LittleBigPlanet 2 - 3 - Vita - Karting #1
3rd Person Camera Views looking more likely
Archive: 77 posts
| I totally forgot about this picture, but here in a 1up preview http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3179211 They show a picture of the caterpillar game. It doesn't seem to be completely top-down perspective, but almost angled a bit, and it looks a bit zoomed in...and it seems to be following one Sackperson in the middle, not the others...so maybe this camera follows the character in that perspective. At this rate, we could create open-world 3D games. If we could stick the camera onto a Sackperson, Sackbot, or object, we could have first-person viewing angles. http://www.1up.com/media/03/8/0/9/lg/632.jpg What would really make this spectacular is if we can change these perspectives on the fly. Say I'm making a level and I want to transition from a 2D platforming segment into a triggered 3D battle arena by flipping the gravity/perspective to the way it is in that picture. You could technically have battle transitions. | 2010-05-17 19:08:00 Author: jjmusicman  Posts: 234 |
| The transition thing they've already shoen in the trailer, so ya. And perhaps the camera is not following the others because they're not players but sackbots? I mean who know how it all works yet, could be anything. | 2010-05-17 19:15:00 Author: Silverleon  Posts: 6707 |
| Nah, we saw the camera rotate 90 degrees. That's not what I meant. We haven't seen whether we can change the perspective/orientation of gravity on the fly. Change it from a 2.5D, typical, LBP1 mode with gravity pulling downwards, to a top-down mode with gravity pulling towards the background. | 2010-05-17 19:26:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| We haven't seen whether we can change the perspective/orientation of gravity on the fly. Change it from a 2.5D, typical, LBP1 mode with gravity pulling downwards, to a top-down mode with gravity pulling towards the background. I very much doubt this. The difference between a 2D physics system and a 3D physics system is a quite a lot. TBH, I would expect that to create the system that you are after you would need to set gravity to 0 and implement "gravity" in what is typically the Z axis by using the layer-shifting features. | 2010-05-17 19:32:00 Author: rtm223  Posts: 6497 |
| If this is true, LBP2 will be one of the best games of all time! OF ALL TIME! | 2010-05-17 19:33:00 Author: Stephanie_Ravens  Posts: 188 |
| I very much doubt this. The difference between a 2D physics system and a 3D physics system is a quite a lot. TBH, I would expect that to create the system that you are after you would need to set gravity to 0 and implement "gravity" in what is typically the Z axis by using the layer-shifting features. The physics system? They already have a physics system down (LBP1 had some of the most realistic game physics available), they just restricted it to three layers. But with LBP2 they have already defined a physics system for gravity oriented towards the background. You can see in the kart-racing clip how cardboard boxes tumble over in 3D space as you knock them with your kart. http://i43.tinypic.com/1z4g9y9.png Gravity isn't set to zero, it's been "redefined" as Mm puts it, by having the source of gravity be the background, and not the floor. | 2010-05-17 19:56:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| The physics system? They already have a physics system down (LBP1 had some of the most realistic game physics available), they just restricted it to three layers. no, it's not a 3D system limited to 3 layers, it's a 2d physics system extended out into layers, which has half the number of degrees of freedom (3 vs 6) and requires an entirely different set of calculations to 3D. That's the differentiation I am making. But with LBP2 they have already defined a physics system for gravity oriented towards the background. You can see in the kart-racing clip how cardboard boxes tumble over in 3D space as you knock them with your kart. [image] Gravity isn't set to zero, it's been "redefined" as Mm puts it, by having the source of gravity be the background, and not the floor. Which vid is that from, because on the main one it looks like the boxes merely move in 2D as far as I can tell. I didn't see any 3D physics, but maybe I missed something. | 2010-05-17 20:25:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
You can't make the gravity work from front to back. There is no 'real' top down view. You can just fake it by creating it so it looks that way. It is all done with clever perception  | 2010-05-17 20:33:00 Author: jackofcourse  Posts: 1494 |
| no, it's not a 3D system limited to 3 layers, it's a 2d physics system extended out into layers, which has half the number of degrees of freedom (3 vs 6) and requires an entirely different set of calculations to 3D. That's the differentiation I am making. And why would they have 3D navigation if physics was still limited to a 2D system? That doesn't make any sense. Which vid is that from, because on the main one it looks like the boxes merely move in 2D as far as I can tell. I didn't see any 3D physics, but maybe I missed something. 1:12 of the reveal trailer http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/1230/lbp2physics.jpg The boxes move around in 3D space. When the game comes out, it will have been nearly 2 years since they started working on this. If they were going to implement a feature that incorporates a full 3D area to move around in, why would they limit the physics to 2D? I don't see the sense in that. After all, with water, they went all out with incorporating special physics for that feature. You can't make the gravity work from front to back. There is no 'real' top down view. You can just fake it by creating it so it looks that way. It is all done with clever perception That's not true. There is a difference. You see Sackboy's head from above. Therefore, his feet are planted on the background wall. Therefore, gravity is defined to pull towards the background. You can see in that picture that the gravity is defined towards the bare background containing TVs. That is completely different from the rotation of the camera seen when Sackgirl on the Dragonfly turns upwards, because she is still seen from a side-view, not with the top of her head being shown. This http://www.1up.com/media/03/8/0/9/lg/632.jpg is different from this http://i44.tinypic.com/34ynwa8.gif In the kart racing example, you see the karts fall through layers in 3D space, as the ramps build upwards and then the karts drop off in the jump and fall back down to the ground, which happens to be the background scenery. Tom Molecule also confirmed at NeoGAF "The more eagle eyed amongst you would've spied info about gravity tweakers in screenshots / interviews that are out there... Take away or re-define gravity and you get a whole new perspective on things "http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21245999&postcount=2225 In short, gravity can be pulled towards the background instead of the floor, causing everything to orient in that direction. | 2010-05-17 20:36:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| The boxes move around in 3D space. Not as far as I can see on the vid (I am using a very old / crap laptop however), and it's not shown in that image, that anything is moving in 3d, they just slide along the floor, in 2 dimensions. They don't translate or rotate beyond what you would typically expect from a 3D mechanic. Or at least as far as I can see. The ramps are a curiousity, but I still think that is an extension of the layer shifting mechanic. From what I am aware of at the current time, LBP2 will still be 2.5D, but a more sophisticated version. It could be that the layer shifting will actually be a fully functional translation in the third dimension, which would be fantastic, but I'm not seeing a 3D engine here, more a 2.5D engine with some trickery to make it feel closer to 3D. | 2010-05-17 20:45:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| The boxes don't move in '3d space' they are just one layer thick...the same as the cars...so when the car hits them they move. As I said in my previous post, there is no new special physics engine, it is simply just built to look like a top down view | 2010-05-17 20:47:00 Author: jackofcourse Posts: 1494 |
| Not as far as I can see on the vid (I am using a very old / crap laptop however), and it's not shown in that image, that anything is moving in 3d, they just slide along the floor, in 2 dimensions. They don't translate or rotate beyond what you would typically expect from a 3D mechanic. Or at least as far as I can see. Well even if they didn't, that has little to do with whether gravity orients towards the background (which it does, as kart-racing screenshots show built ramps for the karts to drive over and then fall off of, falling towards the background), nor the topic of third-person cameras being confirmed So I'm curious what we're even talking about The boxes don't move in '3d space' they are just one layer thick... Height would still have to stick to three layers (therefore, a column of boxes could only be 3-boxes tall) but that has nothing to do with the fact that they are moving around. And if you made a column of boxes 3-boxes tall, if you pushed the lower layer, the top layer would HAVE to come tumbling down, otherwise it's a laughably faulty physics system. there is no new special physics engine, it is simply just built to look like a top down view Mm has confirmed in various interviews that you can tweak the physics system, turn off gravity, or re-define it to a new position, so I wouldn't say that the physics engine is exactly the same as before. | 2010-05-17 20:49:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| They wouldn't have to drop down automatically. And if they do that's not a 3D system. The question is whether gravity can be defined towards the background and I see no real evidence to support that. I'm certain the camera angles will allow for a 3rd person view point and I'm pretty stoked for that, but gravity pulling into the background is another matter (which you brought up) and full 3D physics is even less supported by the evidence available. From what I've seen you will be able to do your battle arena, but if you want things falling down towards the background, then you may need to do a bit of the work for yourself | 2010-05-17 21:01:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| Jjmusicman, it's one thing to speculate on what you think might be included, but you're coming up with theories and declaring them as though they're fact. The way I see it, it can go two ways: all of the cool stuff we've seen in the top down levels are accomplished be re-orienting gravity toward the background, or it's all accomplished by using the game's tools to make it look like you're re-orienting gravity toward the background. Consider the evidence. We've seen rats, caterpillars, and cars all seemingly drive on the back wall and we've seen sackboy sit in control seats as though gravity were pulling toward the back wall. The cars appear to lose traction when they hit oil slicks. We have seen a flying wasp vehicle and a... flamingo? (or whatever that bird thing was) flying, apparently completely unaffected by gravity. We have seen at least one object make a transition from one layer to another. We have NOT seen sackboy standing on the backwall. It's obvious that IF gravity could be reoriented toward the background, everything we've seen in the cart racing segment would be explained, so we don't need to analyze that theory too much. So let's take a look at the theory that gravity doesn't pull into the background. The tools exist to free an object from gravity and cause it to move up/down/left/right in response to inputs (from a dcs or other input). With those tools, it would be easy to make a car, rat, caterpillar seem to drive on the back wall. We've seen in a screenshot that the dcs has a toggle for side seat (or whatever it said: can't remember specifically), which I speculated indicated the orientation sackboy would sit in the seat: if you mount a dcs on top of a vehicle, sackboy will sit facing up, but if you mount it on the side (as shown in the shot of sackboy driving the big bot), his head would point up toward the camera (to the player's pov) unless it were tweaked so that the seat was considered a side seat (note that this tweak was enabled in the afore-mentioned screenshot). So we've established that the cars, rats, and caterpillars can all be accomplished without changing gravity. Then there's the ramps. We don't know much about them at this point: they may be special objects that force other objects to layer change, or there may be logic in those parts of the level that simply moves the kart from one layer to another. We may also have logic to instruct an object to stay in one layer unless forced out of it (like sackboy with a jetpack or underwater, but reversed). We simply don't know enough about the ramps to confirm anything, but we can't discount the possibility that they have been set up to work without changing gravity. Lastly, we have the car's apparent traction and loss thereof. It is not unreasonable to assume that we can define a flying object's (remember, these objects are basically flying if they're not being pulled by gravity toward the back wall) abilities to move in any direction. We may be able to give it the ability to move forward/backward, but not left/right, or only a limited amount of left right. This kind of thing could actually be accomplished in lbp1 with some clever logic and a cornerstone piston rig (though it would be a royal pain to set up and its responses would be a bit sluggish). Now let's take Tom's quote and your conclusion about it. Tom Molecule also confirmed at NeoGAF "The more eagle eyed amongst you would've spied info about gravity tweakers in screenshots / interviews that are out there... Take away or re-define gravity and you get a whole new perspective on things "http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21245999&postcount=2225 In short, gravity can be pulled towards the background instead of the floor, causing everything to orient in that direction. He said we could take away or re-define gravity. He did not say that we could re-define its direction. Without further elaboration, we are left with a few possibilities: we can re-define the strength of gravity (low traction, high jumps, etc), we can re-define the orientation of gravity, or both. He didn't give us enough to be sure either way. The way he said "you get a whole new perspective..." does seem to support the gravity orientation thing, but it's still not conclusive. In short, we don't yet know what we can do with gravity. And then there's Jackofcourse, who is a well respected creator, has made some phenomenal levels, and has been awfully cryptic in some of his comments about lbp2, while coming across like he knows more than he's letting on. I haven't seen him directly say that he's working for Mm as a level designer or anything, but I kind of get that impression, so I figure he probably wouldn't make a definitive statement without knowing what he's talking about. | 2010-05-17 21:47:00 Author: Sehven  Posts: 2188 |
| The question is whether gravity can be defined towards the background and I see no real evidence to support that. Wait a second, what do you mean? The evidence is staring you blue in the face. There is a picture in the OP where Sackboy is riding a caterpillar that is moving along the background wall, with Sackboy positioned to where we see the top of his head. You don't see evidence that says that gravity is pulling towards the background? Sackboy's feet are planted onto the background...you can't do that unless gravity is now pulling in that direction. Otherwise, Sackboy would be upright. I'm going to make some simple diagrams. http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1073/lbp2gravity.jpg http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/8950/lbp2gravity2.jpg Does that make sense? If gravity was not oriented to the background, the cardboard boxes in the racing video would automatically fall downward instead of slide around sticking to the background. If gravity was not oriented to the background, Sackboy would be seen from a side view, not a top-down view, like in this: http://i44.tinypic.com/34ynwa8.gif There is simply no other explanation for Sackboy to be walking...well...moving (since we haven't seen him "walking" at that angle, but it can be assumed that he can, I suppose) at an angle like that if the gravity wasn't pulling him in that direction. We have NOT seen sackboy standing on the backwall. How does that matter? Sackboy is still in a completely rotated position. all of the cool stuff we've seen in the top down levels are accomplished be re-orienting gravity toward the background, or it's all accomplished by using the game's tools to make it look like you're re-orienting gravity toward the background. Those are both essentially the same thing because they accomplish the exact same thing. In short, we don't yet know what we can do with gravity. Of course not, that's why I'm speculating. | 2010-05-17 21:59:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| The gravity does NOT switch to a background panel. Just set the gravity to 0 and make the background look like terrain. It's as simple as that, I don't see why there has to be an argument over it. EDIT: Also, we have no evidence of Sackboy walking on a background. We see him driving in direct control seats, but you can modify them to change the position of the "seat" anyways. | 2010-05-17 22:08:00 Author: Sack-Jake  Posts: 1153 |
| The gravity does NOT switch to a background panel. Just set the gravity to 0 and make the background look like terrain. It's as simple as that, I don't see why there has to be an argument over it. If you turned gravity off, everyone would just float. Sackboy's position would not completely rotate to where you only see the top of his head as he moves along the background wall. The cardboard boxes in kart racing would not stop, they would slide indefinitely in one direction if gravity was turned off. That much is obvious, because there would be nothing to hold anything in any place. | 2010-05-17 22:16:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| I am almost positive the reason why the top of Sackboy's head is facing the screen, is because of the Direct Control Seats. Other than that, I can't seem to explain anything else  | 2010-05-17 22:29:00 Author: Frinklebumper  Posts: 941 |
| If you turned gravity off, everyone would just float. Sackboy's position would not completely rotate to where you only see the top of his head as he moves along the background wall. The cardboard boxes in kart racing would not stop, they would slide indefinitely in one direction if gravity was turned off. That much is obvious, because there would be nothing to hold anything in any place. It's zero gravity, it floats there, then moves when it collides with something. Simple as that. It's behaving like pink floaty. The car probably goes up ramps by changing layers. | 2010-05-17 22:32:00 Author: Unknown User  |
| Wait a second, what do you mean? The evidence is staring you blue in the face....I'm going to make some simple diagrams. We understand what you're saying. The diagrams were unnecessary (but pretty cool looking )There is simply no other explanation for Sackboy to be walking...well...moving (since we haven't seen him "walking" at that angle, but it can be assumed that he can, I suppose) at an angle like that if the gravity wasn't pulling him in that direction. How does that matter? Sackboy is still in a completely rotated position. I offered an alternate explanation. He's only seen in that rotated position when in a dcs, and there's a side-seat tweak in the dcs which is enabled in the screenshot where he's not sitting with his feet toward the bottom of the seat object (the one where he's riding on the front of a sackbot). Those are both essentially the same thing because they accomplish the exact same thing. Not exactly. If gravity is changeable, then sackboy can walk on the background, we can give him a paintball gun and do an isometric shooter... which would be AWESOME!! If gravity cannot be re-oriented, then sackboy canNOT walk on the background and isometric shooters can only be accomplished using vehicles... which is still awesome, but not quite as awesome as having the option to let sackboy walk around on his own OR drive a vehicle. Of course not, that's why I'm speculating. Perhaps I misunderstood your tone then. It seemed to me that you had reached a conclusion and were declaring it as fact (also you posted this in the news forum instead of the speculation one). I want sackboy to be able to walk on the background too, but we just don't know that it'll be possible yet, and we've got an outright denial from jack, who may or may not be on the inside with Mm (he didn't respond when I said he gave an nda-style answer, but he did click the "thanks" button on my post so read what you will into that). | 2010-05-17 22:33:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| It's zero gravity, it floats there, then moves when it collides with something. Simple as that. It's behaving like pink floaty. Except the cardboard doesn't collide anything to stop moving, it just stops after it's been moved. Something that wouldn't happen with zero-gravity, I believe. We understand what you're saying. The diagrams were unnecessary (but pretty cool looking ) Sorry haha I have a hard time explaining what I mean verbally. I offered an alternate explanation. He's only seen in that rotated position when in a dcs, and there's a side-seat tweak in the dcs which is enabled in the screenshot where he's not sitting with his feet toward the bottom of the seat object (the one where he's riding on the front of a sackbot). This is actually an alternative I didn't think of, but I do think it's a bit nonsensical to make that orientation only apply when you're in a direct control seat...and in that case, you could use Sackbots to navigate in that position anyway, I suppose. Not exactly. If gravity is changeable, then sackboy can walk on the background, we can give him a paintball gun and do an isometric shooter... which would be AWESOME!! If gravity cannot be re-oriented, then sackboy canNOT walk on the background and isometric shooters can only be accomplished using vehicles... which is still awesome, but not quite as awesome as having the option to let sackboy walk around on his own OR drive a vehicle. Ah I see, well either way you can use Sackbots instead if necessary. It seemed to me that you had reached a conclusion and were declaring it as fact (also you posted this in the news forum instead of the speculation one). I want sackboy to be able to walk on the background too, but we just don't know that it'll be possible yet, and we've got an outright denial from jack, who may or may not be on the inside with Mm (he didn't respond when I said he gave an nda-style answer, but he did click the "thanks" button on my post so read what you will into that). Now that I think about it, you're right, this should probably be in the Speculation section  | 2010-05-17 22:39:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| It's zero gravity, it floats there, then moves when it collides with something. Simple as that. It's behaving like pink floaty. The car probably goes up ramps by changing layers. It would be terribly inconvenient if it was zero gravity. I'm pretty sure Mm wouldn't do that. | 2010-05-17 23:00:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| At the moment I'm going with (hoping that) the theory that gravity is acting into the background. The physics aren't necessarily 3D (the boxes do not "tumble" when the car hits into them, they just translate through the layer's plane). Now, the layer-changing cars. Watch the video carefully - it's not purely on the ramps that the cars change layers. One car drives off a one-layer high precipice and falls into the layer behind, too - in the first clip with the split paths. Obviously this could be done with layer-changing logic too, but there seems to be no object at this point endowed with layer-changing properties. In addition, you will notice in the top corner of the first racing clip there is a pair of double ramps with a hole in between. This hole is obviously a hazard and can obviously be fallen into. I do not think this counts as layer-changing logic either, as the hole is, again, not a specific object endowed with layer-changing properties. Not even a mag key could be used here to cause the car to move backwards two layers into the hole, as the car will pass that mag key regardless. Unless the layer-changing logic is done some other way, which it is entirely possible that it is, I can't believe at the moment that the gravity is set to zero in top down view - at least, until, we receive further information. | 2010-05-17 23:08:00 Author: Holguin86  Posts: 875 |
| My bet is that you chose "top down" or "side" when you create a level. The gravity sets itself accordingly. You probably can't change it afterward or mid-levels. Don't forget MM is really saying that this time it's more than a platformer, releasing this game and letting us do a top view level just like in LBP1 = there's no point to even market such non existing feature. There's way more into that baby there. I'm sure. And it's not like having a "side or top view" option is something THAT spectacular or hard to make. | 2010-05-18 01:50:00 Author: RangerZero  Posts: 3901 |
| It's a hard one to call. Even though we do see the layer switch like it's falling down it looks terribly floaty and like it wasn't physics doing it. It could literally be as simple as auto layer pulling the vehicle into the next layer with invisible stuff to cause the transition. It really looks like they drive a bit on thin air then fall, so I think there is something more to it that meets the eye. I also doubt that zero gravity will be as accurate as the real deal, it would be too demanding if a slight bump caused objects to move infinitely until they hit something to come to a stop. It would be interesting if that was the case we could make something like asteroids. But I do think as was pointed out the boxes behave like pink floaty. | 2010-05-18 02:11:00 Author: OneEyedBanshee  Posts: 1370 |
| you could use Sackbots to navigate in that position anyway, I suppose....Ah I see, well either way you can use Sackbots instead if necessary. Now that's something I hadn't thought of. We don't yet know what tweaks are available to bots. We've had indication of a double jump function and perhaps a way to fix the floaty physics of normal jumping as well. We haven't yet heard whether emitters can be placed on sackbots (though it's almost certain that they can) or whether 3d objects (other than decos) can be added (not as likely, but we can't rule it out yet--I sure hope so, though: I wanna' be able to give my bots weapons that aim like paintinators but use an emitter to fire whatever projectile I want. There may be a tweak to make them free-flying (without a jetpack so you can fly while carrying a paintinator) or even turn them so that they seem to be walking on the background. it's not purely on the ramps that the cars change layers. One car drives off a one-layer high precipice and falls into the layer behind, too - in the first clip with the split paths. Obviously this could be done with layer-changing logic too, but there seems to be no object at this point endowed with layer-changing properties. You're assuming that layer changing will always require logic. It may be as simple as a low strength piston (or some tool that's new to lbp2) pulling toward the back layer all the time, essentially simulating gravity (but not traction, though there certainly appears to be a method for simulating that too). You could simulate something similar by building a regular (side-view scrolling) car with a low strength piston pulling it down to a block of glass or something. Drive that car to a ramp and the ramp will force it to overcome the low strength of the piston, but when it goes off an edge or down another ramp, it'll be pulled back down (of course, we can't turn off gravity in lbp1, so that'll throw off the results unless the car is made entirely of pink floaty). | 2010-05-18 07:26:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Yep, if we have a device to move layers, it's not unreasonable to think that we can tweak it to move backwards constantly and this effect is reversed by the special ramp objects. This would be a very crude version of gravity (in the sense that it would a) work on individual objects and b) would probably not give linear acceleration). Now it could be that layer-changing mechanics, when trying to actuate a layer change into an object that is already there, create friction... which would explain the floaty-like movement of the objects that are clearly being subjected to resistance forces. To my mind, that's as likely as the alternate gravity option, based upon what most of us know. Which is almost nothing, lets be honest. Personally, I'm not expecting true gravity (with proper linear acceleration) to be acting into the background wall and I'd be willing to place a reasonable sum money on actual 3D / 6DoF physics not being a feature. In essense, even if we do have gravity pulling into the background, you will be dealing with something very basic in the physics available to you (which in many ways, could be considered a bonus). | 2010-05-18 10:28:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| I think I'll just wait. | 2010-05-18 11:04:00 Author: BasketSnake  Posts: 2391 |
| Jjmusicman, it's one thing to speculate on what you think might be included, but you're coming up with theories and declaring them as though they're fact. ^^ This. It's not the first time I've said this, but this is speculation, not "news and media directly related to the development and release of the highly anticipated LittleBigPlanet 2." This thread should be moved to the Suggestions and Speculation subforum. | 2010-05-18 16:50:00 Author: schm0  Posts: 1239 |
| jjmusicbox might be true with his theory. Look on rat-race scene background: http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/5396/rlw2l0.gif It's fluffy high-tech background, but not changed and it's under the rat track material, like gravity was placed toward background | 2010-05-18 16:59:00 Author: Shadowriver  Posts: 3991 |
| Notice how the camera is centered on one player? I've not read the lbp2 threads that much so I'm guessing someone's spotted it ages ago. | 2010-05-18 17:40:00 Author: BasketSnake Posts: 2391 |
| I don't reckon Mm will employ a piston-controlled layer changing thing - I think that would be too complicated for new users wanting to create racetracks. The layer-changing objects pushing constantly into the background sounds feasible, though. And the reason I think the cars look floaty when they drive off that ridge is because they are perhaps forced to remain parallel to the background (the floor), ie in plane with all layers, like any material in LBP must be, whatever thickness. Therefore, they can't move into the background until the last part of the car has cleared the ridge. Sped up, this gives the impression the car "floats" before moving backwards. This being forced to remain parallel is perhaps evidence that a 3D physics engine is non-existent in LBP. When you think about it there's little need for one, as the only situation in which it would be employed, and in top down view - one of the few places it could be - it's really not that necessary. | 2010-05-18 19:48:00 Author: Holguin86 Posts: 875 |
| I already stated quite a few posts ago that this should probably be moved to speculation. Anyway, look at this screenshot. http://www.lbpmedia.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/lbp2/feature-control.jpg http://www.lbpmedia.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/lbp2/feature-control.jpg http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3279/lightinglbp2boxes.jpg The lighting on the cardboard boxes is different on each box, which implies that some of them are tumbled/turned on their side. | 2010-05-19 00:28:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
If you're talking about the breakout mini game thing and how the middle blocks are green then I'd say it implies that the materials are tweakable  | 2010-05-19 00:32:00 Author: jackofcourse Posts: 1494 |
| If you're talking about the breakout mini game thing and how the middle blocks are green then I'd say it implies that the materials are tweakable No that's not what I was talking about...I was talking about objects being able to tumble in top-down mode...but okay thanks o.o EDIT: OH I see, you confused me saying "lighting on boxes" to mean the little boxes in the Breakout minigame. No, I meant the cardboard boxes being turned on their side in the racing screenshot | 2010-05-19 00:41:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| I believe when changing the orientation of gravity to the background the layers translate to UP, Half way and down, instead of Foreground, Mid Ground and Background. That's what I've observed. Because if you think about it there's still 3 layers just orientated differently. No that's not what I was talking about...I was talking about objects being able to tumble in top-down mode...but okay thanks o.o Maybe Objects can tumble in more dimensions now!  | 2010-05-19 02:52:00 Author: Defaultsound  Posts: 137 |
| I cant wait to see if making music is made easier with some tools. Id be all over it. | 2010-05-19 08:44:00 Author: BasketSnake Posts: 2391 |
| Except the cardboard doesn't collide anything to stop moving, it just stops after it's been moved. Something that wouldn't happen with zero-gravity, I believe. If it is indeed camera tricks and other tricks to fake back-gravity, then it would be reasonable to expect for there to be something to cause objects to slow and stop faster than they would normally in a zero g environment. Based on the racing video, it seems we'll be able to make a pretty convincing top down vehicle level, but I'm still unconvinced (yet hopeful) that we'll be able to do a top down sack person level. There may be a tool that enables sackbots to rotate as though they're standing on the back wall and perform their walk animation when you move them (and maybe even layer jump), but we don't have any evidence of that yet. http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3279/lightinglbp2boxes.jpg The lighting on the cardboard boxes is different on each box, which implies that some of them are tumbled/turned on their side. The boxes are all upright-none of them are tumbled. The tops are all the same shade. The differences in lighting on the sides come from their angles in relation to the light source. You could set up a series of blocks to look just like that in lbp1, though the lighting engine isn't as advanced. Even if we do get back-gravity (which I'm fairly convinced at this point will not be the case), I find it extremely unlikely that we'll get full 3d physics as that would require a radically different and much more complicated engine. | 2010-05-19 09:07:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Alright, Sehven. I'm going to go ahead and bet that there's going to be physics that allows those blocks to tumble if I'm wrong, I make you a signature. Lol. | 2010-05-19 09:16:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| I'm going to go ahead and bet that there's going to be physics that allows those blocks to tumble if I'm wrong, I make you a signature. Lol. Hey, I already made that bet against you, although I was willing to bet cash! Seriously, the pictures don't show it happening, there is no source to suggest it's happening and it's a stupendous change to the physics engine if they do (not at all comparable to water, like you suggested before). Not impossible, but you'd need to rebuild the engine from the ground up. And if they had put that much work into a new engine, you'd expect them to actually show it off, talk about it and hype it a little... not just hide it away TBH though, going back to the OP, the thrid person view are pretty much a given, and we know that we could create a landscape 3 layers high, and we have the ability to move "vertically" in some manner (maybe gravity, maybe not). Using those tools you can make a vaguely convincing, albeit limited, 3D experience | 2010-05-19 09:51:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| if I'm wrong, I make you a signature. Thanks, but I'll pass. If I ever decide I need a sig (I'm not a huge fan of them) I'll just make my own. | 2010-05-19 10:00:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Not impossible, but you'd need to rebuild the engine from the ground up. And if they had put that much work into a new engine, you'd expect them to actually show it off, talk about it and hype it a little... not just hide it away ^^^ This ^^^ I think its very unlikely they would make a new physics engine. And I dont know how they could, keeping in mind that LBP2 has to be compatible with LBP1. http://i44.tinypic.com/34ynwa8.gif And here, all they do is rotate the camera 90 degrees and zoom out, nothing to do with gravity really. Since the Vehicle is still turned sideways, and didnt magically turn "feet-down". EDIT : btw, are those Green Glowy sackboys trying to pee on him? | 2010-05-19 12:12:00 Author: jakpe Posts: 84 |
| If you're talking about the breakout mini game thing and how the middle blocks are green then I'd say it implies that the materials are tweakable Never underestimate the power of that wink smiley Im starting to think that when you put a direct control seat on something you can make it move independently to gravity without the use of pistons etc. imagine it being like you have the whole thing selected in create, you can just move it around wherever you like. The movement of the dragonfly thing would suggest this anyway. Unless of course that level was set to zero Gravity which would explain why the shots fired from it flew in a straight line. then you could possibly hook that dragon fly up to 4 thrusters to give you the direction you need. | 2010-05-19 12:35:00 Author: wexfordian  Posts: 1904 |
| I think you're right about the direct control. Perhaps you can tweak individual objects to ignore the laws of gravity. Also, I suspect there will be a global friction setting to go along with the gravity. The racing game would then be possible using no gravity and some friction. | 2010-05-19 16:27:00 Author: Rogar  Posts: 2284 |
| you'd expect them to actually show it off, talk about it and hype it a little... not just hide it away They said they're keeping a lot of cards close to the chest. All we got was an announcement...and the announcement itself was a lot of information, but they said they're holding a lot from us until later. | 2010-05-19 17:14:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| You know blind optimism can only take you so far JJmusicman... | 2010-05-19 20:18:00 Author: jackofcourse Posts: 1494 |
| It took me a lot of places. "They'll never put water/grappling hooks/gravity in LBP" "I wish I could make those dumb strings and winches invisible....but it'll never happen because it gets rid of that 'craft' feel LBP has" "It's been 8 months...we'll never get Online Create" "Are they ever going to fix this game? I can't load my levels." "Mm will never make DLC that has nothing to do with games. LittleBigPlanet is a video game. Don't expect superheroes and Disney crap." | 2010-05-19 20:32:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| Im starting to think that when you put a direct control seat on something you can make it move independently to gravity without the use of pistons etc. imagine it being like you have the whole thing selected in create, you can just move it around wherever you like. The movement of the dragonfly thing would suggest this anyway. Unless of course that level was set to zero Gravity which would explain why the shots fired from it flew in a straight line. then you could possibly hook that dragon fly up to 4 thrusters to give you the direction you need. I thought everybody was thinking that by now. Notice that we didn't see any thrusters on the wasp (dunno' why people keep calling it a dragonfly when it clearly has only two wings, a narrow waist and a large abdomen). I'm almost certain that the little spaceship shaped object we saw in the exploded view microchip screenshot is what accomplishes its flight/being free from gravity. I'm slightly less certain (about 70%) that the other object shown in that shot is what accomplishes its directional movement, sort of like a 4 direction piston but without needing any anchor points (so really.... not that much like a piston). At any rate, your helicopter (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=19973-OMG-Its-a-Robot-Revolution!-NOW-PUBLISHED), my starfighter (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=21545-Flying-spaceship-with-near-perfect-control-Starfighter), and my mechs (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=26982-The-most-advanced-bipedal-mech-in-all-of-lbp) will all be MUCH easier to build in lbp2 and we'll be able to get better results. | 2010-05-19 20:44:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| It took me a lot of places. "They'll never put water/grappling hooks/gravity in LBP" "I wish I could make those dumb strings and winches invisible....but it'll never happen because it gets rid of that 'craft' feel LBP has" "It's been 8 months...we'll never get Online Create" "Are they ever going to fix this game? I can't load my levels." "Mm will never make DLC that has nothing to do with games. LittleBigPlanet is a video game. Don't expect superheroes and Disney crap." A list of things that you said 'will never happen' that then did, is opposite of blind optimism! | 2010-05-19 20:49:00 Author: jackofcourse Posts: 1494 |
| At any rate, your helicopter (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=19973-OMG-Its-a-Robot-Revolution!-NOW-PUBLISHED), my starfighter (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=21545-Flying-spaceship-with-near-perfect-control-Starfighter), and my mechs (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=26982-The-most-advanced-bipedal-mech-in-all-of-lbp) will all be MUCH easier to build in lbp2 and we'll be able to get better results. haha yes definitely. These things are so much easier to make now. When you see how much quicker you will be able to produce something better it is going to be amusing and soul destroying for you at the same time | 2010-05-19 20:56:00 Author: jackofcourse Posts: 1494 |
| They said they're keeping a lot of cards close to the chest. All we got was an announcement...and the announcement itself was a lot of information, but they said they're holding a lot from us until later. Well, seeing as Jack has had a chance to play with game, he says that boxes don't tumble perpendicular to the screen, and watching the video agrees with what he says... I think I will assume that you're wrong. Edit: Moved to Speculation and Suggestions | 2010-05-19 21:28:00 Author: comphermc  Posts: 5338 |
| A list of things that you said 'will never happen' that then did, is opposite of blind optimism! uhh...what? XD My point was that there were a lot of things that people didn't believe would ever happen with LBP "just because [enter excuse here]". I've decided not to make the excuses, and rather let Mm deal with that. Why don't you just tell us whether those cardboard boxes can tumble or not XD he says that boxes don't tumble perpendicular to the screen I can't see where he said that...link please? Regardless, it doesn't matter much to me. I'm more concerned about whether I can stick a camera to a Sackbot for first-person gaming. | 2010-05-19 23:20:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| uhh...what? XD My point was that there were a lot of things that people didn't believe would ever happen with LBP "just because [enter excuse here]".' Yes, but reasons for this not happening are pretty conclusive (irrespective of me telling you all outright too). The evidence from the video etc that others have put forward for it NOT being possible seem to far outweigh your reasons for it being possible...hence the blind optimism! Anyway, that's all getting a bit hypothetical considering I've pretty much said how it works Some crazy things are possible with the tools that are there, trust me! | 2010-05-20 00:12:00 Author: jackofcourse Posts: 1494 |
| I can't see where he said that...link please? Yep, way back on page one... You can't make the gravity work from front to back. There is no 'real' top down view. You can just fake it by creating it so it looks that way. It is all done with clever perception ...to which you replied... That's not true. [...] ...so I know you saw it. | 2010-05-20 00:12:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| I thought everybody was thinking that by now. Notice that we didn't see any thrusters on the wasp (dunno' why people keep calling it a dragonfly when it clearly has only two wings, a narrow waist and a large abdomen). I'm almost certain that the little spaceship shaped object we saw in the exploded view microchip screenshot is what accomplishes its flight/being free from gravity. I'm slightly less certain (about 70%) that the other object shown in that shot is what accomplishes its directional movement, sort of like a 4 direction piston but without needing any anchor points (so really.... not that much like a piston). At any rate, your helicopter (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=19973-OMG-Its-a-Robot-Revolution!-NOW-PUBLISHED), my starfighter (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=21545-Flying-spaceship-with-near-perfect-control-Starfighter), and my mechs (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=26982-The-most-advanced-bipedal-mech-in-all-of-lbp) will all be MUCH easier to build in lbp2 and we'll be able to get better results. This. This is basically what I wanted to say, at least until I saw that it had already been posted. The spaceship chip is pretty sure to set any object it is attached to to float in mid-air. I guess those chips are even tweakable, and I'm pretty sure there's a form of "resistance" setting in there. Technically, this would be quite easy to implement; just multiply the current velocities with some number between 1 and 0 every frame. Considering the fact that Mm promote an "easy, new way" of building the stuff shown in the video, it seems quite reasonable that they would try to include easy means of reproducing the most commonly used effects (such as friction in topdown-racers), rather than forcing the player to build up a wall of tech and logics to achieve the same thing. I guess you're right about the 4-directional-arrow chip as well. I'ts only a pic, but I imagine the row of floating triangles to move in a snake-like pattern, so something's gotta tell them where to go. It may either be handled like invisible x- and y-pistons attached to the level frame, or it might be something of a more thrusty nature, working like omnidirectional rockets. Either way, those chips (and I'm quite sure there's more of that cool stuff being unveiled during the next few months) will be awesome. | 2010-05-20 00:39:00 Author: Treas  Posts: 223 |
| Yep, way back on page one... ...to which you replied... ...so I know you saw it. Oh I guess I didn't realize that it was jackofcourse that had said that. Whoopsie. If gravity is still oriented downward...how are they not falling? If gravity is turned off, how is there any traction? Doesn't make any sense. | 2010-05-20 01:56:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| Oh I guess I didn't realize that it was jackofcourse that had said that. Whoopsie. If gravity is still oriented downward...how are they not falling? If gravity is turned off, how is there any traction? Doesn't make any sense. This. This is basically what I wanted to say, at least until I saw that it had already been posted. The spaceship chip is pretty sure to set any object it is attached to to float in mid-air. I guess those chips are even tweakable, and I'm pretty sure there's a form of "resistance" setting in there. Technically, this would be quite easy to implement; just multiply the current velocities with some number between 1 and 0 every frame. Considering the fact that Mm promote an "easy, new way" of building the stuff shown in the video, it seems quite reasonable that they would try to include easy means of reproducing the most commonly used effects (such as friction in topdown-racers), rather than forcing the player to build up a wall of tech and logics to achieve the same thing. I guess you're right about the 4-directional-arrow chip as well. I'ts only a pic, but I imagine the row of floating triangles to move in a snake-like pattern, so something's gotta tell them where to go. It may either be handled like invisible x- and y-pistons attached to the level frame, or it might be something of a more thrusty nature, working like omnidirectional rockets. Either way, those chips (and I'm quite sure there's more of that cool stuff being unveiled during the next few months) will be awesome. Sehven pretty much gave you the answer some postings above, and I built on his theory in the posting directly above yours. | 2010-05-20 08:20:00 Author: Treas Posts: 223 |
| Well to me it seems much more complicated to add a "spaceship chip" and edit resistance to create a pseudo, unrealistic "almost-zero-gravity" setting rather than just orient the gravity towards the background, but whatever. | 2010-05-20 08:45:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| Oh I guess I didn't realize that it was jackofcourse that had said that. Whoopsie. If gravity is still oriented downward...how are they not falling? If gravity is turned off, how is there any traction? Doesn't make any sense. By reading this posting, I thought you have already realized that there won't be any background gravity, thus eliminating this option from the discussion. I also didn't state that applying the spaceship chip to all objects would be easier than just turning the gravity by 90 degrees; I merely answered your question (marked in red in the quote above). Oh, and why unrealistic? That's how 99% of all topdown flash-games with some sort of (simulated) physics work; each object is somehow related to a deceleration or friction function, multiplying its current x- and y-speed with a number between 1 and 0 every frame. Keep it exactly on 1 and it feels like outer space. Keep it on something like 0.97 and it feels like the object is hovering on ice. Push it down to 0.9 and it feels like a wooden box on a street. It feels quite realistic, in fact. | 2010-05-20 09:03:00 Author: Treas Posts: 223 |
| By reading this posting, I thought you have already realized that there won't be any background gravity, thus eliminating this option from the discussion. Nowhere in that quote of yours did I mention background gravity or it actually being the case. I realize that jackofcourse claims that it doesn't exist (although, I would rather wait and see). I simply said that I find your explanation much more complicated than I think it would be to just have gravity pull to the background, but that's just my thoughts. | 2010-05-20 09:14:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| Ok I think it's actually quite easy though; want to make a fixed element on screen? make it out of dark matter or glue it. Wanna place an ice cube on a racing track? Just create the object and then place a float chip with near to no friction/deceleration/whatever on it. That way, we're not bound to use the preset physics for every material and object anymore, but we can just set our own. And creating a wooden box, putting a chip on it, tweaking one number and then copypasting the cube a few times isn't too difficult, I think. | 2010-05-20 09:32:00 Author: Treas Posts: 223 |
| I realize that jackofcourse claims that it doesn't exist (although, I would rather wait and see). Lol, now we really are into the realms of blind optimism! I simply said that I find your explanation much more complicated than I think it would be to just have gravity pull to the background, but that's just my thoughts. Yes, but it's more open ended. There is a danger, when adding more specific tools, that they would actually be far to limited and far too specific, to the detriment of the users. A tool that is similar to what treas is describing could be used to simulate crude top-down gravity, but could also be used for vehicles, mechanics, creatures, sackbot power-ups.... etc. A system to implement top-down gravity would just do that. I know which tool I'd rather have in the game MM are going to give us tools that allow for many things to be done easier, but they are not going to give us tools that are too specific, else all we will see is the same mechanics reproduced over and over and over. Expect the tools to be open ended and require a bit of thought and effort to implement our own. If they just gave us out of the box tools, the community would stagnate very quickly. Remember that the primary reason people have done such amazing things in LBP is that they've been forced to be inventive, to use their imagination and suspend belief. Necessity is the mother of invention. | 2010-05-20 09:51:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| Looks like the debate is over (it was actually over quite a while ago, but whatever). Ready for a new one? Do you suppose we'll be able to rotate sackbots so that they appear to walk on the back wall? In other words, will be be able to make an isometric shooter or even a 3rd person shooter despite the lack of back-gravity? Obviously we'll be able to make isometric vehicle levels like the races shown in the trailers, but I think it'd be awesome to do shooters and rpgs in a semi-open world on foot... even if it's only on sackbot foot. Obviously a full third person or even first person view would only work in a single player level... unless we've been given individual cameras for multiplayer levels. We haven't heard anything about individual cameras, but it seems to me that top down racers would be annoying without them, so their existence (meaning the existence of the racers) may indicate a possibility of the individual camera' existence. | 2010-05-20 10:30:00 Author: Sehven Posts: 2188 |
| Looks like the debate is over (it was actually over quite a while ago, but whatever). Ready for a new one? It was hardly a debate. It was more off-topic. Lol, now we really are into the realms of blind optimism! Eh, I wouldn't exactly call it blind optimism to assume that someone who apparently visited Mm's offices some time ago might not know the full story on what might be in the final game. Things change. That is optimism, yeah, but blind, I disagree. Obviously a full third person or even first person view would only work in a single player level... unless we've been given individual cameras for multiplayer levels. We haven't heard anything about individual cameras, but it seems to me that top down racers would be annoying without them, so their existence (meaning the existence of the racers) may indicate a possibility of the individual camera' existence. I'm hoping they have individual cameras as options just for that. It would ruin racing games if you can't choose it. | 2010-05-20 20:25:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| well i picked the vid apart. from what i can tell is you got items (ramps) that alow the cars to transfer over to the next layer and back. (or it could be a switch) This is just another form of ingame layer switching like the wheel puzzle in the vid. the cars are not really jumping. as for the boxes they are just sliding I looked at it in hd over and over. they don't tumble so in other words its not true 3D. the gravity is to the back wall yes but unless the boxes can tumble towards the wall and not just fall (layer switching) its not true 3D. this is what others above are pointing out. | 2010-05-20 21:23:00 Author: Delirium  Posts: 349 |
| that post owned xD | 2010-05-21 15:56:00 Author: Jonaolst  Posts: 935 |
| Eh, I wouldn't exactly call it blind optimism to assume that someone who apparently visited Mm's offices some time ago might not know the full story on what might be in the final game. Things change. That is optimism, yeah, but blind, I disagree. Hurm. What about someone who now lives near MM and has been working in their office? | 2010-05-21 21:14:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| Blind optimism is better than blind negativity, so you all should be grateful! | 2010-05-21 22:32:00 Author: Incinerator22  Posts: 3251 |
| Blind optimism is better than blind negativity, so you all should be grateful! Not at all. Remember water, with those videos that showed water as a big global level? Well remember how people wished for water materials and proper movable physics based water so they could have running water and puzzles based upon it? Then some of them got really disappointed / angry when water came out and lo and behold - it was like it was in the video. I'll take my optimism with a side sprinkling of pragmatism, thank you very much | 2010-05-24 20:34:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| Not at all. Remember water, with those videos that showed water as a big global level? Well remember how people wished for water materials and proper movable physics based water so they could have running water and puzzles based upon it? Then some of them got really disappointed / angry when water came out and lo and behold - it was like it was in the video. I'll take my optimism with a side sprinkling of pragmatism, thank you very much I never assumed what water would or wouldn't have, just hoped. Regardless, remember when people assumed water would never exist in LBP because it took away the creativity of using glass and the game just wasn't built to handle water physics? Yeah, that turned out like we thought. Hurm. What about someone who now lives near MM and has been working in their office? Unless he's a Mm employee, I disagree that he's up-to-date on everything that goes on behind the curtains. | 2010-05-24 20:55:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| Oh sorry, that wasn't a dig at you, just pointing out something that did happen that is similar to your "tumbling boxes". I'm sure you're not going to have a hissy fit when you don't get the features you are hoping for, but some people do. You've got to admit though, you do seem to be pretty convinced, on the basis of zero evidence. BTW: I actually did speculate on the nature of what water could be, and I was pretty close, in terms of the physics involved (not dead on, but close). Not to say that this makes me right here, just saying that water did turn out pretty close to how I envisioned it. Regardless, I'd rather assume that what I can see in the videos and have confirmation of is what will be there and maybe speculate on things that seem plausible. So no tumbling boxes... until I get to see a little bit more | 2010-05-24 21:06:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| All you can tell yourself guys is that a top down level in LBP2 will NOT be made like in LBP or else there's no point for them to market this feature evidently. If LBP2 is about opening up the possibility to make "games" and that a top view game can be as open as a side one, it's quite the basic thing to shift the gravity around instead of having tons of tools for faking it, changing layers, suspend stuff,etc. It will not be some tools to faciliate the making of such levels "ala LBP", I bet it will be a "real" feature. I stick to my theory that top down will be a level type and you'll probably chose that (or side view) when you create the level. | 2010-05-25 04:11:00 Author: RangerZero Posts: 3901 |
| If it doesn't work like I initially hoped, that's fine. It's something for Mm to think about, though. | 2010-05-25 07:57:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| I stick to my theory that top down will be a level type and you'll probably chose that (or side view) when you create the level. So the space invaders bit of the announcement video, which level type is that? | 2010-05-25 09:33:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| http://littlebigpodcast.blip.tv/file/3686277/ I was right about one thing. Layers are your "height" in top down view. | 2010-05-29 21:05:00 Author: jjmusicman Posts: 234 |
| From what I have seen, yes you can do this. In the footage of the rts level the camera gets VERY close to the turrain and lines up well with it. Make a small piece of material (very small)and attach a DCS, add a camera than when your sackboy jumps in it will look like he is just hovering. Thats about as close as you can get though. | 2010-07-20 06:32:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Or you could get a sackboy and have him actually hover. | 2010-07-20 06:57:00 Author: Moony  Posts: 368 |
LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139
Threads: 69970
Members: 9661
Archive-Date: 2019-01-19
Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.