Minimap Discussion (from IGN Review thread)

Edit: Moved posts out from the previous thread, as the topic changed to discussing minimaps.

We can do this currently because we have the appropriate 3D visual cues in the form of a 3D globe. You lose these cues that allow your mind to perceive it as 3D perspective when simply projecting the shape onto a 2D rectangle - in other words, perspective & warping are two very different kinds of distortions, and they can't be equated like this.

Also, trying to control a map projection on the main screen when near the edges would be incredibly annoying. Not only would you be combating the warped nature of the terrain, but you'd have to keep swapping from one end to the other.

Fair comment. But no different from what we have currently. That distortion is occurring on the surface of your screen every game. It's clearly not the end of the world, or people would be moaning about the impossibility of playing on a sphere projected onto their screen.

And how does PIP solve the control issue? How does Civ (which is a game played on an unrolled cylinder) solve this issue? How does the current main-screen solve the issue? Why nay-say edge scroll when we already have it?

That's what I was trying to say though - the current distortion is ok, because it's perspective distortion along with visual cues that allows our brains to process it as a 3D entity, and any distortion present fits in with that, and therefore doesn't appear as distortion. Trying to do this as a map projection though has no such cues, and would simply appear warped. It's not comparable; you can't say "the distortion we already see is ok, therefore map projection distortion is too", because they are very different things. One is natural for our brain to process, because it's how we see the world. The other is not.

Not sure what you mean by PIP control issue.

Civ is made up of hexes, and is simply a flat rectangle map; it's easy to implement unlimited scrolling because it's easy to "shift" the hexes to the other side before you scroll there. PA has arbitrary 3D terrain without clear division (hexes), and then there's the question of what happens when you zoom out. Do you start seeing the same terrain multiple times? The same units? If not, then you have edges, which is jarring, with units jumping from one side to the other. Basically, Civ is not comparable.

Also, how do you unwrap planets that are no longer round due to asteroid impacts? What about other shapes? The engine isn't locked to spheres. How would this planet look unwrapped, for example: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/did-you-know-you-can-crash-moon-into-other-moon-multiple-times.64244/? And what happens if you're viewing an unwrapped map when an asteroid hits - the world would appear to warp in a mind-bending way that would make it impossible to actually tell what is going on.

There's just so many cases where unwrapping utterly fails.

And you're contradicting yourself. Because the current game is already a pseudo-3D sphere projected onto a 2D plane. So yes, that "distortion" is present on your screen, and you subliminally ignore it without ever registering it. It has nothing to do with perspective whatsoever. And those visual cues (which are objects getting smaller as they move into the "distance" and getting larger as they move into the "foreground") are not unique to the current system, and are pretty feasible to transpose.

The current game already has edge scroll. If this is a problem for the 2D projection, it's also a problem in PA as it currently is. Because current PA is a 3D object displayed on a 2D screen. What happens when you move your mouse to the edge of the screen? It's actually more complicated in the current game, because it rotates around the axis at the centre of the planet. The current game has the camera moving through multiple coordinate systems. Any kind of projection would have it moving in just one.


You're thinking very rigidly, of unwrapping into a 2D rectangle. There are more projections of 3D objects into 2D space.

Moreover, any issues with "broken" moons would have the same display problems that they currently do in the live-game. Because the live-game is a pseudo-3D object projected onto your 2D screen.

When you project it onto a flat map, you have no reference for the distortions. Take a look at this slice of the map of the earth:


Look at Africa. Now look at Greenland. Now look at their actual size relative to each other:


Now look how this appears on a globe, as you would see it in-game:

Perspective has everything to do with it. It's the perspective shown on the globe that allows up to actually see what the true difference in size between Africa and Greenland is. And the size of the units in those places reinforces this, allowing us to perceive it as an undistorted 3D sphere, even though it's on a 2D screen. You do not have this on a projected map. The distortion you see is simply the result of perspective. The distortion on a map is the result of deliberate warping of the geography to turn something that is round, flat. Your eyes and your mind cannot track that, because it's arbitrary.

Not what I was talking about when I was referring to the scrolling, it has nothing to do with the camera. A projected map has an edge. A globe has a horizon. A map edge means things that move off one side "teleport" to the other side. Wheras you just need to slightly move the camera to see units that go over the horizon.

What issues in the live game? You can see the impacts and the craters they leave easily, and you can still tell what shape they are. Please, describe how the partially destroyed moon would appear in an unwrapped view, before and after impact - only when you actually try to do this you may see that you need to seriously warp the projected view to accommodate the change. And what about planets with holes through them, ring worlds etc? All edge cases that fall apart when trying to project them.

How can you control units on a 2D map when you cannot even tell what the shape of the 3D terrain it represents is?

Did what?

Brian said none had a functional mini map. Think that is what the reply is referring too.

Didn't they all have like a functional minimap?

Like the only RTS that didn't would have to have been supcom 2's, because the map picture isn't aligned properly.

Minimap that allow you to give units order.

OHHHHHHHHHH, TA you could, but like, CNC and AOE2....I think you can give a movement order, but not like, a attack order.

C&C 2 certainlly allow you attack, I have it installed and tested it.

That's Tiberian Sun right?

Right, and I guess it is the same in RA2.

I am quite certain with a tiny bit of configuration the minimap in SupCom was a fully working PIP actually. In TA I can remember giving attack commands to bombers on the minimap.

Are you intentionally being difficult, or do you not understand what you are saying? Refer to your own emboldened text.

The game is already a projection of a 3D globe onto a 2D screen. Do you understand what that means on a fundamental level?

There is already distortion inherent to the design. The game is already a projection of a 3D object onto a 2D screen. The current azimuth stereographic projection removes angular distortion, at the cost of a distance distortion. There are two kinds of distortion.

The "globe has a horizon" isn't a problem. All you need to do is move your camera over the edge. Currently what happens is that units walk over the horizon and "move around the back of the planet". And then there's a time delay before they become visible. Unless you're using PIP, in which case they "teleport" onto a completely different projection. Not a valid objection.

The human brain will VERY quickly work out that objects that exit stage-right will reappear stage-left instantaneously. If you want to focus on the horizon area, just move your camera and create a new horizon.

So exactly. What issues in the live game? Every single objection you've raised is a critique of the current system in Planetary Annihilation. Every single objection you've raised proves that the current system implemented in PA does not work.

Why don't you tell me how the projection of the 3D object on your 2D screen appears on a 2D screen before and after impact?

Your problem is you are thinking very rigidly of this in terms of a "rectangular projection". There are many more projections out there, including the one that PA currently uses. It's a matter of translating that current implementation into an integrated solution that doesn't waste screen space while also providing a complete strategic overview for the player. Because the current implementation, where the point opposite the centre of the projection is not shown, doesn't cut the mustard, as a pattern of reviews has identified, and PIP isn't the solution it ought to be.

As you think distance distortion is the lesser of two evils, and you're already endorsing an interrupted projection, I present you with these alternatives:

1. A pair of azimuth stereographic projections
2. An unfolded icosahedron of the gnomonic projection

Both of those can be pole-lock enabled/disabled. (i.e. equator is the centre of projection/centre of view is the centre of projection)

Those two options have equal merit. Both have an angular distortion less than 10 degrees. Both of those can keep the centre of projection as the middle of the screen (as the game currently does) while also providing the full strategic overview which the UI needs, by also displaying the point directly opposite the centre of projection

My preference is the unfolded icosahedron, because by inspection the path based discontinuities seem to be lesser

Besides, isn't the planet in Planetary Annihilation not spheroid to begin with? Why not just unfold the net of the base shape, rather than going through all the difficulty of projecting it


Leaving two obvious "solutions". Improve PIP so it does exactly what it is supposed to do, consistently, all the time, with a minimal of user-input, or integrate some sort of projected "minimap" into the equation.

Now think about this - if the function of PIP is to replace the ability of people to view the azimuth projection of the planet, why not make that a default setting or easily settable setting, with a partner camera at the opposite hemispheric centre.

This comment was why I pointed out the scrolling issue. It is exactly what you are referring to.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Kiwi. We've been through this before. Just. Stop.

A 2D minimap on a 3D globe does NOT MAKE SENSE. The way they did it with PiP is amazing. Sheesh.

WTF, get off your high horse, brian, it's had too much weed for one day : D

You couldn't issue orders on the minimap in SC?

think again.

TA I don't know but i'm doubtless it must have and spring in an obvious yes.
when I first read this:

I didn't react because I thought it obviously had to be a lapsus and not worth the effort, but then you proved that thought wrong. :/

Read my post again. You responded without having time to read my post fully. Moreover, you didn't have time to get off your preconceived high horse and realise that the current PIP is an azimuth projection, without the partner camera that allows you to see the centre of the opposite hemisphere.

If the way they did it with PIP was amazing, this would not be a consistent argument across a large number of reviews from a large number of players.

No need. This is my last post before going back to my previous pattern. If people are willing to discount sensible criticism from the "external" community, refuse to notice the subtlety between "PIP is good" and "the UI needs to give the player more situational awareness", and willing to think rigidly about what will and what will not work, that's simply not my problem.

not amazing, it's nothing but the standard outcome if you don't pt any thought into it, but yeah we have put tremendous amounts of thought into it and so far nobody's thought up another solution (that's feasible)

What large number of players, Kiwi? You're the only one arguing with everyone else.

Picture in picture is exactly as advertised - it's a picture of the battlefield, inside your larger picture of the battlefield.