Would there be any benifit for constraining the world into tiles for a isometric 3d engine? If we take the most powerful concept of isometric engines, building enviroment with modular reusable components, into 3d, we would build 3d objects which can be recombined into a variety of enviroments with little effort. This concept can be taken further in that each module then can be composited into further unique modules. It seems to me that this is a powerful concept yet to be exploited by the commerical 3d games out there. They seem to concentrate on building vast unique 3d worlds requireing many artists and level designers(as witness the FPS games). Is anyone considering making their 3d isometric engine this way? Also what do people think of using RM for making an isometric engine?
actually premade 3d components would be harder to put together than 2d, you have another entire dimension. the component thing has been tried out in 2d (diablo), but i think it's still a bit too complicated for 3d. anyway i am writing a sortof isometric engine using Direct3D IM. it works too!!
If you build your 3d objects to be assembled in a few planes, i dont think it would be anymore diffuclt than a 2d tile. Cool, i'm also using RM for my game too. I dont know why people put down RM, if you use it the way it was designed it greatly speeds up developement time.
I'm using RM as well in a isometric engine. I totally agree with the idea of reusable art and objects. I think with good world and level design you create virtual environments that are just as striking as the static prerendered scenes that seem to be a selling point these days. Not to mention its a shame to have an artist work on one static scene and then you waste all that work on one area.