Bizzare Map Idea

[Vultur]

Since a couple of weeks I've been looking to OpenGL tutorials to learn to use it to code something, and I've seen the spectacular maps that can be realized with it.
So, I've had an idea: why don't have a RTS-games-like map?
I've thought a lot looking other games like WC3, Empire Earth, and Starcraft and I've concluded that an isometric map can be not vinculated to "tiles".
If "tiles" concept is removed by more detailed coordinates, so any unit can move and attack freely on the map, with the only limitation of his moving/attacking radius. Also resources will be gathered only in a certain radius from the base.
I know this idea can sound strange, but seen the possibilities of OpenGL, I thought that can be done. See here

[DeathByTheSword]

if possible it would be great we would remove tiles out of turnbased game...that is great distance to travel could be calculated in metres per terrain type

[Kuciwalker]

First, it would be AT LEAST kilometers per type.

Second, RTS games actually do use a tile system. That's why the units move in the funny directions. They merely spend time "in transit" from one tile to another.

What you really are thinking about is a coordinate system. This would in fact work quite well.

[Jeremy Buloch]

I think a coordinate or RTS type system would work perfectly. It would be much easier to move and you wont wasted time trying to move diagnaly and going through alot of tiles. I support the use of this system.
-J.B.-

[Leland]

From what I've gathered in bits and pieces in Blake's posts, it's been the idea for some time now to use (rectangular?) tiles for terrain, and true coordinate system for unit movement... yes?

[Vultur]

Originally posted by Leland
From what I've gathered in bits and pieces in Blake's posts, it's been the idea for some time now to use (rectangular?) tiles for terrain, and true coordinate system for unit movement... yes?

Not necessarly. With a non-tiled map it's possible to have terrain of all shapes, the only thing we have to decide is how much precise the map mut be done.
With a file that contains altitudes (i.e. a .raw file) we can have a similar thing, that contain altitudes, type of terrain, enanchements, etc.
I suppose there is a tons of graphic engines well designed, we must only found the right one.

[Leland]

What exactly do you mean by "non-tiled map"? Some sort of polygonal thingamajig?

[Kuciwalker]

JB - read my post.

Leland - you can use a coordinate system, just like in the real world. A unit is located at particular coordinates on the map. Terrain features occupy a certain area on the map.

[Jeremy Buloch]

JB - read my post.

What are you talking about? Please be more specific. Which post do you want me to read?
-J.B.-

[Leland]

Originally posted by skywalker
Leland - you can use a coordinate system, just like in the real world. A unit is located at particular coordinates on the map. Terrain features occupy a certain area on the map.

Yes, I can imagine how units and bases and other point-based objects can be positioned on the map freely (and this is not a new idea), but what I am not so sure about is how to represent areas like forests or oceans or mountain ranges... they'd have to be polygons of some sort, wouldn't they?

[targon]

Any map "features" (forests, oceans etc.) may be represented either by some set of polygons/curves/fractals(?) projected on the map heightfield or like "terrain type" field associated with your .raw map grid points.

[Vultur]

What exactly do you mean by "non-tiled map"? Some sort of polygonal thingamajig?

Means that any polygon used to draw the map DON'T affect base, units etc behavior. The "coordinate system" must be enough "precise" to make a relistic movement, like all RTS maps.
A map like WC3 or E.E. would be the state of the art, once found the way to implement it.

Any map "features" (forests, oceans etc.) may be represented either by some set of polygons/curves/fractals(?) projected on the map heightfield or like "terrain type" field associated with your .raw map grid points.

You've got the point

[Leland]

Thanks for the clarification.

[targon]

Originally posted by Vultur

Means that any polygon used to draw the map DON'T affect base, units etc behavior.

IMHO, they DO affect unit movement etc., but indirectly: the map has some topographic data which are used both for drawing textures/features/etc and for calculating unit movement, LOS, path-finding etc.

[Vultur]

IMHO, they DO affect unit movement etc., but indirectly: the map has some topographic data which are used both for drawing textures/features/etc and for calculating unit movement, LOS, path-finding etc.

Obvious, terrain type will affect unit movement, I thought was clear...