Did anyone else notice this

[Livemau]

There are no rounded edges :o
if u look closely everything is straight

[Windwaiker]

Uh, where?

[Cahaun]

Exactly. Round is impossible as everything is made of a straight lines ;)

[WoundedEagle]

-Witches Hat
-Brawlers Brew

[Otukura]

-Witches Hat
-Brawlers Brew

Brew has 6 main sides, look again.

Witch hat has 10.

[WoundedEagle]

Brew has 6 main sides, look again.

Witch hat has 10.

False information is false. You might need to upgrade your device for some better resolution.

[Otukura]

False information is false. You might need to upgrade your device for some better resolution.

I'm on chrome, 1440x1080.

I think you need to upgrade yours.


edit: proof
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76414288/pics/hat.PNG
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76414288/pics/juice.PNG

[Whirlzap]

My mage's bobblehead is completely round.
Quit hating, SON.

[Lowlyspy]

Nothing, even in real life, is perfectly round. Even the roundest looking object has miniscule straight lines making them up.

[mackjack]

Unless STS is doing something special with their graphics engine (which I doubt), then every in game 3D object is composed of triangles. Some of these objects might consist of lots of triangles to make them appear smooth, but if you zoom in enough, you'll notice not only straight lines, but flat surfaces.

For people arguing for perfectly round/smooth 3D objects in game, perhaps an upgrade of your understanding of computer graphics is in order.

[WoundedEagle]

I'm on chrome, 1440x1080.

I think you need to upgrade yours.


edit: proof
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76414288/pics/hat.PNG
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76414288/pics/juice.PNG

I don't see stray corners on my iPad. And if you look at not the rounding of the hat, but the cone shape on top, it's circular.



Unless STS is doing something special with their graphics engine (which I doubt), then every in game 3D object is composed of triangles. Some of these objects might consist of lots of triangles to make them appear smooth, but if you zoom in enough, you'll notice not only straight lines, but flat surfaces.

For people arguing for perfectly round/smooth 3D objects in game, perhaps an upgrade of your understanding of computer graphics is in order.

And pardon me for not being a file cabinet of computer graphics and 3D game engines. There was no need to be rude. If you'd like to continue your point, PM me. Thanks.

[Urqui]

Exactly. Round is impossible as everything is made of a straight lines ;)
Reality>Video Games;)

[Otukura]

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76414288/pics/hat2.PNG

They're there.

[WoundedEagle]

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76414288/pics/hat2.PNG

They're there.

Just. Lol.

[Otukura]

You need better eyesight :3

[zeusabe]

Nothing, even in real life, is perfectly round. Even the roundest looking object has miniscule straight lines making them up.

Remember this equation? x^2 + y^2 = r^2 , in case you don't or you still haven't encountered it, this is your basic equation of a circle. If you go back to your geometry history, you would find there that the only reason why the perfect circle can never exist is because one would need to draw a circle (or any shape for that matter) down to its smallest size (your quarks or subatomic particles), nobody has gone that far I think, and even if someone did, as technology advances, man will find smaller units over and over so in effect there will never be an end to the search for that perfect circle. If I'm not mistaken, don't quote me, the most perfect circle was made out of particle waves but that is not even considered the "perfect" because there are smaller units that particles (subatomic particles), but it's as perfect as it gets today, maybe next few years, someone can measure a perfect circle on subatomic level, but maybe when that day comes, a smaller unit has been discovered (mega super subatomic quark or something). The point is, the theory on shapes doesn't suggest that the perfect circle doesn't exist because the "roundest looking object has miniscule straight lines...", nope, in fact, it's suggesting that there is, it's just that the technology cannot comprehend it yet. For the record, just for technicality's sake, the word "perfect" cannot be applied on a geometrical shape, that will never exist because of the same theory as the perfect circle. In summary, existence is not being questioned, the ruler is just not efficient yet, think about it.

PS: Agree on topic, disagree on real life comparison.

[Whirlzap]

Um, can this be brought into Off-Topic.
I'm really hoping newbs don't wind up here and get the wrong impression of the general foruming community of PL ;O

[KingFu]

Just. Lol.

They are there indeed. They're rounded panels. They come together to try and appear as a cone shape, but it isn't perfectly round.

[plmafiaboss]

False information is false. You might need to upgrade your device for some better resolution.

I'm on chrome, 1440x1080.

I think you need to upgrade yours.


edit: proof
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76414288/pics/hat.PNG
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/76414288/pics/juice.PNGooooooh snap!

[Suentous PO]

Remember this equation? x^2 + y^2 = r^2 , in case you don't or you still haven't encountered it, this is your basic equation of a circle. If you go back to your geometry history, you would find there that the only reason why the perfect circle can never exist is because one would need to draw a circle (or any shape for that matter) down to its smallest size (your quarks or subatomic particles), nobody has gone that far I think, and even if someone did, as technology advances, man will find smaller units over and over so in effect there will never be an end to the search for that perfect circle. If I'm not mistaken, don't quote me, the most perfect circle was made out of particle waves but that is not even considered the "perfect" because there are smaller units that particles (subatomic particles), but it's as perfect as it gets today, maybe next few years, someone can measure a perfect circle on subatomic level, but maybe when that day comes, a smaller unit has been discovered (mega super subatomic quark or something). The point is, the theory on shapes doesn't suggest that the perfect circle doesn't exist because the "roundest looking object has miniscule straight lines...", nope, in fact, it's suggesting that there is, it's just that the technology cannot comprehend it yet. For the record, just for technicality's sake, the word "perfect" cannot be applied on a geometrical shape, that will never exist because of the same theory as the perfect circle. In summary, existence is not being questioned, the ruler is just not efficient yet, think about it.

PS: Agree on topic, disagree on real life comparison.
Subatomically everything is a multidimensional wave form until it collapses into a vector state of determination.
I'm sory, this was neither funny or on topic. Cary on.

[Lowlyspy]

Remember this equation? x^2 + y^2 = r^2 , in case you don't or you still haven't encountered it, this is your basic equation of a circle. If you go back to your geometry history, you would find there that the only reason why the perfect circle can never exist is because one would need to draw a circle (or any shape for that matter) down to its smallest size (your quarks or subatomic particles), nobody has gone that far I think, and even if someone did, as technology advances, man will find smaller units over and over so in effect there will never be an end to the search for that perfect circle. If I'm not mistaken, don't quote me, the most perfect circle was made out of particle waves but that is not even considered the "perfect" because there are smaller units that particles (subatomic particles), but it's as perfect as it gets today, maybe next few years, someone can measure a perfect circle on subatomic level, but maybe when that day comes, a smaller unit has been discovered (mega super subatomic quark or something). The point is, the theory on shapes doesn't suggest that the perfect circle doesn't exist because the "roundest looking object has miniscule straight lines...", nope, in fact, it's suggesting that there is, it's just that the technology cannot comprehend it yet. For the record, just for technicality's sake, the word "perfect" cannot be applied on a geometrical shape, that will never exist because of the same theory as the perfect circle. In summary, existence is not being questioned, the ruler is just not efficient yet, think about it.

PS: Agree on topic, disagree on real life comparison.
In a theoretical world, yes that equation would prove me wrong, however I am speaking of a real life scenario. Like you said, there can never be a perfect circle due to the ever expanding knowledge of sub-atomic particles.

[Elf-Orc-Naga]

OMG what a topic! can i join? do you know that circle has one point more than a line? hehehe

[mackjack]

@WoundedEagle

Go back and read your own post (#6). My post is neither better nor worse than yours when it comes to being "rude".

To use your own words: thin skin is thin.

[mackjack]

Coming back to topic, a quick google search:

Texture mapped 3d character models. The left most one looks pretty good; not too many obvious flat surfaces.
http://www.rocketbox-libraries.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/s/p/sportive03_f_lods_color0000.jpg

Underneath though, it's a whole bunch of flat triangles.
http://www.rocketbox-libraries.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/s/p/sportive03_f_lods_wire0000.jpg

If you look carefully at PL's 3D models, it's very obvious (to me, at least) that the number of triangles used is actually very, very low.

[WoundedEagle]

They are there indeed. They're rounded panels. They come together to try and appear as a cone shape, but it isn't perfectly round.

If you notice, I never said anything here was perfectly round, but rather listed things that were round in the game.

[dudetus]

I am amazed that Livemau's thread caused constructive discussion.

[mackjack]

Now I'm curious. Do any of you consider the following picture to be "round"?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/Decagon_500.gif

Because I guarantee that if you are able to get a bird's eye view of witches hat, brawer's brew, etc. you'll see a polygon like the above instead of a "round" shape. Again, this is due to using triangles to apporximate cones, cylinders, and circles.

[Zeus]

Wounded, pixel density comes into play. On the high res screens of the iPhone 4, 4S and iPad 3, the edges appear more curved because the pixels are packed more closely together.

[Noodleleg]

OKAY I'M SURE THIS INFORMATION IS BENEFICIAL TO ALTERRAN KIND... YOU'RE GONNA BE AOA OR GOA FOR POSTING THIS...
-Sarcasm- -Cough Cough- -Wait am I still coughing?- -Er yeah.. That was sarcasm-

[Noodleleg]

Remember this equation? x^2 + y^2 = r^2 , in case you don't or you still haven't encountered it, this is your basic equation of a circle. If you go back to your geometry history, you would find there that the only reason why the perfect circle can never exist is because one would need to draw a circle (or any shape for that matter) down to its smallest size (your quarks or subatomic particles), nobody has gone that far I think, and even if someone did, as technology advances, man will find smaller units over and over so in effect there will never be an end to the search for that perfect circle. If I'm not mistaken, don't quote me, the most perfect circle was made out of particle waves but that is not even considered the "perfect" because there are smaller units that particles (subatomic particles), but it's as perfect as it gets today, maybe next few years, someone can measure a perfect circle on subatomic level, but maybe when that day comes, a smaller unit has been discovered (mega super subatomic quark or something). The point is, the theory on shapes doesn't suggest that the perfect circle doesn't exist because the "roundest looking object has miniscule straight lines...", nope, in fact, it's suggesting that there is, it's just that the technology cannot comprehend it yet. For the record, just for technicality's sake, the word "perfect" cannot be applied on a geometrical shape, that will never exist because of the same theory as the perfect circle. In summary, existence is not being questioned, the ruler is just not efficient yet, think about it.

PS: Agree on topic, disagree on real life comparison.

Erm.... That looks like a2+b2=c2
Which is like... Triangles... Which is like... Not round... What formula are you talking about? Euler's method thingy majig? That equation is much longer lol...

[zeusabe]

Erm.... That looks like a2+b2=c2
Which is like... Triangles... Which is like... Not round... What formula are you talking about? Euler's method thingy majig? That equation is much longer lol...

It's called Cartesian Coordinate System. It's the simplified version of (x-h)^2+ (y-k)^2 = r^2, where h and k are the x,y coordinates, and r as the radius. You can also use trigonometric functions (cos,sin,tan) but this is the one I'm more familiar with. I hope I didn't embarrass you. :)

[Ixillicus]

Can we all just agree the graphics aren't that great... and they're not too bad, but hey, we're playing a game designed for a cell phone!

[Noodleleg]

It's called Cartesian Coordinate System. It's the simplified version of (x-h)^2+ (y-k)^2 = r^2, where h and k are the x,y coordinates, and r as the radius. You can also use trigonometric functions (cos,sin,tan) but this is the one I'm more familiar with. I hope I didn't embarrass you. :)

Ohhhhh... Why give me the simplified version lol... That makes much more sense.

[Chopper]

why is this even a discussions?

What, should we spend 500 platinum so we can get a "round" shield, instead of a polygon constructed shield that looks 99% round? ha ha ha

[dudetus]

Ohhhhh... Why give me the simplified version lol... That makes much more sense.

Don't act like u got it ;)

[Livemau]

btw for tose who dont believe look at a balloon in nuris hallows or the handle of your sword or wand or staff

[Rare]

Can we all just agree the graphics aren't that great... and they're not too bad, but hey, we're playing a game designed for a cell phone!

GET OUT OF HERE!!! Its getting interesting

[WoundedEagle]

Now I'm curious. Do any of you consider the following picture to be "round"?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/Decagon_500.gif

Because I guarantee that if you are able to get a bird's eye view of witches hat, brawer's brew, etc. you'll see a polygon like the above instead of a "round" shape. Again, this is due to using triangles to apporximate cones, cylinders, and circles.

I was referring to the cone on top of the hat which is cylindrical.


Wounded, pixel density comes into play. On the high res screens of the iPhone 4, 4S and iPad 3, the edges appear more curved because the pixels are packed more closely together.

That's what I have been trying to say -_-

[Noodleleg]

Don't act like u got it ;)

I'm Asian ;)

[dudetus]

I'm Asian ;)

Oh...



11758

[Windwaiker]

I'm Asian ;)


Oh...



11758

Haha...

...Wait! I found something round!!

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn319/midnightlugia/Pocket%20Legends/67214dd7.jpg

[StompArtist]

According to string theory there are no circles and/or lines.

All of you are wrong.

[Windwaiker]

Round just means no sharp corners, so as long as something doesn't look sharp, then it's round! :D

[rinzler]

Hi guys, I'm closing this thread for trolling and flaming.

-Rinzler