The CUBE

[porkenbeans]

I could say the same of Chess and Checkers.

Hmm, I don't quite get the analogy... chess isn't that complicated really. Anyway, just to elaborate... your version looks really great visually, and as a work of art it's great. Especially since you didn't use comic sans anywhere this time

But I'm afraid the angle/perspective you chose just doesn't lend itself well for the map. It makes the central orbs kinda bunch up together and the connections between them are hard to grasp. Also the lack of layers is a step backward.

You know, I think you should try to develop a good background for paulk's graphics. Paulk's version already has a good and functional playable area so if you would concentrate on making a background to match it... you know, take the strong points of both designs and blend them together, something great could come of it...

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean by "lack of layers".

[natty dread]

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean by "lack of layers".

See paulk's latest version on previous page.

[paulk]

I do like porkenbeans version and I wish he had been contributing much earlier since someone knowing how to use a 3D modeling program is something I asked for before. I was contacted by him personally first and I asked him to put out his suggestions here in the forum. I am grateful he did.

But for gameplay, I think natty's perspective of the CUBE is easier to grasp when it comes to understand how regions connect.

And I don't see whats wrong with my current background? If you look up in the sky it's black with white dots for stars. The less disturbing lights you have the more stars you see.

[porkenbeans]

I do like porkenbeans version and I wish he had been contributing much earlier since someone knowing how to use a 3D modeling program is something I asked for before. I was contacted by him personally first and I asked him to put out his suggestions here in the forum. I am grateful he did.

But for gameplay, I think natty's perspective of the CUBE is easier to grasp when it comes to understand how regions connect.

And I don't see whats wrong with my current background? If you look up in the sky it's black with white dots for stars. The less disturbing lights you have the more stars you see.

Thnk you, but I only used Photoshop. It is not some CAD program, but I guess that I should be flattered by that.

[porkenbeans]

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean by "lack of layers".

See paulk's latest version on previous page.

Maybe you could be so kind as to explain?
The map is the same as the original, except that it is made using "perspective". It plays just the same, and has exactly the same amount of layers.

Here it is with the shading cranked up a touch and the background removed as well, to show you that there are indeed just as many cubes (27 with glass sides) as the original.

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

Maybe you could be so kind as to explain?

You don't have the clearly separated horizontal layers which are numbered Layer I - Layer IV. It's a visual aid which helps with the gameplay clarity.

[porkenbeans]

Maybe you could be so kind as to explain?

You don't have the clearly separated horizontal layers which are numbered Layer I - Layer IV. It's a visual aid which helps with the gameplay clarity.

Yes, they are there. It is just that ALL of the sides are clear "glass". I could make those particular levels, with a tinted glass if that will help.

Like this ?

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

]Yes, they are there. It is just that ALL of the sides are clear "glass". I could make those particular levels, with a tinted glass if that will help.

No they aren't, because you have nothing that distinguishes the horizontal layers from each other. Like you said, all your sides are glass, thus there is no distinction and the visual aid does not exist.

But like I explained earlier the lack of layers isn't even the main problem. The angle / perspective you have chosen for the cube just won't work... Try to shrink it to the small version and then try to fit the army numbers on it, then you'll probably see what I mean.

[porkenbeans]

My main problem with the original graphics is that it is NOT in 3-D as the title suggests. It is a flat 2-D image that has 0 depth dimension.

[natty dread]

Not it's not. The perspective / camera angle is simply different.

[porkenbeans]

Not it's not. The perspective / camera angle is simply different.

Wrong natty. But I understand your misconception. When I have time later I will make a tutorial on this subject for you. My friend, Art History is one of my major suites, and I will be delighted to help anyone, with whatever I can on this subject.

[natty dread]

Not it's not. The perspective / camera angle is simply different.

Wrong natty. But I understand your misconception. When I have time later I will make a tutorial on this subject for you. My friend, Art History is one of my major suites, and I will be delighted to help anyone, with whatever I can on this subject.

Oh drop the bullshit.

[porkenbeans]

Not it's not. The perspective / camera angle is simply different.

Wrong natty. But I understand your misconception. When I have time later I will make a tutorial on this subject for you. My friend, Art History is one of my major suites, and I will be delighted to help anyone, with whatever I can on this subject.

Oh drop the bullshit.

Natty, There is no need for another one of our heated arguments. So please can we keep it cordial ?

FYI, There is no "bullshit" coming from my end. I know what I am talking about, and I would be happy to explain myself to you, if you can be polite. But I do not want to waste my time, if you are going to act belligerent.

[natty dread]

I tried giving you advice on your graphics and as usual you turned it into some kind of dicksizing contest. Although I usually enjoy our heated arguments I really don't have the patience for this right now due to certain rl circumstances so I'll be brief...

3-dimensionality can never truly be achieved with 2-dimensional graphics (unless we're talking about anaglyphics and such) but the illusion of 3 dimensions can be achieved. There are various methods for this. The original cube map for example used a technique called oblique projection. Your version is using one-point perspective projection. Different tasks call for different methods. In this case, the number one criteria must be gameplay clarity, aesthetic preferences must come second. This is actually always the case with mapmaking.

[porkenbeans]

Click image to enlarge.

This is an early 17th. century painting. It is a failed attempt at perspective. It is using the same method as this current Cube map.

Click image to enlarge.

[Raskholnikov]

Pork do you realise how much time, effort and nerves you have wasted on this? With the result that exactly nothing of what you have done here will ever be used?

Not to mention you are again in the middle of a useless argument?

How about focusing on one project and making it actually work instead of trying to completely change other people's projects and antagonise them?

Just some friendly advice. Hate to see you work so much and get so involved only to see all that work of yours go to waste.

[porkenbeans]

Pork do you realise how much time, effort and nerves you have wasted on this? With the result that exactly nothing of what you have done here will ever be used?

Not to mention you are again in the middle of a useless argument?

How about focusing on one project and making it actually work instead of trying to completely change other people's projects and antagonise them?

Just some friendly advice. Hate to see you work so much and get so involved only to see all that work of yours go to waste.

I did a quick take off on the basic idea, and showed it to paulk. He asked me to post my idea in this thread. I needed a break from looking at the God map, and this cube map was a good diversion. Also it only took me a couple of hours to do.

[Raskholnikov]

Ok. I just hate to see you get upset and into arguments again, like last year.

[MarshalNey]

Click image to enlarge.

This is an early 17th. century painting. It is a failed attempt at perspective. It is using the same method as this current Cube map.

Click image to enlarge.

Look closely, Pork, and you'll notice that Paulk's cube does indeed have a vanishing point, it's just not located within the map. This is probably a good choice, as it keeps the orbs from crowding together.

A telltale sign of a vanishing point (or lack thereof) is nonparallel, convergent rays along both axis (axises? axes?). This map satisfies that condition... the vanishing point is somewhere way up and to the right.

[natty dread]

Porkenbeans, here's something for you to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_projection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_projection


Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectiv ... aphical%29

Also, marshalney is correct in that paulk's current map uses perspective with a vanishing point outside the picture. I really can't remember right now what this type of perspective is called but although it isn't the most "realistic" perspective, it is the best solution for gameplay clarity.

[paulk]

As I said, I really liked porkenbeans contribution, although I think natty's perspective is easier to grasp and it's also close to finished.
And yes, natty's perspective has a vanishing point.
It also seems to me most people prefer that perspective?

If this is ironed out, is there anything else to adjust before maybe hopefully getting this map bumped to FF?

[porkenbeans]

As I said, I really liked porkenbeans contribution, although I think natty's perspective is easier to grasp and it's also close to finished.
And yes, natty's perspective has a vanishing point.
It also seems to me most people prefer that perspective?

If this is ironed out, is there anything else to adjust before maybe hopefully getting this map bumped to FF?

Thank you paulk. I am glad to help when and if I can.

Let me try to explain without going too much into it, about "perspective". The current version is incorrect. Now that I look and study it it for more than just a glance, I understand just what it is that was bothering me so much about it.

An attempt at perspective has indeed been made. But it has only been half made.
I am not a teacher, but I will try to explain it the best way that I can.

If you Take my illustration for an example. It is what is referred to as a "1 point" projection. That is to say that the image is drawn from a dead on view. That means that the center of the object is the center of the view. The vanishing point is located at the center of the object.

As you view the object from a different vantage point, the vanishing point moves right or left, or up or down, or a combination of these.

In your attempted image, you have moved the vantage point to the right, and up. So you are looking at the subject from the right and above.

You have moved the vanishing point to the right, and you have correctly foreshortened the horizontal lines. But this is not enough, as you have not only moved the vantage point to the right, you have also moved it up so that you are slightly looking down on the subject.

This means that you must now do two things. One- you must foreshorten the vertical lines, and you must shift all of the lines along their plane that will result in a picture that has no parallel lines at all.

This is very confusing for me to explain.

The view that you have chosen IS in my opinion the best one for this project, Not dead on as in my picture. It is however much harder to draw correctly.

I will not try to illustrate it, as that would take a whole lot of effort. Maybe I can find a good example to cut and paste for you.

...stay tuned.

[natty dread]

Porkenbeans, you just don't get it.

The perspective is correct, it's a correct projection of it. What you are talking about is a two-point perspective, and this image is not shown in two-point perspective. It is an one-point perspective where the vanishing point is outside the image. Ie. the image has been panned to the southwest. I can not explain this any clearer as I am stoned as f*ck.

So just stop assuming you know better than everyone else because you don't.

[porkenbeans]

Porkenbeans, you just don't get it.

The perspective is correct, it's a correct projection of it. What you are talking about is a two-point perspective, and this image is not shown in two-point perspective. It is an one-point perspective where the vanishing point is outside the image. Ie. the image has been panned to the southwest. I can not explain this any clearer as I am stoned as f*ck.

So just stop assuming you know better than everyone else because you don't.

Sorry friend, but it is you that do not know what the hell you are talking about.

Take a look at the "2 point" projection in my tutorial. It's the green one. This is an example of a side on view. This becomes a 3 point when you move the vantage point up.

It is clear that you do not understand the concept at all.

A side on view IS a two point, But this view is also moved up, which makes it NOT a 2 point but a 3 point. AND a 3 point does NOT have any parallel lines at all.

[natty dread]

Sorry friend, but it is you that do not know what the hell you are talking about.

Take a look at the "2 point" projection in my tutorial. It's the green one. Please show me where there are ANY parallel lines.

Just stop. Please. You're not getting it. I would draw you a diagram but I can't be bothered. Maybe tomorrow if I have time.

There are various types of graphical projection. Non-parallel and parallel projections are both acceptable techniques for 3d-representation. The projection method chosen for the map fullfills it's purpose. It is in fact a perspective projection with a hypothetical camera angle. (Sorry not sure if it's correct english term, cbb to check) so please.

I have studied art & art theory you know. You keep throwing around that you are an artist and know art history and stuff like that and then act like you know everything better because of it. I don't appreciate that attitude, because you just assume other people don't know things that you do.

Please drop that attitude and we'll get along better again. Much gracias, hombre.

Peace.