Featured Games
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Engines
Resources
Engine Bulletins
Links
What is Makerscore?
Store
RMN Music Pack
Event History
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
The Latest
RMN TV
#rpgmaker.net IRC
New to RMN?
Profile
LockerNEWBLACK'S PROFILE
Close
Great, great minds, against themselves - conspire.
Post your Music
Some loop I did tonight because I felt like making a muzak.
Tracks were improvised/live input'd (except drum track) so the timings are loose/dodgy. It makes me think of spooky skeletons.
Edit: Minor update to the mixing now.
Crap suggestion that probably isn't even possible but would be cool - support MS
author=Biggamefreak
I think I would not be a fan of the idea. Having makerscore in discourse would feel like a popularity contest for the most agreeable posts (or whoever the OP agrees with most).
I totally agree on this point which is why I would insist it be limited to "Found this post helpful" rather than "I like you/this"
Even still I suppose it would have the potential for abuse so you have a point.
Crap suggestion that probably isn't even possible but would be cool - support MS
I kinda like this idea. Over at conceptart.org they have a system akin to "likes" on posts but instead of just "I like this" it's "I found this useful" - posts have small messages beneath them saying "# users found this post helpful".
Simple implementation but without devolving into facebook style likespam.
Simple implementation but without devolving into facebook style likespam.
The Screenshot Topic Returns
More hide tags.
Well, At least to my eyes, Lockez's attempt to reconcile the issue lead to a result that looks more "wrong" than the original. For the record I do tend to extend my staircases but most often only by a single tile, Lockez's imposition of correct real-world logic on an impossible-in-real-life projection made it look far worse as far as I am concerned (and by far worse I mean having far less real world verisimilitude). Also I wouldn't say the original example "looked wrong" and if we're going by your standards then "looking wrong" is the only significant factor here (and the reason it doesn't look wrong despite actually being incorrect by real-world standards is precisely because of the effects of the abstraction).
You can represent 3d in a 2d medium, obviously. But all projections are abstractions and you have to play by the rules of the abstraction rather than the rules of reality in order to achieve a satisfying visual semblance of reality. What you said about "extend a little" is right in my books, Lockez extended it too much in the service of applying assumptions derived from reality which were incompatible with the representation and thus made it look worse.
Well, At least to my eyes, Lockez's attempt to reconcile the issue lead to a result that looks more "wrong" than the original. For the record I do tend to extend my staircases but most often only by a single tile, Lockez's imposition of correct real-world logic on an impossible-in-real-life projection made it look far worse as far as I am concerned (and by far worse I mean having far less real world verisimilitude). Also I wouldn't say the original example "looked wrong" and if we're going by your standards then "looking wrong" is the only significant factor here (and the reason it doesn't look wrong despite actually being incorrect by real-world standards is precisely because of the effects of the abstraction).
You can represent 3d in a 2d medium, obviously. But all projections are abstractions and you have to play by the rules of the abstraction rather than the rules of reality in order to achieve a satisfying visual semblance of reality. What you said about "extend a little" is right in my books, Lockez extended it too much in the service of applying assumptions derived from reality which were incompatible with the representation and thus made it look worse.
The Screenshot Topic Returns
You know what assumptions do.
I'll hide tag this so as to not bump the screens to death with rambling.
No, it's not fair to assume the view point is around 45 degrees at all, the abstraction is trying to portray something like that (as in - "that is exactly what you're supposed to think") but it does it in a manner that is only possible on a two-dimensional display (sort of an inverse of AE's take). You will never encounter infinite parallels in any viewpoint that could be taken by any real-world observer, so it is futile to work within the framework that the observer in a parallel projection is viewing anything akin to what a disembodied 45-degree angled observer would see in any known real-world frame of reference.
The abstraction is there to facilitate a moving vantage point as you correctly said (Mawk, I mean). However you can't make the leap to using rules based on a hypothetical observer that would be viewing the scene "as if it were real"
My point, if I have one, is that because it is a total abstraction there are areas where it breaks down entirely and leads to contradictory yet simultaneously correct possibilities. The error isn't in any of your arguments but in your attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies in a fundamentally limited abstraction in the first place - In other words I'm saying you're correct in identifying the problems raised by RM's POV but incorrect in your efforts to reconcile them to make sense in real world way. (and @Mawk again, Judging by your picasso remark I'll assume you're just as familiar with the sort of impossible/contradictory yet internally consistent images Escher managed to create by playing with the limitations of projections of 3d within a 2d medium).
tis a blivet.
End of ramble.
I'll hide tag this so as to not bump the screens to death with rambling.
No, it's not fair to assume the view point is around 45 degrees at all, the abstraction is trying to portray something like that (as in - "that is exactly what you're supposed to think") but it does it in a manner that is only possible on a two-dimensional display (sort of an inverse of AE's take). You will never encounter infinite parallels in any viewpoint that could be taken by any real-world observer, so it is futile to work within the framework that the observer in a parallel projection is viewing anything akin to what a disembodied 45-degree angled observer would see in any known real-world frame of reference.
The abstraction is there to facilitate a moving vantage point as you correctly said (Mawk, I mean). However you can't make the leap to using rules based on a hypothetical observer that would be viewing the scene "as if it were real"
My point, if I have one, is that because it is a total abstraction there are areas where it breaks down entirely and leads to contradictory yet simultaneously correct possibilities. The error isn't in any of your arguments but in your attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies in a fundamentally limited abstraction in the first place - In other words I'm saying you're correct in identifying the problems raised by RM's POV but incorrect in your efforts to reconcile them to make sense in real world way. (and @Mawk again, Judging by your picasso remark I'll assume you're just as familiar with the sort of impossible/contradictory yet internally consistent images Escher managed to create by playing with the limitations of projections of 3d within a 2d medium).
tis a blivet.
End of ramble.
The Screenshot Topic Returns
I AM DOING GAM MAK also someone to draw robits for me
Converting tilesets from XP (or RM2K3) to VX
You probably know this stuff but here:
Didn't bother adding the "tile w/ main and corners" on the horizontal edge because it seemed obvious based on the vertical.
That pretty much applies to floors, ceilings and stuff like that.
If you're doing a wall then only the bottom part will matter (the bottom square section including the main tile, edges and corners) and the auto-corners will be only used on the corresponding ceiling tiles for those walls. Obviously also with walls you can choose to design a wall that doesn't need to tile vertically if you only intend to use it at "default height".
Also I probably used the term "tile" a bit loosely here. When any of the sections isn't self-tiling (so say, an edge to the main tile) it just needs to you know... not look shit where they join together (because there will only be one way in which they join up). Whereas self-tiling needs to actually tile properly in whatever directions they tile in (all four for the main tile, and either horizontally or vertically for the edges). God, I suck at explaining things. Sorry.
Edit - More terrible and probably confusing diagrams.
That's basically the way things need to "tile" for it to make sense and work. The arrows represent the directions in which the sections need to have seamless tiling or at least look decent when they repeat. I've stretched the autotile out to illustrate the ways that the sections repeat when you use autotiles.
Autotile Template.
Didn't bother adding the "tile w/ main and corners" on the horizontal edge because it seemed obvious based on the vertical.
That pretty much applies to floors, ceilings and stuff like that.
If you're doing a wall then only the bottom part will matter (the bottom square section including the main tile, edges and corners) and the auto-corners will be only used on the corresponding ceiling tiles for those walls. Obviously also with walls you can choose to design a wall that doesn't need to tile vertically if you only intend to use it at "default height".
Also I probably used the term "tile" a bit loosely here. When any of the sections isn't self-tiling (so say, an edge to the main tile) it just needs to you know... not look shit where they join together (because there will only be one way in which they join up). Whereas self-tiling needs to actually tile properly in whatever directions they tile in (all four for the main tile, and either horizontally or vertically for the edges). God, I suck at explaining things. Sorry.
Edit - More terrible and probably confusing diagrams.
That's basically the way things need to "tile" for it to make sense and work. The arrows represent the directions in which the sections need to have seamless tiling or at least look decent when they repeat. I've stretched the autotile out to illustrate the ways that the sections repeat when you use autotiles.
Autotile Template.
Can someone explain basic CSS
Submitted Items
 Games - Developer |
 Games - Tester |
 Games - Other |
 Reviews |
 Media |
 Articles |
 Tutorials |
 Scripts |
 Utilities |
| Statuses |
 Posts |
