mechnix
blah. 3D.
mechnix
10 posts
Mechnix is mad! the other one is a bit of a let-down with the water effect, it's been overused and just looks ugly, but good work on the scopes!
Wow! you've made some great progress here!! Don't like the watered version though. I can't really see the difference from what we were doing 3 years ago and this, except the Texer II, but it's hardly visible...
But the other version kicks ass!! Well done! it's just that I don't really like the flickering colors.
tip: you increase the colors twice, in t and in c (with a way too high value too). My solution:
BEAT
rt=rand(10)*.01
FRAME
t=t+rt <-- or set it to c=c+rt (or rc for that matter)
POINT
c=t; <--leave this out please!! I only wrote this for clearing it out.
But the other version kicks ass!! Well done! it's just that I don't really like the flickering colors.
tip: you increase the colors twice, in t and in c (with a way too high value too). My solution:
BEAT
rt=rand(10)*.01
FRAME
t=t+rt <-- or set it to c=c+rt (or rc for that matter)
POINT
c=t; <--leave this out please!! I only wrote this for clearing it out.
Particle size fix on resolution please.
You can for example use: psx=w/yourwidth ; psy=h/yourheight ;
sizex=finalsizeofx*psx ;
sizey=finalsizeofy*psy ;
Or you can just go straight with:
sizex=finalsizeofx*psx ;
sizey=sizex
This keeps the aspect ratio of the particle size to original, since both sizex & sizey are the same.
Otherwise, nice progression, but doing 3D just for the hecks of it usually ain't a good idea 😉 Use only what you need to, not what others might think is "cool".
You can for example use: psx=w/yourwidth ; psy=h/yourheight ;
sizex=finalsizeofx*psx ;
sizey=finalsizeofy*psy ;
Or you can just go straight with:
sizex=finalsizeofx*psx ;
sizey=sizex
This keeps the aspect ratio of the particle size to original, since both sizex & sizey are the same.
Otherwise, nice progression, but doing 3D just for the hecks of it usually ain't a good idea 😉 Use only what you need to, not what others might think is "cool".
Tugg is wrong, all wrong.
Aspect ratio correction is smelly and uneccesary... and you should always do what's cool. And all the best presets are 3D for the sake of it.
Aspect ratio correction is smelly and uneccesary... and you should always do what's cool. And all the best presets are 3D for the sake of it.
No, PAK-9 is smelly and uneccesary and we only put up with him, because we don't want to hurt his feelings.
Originally posted by Tuggummiamen 😉
No, PAK-9 is smelly and uneccesary and we only put up with him, because we don't want to hurt his feelings.
Originally posted by TuggummiYaeh, but I think 3D is cool. Always have, always will.
Otherwise, nice progression, but doing 3D just for the hecks of it usually ain't a good idea 😉 Use only what you need to, not what others might think is "cool".
(Unless it's really really bad, slow 3D, or plane DM's)
My opinion: for this particular preset, aspect ratio isn't really needed. No-one would mind anyway. Why would they *need* to be square in the first place?
I may be smelly and uneccesary, but... er... what was the other thing you said?