look differently depending on which corner of the viewport they are shown.
Hm, that doesn't really require drawing models, just having them. How hard is it to instruct the graphics card to save something it rendered to a sprite?
If e.g. a hut is on the left side of the viewport, you would see the right side of the hut. If it's on the right side, you'd see the left. See attached picture (sorry; no tablet here...)
It would probably give some impression of depth when you are scrolling; similar to the way wiggle stereoscopy or a parallax background do.
As Caesar mentioned, we might even try to combine the approaches by having the engine automatically billboard stuff, just as Torque did for far-away objects.
But for building, which don't have this amount of animations sprites could be better too.
> But for building, which don't have this amount of animations sprites could be better too.
Well, that could easily change as soon as we actually try make more cool animations. It's like our modeller don't dare to animate stuff ;)
Just look at the new foundry sketch Fungiform has uploaded. The melting pot could drive around / swing, the hatch meanwhiles opens and closes, in heavy machinery part of the structure starts to ramble and so on. I think, we would severely limit our possibilities.
With both style and productivity in mind.
I am a little late with my reply, basically: What he said. There has already been a few discussions on how we want to go with the overall style, the main direction being a somewhat kludgy, steam/clockpunky & invention/device-like look.
However, I think the current document by Clonkonaut could use some rewriting as most of it currently reads more like an analysis of what we have now. Also, in the past we have been occupying ourselves more with having the models (~that fit the style) at all. So you bring up a valid point by saying that the models also need a consistent look in terms of size (also in the width of the wooden beams, the bricks etc.)
And by the way, I really like the design of your sketches!
Now, of course we already got a lot of models so to resize and modify/enhance them would be of course the reasonable thing to do. If you want to fiddle around with it, you could start by checking out the resources repository (ask if you don't know how). Most of the models are in the blender format.
P.S: So, what are you doing in Thailand?
About the clock punk I'm not sure if that is a productive idea in terms of complexity. I think there is need of a lot of background research for quality clock/steampunk. To make it look believable you need a solid understanding of mechanics an machinery in general. I think as with all good fiction there needs to be a sense of realism or possibility in the design. Even if you do high fantasy you would want to make things believable.
Anyway, what I aim to do is less interfering with your ideas of what Clonk should be like but more to establish something like a system for consistent art. Nobody would start seriously programming without thinking about structure like classes and protocols.
If we have a basic proportions system together the development of new buildings wouldn't be dependent on the models. You could decide first which size the building has and use the grey blocks in the right size. Like that the art and development can go parallel. I really think it is dangerous to jump on fancy graphics just for the effect too early. Though its understandable.
Another point is we want as many people as possible make objects. What do you do for the code? You use an existing object and modify it. If we provide a guide for the graphics to it can be similar.
So I'll stop babbling now. I understand I missed to venture more into the existing material. Unfortunately internet here is horribly slow. So I'm still busy loading the repository... are there screenshots of existing buildings, clonks etc online?
P.S.: Im doing an internship here in thailand... maybe I should do an introduction. is there a place for that? ^^;;
>Another point is we want as many people as possible make objects. What do you do for the code? You use an existing object and modify it. If we provide a guide for the graphics to it can be similar.
^- this.
And that is not restrained to only the "official" development team.
I am not sure how well you know the history of Clonk(Rage), Fungiform, but a huge part of all the Clonk content (szenarios/objects) that is played actively, has always been user-created.
For reference: The CCAN.de (Comprehensive Clonk Archive Network) with currently 3244 entries and most of them player-created.
Having an easy and fun SDK to work with does not only mean having a good Script-API and documentation. Easier-to-create models that actually fit with the general style would be a really good addition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TvTs1bPV7E&feature=related
This other one with a stone giant is interesting too, in Clonk it's possible to change the hole map, it would be really awesome to create stuff for dungeons and give them a really new style and everything. Want to feel that under earth livings there all the time, I want to be suprised by some intelligent creatures living in the deep or stop breathing while watching the awesome way the game is made. Most of the time you play Clonk you have "normal" maps with buildings on top of the skyline, so let's go and rise up to the heavens and climb down to the deepest dungeons we've ever seen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBJIpQsecB0&feature=related
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill