oppenheimer's Forum Posts

  • you could use variables for some sort of customized movement. i quickly put together a cap for you.

  • I've used platform behaviour once but i can't modify the controls, RTS behaviour seemingly fits, thank you.

    normally you would set them up in the application properties under "controls". platform movement is what you want, because RTS stands for realtime strategy: RTS

  • very nice tulamide!

    this effect should come in handy for range markers and stuff like that.

    good bye oversized pngs and pixelized canvases ;)

    just tried your example and it works like a charm!

    here's a cap in action

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • how did you save your bmp, 16 bit per pixel or even 32 bit? never tried that, but i can imagine that construct might have problems with that. but i agree pngs are awesome =)

  • i really like that raindrop effect. never thought magnify could do that. =)

    the fire effect does not look realistic. try to add some more red, maybe a darker surrounding, too. just to exaggerate the illusion of burning fire.

  • how about posting a cap?

    edit:

    ...well, or just more information about your game. is multismapling or motion blur activated? are you using effects that might cause hiccup? python?

  • and you found 0.6 by trial and error, or is it just pure knowledge? ;)

    my thanks also go to Animmaniac and newt, of course.

  • Fixed it some more:

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5426011/examples10/sphereTex3b.cap

    wow Rojo, you're the greatest! i could never have figured out that formular by myself, thank you so much =)

    can you briefly explain why you divided the 2nd loop and the first Y by 0.6? my (noobish) guess is that it has something to do with angles.

  • sry to be so picky, but this can't be right. first, the aspcet ratio does not end up in 2:1. i think that's important for a sphere. second, the equator-pixels are distorted, too.

    let me illustrate what i mean:

    <img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6200498/dist.jpg" border="0" />

    in addition, it should look something like this qarp, although the poles (top and bottom) have to be shrunk instead of stretched:

    <img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6200498/cosp.jpg" border="0" />

    i discovered this when using a non pow2, 400px by 400px bitmap in the source-sprite:

    <img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6200498/noise.jpg" border="0" />

    the effect gets more the bigger the image gets. pow2 is ok, but non pow2 not.

  • yeah, that's a good technique newt. the point of this whole matter though was to use procedurally generated textures (noise2). generating random planets is pretty easy. fire up noise2 a couple of times, load it into a sprite's animation. for every planet, set animation & texure to the 3dobject like you said.

  • yo Animmaniac, thanks alot for your example. It shows the effect pretty well with the contained texture, but it does not work with with other textures.

    prr-sphere-mapping-03b.cap

    I get the feeling that canvas is not as reliable as it should be. If i change to different textures the processed output looks different everytime. It's odd...

    Maybe it's best to wait for an update of Noise2 with integrated distortion.

  • Sorry, but I'm not totally following your thinking. If you apply the Lambert cylindrical equal-area projection in that rectangular texture you will only get some distortion near the equator line.

    And that's the whole point: 'some' distortion. I'm trying to minimize the polar distortion as seen in unprocessed textures. And therefore the pixels towards the poles have to shrink. I know that it will still look distorted, but way less.

    Pretty interesting that we get an almost undistorted projection when we first do the sinusodial prjection and afterwards the "rhombic" one. But as we found out, there is too much loss of texture quality (especially with no supersampling at all).

    Something that came into my mind while reading your last paragraph is that the original output from Noise2 is a square image. And thinking over this whole subject i realized that we've been working with rectangles the whole time. "Reconstructing" an imaginary square is impossible, too. Now what happens if we shrink down the square to half its height, but not dividing it by 2. Instead a sine-function comes into play. What do you think of this?

    something like this:

    <img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6200498/moon.jpg" border="0" />

    polar distortion is there, but less than with an unprocessed texture.

    furthermore... thanks again for your time, and sorry for me being so neurotic on this topic <img src="smileys/smiley23.gif" border="0" align="middle" />

  • Here is the projection without distortion at the poles:

    sphere-mapping-01.cap

    However bear in mind that is impossible to distort this texture to fit perfectly a sphere without seems or distortion. If your goal is to achieve a sphere with an uniform noise you will need to generate the noise with the proper detail density across the poles in a way that it wraps perfectly.

    did you just simplified the formular from page 1? impressive to see that it's possible with less variables!

    although it's pretty cool, i think that the far more simple approach of "lambert cylindrical equal-area projection" (also on page 1) suitable for this case.

    basically it must be something in the direction Rojo posted.

    Not sure if tillable will work with non power of two in Noise2.

    Edit:

    However, you can I think you can stretch the output, and noone would probably be able to tell the difference.

    lol, you're right. the noise itself tiles pretty well, but it won't fit spheres if not power of two ;)

  • For sine interpolation:

    Lerp(0,IM.GetImageHeight, (1+Sin(LoopIndex("j")*180/IM.GetImageHeight))/2)

    But that still won't eliminate the distortion at the poles.

    Paul Brouke's method eliminates the pole distortion but causes seams because parts of the image are discarded.

    <img src="http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/texture_colour/texturemap/sketch.gif" border="0"> The area in that shape is the only part of the image that is preserved.

    The libnoise website it has some sphere textures that are distorted in a way similar to pbrouke's method but I think that it was generated special for spheres.

    http://libnoise.sourceforge.net/examples/textures/index.html

    Also the Photoshop method just blurs the texture near the poles, it would still have the pole distortion.

    the new formular is not correct either:

    <img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6200498/sinus2.jpg" border="0">

    the examples given from libnoise represent what i'm looking for, because the more we go towards the poles the less detailed the texture has to be. so wrapping a cylinder around it does it imho.

    you're right, paul bourkes approach is be correct, but it is lossy.

    and yeah, screw photoshop. construct is the place to be ;)