Moderator: Cartographers
natty_dread wrote:Ok, I have been fiddling with my balls and trying to stick numbers on them...however my balls were still too small so I had to stretch my balls a bit. Overall I'm happy with my balls now...
(ok, this is getting old...)
natty_dread wrote:I've been thinking... does the oblique perspective bother anyone? IMO It seems a bit unnatural... I could take a shot at creating a true 3d perspective.
(In case you don't know what I'm talking about, -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_projection )
army of nobunaga wrote:This is what I was trying to explain on page 20 or so. I just dont have the terminology. To me it never looked 3d really unless I tryed to make it 3d in my mind. That is why I kept saying put stuff (artwork) in the middle of it and other tricks.
paulk wrote:For everybodys knowledge, I initially called the balls for spheres, but that wasn't "liked" and then they were called vortexes, but I think that is a too complex word (and long) so I went back to calling them balls.
paulk wrote:About the grid. Is it possible to make the grid to squares (like before) instead of rombs (as it is now)?
paulk wrote:About the names. I notice we have 4 of each now. How is that supposed to be changed?
Could you show a version of the "center perspective"? maybe its possible to extend the length deep wise (from light green to blue) to make the back center balls more visible? or make the cube slightly "cone shaped" in the 3d program to reach the same effect.
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users