3d Civ. I'm still a doubter.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Lucilla
Snoopy,
could you please explain this part a bit? Why does 3D make it more flexible and modable?
Just a dump question from somebody not knowing enough about the connection between graphics and game concepts/mechanics.

Well, I don't know what Sn00py was on about but I can tell you this much: the graphics engine wasn't developed by Firaxis, so it didn't take time away from AI development.

The graphics were, yes but they would have had to be developed in 2D so they aren't taking time away from anything.

Fitting graphics to an already estrablished 3D engine probably saved quite a bit of time they could then devote to the AI and gameplay and modding.

Tom P.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by padillah


Try this. Cost $50 but it'll tell you all you need to know.

http://www.liutilities.com/products/campaigns/plib/4/tg7/wintasks/index.php

And it comes with some other free software to speedup your PC through tweeks.

And www.liutilities.com has good advice regarding windows processes and whether you should turn them off or not.

Tom P.

Thanks... but I'm kind of into freeware utilities personally.

Found this doing a quick search:

http://www.kensalter.com/fsautostart/index.htm

Looks like it will more than meet my needs.

[Lucilla]

padillah,

So the 3D engine is not only for handling the graphics but also for the overall processing? Movement of units is still 2D, as the map is 2D, even if it looks 3D.

I understand that adding a 2D layout next to the 3D is of course more work and would have costed more time. It was therefore a strategic decision to only develop for 3D and no longer support 2D. No problem with this argumentation.

[kc1000]

I'm super impressed with this game and it's graphics. I have a pretty low end system comparative with whats on the market now, and my computer runs huge map games with max civs all the way to 2050 with very little lag times.

I notice that this civ also does a lot of things simultaneously while prompting me for things. I can see my workers moving and my automatic explorer units moving in the background while i'm setting up my cities for the next turn. It's a stunning game and i'm actually surprised at how well its running on my machine.

I also love the interface. It took me a couple of games to get it all figured out, but once I did, it's very nice and streamlined. I like the ability to zoom in and out of the cities and get a birds eye as well as a detailed look at improvements and city structures. Definitely the best civ game yet.

I'm running on an amd 2500+, 1 gig of ram and a GeForce FX 5200.

[Capt Dizle]

Some very offensive remarks made in this thread. Not necessary. Everyone has a valid opinion and ought to be able to express it without anyone getting personal.

Some people trade cars every year, others buy them and drive them until they (or the car) drops dead. It's a different approach. To each his own.

In years past Sid & company have certainly gotten some positive milage out of decisions to design explicitly to allow older systems to play without a hitch. In turning away from this it is only natural to have a little disappointment stated.

The guy still using a P2 (bought when it was cutting edge) is no dumber than the guy who has upgraded three times since.

We will all get to play the game if we want, its only a matter of when and how much we pay. Some can wait, some can't.

No need to get nasty.

[kimmygibler]

If they came out with a 2d mode using civ 2 style graphics I would buy it even though I already have civ4 and my comp runs it fine.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Lucilla
padillah,

So the 3D engine is not only for handling the graphics but also for the overall processing?

This is entirely possible. I'm not intimatly familliar with the actual engine they used but I will say this. If the engine was written well it will be optimised for what it's doing (repetative graphic animations, etc. as opposed to free-look world wandering). Also, it will be able to query the video card and determine what amount of processing can indeed be off-loaded to the video card. 3D takes some horribly creative math but the GPU's are tuned for it so they are faster and better and don't use up real-world cycles.

Movement of units is still 2D, as the map is 2D, even if it looks 3D.

Oddly enough, maybe not. This is one of the things that the engine may have optimized. If it was designed around say chess boards (a distinct possibility) then it is optimised to moving iconic pieces on a game board. If it was designed around say, a flight simulator than there would be work put into establishing the world and the pieces and getting them to move.

I'm hoping they went with the "chess board" engine.

Tom P.

[GodSpawn]

A few people seem to be complaining that the animations are making things too slow. Fair enough - but there's an option to turn off the animations and the effects, which should help!

[wilebill2]

1. 3D adds nothing to the gameplay. Agree. But the proles like 3D in their bowls, and that's what sells.

2. 1.8 P4, .75 G Ram, Radeon 9600 Pro is running it fine. Get everything out of the background, turn off real time file checking on virus and adware for the game session only, run nothing concurrent, not even a browser.

[My PitBull Tank]

Originally posted by MattPilot
You guys are nuts. NUTS I tell you!

The graphics are awesome!

my sentiments.

UPGRADE!!!

If you don't want to or can't, turn off all the bells and whistles and play on low resolution. If that's not enough, turn in your commodore 64 to the smithsonian, i hear they're setting up a "History of Computers" display!!! :P

[Dis]

bah, if my C64 can't run it, it's not worth playing.

Back to Wasteland for me. Or Seven Cities of Gold.

[FrostyBoy]

Lucilla, padillah,

The units are not rendered in 2D, they are in 3D.

The reason 3D is so much better than 2D, is because

1. If I want to resize the units, buildings, terrain, whatever, I can do that with 3D, because 3D objects are vector. If they were 2D, I would have to recreate the entire model in a 3D program and render each frame in to a 2D format.

2. If I want to change the colour/pattern on a model, I can do that by simply changing the texture file.

3. If I want to make hills 5x higher, and 5x thinner, then I can do that with a few simple keys. If the hills were rendered in 2D, I would have little hope in achieving this, and if I could do it, it would take a week or so to complete.

4. A lot of people say they don't like the Interface, but what they don't understand is that the interface was specifically designed to be managable by mods. Firaxis can't just create a Warcraft-detailed interface and expect people to be able to add their mods with it. The textures, borders, scrollbars, etc, they all need to be flexible enough to allow modders to add their mods.

The list goes on and on, check out the XML files, see how many options you have that you can alter? Well, most of those would not be possible without a 3D engine.


If the game were in 2D, it would rely a lot on both your graphics card and your system memory. But for 3D, the graphics card can handle most if not all of the work, freeing up processing time for the system. This is why 2D is slower than 3D.

evizaer, you said you ran a huge map game? Well "huge" is much larger than Civ3's largest map size, so of course it is going to slow down, you will need to boost your system up to run a huge map.


One last thing, its interesting that many of you are saying the graphics are impressive, it seems as if you are just comparing Civ4 graphics with previous Civilization graphics, you are not comparing with today's standard of graphics. The fact is, the graphics in Civ4 are arguably 'ugly'. (except the icons, leaderheads, etc, of course)
I know the models are low-polygon for a reason; but I just find it surprising that so many of you consider this game to have amazing graphics.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by padillah


This is deceptive. It got so big that people stopped reading it and just post bugs even though the bug has already been posted. It's gotten artificially inflated.

Tom P.

yes, good point

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava
normally I would say laptops suck

but that one looks all right MrFun

although I was about to make fun of you when you said you were ready for "serious gaming" and you said Medieval Total War ran great on your system

you might want to use a more recent game (preferrably one that is graphics intensive) for benchmarking your system performance as it pertains to "serious gaming"

I should get used to some people on here laughing at me instead of with me.

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by My PitBull Tank

my sentiments.

UPGRADE!!!

If you don't want to or can't, turn off all the bells and whistles and play on low resolution. If that's not enough, turn in your commodore 64 to the smithsonian, i hear they're setting up a "History of Computers" display!!! :P

I am so sick of morons running around smacking everyone in the head to upgrade every two months. I have a brand new laptop and I still have to use my half-assed workaround for the black map problem.

I'm not complaining about the half-assed workaround, though, I'm complaining about the morons.