Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
cragwolf

Opinions wanted on RTS interface ideas

This topic is 4901 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Let's say that your 3D RTS game has a GUI interface in the form of a panel running along the bottom part of the screen. Questions: 1) Should your OpenGL (or DirectX) viewport be equal to the size of the screen or should it be equal to the size of the screen not including the panel? The latter method might (?) have the advantage of rendering the 3D scene faster and the former method has the advantage of a being able to hide the panel without having to recreate the viewport (and frustum). But I'm not sure about these supposed advantages/disadvantages? Can you see any others? Which technique do you prefer? 2) If the screen resolution is changed from let's say 800x600 to 1600x1200, should you now see more of the map, or should objects now be twice as big? In other words, should objects preserve their size relative to your physical screen, or should they scale with screen resolution? In the latter method, every user sees exacty the same amount of map area, while in the former method, users with higher screen resolutions see more of the map. Which method do you think is better and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
I'd say that if it doesn't give you any sort of advantage to see more of the screen, that it's just something aesthetic, then the latter. But if it somehow gives you some amazing advantage(say, idk, you decide not to have radar, or that your radar only shows what's currently on the screen) then the first.

Most games I'd think fall into the first category, but obviously not all games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by cragwolf
1) Should your OpenGL (or DirectX) viewport be equal to the size of the screen or should it be equal to the size of the screen not including the panel? The latter method might (?) have the advantage of rendering the 3D scene faster and the former method has the advantage of a being able to hide the panel without having to recreate the viewport (and frustum). But I'm not sure about these supposed advantages/disadvantages? Can you see any others? Which technique do you prefer?


You could just modify your frustum and viewport depending on whether the panel is visible or not. Then you get the best of both worlds.

Quote:

2) If the screen resolution is changed from let's say 800x600 to 1600x1200, should you now see more of the map, or should objects now be twice as big? In other words, should objects preserve their size relative to your physical screen, or should they scale with screen resolution? In the latter method, every user sees exacty the same amount of map area, while in the former method, users with higher screen resolutions see more of the map. Which method do you think is better and why?


I would say that in general, the area of map visible at any one time should be constant - you just render it at a different resolution. Otherwise you're giving people with large monitors a significant gameplay advantage.

Of course, you can offer zoom functionality to let players see more or less of the map, but it needs to have the same range of zoom and default zoom for all players, regardless of what resolution they're running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!