Im having a debate with my uncle about the ammount of dimensions at play in byond games(non isometric one's such naruto Goa etc).
He claims that even though the graphics is poorly made and thus represents only two dimensions , the player's abitity to move up and down the y axis is equivalent to the depth dimention(which is true...i think), and his ability to move on the x axis is equivalent to the width dimention(also true...i think) and the third one is the players height.
Now ive grown accustomed to link 2 dimensions to games like naruto GOA but could he be right?
thanks ahead
ID:265998
 Nov 10 2010, 9:43 am
|
|
Kaioken wrote:
BYOND's map is obviously a 2D environment (isometric perspective attempts to partly simulate 3D in this 2D environment). You can only move in 2 dimensions/axes: X and Y. This is because the Z axis in DM basically just separates "different maps", it's not an axis that actually exists within an actual map. You're correct that the z level of a map isn't really a third axis, but it is possible to have three dimensional movement. In my Isometric library mobs can move along the x and y axes and jump (which is a movement along the z axis). The top-down display mode can't display jumping as nicely but movements in 3 dimensions can occur. Of course not. Being able to either increase or decrease the position in an axis is still nothing more than being able to move in that (one) axis. I don't think that's what Biond_coder was saying. His claim (his uncle's claim, actually) was that in addition to the x and y axes, the player's height extends along another axis. There's some truth to this. In this screenshot the mobs aren't all lying on the ground, they're standing upright (perpendicular to the x-y plane). Most BYOND games try to depict three dimensional scenes but don't allow movement in three dimensions. I'd have to agree with your uncle but I'm not sure what the point of the argument is. | |
thank you forum_account thats exactly what my uncle meant :)
and i think i agree with him (and with you) after some consideration. btw this argument had no point we just tend to argue alot...XD | |
While Byond is not 3d it does have a perception of a 3d environment. using tricks of the eye and some nice angles, byond can emulate a 3 dimensional world with a two dimensional representation. It's like a photo of a cube. The picture is two dimensional but the cube itself was created in three.
Byond does have three dimensions (x,y,z) however since the z dimension is not dynamically visible like x and y are, it's still a 2d system. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just explaining how it emulates three dimensions with a two dimensional world. I do agree though, it can be made to look like it's three dimensions, and it does a fantastic job at this, especially isometric worlds with dynamic pixel_z adjustments like Forum_account's. | |
Mathematically, the objects exist in three dimensions, however, only two of those dimensions are visible at any given time.
| |
BYOND is definitely 2D. There's no 3rd axis, some games make icons to fake 3rd dimension, or isometric to make it look like 3D, but it's all 2D.
| |
BYOND is definitely 2D. There's no 3rd axis, some games make icons to fake 3rd dimension, or isometric to make it look like 3D, but it's all 2D. turfs are given a location with 3 dimensions. And there is no reason a game couldn't incorporate even more dimensions into the gameplay. How you can represent this in BYOND may be a bit limiting. There are also many game which are rendered to give the illusion of 3 dimensional space but the gameplay is bound entirely to a 2D plane so the gameplay model operates entirely in 2 dimensions regardless of how it is represented. Some RTS games have a limited third dimension like Starcraft where everything has a 2D position and then a simple boolean dimension of if it's in the air or on the ground. | |
Well it depends if we are speaking of 3D graphics, or maths? If maths - then BYOND has it. But graphics wise, it's only 2D icons, which may be transformed to fake 3rd dimension, but it's not as good as 3D model.
| |
Well it depends if we are speaking of 3D graphics, or maths? If maths - then BYOND has it. But graphics wise, it's only 2D icons, which may be transformed to fake 3rd dimension, but it's not as good as 3D model. At what point is it fake and when is it real? I mean when holographic displays with actual depth come out will you be calling the 3D projections to flat surfaces fake? Was Wolfenstein 3D fake? How about the old games using untextured meshes? Even in BYOND that one is doable and even raycasting has been proven doable in BYOND. And doing an isometric game you can have a game give the appearance of 3 dimensions as well as the game incorporating the extra dimension in the gameplay. Snake Rattle and Roll on the NES pulled it off, Sonic 3D pulled it off, and OneFishDown even pull that kind of 3D off in BYOND. I don't see how it's fake when it gives the proper illusion of depth and even incorporates the extra dimension in gameplay. There are plenty of 3D rendered games that give off a nice illusion of 3D graphics and the gameplay takes place entirely on a flat 2D plane. So there really should be a stated distinction because games can pull off the look of 3D and be entirely flat and you can have stuff like 4 dimensional tic tac toe represented with a bunch of 2D slices. Regardless when it comes to looks there are many ways to give off the illusion of 3D and even in the more processor intensive versions it's just that because in the end it's being presented on a flat surface and then picked up as two flat images by the eyes with the brain taking its best guess on how interpret the depth. | |
To back up Theodis' point, at work I'm currently working on some fancy graphical displays for some data. One of them is a three-dimensional graph of data in three dimensions.
The graph isn't 'drawn in 3D', in the sense that I use OpenGL or DirectX or whatever to render it - all the rendering functions plop stuff down on a 2D space (the window). But it quite effectively does 3D by taking the position of stuff in 3D and running a matrix over it to work out where it should be positioned in 2 dimensions if it were in 3 dimensions and you were looking at it from a certain viewpoint. That is, it's doing exactly what something like OpenGL does when you do 'actual' 3D graphics (there are a few reasons why just using OpenGL would be more trouble than it's worth). | |
Ok apparently some of you people are so smart they forgot how to read!!(Warlord Fred ,Ripiz) as i wrote in my original post the debate was about if the player's actions combining with his height make him 3d or not,and quite frankly i think its true and it does. the debate was never about the graphics as i stated :"...even though the graphics is poorly made and thus represents only two dimensions...".
Now alot of you say that there isnt a 3rd dimension since the Z axe doesnt count...well i agree with you because IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE Z AXE. the three dimensions im talking about, again, are: Width: moving right and left is a trivial proof of that dimension. Height: the player's own height represents another dimension that is rarely used( jumping, flying) but it is still there nonetheless. Depth: this one seems to elude people for some reason. lets take a player who's location is 5,5 and a player who's location is 5,10. as we can see player two has a higher y value then player one, does that mean that player two is on higher ground then player one?? no*... player two is just somewhere else on the same plain. thats called depth. *counting of course on that their both on the same terrain or what ever since if one of them is on a mountain and the other isnt it kinna takes out the point | |
In your example the players exist in only two dimensions, width and depth. The height, although visually represented, does not exist, as they cannot move along that plane. They are actually flat against the ground, even though, in a top-down view, they seem to be standing.
| |
First of all your wrong in dismissing Height as a dimension for two reason: The first and most important one is the fact that in both mathematics and physics, a dimension is not defined by the ability of one to travel along that dimension but by the amount of minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.
The second reason your wrong is because movement is possible along that dimension as shown by games like Naruto Goa (where one can kick another player into the air). Second, i didn't quite get what you meant by "They are actually flat against the ground...". | |
Whoever says an environment like a BYOND map 'is 3D' is quite obviously wrong.
There are only 2 dimensions available, X and Y (e.g. width and length). There's no 3rd dimension like height. The minimum amount of coordinates to specify an object's location in the plane is two (X and Y). Z is not a 3rd dimension in the plane. It's merely an extra "coordinate" that doesn't specify the object's location in the plane. Rather, it specifies on which plane it is (the Z1 plane, or the Z2 plane, etc). What you're saying is akin to taking a traditional notebook page with 2 graphs (graph A and graph B) on it, then giving points on those graphs a third "coordinate" that specifies which graph it is on (A or B). It's not really a coordinate that specifies position... Whether there are visual illusions or not isn't part of the question (just like optical illusions aren't actually real themselves and aren't a part of the environment). While they're irrelevant, they do exist, of course. Indeed, fortunately, like Forum_account said, you can also simulate 3-dimensional movement on a 2D plane. Of course, that doesn't prove anything for you guys; the plane is still 2-dimensional. The illusion inevitably isn't a perfect imitation, either. To finish, the lack of a 3D environment can be noticeably seen by the lack of 3D models. In other words, you can't change your viewing angle of an object and see it from all possible directions, which is possible to do in a proper 3D environment. | |
Biond_coder wrote:
Second, i didn't quite get what you meant by "They are actually flat against the ground...".  Terribly sexy artwork aside, The bottom right is a different angle of BYOND's Isometric view...notice it's flat. The reason the Grey person looks 3D is because it hangs off the edge, being drawn over the other turf. | |
Kaioken wrote:
To finish, the lack of a 3D environment can be noticeably seen by the lack of 3D models. In other words, you can't change your viewing angle of an object and see it from all possible directions, which is possible to do in a proper 3D environment. See [link]. 3D graphics are not necessary for simulating a 3D environment. Indeed, fortunately, like Forum_account said, you can also simulate 3-dimensional movement on a 2D plane. Of course, that doesn't prove anything for you guys; the plane is still 2-dimensional. The illusion inevitably isn't a perfect imitation, either. I guess I was misunderstood. In a game where you can traverse the x-y plane and jump your position is determined by your x coordinate, y coordinate, and distance from the x-y plane (the height you've jumped). That is 3 dimensional. | |
Forum_account wrote:
See [link]. 3D graphics are not necessary for simulating a 3D environment. Yes, simulating. We are in agreement. What you quoted from me doesn't exclude that. That is 3 dimensional. The issue is that the system is hardcoded so that your physical location is still your X,Y position (with the Y now displaced) so that you may share the location with an object that is flat against the ground -- even if part of your system regards it as a different position. It can be accounted for (though likely rarely perfectly), hence the illusion can be made. It works better if the entire project was designed for it, which is impossible in BYOND since you can't entirely redefine the mapping/positioning like that. | |
Unless you're talking about some kind of 3D display (like a 3D TV, etc.), all this '3D' gets projected onto a 2D plane before being displayed, anyway. OpenGL, for example, has a 'modelview matrix' that positions all the points you've asked it to draw in 3D space, and then a 'projection matrix' that takes that set of 3D points and converts it to the appropriate set of 2D points. That's all easy enough to write in DM (although it'd be pretty slow). Is that a 'simulation' of a 3D environment, or a 3D environment itself?
Answer: Mu. The two are indistinguishable. (More to the point, is Doom 3D? If raycasting counts, DM can definitely do 3D - see Gakumerasara's Vengeance 56). | |
BYOND's map is obviously a 2D environment (isometric perspective attempts to partly simulate 3D in this 2D environment). You can only move in 2 dimensions/axes: X and Y. This is because the Z axis in DM basically just separates "different maps", it's not an axis that actually exists within an actual map.
Biond_coder wrote:
Of course not. Being able to either increase or decrease the position in an axis is still nothing more than being able to move in that (one) axis.
By that line of thinking, BYOND maps would've been "4-dimensional", since you can increase as well as decrease your position within a map in both the X and Y axes.