-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
[UO Herald] Continued Efforts for the Restoration of Magincia
E
Eyes of Origin
Guest
If you read my whole post, I wasnt talking about paying $20 for just the planter. =/
True, before people either had to tend to the plants manually which is an utter waste of time, or use the unmentionable ways to tend to the plants which I'm guessing many people still do. Seems like they're putting a price tag on the unmentionable system.
I can only speak for myself, but I've currently got 200 plants, on two chars, and I'm about to go and tend them all the 'old fashioned' way!
I will, more than likely, upgrade my main account first then the rest of them in the next few months. I'll put money aside from selling the things I make specially.
F
Fayled Dhreams
Guest
Obviously ... there is someone with pull/decision rights ...
as to what is added-workedon-implemented-noticed-fixed ...
then again ...
maybe it's just a hat with pieces of paper & numbers ...
I'm going with "a hat" ...
Would you though?
E
Eyes of Origin
Guest
ugh ....... /facepalm.... does it say anywhere in here I would pay $20 for just the planter?
I dont see what the big deal is... I would buy it even if it were $20...
Now mind you, even though I say I would buy it, it better be worth it. It better include both new housing tiles, the distilling, all the new stuff they are advertising and more and it should be wrapped up into one mini booster.
If they are going to seperate them and make two mini boosters, well both sets better include more than a couple items..
I dont mind paying for stuff like this. It helps support UO, even if the money goes to something else. It shows theres still interest in the game and reason to keep it up and running.
Not to mention, closing accounts over this is silly. Instead of buying one big expansion, we're getting content is smaller doses and still having to pay for it so theres no difference really.
The answer is no.... I would not pay $20 for one piece of pixel crack.
Another satisfied customer denying themselves.
I hate to say this but if you use "Inside UO" you'd know what it looks like.... and the concept art actually looks BETTER. Because what's in Inside UO looks like SMEG.
And it DOES matter.
That is not concept art. Concept art is a sketch or a bunch of sketches that give the "concept" of what an art asset should look like.
Those particular pieces of art are fully rendered 3D models. They're way beyond "concept art."
And it does matter.
If they translate the current chest into pixel art, it's still going to look flat. If they add bump/normal mapping to it to flesh out some of its details, and provide some dimensionality to it that it will not otherwise have.
Also, one can hope that the hi-res art coming for the EC would be based off of, you know, hi-res 3D models that had bump/normal maps applied as proper.
But hey, I probably don't know anything about this stuff given that it's presently my major.
EDIT -- And by the way, if you look at the planter, they did add bump or normal mapping to that particular asset. You can tell because the edges of the planter as well as the dirt on the top all look like they have dimensionality to them. The dirt, which I guarantee is nothing more than a flat, 2D texture does, in fact, look like it's bumpy. That's the purpose of a bump map. To take small features and make them stand out so as to give the illusion of dimensionality to them. When they're rendered as the art that goes into the game, the process keeps that dimensionality when it builds the final asset.
Look at the chest. Even though there's darker areas that should be more deeply inset from the rest of the box, they're not. Even the handles of the chest look as though they rest flatly on the box. A bump map would solve that issue.
I haven't read all posts so forgive me if someone has mentioned these two points I have.
1: Don't you think the art they show there looks very WOWish?? i mean it looks big and goofy the chest mainly.. but it all looks like its copied from wow which makes me sad!
2: a box that lets you move items from house to bank... cause even less reason for players to meet each other.. along with this apparent global vendor system... or is that going to just be for pets??
1: Don't you think the art they show there looks very WOWish?? i mean it looks big and goofy the chest mainly.. but it all looks like its copied from wow which makes me sad!
2: a box that lets you move items from house to bank... cause even less reason for players to meet each other.. along with this apparent global vendor system... or is that going to just be for pets??
1) that's just concept arts made with 3D max studio, and are real 3D... nothing to do with wow...
2) have you ever heard about the bag of sendig?
Only way i would pay for that bank chest thing is if it lets me get stuff out of the bank! sending things to the bank oh thats hard to do... NOT bag of sending for most things comodity deed box to deed large heavy stacks then bos it to the bank and a vendor for gold why would i ever need that chest? deco umm no thankyou its UGLY! the planter is nifty but only if it does let me get seeds / resources if not its trash!
IMHO if the planter do not allow resources or seeds, still good for rare color seeds (white, black, etc...) that do not produce anything
Bags of Sending you still need to go do a quest to get the resources to use it, this would mean you could sit in your house crafting stuff and put all the better stuff in your bank trash the rest and then if it is a global vendor system sell it there.. possibly meeting to deliver... and that is it.
Sorry for being snippy... heheUgh, I hit a nerve.
Yes, I used the wrong term, and points taken.
It's just... you know... I am sort of lost as to why the art coming into UO is so hit or miss these days. It's almost as if they have a bipolar, manic depressive with MPD working on the artwork. Some things are great, some are less than great, and worst of all, they still haven't figured out how to take the 3DS Max render camera and lock it into the appropriate perspective for rendering items into UO. Not saying the artwork above is an example of the last comment, but rather that most items they put into the game tend to lean to the northwest for some silly reason.
And yeah, I'm probably more sensitive about it since some of the stuff that I see screwed up on UO are, quite literally, 1st/2nd year video game art student mistakes. I just don't get why the quality varies so widely. Like the topiaries... those 3D models look like someone took a picture of their front lawn and applied it as a texture without any additional mapping. Yet, the planter above shows they know how to do it.
Maybe that's the art problem though... They've got one person who is experienced, and four or five interns? Four or five arm-chair artists? I don't know... I just know it's not good. heh
S
Silverbrook
Guest
Indeed.
Good art should be a priority, especially after making the statement that it would be this year.
B
Beastmaster
Guest
Not just any hat...it has Fire Resist 45% and Intelligence -20I'm going with "a hat" ...
I'm going with their next decision is to sell hats. It works for Team Fortress 2....Obviously ... there is someone with pull/decision rights ...
as to what is added-workedon-implemented-noticed-fixed ...
then again ...
maybe it's just a hat with pieces of paper & numbers ...
I'm going with "a hat" ...
BRB need more hats. *loads up Steam*
I don't care about art. I'll be in your corner for this oneUgh, I hit a nerve.
Yes, I used the wrong term, and points taken.
. I mean hell, I'm still playing a game made in 1997.
Those hats can be addicting, lol.
Man, up until I clicked the link I thought I might have an ally in the quest for thongs to be added.
I'd have no objections to them, either.
Not on the Engineer, though!
(I didn't need to have that mental image
)
What about the Heavy?I'd have no objections to them, either.
Not on the Engineer, though!
(I didn't need to have that mental image
On the plus side, I am no longer haunted by the mental image of the bethonged Engineer.
Just to get this thread back on track...
Fully rendered (if poorly) chest:
Now prepare to be underwhelmed in the extreme, here's what we get in the Classic Client:
Fully rendered (if poorly) chest:
Now prepare to be underwhelmed in the extreme, here's what we get in the Classic Client:
The Raised Barden Bed doesn't appear to have been patched into the client yet. Unless it is reusing existing art assets (smallest wall pieces and dirt tiles)...
an idea is growning on my mind... making this kind of items with 3d max is too expensive for a simple concept... what if they are taking the picture and drag it into EC?
This will make sense, high resolution graphics without using 3d models... however if they are going to use 3d models on EC I'll be more happy, because using a 3d engine to play 2d objects is sad like a ferrari used as a city car....
This will make sense, high resolution graphics without using 3d models... however if they are going to use 3d models on EC I'll be more happy, because using a 3d engine to play 2d objects is sad like a ferrari used as a city car....
Yes, yes it is exactly as easy I seem to think it is.
Even in 3DS Max 2012.
But hey, I'm probably just making this stuff up as I go.
S
Silverbrook
Guest
Ra'Dian does this for a living, btw. So yes, I would venture he understands exactly what it takes.
Ok and now that the pic is posted can we PLEASE get back on topic and I'll say this..... the UO Art team needs to go back to taking perspective 101...
*scowls*
P.S. Maybe I should cut them some slack.... You know with Schools cutting back programs maybe they didn't learn about perspective in 5th grade art class....
*scowls*
P.S. Maybe I should cut them some slack.... You know with Schools cutting back programs maybe they didn't learn about perspective in 5th grade art class....
W
Woodsman
Guest
I think a big part of the problem is they are having to cope with design decisions made in the 1990s, as far as perspectives. What seemed like a good idea then isn't such a hot idea now, at least as long as they stick to pixel-based artwork. People are complaining that things seem slightly off but I think they are slightly off because they have to deal with existing items/graphics.
In my dream world, the graphics stuff for the EC would be new and would do away with a lot of those original decisions made in the 1990s, while trying to keep an isometric perspective, but it sounds like they are just going to upgrade the current work.
In my dream world, the graphics stuff for the EC would be new and would do away with a lot of those original decisions made in the 1990s, while trying to keep an isometric perspective, but it sounds like they are just going to upgrade the current work.
I am not trying to suggest that you are making this up.
If anything, I am suggesting that you are approaching this as someone who has majored in something along these lines. That is to say, you're fitting the problem into your understanding, rather that building an understanding around the problem. In all but the barest handful of cases, the first approach will serve you gleefully, but the perspective used in UO is one of the handful.
To go back to the crux of the matter, UO's perspective is "oblique", which is "impossible". It is an ideal perspective for an RPG, or any other "top-down" game, however for representing a 3D space it is made of lies.
The XY plane (the floor) is displayed as if from directly above (90° angle of depression), preserving the "squareness" of the tiles.
When viewing from above, the view of the walls and other vertical features would be limited, so the angle of the walls (XZ and YZ planes) is skewed to create the illusion of depth (roughly 50° angle of depression). This makes it look like an isometric perspective, while it is really oblique due to the XY plane remaining "facing" the viewport.
We have been here before, though, so we need to go deeper.
To highlight the problem, there are two primary examples of items that can't follow the same rendering rules; the box and the circle.
The box is easiest to define, since the world is made up of boxes, and boxes and other things that would have a lot of right angles conform to the same rules as the rest of the world.
Here is a gift box, with garish highlighting of the lines as they correspond with the tile edges.
To state the obvious, and contain the image within the paragraph a little, it totally does.
The circle is less easy.
Because the XY plane is viewed as if from directly above, making the tiles perfect squares, then circles on that plane would be similarly perfect. Yet that would look completely wrong in the context of the world, and so they're displayed at the same perspective as the XZ and YZ planes, as per the pentagram below (which is thankfully devoid of garish highlighting).
It's very obvious that it is not a perfect circle.
If you took those items, and rendered them according to the rules of the other, you end up with these:
Both of which look quite substantially wrong.
(Didn't original artwork for the Chichen Itza-like gift cake have angles like that box?)
The point is, in the end (finally!), that the perspective in UO demands different rules for different item types.
A "box" needs to be rendered in oblique perspective, to fit with the world. In effect, skewing the whole thing by 50° or so with transforms.
A "circle" needs to be rendered at the 50° angle of depression, throwing the whole oblique perspective to the wind.
If both the rules apply, then complicated modifications (or compromising) needs to be done. Picture a cube with a circle on the top of it, the "box" rule can't be ignored because the box would look wrong, and the "circle" rule couldn't be ignored or the circle would look wrong. You could make the circle a special ellipse to look right, but then it would look wrong if the box were able to be turned (although you could use something separate to the box to impose the circle on it, with position relative to the camera).
E
ECO Director
Guest
Cant keep the servers running, but hey, when you do get in you can sit and look at your pretty pixels.
T
Trebr Drab
Guest
I think maybe the perspective problems come in part from the 2 clients. While the world is the same, the perspective of the avatars are different. And using the same art for both will make one work better than the other.Just to get this thread back on track...
Fully rendered (if poorly) chest:
Now prepare to be underwhelmed in the extreme, here's what we get in the Classic Client:
The Raised Barden Bed doesn't appear to have been patched into the client yet. Unless it is reusing existing art assets (smallest wall pieces and dirt tiles)...
- Awards
- 1
You should have played the first few years the game was out!
Also i play wow and evony and they have far more server down time then I have here!
O
olduofan
Guest
Hmm ?
T
Trebr Drab
Guest
Oops. I just checked it, I'm wrong. I thought the angle of the avatars were different. Maybe that was KR, maybe I'm just wrong all the way around.
M
mjolnir131
Guest
They should have lead with this
and used the new items for a build up
W
Woodsman
Guest
Are more people interested in pixel crack than actual updates to areas?
Okay... let me clarify...
1) I understand the perspective in which UO is rendered.
2) I am aware that it can be rendered to from 3DS Max. Yes, it requires setting the render camera in a specific manner. But then, that's sort of why you can go in and set specific parameters for the render camera.
3) Using 3DS Max and an appropriate set render camera (as well as properly sized artwork that matches the expected output ratio for the game), you can render artwork that is -- while technically not a true 3D render -- a render in the proper proportions to UO's specific perspective.
I'm stating, rather matter of factly, that as long as the studio is using 3DS Max (and if they're not, why in god's sake not?), then they can get properly rendered artwork that fits into UO's perspective without making it look like it's leaning to the northwest.
M
mjolnir131
Guest
Still bitter over cake and silver serpent trees?
yes it's still A)Ugly and B) Bad.
The Silver Sapling trees in the pots are FAR too high in the tile and appear to be "floating"...
The cake is just plain ugly.
O
olduofan
Guest
I would have to agree with this I thought they were going to fix this, didn't they attempt to ?
Edit
Also I Believe they said that, that was out sourced art...
C
canary
Guest
You might be OK with substandard art and service, but many of us aren't.
W
Woodsman
Guest
Exactly. It's 2011. I hope they fix it with this graphics update, but given that there have been no new hires, I have a feeling it'll be outsourced.
That does not really address the issue with circles, or objects with more "organic" shapes, which would tend similarly in the direction of "wrong" if rendered in wonky perspectives.
This is what lies at the heart of my disagreement with your statement. The "correct" way to render an object depends entirely on what the item is, and in cases where the item has elements that require multiple different "correct ways", then it's not really going to turn out well.
The differences only really come out in the region of 5°. Before running the numbers, I'd assumed that the number would be much bigger, considering how obvious the discontinuity is.
If everything were rendered in the same perspective, it wouldn't look all that different to how it does today (rough example), and near all the problems with rendering would be gone, and the EC could even be properly 3D
Still bitter over having your bridge destroyed? Or is there a lack of billy goats for you?