Question about resolutions

[freddoh]

Is it conceivable, in the current state of development of Exult, to manage graphics at a different resolution. I mean if someone would take the time to update all the game graphics to a higher resolution (say, doubled), would it be a hard work to make Exult support the new graphics?

thanks,

fred

[Dominus]

why would you need this with the scalers?

[freddoh]

I guess the scaler makes an interpolation with maybe some filtering, but that does not replace high res graphics. Do you see what I mean?

[drcode]

Yes; but it's something we wouldn't consider until after the 1.00 release.

[Clock Nova]

Hell, why not get someone to render all new graphics to replace to ancient ones from the original game

[drcode]

A couple notes:

1. Shapes.vga has 1024 shapes, each with multiple frames. So there are 1000's of images to be redrawn if you do it by hand. If you use a batch tool to do it, I doubt if they'll look much better than the scaling done by Derek's scalers.

2. The art is owned by Origin, so you can't legally distribute the modified versions without permission.

[freddoh]

sure there are probably legal issues, but imagine ultima 7 with brand new 24 bits graphics playing full screen at 1280*768 -> the dream!

[drcode]

While we're dreaming, how about converting all the art to 3D models, and rewrite Exult's rendering:-)

[freddoh]

well, it's not really the same amount fo work. I guess handeling shapes of an arbitrary size is not a huge development effort, and allows totally new high res graphics, which is great. 3D rendering would involve a totally new game.

[Karl Garrison]

I'm sure if you or anyone else were to redraw all of U7's graphics in a higher resolution, you wouldn't find a problem finding someone to add high-res support to Exult. What would be great about that is that the graphics would be unencumbered, and could be freely redistributed, and also could be used to make new games.

I'm sure by the time all of the art was done, Exult would be beyond 1.0, anyway.



-Karl

[kiler]

this idea might be out of sync and insane but how about:
Faster and a more improved scaler :tadah:
Just an idea which would be easier to implement.

[Karlos]

Scalers make low-res graphics look less pixelated on a higher-res screen, but ti does not add more to the image. It's not the same thing as having higher-res graphics at all.

Btw, what's wrong with exult's scalers as they are now? There's a good variety of choices, and they seem to perform pretty well. There's no avoiding the fact that there will be some performance impact from using a scaler, however.


-Karl

[Colourless]

/me bursts out into laughter

Faster... more improved... easier to implement.... You've got to be kidding!

We didn't even MAKE the scalers in the first place. There's not a chance in hell that we'd be able to improve them... and even if we did, there is no chance at all they would be faster that what we already have.

[Dominus]

You CANNOT freely distribute the graphics from the original game. Only if you really redraw them and I don't know if I would like to play U7 if the Graphics look very different (if they would look very similar you would still be at least in a grey zone concerning copyright infringement). IMO

Scalers: there is another Scaler by Derek which has MMX optimization but that one requires a bit more work and may be someone will look into it after the 1.0 release.

[Karlos]

I assumed the original poster was talking about redrawing the graphics rather than just resizing them in an image editor. I don't see how it would be a grey area if the graphics were redrawn completely, though.


-Karl

[Dominus]

yeah, I read that like that as well. But even if you redraw the graphics they have to be different from the original ones. Even if you say, paint the picture of Mona Lisa in a smaller size it will still not be original work and you might have a hard time selling it as such. It is still copying and thus infringes on copyrights (talking about U7 graphics now, not the Mona Lisa) only the means of copying have changed.

[Karlos]

Well, I see your point, but that's only true if you try to ape the original too much. Who says the trees have to look the same, or the fences, or even the NPCs? Part of the fun would be that it would be original artwork rather than just a recreation of the old artwork, I believe.


-Karl

[drcode]

My feeling is that if someone is going to the trouble of drawing thousands of frames of art, they ought to write a completely original game so their effort isn't lost in a lawsuit.

[x-bow]

Something along the lines of NotUltima 7, the Very Dark Grey Portal?

[Clock Nova]

And part two, Ophidian Archipelago.

I was wondering, what would be the difference, as far as copyrights go, between someone rendering new U7 graphics, using the existing ones as a template, and someone recreating an Ultima in a new engine, like those guys doing U5 in the Dungeon Siege engine? Don't they have to model some of their graphics from U5 graphics?

I think an industrious group of graphic designers should divide up the U7 graphics among themselves and redraw them all!

Seriously, that would be great, but I love playing U7 just like it is, too.

Why don't so-called modern RPG's have expansive, single-scale, non-linear worlds like U7? I bought Baldur's Gate 2 and threw it down in disgust when I discovered that I could not even leave the starting city until I had met someone who gave me a quest outside of it, and then I could ONLY go to that place. There I was, staring at this big map of this beautiful countryside, and I couldn't travel through any of it. It was all artwork. I thought that this kind of game design was gone by the early 90's!

Apparently "modern" RPG players have very low standards. If I don't have the freedom to go where I want and do what I want, then playing the game is a waste of time. U7 is still the BEST RPG ever put on a computer.

[Dominus]

Spiderweb also produces some very good games. Currently I'm playing Geneforge and it is very nice

[Karlos]

I couldn't agree more with you, Clock Nova. Another thing that I really like about U7 is the conversation system. I haven't seen it done as well in any other game.


-Karl

[Clock Nova]

Yes, Spiderweb should not be forgotten, the Exile series, and now the Avernum series, also grant the player that kind of freedom that I seek, although the world in Avernum is multi-scale.

What I really want is a commercial quality RPG with the design elements of Ultima 7. That is: single-scale world, complete non-linearity, and NPCs that follow realistic schedules.

NPC scheduling is another innovation introduced by an Ultima, way back in 1986 with U5, that modern RPG makers have cast aside in favor of shopkeepers that sell wares at 3 pm AND 3 am.

What's the deal

[suraimu]

I think a better idea if you wanted to do this would be to run the tiles through an extremely advanced type of scaler/filter kind of thing and save them into new shapes. I dunno what exactly, but it would let you take advantage of an extremely highly processor intensive kind of filter without it needing to be done in realtime.

[kiler]

Why is it everytime I make a suggestion I get crap from everyone (ie: placing words in my mouth)?

I never said something is wrong with the current scalers. I just made a suggestion why does everyone have to turn everything around?

[Dominus]

because we Dragons from the r.gc.u.d. are slowly shifting over here and we just love to twist and turn everything around....

[freddoh]

Maybe I'll clarify my original post:
- supporting any size shapes: what it means is very simple: I guess the basic shape unit is fixed (ex: 32*32, just a guess, I don't know the code). This setting is maybe stored somewhere or it is implied by convention. The idea is to allow this setting to be dynamic (i.e: changed, but uniform for all the shapes). One could then build a set of shapes being 64*64. Of course, in order not to impede on the game internals, if a tree for example was represented with 4 units, it still would have to be 4 units big. So that should not change anything into the game internals (except maybe coordinates would need to be virtualized then translated) and would allow either to:
- make new hi-res graphics based on the original ones. The work would consist of the following: having a batch program resizing every shape to x time their original size using a simple resize algo (no filtering) and saving them into bmp file. Then, a patient artist would go after each bmp file and "unpixelize" them. Then an importer would rebuild a shapes file composed of the new bmp files.
- another use would be to make new style graphics. There would be a restriction though because, as before, the number of units per object couldn't change.

About the legal rights, I'd say it'd be up to the people who are making new graphics to cope with that. The Exult web site would not present or link to these new graphics.

Well, that was just an idea, because I think it requires a minimal coding effort (but I may be wrong, I don't know the code) and allows a great way of expanding Exult.

[Ben Mowbray]

I would like to see inbetweening [tweening] in Exult when you render at twice the resolution of the original. It would make the game appear to run much smother. I don't know how difficult it would be to pull off though.

As to redrawing the art? Lot of work there. I think there is alot more work than you think. Every single PC, NPC, item, device, wall, grass, tree, plant and monster?

That's alot of stuff...

Not to mention, portraits.

[nadir]

freddoh, shapes are already of an arbitrary size, apart from ground tiles which must be 8x8.