[IDEA] Minimap

It could be kinda interesting to test a minimap with a satelitt. So you send that up, and what it see's its your minimap. of course the down side is that its fairly late.

Or radar would give you minimap, but you can only see that something is moving now what. where as minimap satelitt actually shows you, what it see's on the minimap.

I guess I don't know for sure if it will be. Neutrino said they were experimenting with it. So they might provide the means to do so. I just think flattening things out is a slippery sloap.

Also...Doughnut shaped planets? With holes in the middle? That would be cool!

To be clear, I am not saying we actually make a flat map. What I am suggesting is a flat representation of the spherical object. Consider: The world is round, but we use flat maps to navigate it. What I am suggesting is an alternative view that can be used (for example in a second window) that represents the world as if it were flat. See below:



Becomes:



With the former (globe) view, you get a better representation of efficient attack routes because it is more geographically representative. However, with the latter (stretch) view, you can see the entire world at a glance, which will allow you to more easily respond when there are incoming threats across multiple areas. I would like to see both of these available in the game.

There are lots of threads about the subject. Considering that neutrino has said they would make something makes me interesting in seeing what the Devs will cook up.
Hopefully it will allow modders to make any type of projection they want where at least 1 default projection have been implemented from the start.

The issue with flat maps is that they show a contorted view of a planet since the top and bottom areas are stretched. This means the parts of the planet in those stretched areas would appear larger than they really are and units would move much faster across them. (See this wikipedia page for more info.)

You are exactly right and this is exactly why you would still want to use the globe view even when you have the flat map representation available. They would serve different purposes. Globe would be better for building, microing, etc., but worse for an overall broad strategic sense of what is going on.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but for me at least a flat strategic map like that would be counter productive since it would distorted the planet so bad. For example, if I built my base on the edge of where the map is cut it would look like it's spread all over the edges of the flat map. Or if I moved my army along one side of the flat map it would appear to have spread all over.

Maybe this helps:

Quite right you are. I would assume you could also set the center point of the stretch map at your base though too.

Consider: Throughout history China's maps of the world had China in the center, whereas ancient Rome had Italy at the center. I imagine you can set your own center point in this as well.

Or, of course, you simply don't have to use it at all. I just think it would be a useful option for some players. I know that for me personally, it would be very useful, even if not so much around the edges.

Yeah, I guess it could be helpful for some people. Just as long as you can turn it off. Maybe it should be a mod...

I think this projection would be the most useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection

Main features:

• This projection shows the entire map.
• Distance along the radial lines is conserved.
• It is a circle so would fit nicely in the UI.
• The neighbourhood (nearby connectedness) of every point except the antipodal point is conserved. I dislike butterfly type projections because units could 'teleport' between map segments.

For use in PA it would need a few extra features:

• We need to be able to set the center point of the projection.
• We need to be able to rotate the circle.
• A button to swap the center point with the antipodal point.
• When we are able to spawn multiple viewports it would be useful if we could spawn multiple minimaps with different center points.

I think this projection would do everything I want in a minimap. The most common use I can think of is to set the center to somewhere in your own base and then use the minimap to track incoming armies or lopsided expansion/radar coverage.

I agree. It's sad that uber needs to make a zoomed out second screen default. They will do it through, and receive hundreds of posts of gratitude, for giving players newbie friendly pre setup second window minimap style.

Doesn't this only work if the opposite end of the projection point is irrelevant?
aka Antarctica?

Define 'work'. What are your requirements for a minimap?

I think throwing around the word minimap is just legacy language creeping in.
What we are concerned with is not having a view where we can see everything.
For example, in SupCom,
Monitor #1, zoomed in for base building and closely monitored micro stuff (like drops and attacking the enemy).
Monitor #2, fully zoomed out strategic view.

To me, Monitor #2 was pretty much everything I want in a minimap.


With Monitor #2.

• I get to see everything (with sight and radar).
• I can get a strategic sense of the game and how it's flowing.
• I see major unit positions, formations.
• I see where my allies are getting attacked.
• I see where my push is succeeding.
• I see incoming enemy drops.

All of this, without having to touch Monitor #2.
Think I do NOT need to do with Strategic Zoom (minimap).

• Zoom in/out
• Twist a sphere around to see what is happening on the other side
• Zoom out to a different view type (solar system view).
• Zoom back into a different planet.

I don't have to zoom in and out.
and I sure as heck don't have to "twist a sphere" around and expand outwards into a Solar System view.


I would like to discard the term minimap since everybody just dismisses the need for it once it is brought up.

So what do I want? To see everything.
Without having to micromanage it.

That is the joy of Strategic Zoom in SupCom.

I find that level of overview absolutely necessary in a "single 2D plane" game like SupCom.

I'm currently in my GUI brainstorming mind again.
I can't really imagine playing an even MORE complex game without this kind of sweeping "i know everything" omniscience I was granted with the SupCom strategic view.

Culverin, I agree with your requirements for whatever this thing is. I call it a minimap because our requirements are quite similar to the requirements fulfilled by minimaps in other games. You could come up with a new term such as "planet overview" but that's cumbersome and you'd have to explain the term to everyone you meet.

So how does my idea fail these requirements? It has the drawback that the only completely accurate distances are those between any point and the center. I think once you get used to the projection you would have a feel for most other distances but it would not be perfect. Sometime you may have to micromanage the minimap by setting the center to a new point if you want an undistorted view of distance. Apart from that I see no major issues.

A better use of a second monitor would simply be a view of the same planet but from an antipodal camera position. 100% coverage, no distortion, no need to write special shaders.

That gives you quite a poor view of the points equally distant from the podal and antipodal points.

GoogleFrog,
I don't think your suggestion fails at all.
In fact, I think it's probably the best option we've got on the table right now.
I just wanted to point out it's not perfect, but I don't think any 1 solution ever will be.

Which doesn't matter, since those points are constantly changing, as you never keep your main view in one place. And it still provides a better view of those points than an azimuthal projection which makes speeds and ranges difficult and distracting to gauge by eye, and is counterproductively most distorted where you most need a second view to be accurate and least distorted where you least need a second view to be accurate.