Archive: 24 posts

---

It's something that's been bothering (wrong word but it sounds more dramatic) me about the layers on offer in LBP3. Why 13 extra layers and not 12? You would think that multiples of three would be the order of the day but for some reason we have that layer lurking all by it's lonesome. Perhaps, and this is only a perhaps, that extra layer can be used for something quite useful. Is it perhaps possible to set it aside for HUD?

2014-11-03 00:25:00 Author: GribbleGrunger Posts: 3910

---

yeah i wondered about why they picked 16 too. if it was me i would had made it 20. as i prefer 10 numbers. Tho however like you said i also find 16 strange since you think it'd be logical to make it x3 numbers with the current gameplay set up... which should had meant it'd be 15, because 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 15.

2014-11-03 01:22:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

Maybe you can set up 4 players with their own 4 layer sections.

2014-11-03 01:34:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728

---

I figured it was 4x4. 3 for the thickest objects (Or at least for LBP2), and one extra to give some additional room for things like adding something to that thick object. For example, 4 skateboards, each takes up three, and then some space between them for decorations and flare, while that last layer could be used for a custom background.

2014-11-03 02:40:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

I think it all just comes down to what they could give us. They knew this would be on PS3 & 4, so they tested it and found that 16 was the maximum number of layers they could afford to have. Perhaps a PS4 exclusive LBP4 will mean even more layers and even a full 3d mode.

2014-11-03 14:29:00 Author: MMLgamer Posts: 183

---

I think it all just comes down to what they could give us. They knew this would be on PS3 & 4, so they tested it and found that 16 was the maximum number of layers they could afford to have. Perhaps a PS4 exclusive LBP4 will mean even more layers and even a full 3d mode. It would be nice if we could lock a thin and thick layer in place and use it as a HUD.

2014-11-03 14:51:00 Author: GribbleGrunger Posts: 3910

---

It would be nice if we could lock a thin and thick layer in place and use it as a HUD. I have feeling it will have a HUD, and a bunch of tools that we have been asking for, and then everyone will be able to build their own house out of the many bricks that shall suddenly appear once they see the towering possibilities.

2014-11-04 06:37:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

To me 16 seems deliberate, as in a 16 bit number. I don't know the computer science behind it but maybe 16 is the highest they could go without having to do major reworks. No clue really though.

2014-11-04 16:58:00 Author: THE-73est Posts: 18

---

Maybe you can only use the 12 extra layers and What You Call HUDS (to many people want those) You Can Use A Movie Camera But Don't Disable Controls And Add 100% Flatness Then Add Your HUD.

2014-11-04 17:40:00 Author: CamostarAtIsabella Posts: 188

---

To me 16 seems deliberate, as in a 16 bit number. I don't know the computer science behind it but maybe 16 is the highest they could go without having to do major reworks. No clue really though. I'm pretty sure they could have gone as high as 30, maybe higher, but imagine 30 layers! That's like, overkill.

2014-11-04 21:12:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

I'm pretty sure they could have gone as high as 30, maybe higher, but imagine 30 layers! That's like, overkill. Yeah, and 16 layers is more than enough to create that 'vista' effect that worked so well with the glitched layers. I'm probably going to use those layers for that very reason and concentrate on three layers until I get to grips with all the new features.

2014-11-04 23:21:00 Author: GribbleGrunger Posts: 3910

---

I'm pretty sure they could have gone as high as 30, maybe higher, but imagine 30 layers! That's like, overkill. *mew i don't see how 30 would be overkill, it's not like you would have to use them all. And imo there will still be times where visually some ideas will need more layers and the creator will have to resort to the old 3D glitch layers trick. for example if you want a mountain in the far off background in a non-auto scrolling level and for it to look and work right, then you will still have to glitch it in the background.

2014-11-04 23:31:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

*mew i don't see how 30 would be overkill, it's not like you would have to use them all. And imo there will still be times where visually some ideas will need more layers and the creator will have to resort to the old 3D glitch layers trick. for example if you want a mountain in the far off background in a non-auto scrolling level and for it to look and work right, then you will still have to glitch it in the background. Well I am mostly saying 30 as a kind of self-estimate. You can put any number there that you would consider as an overkill to be honest. The need for so many layers is very case-by-case. Some may only need 13 layers, while someone who wants to remake LoZ as best they can in the LBP Creatoverse, would need a tooooon of layers if they wished to make it a really far-reaching 3D adventure. But anyways. 16 seems fine, maybe a few more if someone really felt the need to have Sackboy go back further for some reason, but at the moment, 16 ain't so bad. And who knows. Maybe they'll keep increasing it more and more. LBP4, now you have an infinite space! :V

2014-11-05 07:37:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

i'm not talking about gameplay, 16 layers is enough for that. And people who want to make levels like Zelda are better off using top-down with a 3D camera. however visually 16 layers doesn't cover everything. you can't have a mountain or any background scenery that's meant to be far away only 16 layers away in a non-auto scrolling level, you'll run past it in mere moments, to get correct parallax without player made strange tricks more layers would be needed. or for the company to make us a parallax tool of some kind... no clue how that would even work tho. *mew

2014-11-05 16:12:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

i'm not talking about gameplay, 16 layers is enough for that. And people who want to make levels like Zelda are better off using top-down with a 3D camera. however visually 16 layers doesn't cover everything. you can't have a mountain or any background scenery that's meant to be far away only 16 layers away in a non-auto scrolling level, you'll run past it in mere moments, to get correct parallax without player made strange tricks more layers would be needed. or for the company to make us a parallax tool of some kind... no clue how that would even work tho. *mew That's why I also suggested Auto Parallax scrolling. https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=91801-Auto-Parallax-Scrolling&highlight=auto+parallax+scrolling

2014-11-05 17:26:00 Author: GribbleGrunger Posts: 3910

---

i'm not talking about gameplay, 16 layers is enough for that. And people who want to make levels like Zelda are better off using top-down with a 3D camera. however visually 16 layers doesn't cover everything. you can't have a mountain or any background scenery that's meant to be far away only 16 layers away in a non-auto scrolling level, you'll run past it in mere moments, to get correct parallax without player made strange tricks more layers would be needed. or for the company to make us a parallax tool of some kind... no clue how that would even work tho. *mew Sadly, there's no real 3D rotatable camera in lbp3. 3D zelda levels will be stuck with a fixed camera angle.

2014-11-05 21:33:00 Author: gurren009 Posts: 2592

---

Sadly, there's no real 3D rotatable camera in lbp3. 3D zelda levels will be stuck with a fixed camera angle. That's actually not true. I made a camera that rotates around the player with a top-down view, and there is no need to spin the level either. It even can spin while the player is moving, and I made an addition to it to have the auto focus, like in Zelda, to where the camera fixes in the direction that the player is facing. The ONLY issue is that I can't get the camera to go down far enough to get the same angle as in Zelda. If I could, then it would be pretty dang close to working exactly like the actual Zelda game, with targeting. i'm not talking about gameplay, 16 layers is enough for that. And people who want to make levels like Zelda are better off using top-down with a 3D camera. however visually 16 layers doesn't cover everything. you can't have a mountain or any background scenery that's meant to be far away only 16 layers away in a non-auto scrolling level, you'll run past it in mere moments, to get correct parallax without player made strange tricks more layers would be needed. or for the company to make us a parallax tool of some kind... no clue how that would even work tho. *mew Parallax Scrolling is a 'tool' a creator can use. Which means it's available. Which means that if they wanted that effect, then they should use that effect. It's not strange tricks, it's actual working logic. I have made auto-scrolling logic pieces where the player's position in the level determines how much the background scrolls. I think it would be nice to have an actual Parallax tool, but it's very possible to make it already. Although, even if we had enough layers to have that actual scrolling, that would be a loooot of layers to get that distance right.

2014-11-05 23:31:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

That's actually not true. I made a camera that rotates around the player with a top-down view, and there is no need to spin the level either. It even can spin while the player is moving, and I made an addition to it to have the auto focus, like in Zelda, to where the camera fixes in the direction that the player is facing. The ONLY issue is that I can't get the camera to go down far enough to get the same angle as in Zelda. If I could, then it would be pretty dang close to working exactly like the actual Zelda game, with targeting. That's pretty nice. The 3d camera I have can't rotate at all. It can pretty much only see forward and backward. All the other directions are messed up lol.

2014-11-06 00:16:00 Author: gurren009 Posts: 2592

---

That's pretty nice. The 3d camera I have can't rotate at all. It can pretty much only see forward and backward. All the other directions are messed up lol. I just use a normal game camera with the angle as low as I could get it. Not a glitch camera.

2014-11-06 00:23:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

Parallax Scrolling is a 'tool' a creator can use. Which means it's available. Which means that if they wanted that effect, then they should use that effect. It's not strange tricks, it's actual working logic. I have made auto-scrolling logic pieces where the player's position in the level determines how much the background scrolls. I think it would be nice to have an actual Parallax tool, but it's very possible to make it already. Although, even if we had enough layers to have that actual scrolling, that would be a loooot of layers to get that distance right. I don't why i have to explain this since you probably know. Parallax scrolling logic only works in single player levels, or if you confine all the players in a single small screen such as a auto scrolling level. you can't have a parallax logic in a multplayer friendly level. especially not 1 where each player has their own screen. and of course i know we can make this stuff with logic as long it's a level type that can support it, it doesn't make it any less a strange trick. please don't talk to me as if i'm a amateur. Anyways the 3D glitch layers still work in LBP3 so it's not a big deal.

2014-11-06 00:36:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

I don't why i have to explain this since you probably know. Parallax scrolling logic only works in single player levels, or if you confine all the players in a single small screen such as a auto scrolling level. you can't have a parallax logic in a multplayer friendly level. especially not 1 where each player has their own screen. and of course i know we can make this stuff with logic as long it's a level type that can support it, it doesn't make it any less a strange trick. please don't talk to me as if i'm a amateur. Anyways the 3D glitch layers still work in LBP3 so it's not a big deal. I wasn't aware we were talking about multiplayer levels as well, to be honest. Since the only possible way to have parallax in that sense is by the really far layers, or a level that gave each player their own copy of the level within the level with the Parallax logic. But that takes up a lot of thermo. The only way it doesn't work in multiplayer is if each player had separate screens, which you mentioned, but that does not involve most of the levels in LBP, which are the type where everyone 'shares the same screen'. Huh. Come to think of it, i have never played a level where Parallax would be used in the level when every player had their own screen. They've all mostly just been an arena of some kind, with a custom background. Irrelevant, but interesting to me. But anyways. I wouldn't say any less than a strange trick. That seems to toss it aside as some sort of useless tool, which it is a very useful one. The reason I said what I said was because of the way I read your post, because it seemed as if you were tossing the technique aside. I wasn't talking to you like an amateur, which is your perception of my post, I was defending the Parallax technique. __________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ On topic: A Parallax tool could probably be made by perhaps... The player defines which layers will be effected by the tool, for example's sake, let's say the last layer + one more; may need to have the option of including thin layers. Then there's a distance setting which can be turned up or down and that determines the 'distance' that the background actually is. Thus, the parallax can be achieved. OR! There are extra layers that are already established as the Parallax layers, which can be edited or tweaked to have that same distance option of choice. Although, with the option of the player able to define which layers he wishes to parallax, they do not have to choose the most back layers. Unless the game automatically determines that the closest (to the first layer) X number of layers with nothing in them are the Parallax layers. Although I can think of some fun ways to use a parallax tool (Or a layer movement tool mentioned in another thread) to effect layers between already used layers.

2014-11-06 06:55:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

If it makes the OP happy, if you count the thin and thick layers it's 7 and 33 layers. Oh wait, that makes it seem worse... (and if you really want to go farther there's 21 sublayers on each layer in LBP3 so that makes 693 sublayers)

2014-11-06 07:32:00 Author: koltonaugust Posts: 1382

---

But anyways. I wouldn't say any less than a strange trick. That seems to toss it aside as some sort of useless tool, which it is a very useful one. The reason I said what I said was because of the way I read your post, because it seemed as if you were tossing the technique aside. I wasn't talking to you like an amateur, which is your perception of my post, I was defending the Parallax technique. I guess that depends on what 1 considers the word strange-trick to mean. To me it doesn't mean a useless thing, more like the exact opposite, to me that it means a abnormal/unnatural way to do something often relating to illusions, and a illusion is something that is tricking somebody to think something else or see something in another way other then what it really is. *mew

2014-11-06 16:39:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

I guess that depends on what 1 considers the word strange-trick to mean. To me it doesn't mean a useless thing, more like the exact opposite, to me that it means a abnormal/unnatural way to do something often relating to illusions, and a illusion is something that is tricking somebody to think something else or see something in another way other then what it really is. *mew That makes more sense then! Difference in definitions. Always a discussion's enemy. Dang you words and your inability to possess feeling and opinions!

2014-11-06 23:21:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

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.