236 replies to this topic

[Mister Blastman]

Edit: More on post 158!

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4913511

They worked back in 1992. Just listen to Jordan Weisman... he's interviewed about his tesla pods, among other things.



But it is 23 years later. We've come so far. Procedurally generate maps are garbage, right? No. They are not.

But don't take my word for it. See for yourself. Mechwarrior Online would be a completely different experience with procedurally generated worlds. A different map every game. Aren't you tired of looking at this?



So enjoy. This is what is possible. Now. There's even an easter egg below...

Here is a planet.

It is procedurally generated in this procedurally generated galaxy, which itself is part of a procedurally generated universe...



This is what the planet looks like on a small part of it...



That's nice. What about other worlds? This one is nice...



So is this one...



This one is cold. But the cliffs are gorgeous. It is fun to travel around and look at all the nooks and crannies.

This one is a little warm...



So is this one...



Those are all mountain ranges and deserts you can visit. Each procedurally generated in fantastic detail.

But that's all fine and nice. There are no trees, or grass, or rocks or... well... or are there?



I beg to differ.



I wonder how those holes got there in the road...



If I had a picnic basket, this would be a wonderful spot to lay a blanket down and have lunch.

Oh, sorry. What was that? Procedural worlds are awful? Okay. Keep believing the lie. My computer tells me otherwise.




Here's a little video to watch some procedural worlds in action...

Edited by Mister Blastman, 29 December 2015 - 07:58 AM.

[Zeusus]

Is your argument to have them pump out maps using procedural or to have new each match? First I can agree with.

Second won't work. I'm not waiting 20 minutes to DL/generate a map each match...

Rereading you want the second. Yeah no.....

[N a p e s]

This is the future and it's why I'm keeping my eye on No Man's Sky.

Having procedurally generated maps would make matches so much more interesting and scouting would actually be useful!

Add objectives that matter and you got a solid foundation for shooting big stompy robots.

[DAYLEET]

They also worked in Soldier of Fortune 2. Sometimes you get wonky result and i always loved the random chaos that can happens.

[Mister Blastman]

Zeusus, on 04 August 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

Is your argument to have them pump out maps using procedural or to have new each match? First I can agree with.

Second won't work. I'm not waiting 20 minutes to DL/generate a map each match...

Rereading you want the second. Yeah no.....

Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but those worlds are generated realtime at sixty frames per second without substantial delay. On average, I might have to wait ten seconds for the terrain to render in an area a hundred times larger than the River City remake. That's as long as it takes to load into the game. I am free to move about, explore or do whatever as it renders the smallest details and once they are, whee! Off I go. I can explore the whole planet! No pop-up. It's just... there.

What's the big deal?

There's no downloading. There's no uploading. The only thing that is shared is the random seed and the parameters--small packets worth of information. This is trivial. This is now.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 04 August 2015 - 11:31 AM.

[Blue Boutique]

Zeusus, on 04 August 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

Is your argument to have them pump out maps using procedural or to have new each match? First I can agree with.

Second won't work. I'm not waiting 20 minutes to DL/generate a map each match...

Rereading you want the second. Yeah no.....

The second might work if the maps are generated beforehad, tested and sent out bi-week at a time.

[Rhaythe]

There are a few problems to procedural generation:

• Where is this map generated? If it's server-side, you have to download the map every playthrough. If it's a server-generated seed, the clients still have to go through and generate from that seed. If it's client-side generation, you have to ensure the seed key is perfectly distributed. And whose client generates it?
  
• What ensures the dynamically generated map is fair and competitive?
  
• The problem with procedural generation is bugs. You'd better have damn good logic, or you might find your dropship dropping you off in the middle of a boxed-in canyon.
  
• Minimum processor power. The Universe Engine can run like BLEEP!!! on older hardware. And this is a free-to-play game. If you publish a free-to-play game, you want it running on as many toasters as possible.
  
• Up-front costs; Procedural world logic is EXPENSIVE. Damned expensive.

And yes, there's an Extra Credits on the topic. Shocker. Might as well post it before someone else does.

[Zeusus]

Mister Blastman, on 04 August 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but those worlds are generated realtime at sixty frames per second without substantial delay. On average, I might have to wait ten seconds for the terrain to render in an area a hundred times larger than the River City remake. That's as long as it takes to load into the game. I am free to move about, explore or do whatever as it renders the smallest details and once they are, whee! Off I go. I can explore the whole planet! No pop-up. It's just... there.

What's the big deal?

There's no downloading. There's no uploading. The only thing that is shared is the random seed and the parameters--small packets worth of information. This is trivial. This is now.

If that is true (and it might be, I dont know enough about how those particular maps were generated to be sure) I would be all for it.

With that said what's you hardware specs and what are the min specs MWO will support. Lots of potatoes around here...

My only objection to this would be if it causes significant overhead to getting into a match, which I feel it will due to potatoes

[Mister Blastman]

Blue Boutique, on 04 August 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

The second might work if the maps are generated beforehad, tested and sent out bi-week at a time.

With a proper engine there is no need to pre-generate. The random seed takes care of the rest. See, the beauty of random maps every drop is you, the player, get to explore and figure out how to play a new map... every single time.

There's no more monotony. No more going to the Citadel or Dead Man's Hill and fighting it out. No corner creep on Canyon and absolutely no Nascar 500 on Caustic.

Every drop is a new map. Every drop is a new experience. You, the player, decide how it is played.

Isn't it beautiful?

You use your wits to make the best of whatever you have. It is raw skill versus skill.

Zeusus, on 04 August 2015 - 11:34 AM, said:

If that is true (and it might be, I dont know enough about how those particular maps were generated to be sure) I would be all for it.

With that said what's you hardware specs and what are the min specs MWO will support. Lots of potatoes around here...

My only objection to this would be if it causes significant overhead to getting into a match, which I feel it will due to potatoes

I have a good system. It isn't the best, but it is good.

3770k @ 4.2 Ghz
16 Gigs RAM
670 GTX

[Mister Blastman]

Rhaythe, on 04 August 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

There are a few problems to procedural generation:

• Where is this map generated? If it's server-side, you have to download the map every playthrough. If it's a server-generated seed, the clients still have to go through and generate from that seed. If it's client-side generation, you have to ensure the seed key is perfectly distributed. And whose client generates it?
  
• What ensures the dynamically generated map is fair and competitive?
  
• The problem with procedural generation is bugs. You'd better have damn good logic, or you might find your dropship dropping you off in the middle of a boxed-in canyon.
  
• Minimum processor power. The Universe Engine can run like BLEEP!!! on older hardware. And this is a free-to-play game. If you publish a free-to-play game, you want it running on as many toasters as possible.
  
• Up-front costs; Procedural world logic is EXPENSIVE. Damned expensive.

And yes, there's an Extra Credits on the topic. Shocker. Might as well post it before someone else does.

Unfortunately I believe firsthand experience more than a video. I have been playing around in procedurally generated worlds for several years now. And what I've come to see is awe-inspiring.

The naysayers will knock them, but us, the explorers, the ones who actually visit them, we know otherwise. We have no fear. We know how well they can be made and every machine will render them the same.

See, in Space Engine, if our detail settings are identical, I can tell another person to go to x planet around y star and at b co-ordinates and ... it will look the same. We don't share the map. We don't share anything. We both use the same code/engine and the random seed takes care of the rest. There's no uploading or downloading anything. There is no pre-rendering. It is all done real-time.

[Zeusus]

Mister Blastman, on 04 August 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

I have a good system. It isn't the best, but it is good.

3770k @ 4.2 Ghz
16 Gigs RAM
670 GTX

And that's why it won't work. Go try the same thing on a potatoe and let me know how fast it is. Hint it won't be, and now we are waiting for the one guy with weak machine.

[Rhaythe]

Mister Blastman, on 04 August 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

I have a good system. It isn't the best, but it is good.

3770k @ 4.2 Ghz
16 Gigs RAM
670 GTX

Compare that to the toaster this game is "targeting": http://mwomercs.com/...m-requirements/

Quote

CPU: Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz / Athlon II X2 245e
GPU: GeForce 8800GT / Radeon HD 5600/5700
RAM: 4 GB

[Mister Blastman]

Zeusus, on 04 August 2015 - 11:39 AM, said:

And that's why it won't work. Go try the same thing on a potatoe and let me know how fast it is. Hint it won't be, and now we are waiting for the one guy with weak machine.

I wouldn't trust any computer made by Dan Quayle.

Ever hear of detail settings? They help machines of all sizes run things!

Edited by Mister Blastman, 04 August 2015 - 11:41 AM.

[Rhaythe]

Mister Blastman, on 04 August 2015 - 11:38 AM, said:

Unfortunately I believe firsthand experience more than a video. I have been playing around in procedurally generated worlds for several years now. And what I've come to see is awe-inspiring.

The naysayers will knock them, but us, the explorers, the ones who actually visit them, we know otherwise. We have no fear. We know how well they can be made and every machine will render them the same.

See, in Space Engine, if our detail settings are identical, I can tell another person to go to x planet around y star and at b co-ordinates and ... it will look the same. We don't share the map. We don't share anything. We both use the same code/engine and the random seed takes care of the rest. There's no uploading or downloading anything. There is no pre-rendering. It is all done real-time.

Yes it is.

But you have no physics engine running. Go game loop. No dual companies of mechs each with individual loadouts and customized geometry and paintjobs. No timers or counters. No objectives.

You have a static world, with maybe a breeze blowing.

A static world is a long way away from a living breathing game environment. Space Engine rocks. I love it. And I would love to see procedural worlds break into competitive gaming.

But it comes at a cost. And that cost is horsepower. This game is not aimed at that level of hardware.

Please don't interpret my post as nay-saying. As a coder, I'm just pointing out obstacles that are not easy to overcome.

[Rhaythe]

If procedural generated multiplayer were easy, everyone would do it.

Here's an experiment. Go to Steam's procedural generated game list. Lots of games, right? Now click on "Multiplayer" filter.

11 games. And those that are there are... simple.

This isn't an easy topic.

[Mister Blastman]

Rhaythe, on 04 August 2015 - 11:42 AM, said:

Yes it is.

But you have no physics engine running. Go game loop. No dual companies of mechs each with individual loadouts and customized geometry and paintjobs. No timers or counters. No objectives.

You have a static world, with maybe a breeze blowing.

A static world is a long way away from a living breathing game environment. Space Engine rocks. I love it. And I would love to see procedural worlds break into competitive gaming.

But it comes at a cost. And that cost is horsepower. This game is not aimed at that level of hardware.

Please don't interpret my post as nay-saying. As a coder, I'm just pointing out obstacles that are not easy to overcome.

Umm, actually... there is a huge physics engine running. The physics engine is modeling the entire universe, real-time. All the planets, asteroids, moons, comets, debris--all modeled realtime. Even the climate and atmosphere are modeled, real-time. Those clouds? Procedural.

Granted it is not a game. And if it were a game, you wouldn't need to model a whole planet, now, would you?

Those bottom screenshots... You're a dude, running around... and you have a gun that can deform the terrain. That's physics, man. It isn't Space Engine, either. Anteworld has some of the most breathtaking environments I have ever seen.

I wouldn't make a thread if I didn't realize what we can do, now.

As a coder (you, not me), I appreciate your input. I hope what I said clarifies a few of your worries.

Random maps would yield ultimate random variety.

[Rhaythe]

Mister Blastman, on 04 August 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

Umm, actually... there is a huge physics engine running. The physics engine is modeling the entire universe, real-time. All the planets, asteroids, moons, comets, debris--all modeled realtime. Even the climate and atmosphere are modeled, real-time. Those clouds? Procedural.

...

Those bottom screenshots... You're a dude, running around... and you have a gun that can deform the terrain. That's physics, man. It isn't Space Engine, either. Anteworld has some of the most breathtaking environments I have ever seen.

Those aren't physics. The universe is on rails. It's a filter (clouds) and terrain deformation (mesh manipulation). The only physics component is the dude not clipping through the ground and a simple gravity force.

I've used Space Engine too. I love it. Just want to clarify a few things you're getting wrong though.

[Zeusus]

Mister Blastman, on 04 August 2015 - 11:41 AM, said:

I wouldn't trust any computer made by Dan Quayle.

Ever hear of detail settings? They help machines of all sizes run things!

I have no idea who this Dan fellow is, and detail settings don't cut back in the generation... Doesn't help at all... Weaker CPU will generate slower, and less RAM will slow things as well. And then once done detail settings matter.

[mark v92]

Rhaythe, on 04 August 2015 - 11:39 AM, said:

Compare that to the toaster this game is "targeting": http://mwomercs.com/...m-requirements/

lel they realy need to update that.

im running fx 8150 8-core, HD 7870 2gb, 16gb ram and i have to play on low/dx9 to get a sort of smooth framerate

[DAYLEET]

Rhaythe, on 04 August 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

There are a few problems to procedural generation:

• Where is this map generated? If it's server-side, you have to download the map every playthrough. If it's a server-generated seed, the clients still have to go through and generate from that seed. If it's client-side generation, you have to ensure the seed key is perfectly distributed. And whose client generates it?
  
• What ensures the dynamically generated map is fair and competitive?
  
• The problem with procedural generation is bugs. You'd better have damn good logic, or you might find your dropship dropping you off in the middle of a boxed-in canyon.
  
• Minimum processor power. The Universe Engine can run like BLEEP!!! on older hardware. And this is a free-to-play game. If you publish a free-to-play game, you want it running on as many toasters as possible.
  
• Up-front costs; Procedural world logic is EXPENSIVE. Damned expensive.

And yes, there's an Extra Credits on the topic. Shocker. Might as well post it before someone else does.

That vid explains why the narrator might not like randomly generated SEED, he uses what randomly generated means and try to confine it within rules and purify it to fit HIS OWN needs. He also generalize game like fps and turned based Strategy and hack n slash into one.

He goes on to say odd things like "how many cover does one room need" and stuff like that. Thoughts like that don''t belong in randomly generated fps games. Sometimes it needs can have no cover and sometimes its a freakin maze of upturned desk, that's the whole point of randomly generated fps. People like the narrator, who wants many hard rules are the problem. Your gameplay experience must NOT be stucked within rules like that. The reasons why randomly generated games are fun are shot down by the Narrator(and other unbelievers) without a second thought to mold their own expectation or somethng that isnt randomly generated. Civ is also a bad example for fps, a true random Civ game could be impossible, fps don't work like that, i know because i played them.