Conquer Club

natty_dread wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace.

Yes there are different types of "graphical projection". They are used for technical drawings and such. Drafters use them in blueprints.

However there is only 1 correct perspective method. It is not a debatable or subjective matter. It is exactly what a camera does when it produces a picture. It is what the eye sees. It is an exact formula that uses foreshortening. All of your talk about this subject has clearly been an effort to wik up some crap, that you have no true comprehension of.

The simplest way that I can put this is this.
A 1 point is a picture that is looking dead on.
a 2 point is that same picture looking from a point that is to the (right or left), or (above or below). The vanishing point can move up or down. or it can move right or left. BUT IT CAN NOT DO BOTH. The vanishing point moves anywhere along the either vertical or horizontal. one or the other. But if it moves off of that "cross", it has now become a 3 point projection. And therefore there will be no parallel lines. I know that I am probably not explaining it in a manner that you can understand. I am sorry for that, But my friend, I know what I am talking about.

With all of that said, This side on from the top IS the best way to go for this project. It just needs to be done correctly. It would be correct if you were just moving the vantage to the right a little, but you have also moved the vantage point up. So now you must foreshorten the vertical lines also. If in the end there are any parallel lines, you have done it incorrectly. There is no room for debate here. Perspective drawing IS an exact science. The other forms of "3-D" drawing the you refer to, are for Architects Engineers, and Drafters and such, to use. They are NOT what they eye sees, when it looks at an image.

know that I am probably not explaining it in a manner that you can understand. I am sorry for that, But my friend, I know what I am talking about.

Ok I tried to be nice but you still keep sporting this attitude. So I'm going to respond in kind.

Come back when you can get a map further than melting pot. Come back when you know what actual mapmaking is. Until then, you don't know what you're talking about. I am sorry for that, MY FRIEND, but I know what I am talking about.

Small comment.

paulk version resembles me maps like conquer4 or conquerman. Lots of similar territories with unclear visual style. Pork's version has nicer color, better detailing but it fails in the center with the gameplay. I think if we could have merged this 2 versions (paulk shape and gameplay with porks visual skills) - the result would be astonishing.

And I don't really get why you are getting that aggressive when someone is trying to help you and show you a different point of view. Are you a narrow-headed or do you think that your vision is the best one?

Pork has a really good looking picture, you cannot argue with that. I am telling you that as a common CC user. In fact, you can even make a foundry call and vote which version community enjoys more - it solves all the problems and you will see what is better for other people.

Sorry to post here so spontaneously, but I am a rare person in foundry. Hope that my post helps someone here.

And I don't really get why you are getting that aggressive when someone is trying to help you and show you a different point of view.

It's not that but the way he posts. I don't appreciate comments like

of your talk about this subject has clearly been an effort to wik up some crap, that you have no true comprehension of.

I know that I am probably not explaining it in a manner that you can understand. I am sorry for that

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

When some idiot comes throwing this crap on my face I respond in kind.

For the record porkenbeans, I understand fucking clearly what you are talking about. I know all about perspective projection and it's respective rules. I get exactly what you are complaining and how you would like to alter the projection of the image.

The point I've tried and tried to get accross is that a) you have to know the rules so you will know when you can bend them and b) there is no one correct method of 3d projection, it is all about using the appropriate method for the task at hand. The projection method used in the current map is sufficient in creating depth perception and a 3d illusion. It also is optimal for the gameplay clarity.

I thought I told you I have tried various arrangements, perspective projections and parallel projections, and this one works.

You porkenbeans have the flaw that you can not see the big picture. I'll elaborate on that some other time.

Hypercube Vanishing Point:

I think I understand what porkenbeans is looking for. A slightly tilted CUBE, something like this:
This perspective is tricky to accomplish without 3D rendering software.
So if anyone knows anyone that knows anyone... and so on... that could produce such a CUBE perspective in a 3D program, then that would be a quick and pain free solution.

You are rotating the wrong axis I think... I'll do a quick render of a cube in that angle.

God natty,
Sorry if the truth hurts. But you still do not display any comprehension about "perspective Drawing". You keep saying a bunch of stuff like "there are many ways to depict perspective". Yes indeedy there are, but you just do not understand a.) what they are, or b.) what they are used for.

Natty, This is not a blueprint. This is NOT meant for Tech. purposes. Therefore, a standard "true perspective" image is what is required here. In other words, We need an image that is what the eye sees. In other, other words, what the camera sees.

The current image is almost there, but is flawed, just as the painters of old were incorrect in there first attempts at simulating perspective. They were on the right track, but had yet to learn about foreshortening. Their "oblique" mathematics are used today, but NOT for these purposes.

The current image is a typical novice failure in foreshortening. I do not fault you for making this mistake, but I do wish that you would just have enough respect for me to acknowledge my talent in the subject of Art. You have repeatedly copped an attitude with me, when I make suggestions in your map threads. Telling me how horrible my ideas are, only to adopt the very thing later. It is like you can see the value, but do not want to acknowledge that It was I, that gave you the idea. Yes, someone does have an attitude problem here, but it is NOT me.

Again, the view of the current image is the right choice here, It only needs to be altered slightly to become a correct perspective projection.

Pualk,
You are on the right track, but there are several more steps that must be performed.

When you stack the layers on top of each other, the layers should progressively get larger as you go up. This is because you have not only shifted your view to the right of the image, you have lifted it as well, so that you are slightly viewing it from the top looking down. So you would also need to tilt the vertical line on the far right to timber to the right instead of the left, if that makes since to you. Like I said before, a 3-point projection is NOT an easy thing to do.

Where natty is getting confused, and does not understand is, that you just do not arbitrary pick a 1 point, 2 point, or 3 point projection. The angle of the viewer to the object dictates this. It is NOT something that you get to pick. Accept for the fact that you DO get to pick at what angle you are going to draw the subject. Once that is done, The math takes over and you must know how to interpret it correctly. It is NOT a subjective thing, unless you are Picasso.

Porkenbeans this is the last thing I'm gonna say to you: I know what I am talking about. And I understand fucking perfectly so stop the fucking condescending attitude.

The current image is a typical novice failure in foreshortening. I do not fault you for making this mistake, but I do wish that you would just have enough respect for me to acknowledge my talent in the subject of Art.

Porkenbeans, you refuse to read or comprehend what I'm trying to tell you. Perhaps it's partly my fault since I'm not familiar with all proper english terms since I'm from finland and our art lessons were in finnish. When I tell you I know all about perspective and how it is used I mean it.

You on the other hand try to act all supreme and pretend that you know more about art than anyone. I don't appreciate that attitude, particularly when you spout shit in this patronizing & condescending tone.

You have repeatedly copped an attitude with me, when I make suggestions in your map threads. Telling me how horrible my ideas are, only to adopt the very thing later. It is like you can see the value, but do not want to acknowledge that It was I, that gave you the idea. Yes, someone does have an attitude problem here, but it is NOT me.

Ok you spout some utter bullshit again. You refer to my OE map where you in GP shop said I should add contrast between land and sea. I said I will look into such things in the graphics shop. So when in the GFX shop I start working on my map and come up with a new style for my map you start whining "you did a thing I suggested ages ago and didn\t give me credit!!" I can link the post if you like.

And if I tell you some suggestion of yours is horrible, it's usually because it is. Like your last post on the aforementioned map's thread. I even explained politely and extensively why your suggestions were bad ideas. If you get pissy about that it's not my fault.

natty, can you render a few versions with all rods and orbs, and I'll see what I can do about the perspective?
preferably like the current perspective, although slightly tilted.
I'd like a square CUBE angle (as much as possible) from the right upper corner to save legend space.

paulk wrote:natty, can you render a few versions with all rods and orbs, and I'll see what I can do about the perspective?
preferably like the current perspective, although slightly tilted.
I'd like a square CUBE angle (as much as possible) from the right upper corner to save legend space.

Sorry but I'm going on vacation tomorrow so I don't think I have the time...

OMG,
Talk about why it is important to update the first post.

I know that paulk has been working on this project for about a year. I have quietly peeked in on its progress every couple of months or so, as I am interested in the development of non-geographical maps.

A couple of days ago I looked in and found out that the map has made it back from the dead, and with a GP stamp to boot.

I checked back on the first post and found out that Only paulk's name was on the map. I know that he was originally looking for someone to help with the Graphics. So I took a couple of hours in photoshop, and came up with a rough draft of my idea for the graphic layout. I sent it to him in PM. He liked it and asked me to post something in this thread.

So I did just that. I had absolutely no idea that natty had joined this project a couple of months back, and the current image was actually his.

If I had known this, I would not have wasted my time. This project has already got the best artist at CC on the job. I only wish that he would share with me, just how he creates such jaw-dropping artwork. I am totally humbled in his presence, and can only aspire to someday learn just how he does it.

Wow, flame wars are back. Nice.

lol, it was not really like that, but close enough

this map has been going on since 2007 11 10 02:55 (see initial thead). That is (OMG) over 2 and a half years.

I have had some contributors. natty is one. he came up with several new suggestions (perspective and layers) and I got inspired and kinda took over again.

I'm happy to see you think it is such jaw-dropping artwork

so what to do?
I cant fix a true 3D perspective of a tilted cube without some help of a rendered wire frame.
And except from a slightly tilted perspective the CUBE is pretty much done.
I could really use some help.

I like it how it is. For me, it's important that the map has two distinct qualities: 1) since it's the Cube, the attack routes should be clear along the x, y, and z axes, which they are and 2) it should have a bloodthirsty astronaut, which it has.

ghirrindin wrote:I like it how it is. For me, it's important that the map has two distinct qualities: 1) since it's the Cube, the attack routes should be clear along the x, y, and z axes, which they are and 2) it should have a bloodthirsty astronaut, which it has.

Seconded. I think this whole thing about tilted perspective is unnecessary- high work for low (or even no) benefit.

MarshalNey wrote:

ghirrindin wrote:I like it how it is. For me, it's important that the map has two distinct qualities: 1) since it's the Cube, the attack routes should be clear along the x, y, and z axes, which they are and 2) it should have a bloodthirsty astronaut, which it has.

Seconded. I think this whole thing about tilted perspective is unnecessary- high work for low (or even no) benefit.

agreed

14 day POLL ADDED. GO VOTE.

I maintain that the small mop font is too small.

the 14 point? (v 53) (I agree it can be made slightly clearer/bigger/less opaque on the small map)
or the 18 point? (v 54)

or are you talking about the legend?

I would change the font. The small map is hard to read

Just the legend on the small map I think is too small. the Territory name seem fine to me.