Archive: 17 posts

---

So this has been on my mind for a while, so what you'd get are a basic set, say for ?1:79 you get a plain white sphere, pyramid, cone, cylinder etc as shown below http://docs.autodesk.com/ACD/2010/ENU/AutoCAD%202010%20User%20Documentation/images/PTDCPM/Gator-All/English/ill_primitives.png and there would be 2 of each 1 top down and one side on to allow extra creativity in platformer levels and to allow things such as ramps and better scenery in top down levels, and of course these shapes are pure white and stickerable so fully customisable!

2011-02-02 18:17:00 Author: RAWTalent Posts: 224

---

So, it'd be like the objects we can get in create mode, but blank so we can make them whatever we want them to be? I like it.

2011-02-02 18:32:00 Author: EliminatorZigma Posts: 173

---

Most of these you can just make yourself and display via a profile (side shot), others just wouldn't work at all. When you scale an object, it scales in the X & Y axis only, there is no scaling in the Z axis. The 3 "layers" are very thin (in perspective), so each object would get completely warped to the point you couldn't really recognize nor make use of it anymore.

2011-02-02 18:34:00 Author: wizaerd Posts: 159

---

Good idea but it would be better if you could change material of those shapes ala craft earth.

2011-02-02 19:08:00 Author: waD_Delma Posts: 282

---

Yeah that would be even better, and with the warping thing perhaps you'd have 3 of each 1 for 1 layer, 1 for 2 layers and one for 3 layers would really make creating complex artistic scenery easier and some new things possible too.

2011-02-02 19:29:00 Author: RAWTalent Posts: 224

---

hmmmm. that's a really good idea actually!

2011-02-02 19:39:00 Author: Stinkin Mushroom Posts: 117

---

So what do you think the likelihood of Mm using this idea is? And is it worth me posting on getsatisfaction?

2011-02-08 11:35:00 Author: RAWTalent Posts: 224

---

Honestly, I would doubt it very much. As I said in a previous posting above, there isn't a full 3d world here where you can scale these appropriately. You have three layers, that's it. When you put that object in your level, firstly you can only rotate itin the X and Y axis, and secondly you can only scale it in the X and Y axis. Take your cylinder... Scale it in the X and Y axis and it's no longer a cylinder. Take your cone and scale it in X and Y and it's no longer a cone. And as for the other shapes, you can easily create them and save them. Boxes and Wedges...

2011-02-08 14:55:00 Author: wizaerd Posts: 159

---

So what do you think the likelihood of Mm using this idea is? No way this will go into LBP2, but maybe LBP3. What you're suggesting are fundamental objects which might be used in a 3D simulation engine, but LBP2 is just a number* of 2D simulation engines running in parallel (sometimes referred to as 2.5D). It's possible that even LBP3 will retain the same 2.5D engine, since I believe one of the design goals is to make creating levels as accessible as possible, and frankly, a UI for creating game worlds in full 3D would probably be far too complex for a lot of people. * IIRC there are 8 independent simulation layers.

2011-02-08 19:53:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

What does only being able to rotate in the x,y axis have to do anything? are you saying its impossible to have a rounded object or to have one that appears to be sloped on an axis not possible through crafting materials? ever heard of the golf ball, toilet paper roll, or any of the other (and there are a lot) uniquely shaped objects that are already available in game? am i to believe that these are completely useless because i can only use them in the orientation provided? Also its clear from actually reading the OP that he already knows about this limitation "and there would be 2 of each 1 top down and one side on to allow extra creativity..." what would the purpose of this be if not to solve the issue of not being able to rotate on the z axis? "What you're suggesting are fundamental objects which might be used in a 3D simulation engine, but LBP2 is just a number* of 2D simulation engines running in parallel (sometimes referred to as 2.5D)." actually i dont think thats what he is saying... thats what wizaerd took from the OP, but that in no way makes it the original statement, just a misinterpretation. let me point out again that such objects already exist in the game. they are in your popit if you look hard enough (hit r1).

2011-02-08 20:29:00 Author: Deftmute Posts: 730

---

Many of the decorations & objets that you refer to arent really fully realized 3 dimensional objects. Many of them are single plane views of 3 dimensional objects. With only 3 parallel planes to work with, that's just the way it has to be. Add these elements, and they too would have to remain single plane view as well, and as such would have limited building value. And they're not expecially decorative, so wouldn't really have any purpose there either.

2011-02-08 20:58:00 Author: wizaerd Posts: 159

---

actually i dont think thats what he is saying... Well, it's vague, and thus open to interpretation, I inferred it from the part which reads... ...to allow things such as ramps... ...which I read as implying motion and/or collision detection in the Z-axis. I mean you can kinda fake it with In/Out Movers, but it's very limited.

2011-02-08 20:58:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

Many of the decorations & objets that you refer to arent really fully realized 3 dimensional objects. Many of them are single plane views of 3 dimensional objects. With only 3 parallel planes to work with, that's just the way it has to be. Add these elements, and they too would have to remain single plane view as well, and as such would have limited building value. And they're not expecially decorative, so wouldn't really have any purpose there either. everything youve said here ive already aknowledged... except for the opinion that they would be of limited value, which i disagree with completely. I think i can decide what i find valuable. i would find these very valuable. What is anything except a combination of shapes anyways? Also about faking: yes it would require some... (for the specific use that your caught up on) but having more believable shapes can only help in creating the illusion.

2011-02-08 21:23:00 Author: Deftmute Posts: 730

---

I think i can decide what i find valuable. Calm down, I didn't say it'd be of limited value to you, there was nothing personal intended there...

2011-02-08 21:31:00 Author: wizaerd Posts: 159

---

i am calm i just felt it was presumptuous of you to determine something for me that i am capable of deciding for myself. note that you did not say that you would find them of little value but that they were of little value in general.

2011-02-08 21:33:00 Author: Deftmute Posts: 730

---

Like the presumption you made about me earlier, presuming to tell another poster how I interpreted the OP's posting? Never mind, it's not worth it... everybody's way too quick to become overly defensive... I'm moving on...

2011-02-08 22:15:00 Author: wizaerd Posts: 159

---

Why wouldn't this be plausible? They'd be just like any of the other objects we have now, like Da Vinci's books, for example.

2011-02-10 00:13:00 Author: Yofig Posts: 288

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

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.