Slashdot Mirror


Hobbyist 'Spring' RTS Engine Takes Shape

Dragon45 writes "Some interesting developments have just occurred on the hobbyist RTS game engine scene. The Swedish Yankspankers, long known within the Total Annihilation community for their professional-caliber modifications and add-ons, have released the first screenshots and videos of Spring, a 3D RTS engine under development (and under wraps) for quite some time. It works. Apparently, real-time terrain deformation (Before|After) and network play are already working. Spring HQ has more information, and needless to say, this one is definitely worth a look." The official FAQ explains: "We aim to get an early test release out quite soon (within a month or so)", and the 'About' page explains that, as an initial starting point: "TA Spring reads the [Total Annihilation data] formats directly without conversions needed."

53 comments

  1. This would be really cool.... by OC_Wanderer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    if I played video games. I'm just programming/script-writing nerd, not the other kind.

    --
    -- There is no spoon. Only fork.
  2. Hmm by FLAGGR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds cool, and the screenshots look awsome, I just hope it isn't your standard RTS that has been defined by warcraft.... I'm gonna keep an eye on this one though, looks promising..... Oh, and it says that they haven't decided wether or not to go opensource, so maybe a little poliet encouragement from /.'ers would help? ;) It would be nice to have it OSS tho', I don't think there are any other opensource RTS's, and there is a large untapped market for MMORTS games like Mankind (the company would just have to run it better than Mankind was)

    1. Re:Hmm by eddy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just hope it isn't your standard RTS that has been defined by warcraft....

      RTS is "defined" by Total Annihilation, not *craft or Red Alert or any other game/series.

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    2. Re:Hmm by FLAGGR · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant redifined. Too many RTS games have came out that are numbingly similar to WC3. In any case, you know what I meant ;)

    3. Re:Hmm by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      WC3... redefined... in the same sentence. What are you smoking? WC3 did nothing new. It didnt copy good things other games have done. WC3 is a 3 year step backwards in RTS development in every aspect except graphics.

    4. Re:Hmm by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      I thought RTS was "defined" by Dune 2? Considered by most folks to be the first RTS. If you've plaid it, you'll notice that nothing has really changed between Dune 2, Warcraft, TA, C&C, and many others... Besides the better graphics and less sucky UIs. But aside that, the game is really the same.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    5. Re:Hmm by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      RTS is "defined" by Total Annihilation, not *craft or Red Alert or any other game/series.


      Not one game "defines" an RTS unless it is capable of surviving holes poked by other RTS games.

      What really defines "RTS" is a set of games that show examples of how a game should be written. TA is an element of that definition, but the slightly newer games have shown that it is not the only component.

      As bad as Red Alert 2 was, it does have a part in defining an RTS - the fact that units don't stand still after they magically realise that their target was destroyed half-way across the map.

    6. Re:Hmm by Poseidon88 · · Score: 1
      Dune 2 wasn't the first, not by a long shot. It wasn't even the first on PC. The first PC RTS I remember was Modem Wars, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was something earlier that might qualify as well. But even before PC titles, there was Utopia for Intellivision. And there was probably something that predated that as well.

      Remember, no matter how new and innovative you think an idea is, somebody else probably thought of it before you.

    7. Re:Hmm by onash · · Score: 1

      afaik Dune II was the first RTS game, developed my Westwood in '92.. and they haven't changed much since.

      (Westwood also did Command&Conquer and red alert, and every *craft just cloned those)

  3. Hobbyist? by dmayle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And hobbyist means what, exactly? Free? Open? If it hits big it'll be turned into a commercial project? The last is the one I suspect. I hate to be a zealot, but I'd be more impressed if it were open-source. I've switched to Linux for 90% of the work that I do (I work on cross-platform software development, so I occasionally have to work on windows and OS X.) As such, I only get really excited when I see exciting new developments or Linux gaming.

    To counter-balance my curmudgeonly opinions, this is probably a very good thing in the eyes of fledgeling game developers, as it shows there are paths into gaming other than the standard, so I say bravo ti the team, and (hint, hint) when are we gonna see a Linux port? (Even if it's not open source?)

    1. Re:Hobbyist? by FLAGGR · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree with you. They say on their site they haven't decided if it will be opensource or not, which i basically see as "If we hit it big, then screw open source and the GPL, but if this turns out not so great, then you can have the code". There are some things that just shouldn't be opensource, but then somethings just fit perfectly (OSes and game engines) and you can still sell a game that has opensource code, because of the maps, models etc that it contains, and still be within the legal limits of the GPL (indeed, games like quake (1,2 and soon 3), doom (1 and 2, eventually 3) and Marathon are all opensource, but you still can't play the game without the CD for the maps and stuff. (I guess you could steal it, but thats not cool, if a company supports opensource then you should support them ;)

    2. Re:Hobbyist? by cyxxon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another point is that I do not entirey see a motivation (I do not, they obviously do) to recreate TA, even make it load TAs resources, and then not release it as open source. I mean, there already is a closed source application that can do that, namely TA itself, and if this new one stays closed source, it will not be any better in terms of "runs on new and different OSs" and all that, because it will do so only at their goodwill, just like the original TA.

      All the other open source game engines (freecraft, scummvm, ...) had the goal to make it possible for users of new or different operating systems to play some old games, what is their goal? Just learning to code an engine is fine too, sure thing. Is that it though? Am I missing something here?

    3. Re:Hobbyist? by samsmithnz · · Score: 1

      If I had created it and spent as much time and effort as these people obviously have, I'd try to sell it too. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

    4. Re:Hobbyist? by hal2814 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait just a minute here. You're criticising the Yankspankers for not GPLing his project, but then you're talking about what works as opensource and you mention a company that only GPLs older products? Why aren't Quake III and Doom 3 opensource yet? I thought that game engines "just fit perfectly" into the opensource model. It seems to me that OLDER game engines fit into this model (at least that's iD's take on it). Your argument is very valid, but your heavy mentioning of iD shows a bit of a bias on your part that's really not fair to the Yankspankers. For all we know they might GPL this engine after it gets to be the age of the Quake III engine.

    5. Re:Hobbyist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ok im one of the developpers of TASpring and our main reasons for keeping the source closed at least for the moment is

      1)Observing every other 3DTA clone they seem to all degenerate to a lot of discussion about background story and website design with very little actual coding going on. Better keep a small focused team.

      2)If we went open source we could be pretty certain that the project would get forked and since it will probably have few players anyway none of the forks might hit a critical mass.

      3)The cheating aspect, sure security through obscurity is never going to work but why make it easier.

      Oh and about getting a publishing contract for it. We would probably release the current version with source and then work on a better version to sell.

    6. Re:Hobbyist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "3)The cheating aspect, sure security through obscurity is never going to work but why make it easier." of course security through obscurity gives you fuck all. i guess you've never played, oh, any online game ever if you think that works...

    7. Re:Hobbyist? by FLAGGR · · Score: 1

      I never said they should be released right away. Having older stuff GPL'd is fine, at least they're doing it. Most developers DONT release their game GPL after its dead and buried. Warcraft 2 would've made a great opensource game. I wasn't critisizing them for NOT doing it RIGHT away, I'm just saying that by the way the worded it, it sounds like they have no plans to release it GPL if it actually becomes anything.

    8. Re:Hobbyist? by FictionPimp · · Score: 2, Informative
      1)Observing every other 3DTA clone they seem to all degenerate to a lot of discussion about background story and website design with very little actual coding going on. Better keep a small focused team.

      Just because a project is open source, you dont have to expand a team. Just a download of the source would be all it takes to make it open source. Also, if you are honest and good at what you do, I wouldn't worry about forks.

      It all comes down to doing what is best in your minds. My only hope would be that if you ever decide to abandon the project you would release the source code.

  4. Battlefield Annihilation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hey! Isn't the first three screenshots using the El Alamein height map and texture map from BF1942? That's the German base looking north east, is it not?

    Actually I've used these texture/heightmaps for testing purposes as well. At first I thought perhaps they'd just done a photoshop job using BF1942 engine; but it looks like it's for real. Excellent! I loved TA; especially when we had a four player game lasting several hours; it started with a one hour base building/no attack period (no Krogoth at the time, fortunately).

  5. Erm by TupperTrenine · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is it just me, or are they using the BF1942 map El Alamein for the three battle screenshots?

    1. Re:Erm by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      s it just me, or are they using the BF1942 map El Alamein for the three battle screenshots?

      Bah! I think it's a Subtle Tribute(tm) to Dune II.

    2. Re:Erm by BathTub · · Score: 1

      yes, as the website says that one map is from Terragen and one is Battlefeild 1942

    3. Re:Erm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are but it's rotated 180 and flipped over one axis.

  6. Looks good, shame about the reality by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    They are not sure if it will be open source. If they open sources it right now, with the slash-dot interest, then they may have a linux client quite soon.

    Closed development - for a free game? I am not sure why they are doing this... it seems the most of thier work has been spent loading TA models and information... again, something I find a little bemusing. Of course, if it means all the models and gfx created in mods for TA will work in this, then that sounds good.

    I must say thier terrain deformation looks spiffing.

    Good luck to them! Oh, I am not 'hardcore' RTS anywho...

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  7. Agreed by caitsith01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    WC3 was not particularly innovative IMHO, even in the graphics department. Ground Control was waaay prettier and had better controls etc.

    Even after playing WC3 I still return to Total Annihilation and Red Alert 2, surely two of the very best RTS games. I wish developers would realise that it is the gameplay and character of a RTS game that is crucial, not the pandering to D&D nerds with 'super' characters or allowing/forcing you to view the action from about 2 feet off the ground.

    If I could change one thing about current RTS games, it would be to let me see the action from the same altitude as Total Annihilation running at 1280x1024... I want command and control, dammit, not a nice view of my soldiers faces as they get slaughtered because I am not zoomed out enough to see attacks coming. C&C Generals and WC3 were both particularly guilty of this - in Generals you can barely fit 3 buildings in one screen. In TA I could fit dozens of buildings in a screen and still know wtf was going on.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:Agreed by KDan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe a game like WC3 needs a different category than RTS. It was more RTT (real-time-tactics) than RTS, because most of the action was tactical. You could lose a solid strategic position very easily through bad tactics, which was a lot harder in a game like TA where overcoming a strong strategic position took time and sustained effort.

      All this shouldn't imply that WC3 is a bad game. It's a great game for what it offers, just not really a strategy game except in the loosest sense.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    2. Re:Agreed by Discoflamingo13 · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who had to play it as a strategy game - his computer was too slow to allow him to play it tactically. His framerate was so low when he tried to interact in battles that he inevitably lost, so he just sat on the edge of the combat and gave orders.

      Turns out that strategy just doesn't work after the first two chapters - you can only win certain battles with specific interactions (or if you get extremely lucky). Hence, WC3 is a tactical sim.

    3. Re:Agreed by Reapy · · Score: 1

      Err, real time tactic games are the ones without resources. Sure, war3 required you to micro your guys well, but if they died, you just pump out 50 more from your barracks. Games like the myth series were tactical, you started with units, and got no more new ones for the rest of the game.

      Both generas require strategy and tactics to win, but the genera is still RTS for warcraft style and RTT for myth style. Think of calling something tactics meaning "no resource managment".

    4. Re:Agreed by KDan · · Score: 1

      Hello hello? Linguistic freedom police is at your door mate. You better answer quickly they don't like waiting for shmilbligs. They tend to get all frumpleted up.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
  8. openess by BinLadenMyHero · · Score: 1

    Exactly.
    I heard rumors the Palito team is going to re-activate their Free TA-inspired (not clone) project soon...

  9. They should keep the TA engine by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

    If at all possible, they should run the game engine from TA with the new, 3D interface over the top. I realise this may not be possible, but it should be possible to emulate it with a very high degree of precision, because every single thing in TA was logically structured. For example, any unit could guard any other object in the game. If I set unit A to guard unit B, and B to guard C, the game could handle this with ease.

    Furthermore, the use of actual ballistics for the guns was very cool - your units had to move their weapons, aim, and fire at an angle that would reach the destination. If there were obstacles in the way, the shots would fly across the map and smash into the hills around the target structure. And, as you would expect, the further away something was, the harder it got to hit.

    If they can just take the game and give it 3D terrain, DirectX or OpenGL support, updated (but not redesigned) models and effects and modern multiplayer, I'll be in heaven. So will anyone else who likes RTS for the sake of playing.

    In the mean time, if you have been into RTS games for a relatively short period of time, I urge you to go and get hold of Total Annihilation, Red Alert 1 and Red Alert 2. You don't know what you're missing!

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:They should keep the TA engine by caitsith01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Current features:

      * High resolution maps, viewable from all angles and ranges
      * Dynamic map with craters from weapon and unit explosions
      * Work with unit files from Total annihilation
      * Realistic 3D trajectories for weapons
      * Fully 3D aircombat
      * Several camera modes to suit different tastes

      Knees buckle... oooooohhhh yeeeeeaaaahhhh!

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    2. Re:They should keep the TA engine by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      In the mean time, if you have been into RTS games for a relatively short period of time, I urge you to go and get hold of Total Annihilation, Red Alert 1 and Red Alert 2. You don't know what you're missing!
      Red Alert 1 is hard to manage in comparison to TA. In particular, you are only allowed construction of one item from a set of a unit type (i.e. one infantry, one vehicle and one building.) In addition, the AI player gains its strength solely from the massive buildtime advantage that the player does not have - if you can block attack forces from any direction, you will win as long as you have a way of getting resources (e.g. crates or resource generators.)

      Red Alert 2 has a really bad AI player. It's scripted AI is much worse than Starcraft - it cannot detect that it's base is being smashed by three prism tanks until it is too late.

      A better recommendataion would have been the TA, Starcraft, and Warcraft III combo. Even if these games aren't the best, they serve as a strong foundation for a modern RTS game - if the best features of each are combined, you will have the greatest RTS ever.

      (Alternatives would be the TA, SC, and Dark Reign combo. There are problems with Dark Reign, but they are marginal compared to Red Alert. )
  10. The graphics look TOO good by samsmithnz · · Score: 1

    What am I going to need to run this? 4 Cray supercomputers?

    1. Re:The graphics look TOO good by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      What am I going to need to run this? 4 Cray supercomputers?

      No, something much more powerful: one modern graphics card! ;-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:The graphics look TOO good by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it was just me, but in the videos, especially the second one, the textures on the terrain seems to wiggle, much like on the original playstation. Is this becasue of the deformable terrain or do I need more sleep?

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
  11. Hey, check it out by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

    I do belive this is a Krogoth Experimental Assault Kbot.

    Ah, memories...

    I remember the halcyon days of my youth, stomping across the countryside, totally annihilating things in this baby. I never thought I see her again, but there she is in all her OpenGL glory!

    --
    Read Pynchon.
  12. The OTHER 4/5 of the TA Community by prezkennedy.org · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unfortunately when you get the dedicated fanboys in there doing the news for you, you miss some of the bigger picture. The TA community is much larger, and much more alive than the PlanetAnnihilation site would leave you to believe. (Why the last 3-5 topics there have all been about how that site is practically dead... and the webmaster there can't decide if he's coming or going.)

    Just in case you didn't know about the "active" community, these are better places to visit:

    http://tadesigners.com/
    http://tauniverse.com/

    And then there is always IRC for a potential game (newbies will be utterly whipped) on www.tauniverse.com:6667

    --
    It started back in Team Fortress Classic
  13. Reminds me of Boson... by Spoing · · Score: 1

    A similar war game Boson is open source, playable, though not completely done.

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  14. This was bound to happen... by way2slo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    A 3-D graphics TA port was bound to happen. The original game is THAT good. All it needs is a graphics update and it would be the best RTS on the market. Everyone should take a look at the two videos, here, before you start comparing it to WarCraft. Even StarCraft, which came out years after TA and is WarCraft's superior, was still not as good as TA.

    I still don't see why everyone thinks WC is some kind of RTS benchmark. Don't get me wrong. It is fun, but limited. Warlords Battlecry is a superior fantasy RTS. Check out the latest release here. Believe me, if you give it a try you won't go back to WC.

    I just hope this team can "pull it off".

    1. Re:This was bound to happen... by crisco · · Score: 1

      Starcraft came out approximately 6 months after TA. Starcraft's strengths were the completely disparate races available to play. TA's two factions were very similar from the beginning. What TA (Cavedog) did right was keep supplying new units and leave the game open enough to modify.

      --

      Bleh!

    2. Re:This was bound to happen... by Cuthalion · · Score: 1

      I haven't played the original, or Warlords Battlecry 3, but Warlords Battlecry 2 seemed really flawed.

      The single player campaign was really fun and compelling. But multiplayer, which is what gives RTS's staying power, IMO, was just screwed up. The persistent hero was impossible to balance. There were twelve races - which is two many to balance at all. Cosmetically none of the units looked nearly as good as StarCraft (never mind warcraft 3). Not even any of the heros had as much personality as a single Protoss probe.

      --
      Trees can't go dancing
      So do them a big favor
      Pretend dancing stinks!
    3. Re:This was bound to happen... by Sigma+7 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      All it needs is a graphics update and it would be the best RTS on the market.


      Don't count on it. If a person writes his own RTS from scratch with beautiful 3D graphics, a highly polished interface, and great game balance, it would overcome TA. While the game may have had those three elements at the time it was released, the other RTSs have managed to overcome TA in one aspect (and therefore poked holes.)

      For its time, 3D graphics were impressive. TAK surpassed that but required a powerful computer to run.

      The interface was polished - you could easily configure how you want your units to engage. However, it does have problems where your units realise that their designated target gets destroyed and stop instantly in their tracks where they stand (resulting in your units not advancing towards the battle like they should.) TA units also don't try to keep formations. In addition, it's impossible to transport all of your 100 units across a river without having to micromanage your transports.

      As for game balance - it is passable but not perfect. TA 1.0 had air units that could dominate all the time. It was fixed in TA 3.0 with the addition of flak cannons - however, the other problem of 40 Advanced Construction Planes allowing "instant-build" is still present.

      I still don't see why everyone thinks WC is some kind of RTS benchmark. Don't get me wrong. It is fun, but limited. Warlords Battlecry is a superior fantasy RTS.


      Warcraft III is a game that is designed to focus around smaller groups of units - most other games are either a strict "victory by numbers" or a variation thereof. Not only that, but managing the small groups of units was possible by an interface that was well refined (but not perfect - it took until TFT before the most major interface problems were removed, such as inability to chain research and units in the same building queue.)

      In my opinion, WBC3 still has game balance issues - for example, the high elves have a building that can cast map-wide healing for 400 crystals (and also have units that generate one crystal per second.) In this case, it's quite easy to have a single tough unit wipe out an enemy base when it is supported by the instant healing.

      Also, WBC3 appears to have buildings a bit too resistant to siege weapons - the Manticore/Scorpion shoots multiple ballistas at a building, which only takes 1 or 2 damage. While I expect this to be fixed, the first impressions of the game are generally a bit more significant for game balance.
    4. Re:This was bound to happen... by Reapy · · Score: 1

      Warcraft 2 was a benchmark. Maybe just for me. My first RTS games I ever saw were Dune 2 and the original warcraft. I eagerly awaited warcraft 2 to come out. I played it, it was great, but put it down after a while.

      Then I found this program called kali (10024 --5 digit newb). It let you play ipx games over tcp/ip. Kali + war 2 = about 3 years of my life gone. This was the first time I saw an online service for a game and got online to talk with people. The game was freaken awesome against other people. C&C was popular too, but there was something about it that wasnt as fun as war 2 to me.

      So yeah, when TA came out, I had already been playing warcraft 2 online against people for a long time. So warcraft was a benchmark. I don't see why you are saying TA did something special when it came after war2. Of coarse it's going to have more features and better graphics, it came later. Still, you cant deny that warcraft was a benchmark in rts, if simply for coming out around the time that internet gaming became popular.

      TA did some nice stuff, and maybe it set it's own benchmark in the genera, but warcraft and warcraft 2 came way before it, and those both made their own marks on the genera.

  15. Sweet looking game by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    The screenshots are nice; and i'm looking forward to try this one.

    On other topic; am i the only one who considers Dune 2 the best RTS ever?

    1. Re:Sweet looking game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    2. Re:Sweet looking game by svvampy · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Dune2 the first RTS? In any case the inability to select multiple units made the latter stages tedious when massed forces were required. Still a great game, but not as good as TA. Pity TA:Kingdoms sucked so hard.

    3. Re:Sweet looking game by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Like my cowardly anonymous friend said, Herzog Zwei (http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?name=Herzog +Zwei) is commonly refered as the first "real" RTS game. It was released for the Sega Genesis; i never played it, but quite a few friends of mine did and remeber it as being quite good.

      Dune 2, on the other hand, is the first RTS i remember seeing for the PC, and in it's time it was not only quite good, but there was nothing else like it. It has aged well (just like TA), for me atleast, and runs perfectly on DOSBox.

    4. Re:Sweet looking game by Reapy · · Score: 1

      I remember dune 2 coming out and it just blowing me away. I sucked so hard at it (was really young) and couldn't get very far without using trainers. The first time I saw a sandworm swallow up my guys crossing the desert scared the crap out of me.

      I think they eventually remade the game with better graphics, didnt they? Either way, was a great first rts. I took more of a liking to warcraft though, simply because I like the whole sword and magic thing better then sci fi.

  16. RTS Comparisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TA really has very little in common with Blizzard and Westwood/EA's RTS output.

    Now Herzog Zwei (which predated Dune 2) and Z. Those are valid comparisons. They both share TA's agressive, freeform gameplay.

    It seems unimportant to me wether the game is open source. What I care about is that it's good and does TA justice.

    The Yankspankers have been the cornerstone of the community for years and I wouldn't bat an eyelid if they decided to sell the game anyway. There have been a thousand TA2 project announcements. Lots of talk and no action. The SY's get the work done and sidestep the hype. That's a rare and wonderful thing.

  17. Good RTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really liked Dune II (Amiga). The thing that bothered me the most with the following CnC series was the crawling guys and 'balanced' units. I prefer games being balanced with physics and not arbitrary modifiers that try to mimic physics.

    Herzog Zwei (Genesis/MegaDrive) is often mentioned as the first RTS game, and it's quite fun aswell.

    TA is definately my favourite though! I mostly play it at high resolution, a 500 unit limit, 10 players on a metal map. Unfortunately the unit pathfinding gets a little jammed with that many units (Dark Reign 1 did the same).

    As for the 3D engine in the article, I think it would be interesting if they used slope, altitude, and other map data to decide what texture is used. where. Craters should be dirt. Slopes that go into the water should not be grass, but beach or cliff depending on the angle. It would be interesting with several heightmaps on top of each other, forming geological layers that are used for the deformation stuff.

  18. Not to knock the team, but... by liquiddark · · Score: 1

    I'm definitely not feeling the graphics. The content they're loading is old and sad, and the terrain engine isn't using any of the techniques that really make terrain look sweet.

    Has anyone taken a look at upcoming RTS games such as Dawn of War, or even just terrain engine demos, to see where the graphics are going? Props to the team, but in all seriousness the graphic engine isn't anything to lose your mind over.

  19. That's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The engine and content are indeed quite primitive looking. There's a version of the Spring engine that'll run prerecorded demos of TA multiplayer games and it runs beautifully on a P2 350 with 128mb RAM and a crap 3d card. And this is with a thousand units shuffling about.

    Terrangen maps look a hell of alot better than that BF1942 example does. And we'd need to get people to remodel the units. Those are just placeholder ones until they get modders generating content.

    Dawn of War is a game concerning squad tactics. We're talking 50 units at most. TA needs to support upwards of 2000.