The CUBE

[natty dread]

Ok I'm back now, if you still need a cube rendered in actual perspective I can work on it.

[paulk]

yes.
hope you had a good vacation.

[natty dread]

I did, thanks.

Ok here's what I got, took me maybe 30 minutes to make... (although I did have 2 weeks to figure out how to make it )

If the angle is good we can add orbs by hand (it works better that way, the tool I'm using works best for wire frames and planes)

Click image to enlarge.

[ender516]

That should satisfy anyone's need for true perspective. Can it put the layer labels on (the Roman numerals), or is that better done with another tool? Speaking of which, the top layer is so flat that its label may be hard to read. Hmm, now that I look at it, the vertical wall on the right hand side (where the D orbs will be) is also very nearly flat. Will there be enough clearance for the orbs? Perhaps the camera position should move up and to the right in order to open up the view of the top and side a bit.

[natty dread]

Perhaps the camera position should move up and to the right in order to open up the view of the top and side a bit.

Yes, but that has the danger of overlapping the III and IV layers...

Can it put the layer labels on (the Roman numerals)

Yes, that won't be a problem.

For the orbs, I was thinking, how about making them "blurry" and slightly translucent, so that they would look like orbs of light or plasma balls or something...

[ender516]

Perhaps the camera position should move up and to the right in order to open up the view of the top and side a bit.

Yes, but that has the danger of overlapping the III and IV layers...

True. It's the kind of thing you can best do interactively, tilting, turning, and zooming until it looks right. I guess I'll leave it to your eyes. I will say that I did find porkenbeans' version (square on, one vanishing point) very dramatic, and I thought a bit of tweaking to avoid overlap in the middle might have made it viable.

Is there some control of the focal length of the camera in your 3D software which would alter the perspective at all? I'm referring to the different look you get from a telephoto lens far away from an object versus that from a wide-angle lens close in. The object is just as wide in either frame, but the telephoto flattens the image and the wide-angle emphasizes differences in distance from the lens.

For the orbs, I was thinking, how about making them "blurry" and slightly translucent, so that they would look like orbs of light or plasma balls or something...

Might be worth a try, but the orbs we had seemed good enough.

[natty dread]

Is there some control of the focal length of the camera in your 3D software which would alter the perspective at all? I'm referring to the different look you get from a telephoto lens far away from an object versus that from a wide-angle lens close in. The object is just as wide in either frame, but the telephoto flattens the image and the wide-angle emphasizes differences in distance from the lens.

As a matter of fact yes there is. It is named as "camera angle" but it is exactly what you are talking about, you get to define the camera angle by 0,1 degree accuracy. And I did use this feature when I created the image.

Btw my "3d software" is just a paint.net plugin and it only renders cubes, spheres and cylinders and texture maps them... luckily you can use transparency and define the dimensions as you like, this way you can make a bit more complex shapes if you have the patience. The downside is that you have to build the image from several blocks, and if you want to change the angle or something you'll have to do everything from scratch.

Might be worth a try, but the orbs we had seemed good enough.

Here's my try

Click image to enlarge.

btw I tested it with enlarged 88:s - they all should fit even in the small version.

[ender516]

Well the Roman numerals are quite legible. In my mind they were much smaller, only lying on the central square, maybe one-third the size they are here, but this is much better. I'm not sure about the ghostly orbs. Before I pictured them as structural elements, but now they seem ectoplasmic. And will they translate well to the legend?

[paulk]

Can you make a CUBE where the camera angle is much further away?
It would create less difference between the layers and therefore less crowding.

It would look more like the angle of my last CUBE, but still be true 3D. This one is too close up.

Thanks though

[natty dread]

Yeah... I'll see if I have time to work on it today (my gf wants me to participate in cleaning the house, can you imagine.)

I think it's best that we proceed with a simple wireframe for now until we find an angle that is just right, we can add the fancy stuff later...

[natty dread]

Can you make a CUBE where the camera angle is much further away?

As requested... here's the wireframe:

Click image to enlarge.

Is this satisfactory? I used a really narrow camera angle, 8 degrees.


edit--- made an alternative with an even narrower angle of 5 deg. this is even closer to the original cube...

Click image to enlarge.

[paulk]

The second one is better, but can you render it with the camera position slightly more to the left so that the top to bottom lines not overlap each other?
Now the a4 and b1 lines are way to close to each other.
Also, can you keep the files large and the lines thin, or keep an extra large copy? I will use it as a model for the next CUBE so it's better that way.

Good job otherwise.

[natty dread]

yeah will do

[natty dread]

Click image to enlarge.

[paulk]

That's better, but still not the perfect angle.
I'll add an image to illustrate my point.
On the image below you see both wireframes on top of each other.
Look at the distance between layer4:a4 and layer3:b1 and also between layer2:c4 and layer1:d1
You will see that the distance is much too small.
So the camera angle should be slightly more down left.
Thanks

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

Click image to enlarge.

[squishyg]

i voted yes in the poll and i should get what i want. and what i want is to play this map.

[paulk]

I wish it was that easy.

[natty dread]

So is the last one I posted satisfactory or should I tweak it more?

[paulk]

It is very close.
Can you give me a bigger image (like double the size h*w) with much thinner lines (like 1 px)?
and also, is it much trouble to make an extra copy with the orbs fitted in the crossings?

[paulk]

and if you feel like it, see if you can adjust the camera position so you get as close to the "original CUBE" as possible, if you see what I mean.
In your version the top layer is "bigger" than the original for example. So maybe a sliiiiiiiiightly closer camera angle?

[natty dread]

Hm, I'll see what I can do. Not sure if I can finish it before tomorrow though.

[paulk]

it's been over 2.5 yrs. one day more is nothing.

[natty dread]

how's this

Click image to enlarge.

[porkenbeans]

Can not see the whole thing on my small monitor.