Please help decide on projection

[greatkreator]

Please help decide on projection

[djcouchycouch]

what kind of game?

[greatkreator]

RTS.

However would be nice to know any opinions (disregard the genre).

[Flygon]

For an RTS, the first would produce an easier-to-see playfield.

[greatkreator]

True. It produces an easier-to-see playfield.
But my visual perception more likes the right projection. The left one looks like a bit weird to me.

Actually that's the problem to decide on:
left one: better playfield + worse appearance
vs.
right one: worse playfield + better appearance

The left one has two (less important) advantages:
- sprites move by (0,1) (1,1) (1,0) and it looks like smoothly (not (2,1) (2,0) as it would in the right one).
- sprites move in both direction with the same "visual" speed. in the right one vertical moves would be twice slower because of the constriction of the vertical axis.
But those two advantages are still too few to overcome the visual comfort of the right projection.

[cero]

Do both and let the user choose

[Stef]

In fact the left vision has many advantages and only one disadvantage (worse appearance).
You can consider left view as a "top" view mostly, so you just end with a simple 2D logic game (where X,Y can be see as X,Z but that doesn't make any difference). The right view on another hand is a 3D isometric view, and because of that the game logic is much more complex. You need to handle pseudo 3D orthogonal projection for positioning and also deal with object priorities (buildings can hide characters for instance) when you don't have to care about that with the left view. Just my 2 cents.

[r57shell]

left one looks wierd because it's not Orthographic projection.
I have no idea how to make good Orthographic projection with camera set "more top" than right image. So, it's up to you.

[greatkreator]

Yes I am aware the left is not an orthogonal projection. They call it "oblique" and "military" particularly.
The right is almost isometric.

Currently the most probable scheme is really "both" as cero "suggested".
Visual appearance of the right one and "physical" part of the left one.
It's surprising a bit but they look like quite well together.

For example StarCraft 1 uses such a scheme.

[r57shell]

For example StarCraft 1 uses such a scheme.

Really? Tell me how to enable other one? Starcraft I guess using same as everywhere starting from Rock 'n' Roll Racing: isometry (X-COM).

[greatkreator]

StarCraft 1 uses isometric visualization and "plain" 2D physics.
For example if you command two the same units to go horizontally and vertically they will do that with the same speed.
If the physics would be really isometric vertical moves would be twice slower for example as in another less popular RTS "Cossacks".

Also it's easy to see that in the map editor: for example whole the visual map has shape of a square not a rectangle.

And in Rock'n'roll racing they use both isometric visualization and physics. You can see that horizontal moves twice faster than vertical.

[r57shell]

StarCraft 1 uses isometric visualization and "plain" 2D physics.

Ah, now I got it. Yeah, physics is 2D indeed.
(while trying to check starcraft, found this awesomeness https://www.twitch.tv/certicky )

[greatkreator]

The most interesting that human perception almost doesn't notice that feature.
At least in the times when SC1 was very popular I personally had never noticed that.
I felt a bit that something was wrong and strange but that's was a very slight feeling.
The left fake-projection causes to me much more discomfort than the SC1 approach.

The problem is solved. Thanks a lot for the help!