How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

Minisaurus · 2020-10-08 22:49:20

UPDATE:

If the smileys were meant to be in their "world" 3D beings, how much depth would they have? would they be spherical? or cylinders? or a mix of both?
Now the debate with the corrected purpose gives you the opportunity to use your imagination and see what funny and creative solutions can you get to visualize the EE smileys if they were 3D, If they had depth, width and lenght.
How would the world of the smileys work if so?
P.S: For simplicity of the debate, you can keep the game working as a 2D game with only two movement axis (X and Y), or you can add Z axis for movement and allow the smiley to move in one additional dimension, you choose.
You can consider the surface of the smiley either smooth, detailed or pixel-like. (or other)

________________________________________________

Here is my guess:

There is 5 layers in EE, and EEU promises to have even more layers. We know the height and width(16 pixels each), but we don´t know the Depth.

EE is view in a Orthographic view. That explains how the backgrounds of EE are shown like if they were in the same plane than the blocks, so objects of EE can have more Depth than what they seems to have.
We are not discussing here the size of pixels, lets think that pixels can adapt their shape to fit in the surface they are meant to be representing. EE measuements are done using pixels (cubic pixels).

How much pixels is the Depth of each layers?

For example, bevel blocks are at least 6 pixels Depth.

Bevel blocks does not have a mirror bevel for each side, only shown the bevel in the main face, so blocks are not mirrors but rather a "single" face.
But if we extend it, perfectly it can be 16 pixels Depth, the blocks extrude to the front to start taking shape.

So I consider the block layer and the background layer to be 16 pixels Depth each.
This applies to decorative items, aciton tools and smileys, all objects in EE are potentially 16x16

_

Smileys are in front of blocks and backgrounds layer.

Decorative items are either in front or behind of smiley layer, so it is a mix.

Same for action tools, some are in front and others are behind the smiley.
So decorative and action tools are in the same layer.
_

But as EE want to have additional layers I guess that this mess will be then splitted in atual different layers.
_
The smileys are in front of blocks, but blocks are extruded from behind to front, so logically is impossible to smileys to stand on blocks even if smileys were 1 pixel Depth.
Even more if transparent block allows the smiley stand in it even if there is no real surface to stand on, so lets assume that every block starts as a 16³ (4096 cubic pixels) that are invisible, and start to colorize them afterwards.
There is no way to make the smiley stand on blocks because they are basically two cubes that does not have any way to collide each other.
But for this lets assume that the block somehow extend that invisible shape that every block has to allow by that the smiley to collide with blocks and continue being in front of them.
But that does not solves the cosmetics not getting hit by the blocks.
And to make it completely logical, lets say that the cosmetics of smileys does not actually collide with nothing, so the invisible surface only hits the "circle" of the smiley.
_
The order of the layers might be like this:
Background
Action tool A
Decorative item A
Blocks
Smiley
Action tool B
Decorative item B
Foreground (Foregrounds, like backgrounds but in front of smileys and objects(Not yet a thing).
Decorative item C (Decorative items for Foregrounds (Not yet a thing).
_

But appart from everything said, I still don´t know the smiley´s Depth.
The questions remains, what is the Depth of smileys?
It could be 16 pixels widht, but that might look ugly in practice.
The white and black borders does not seems to be solid objects, but rather a border-line, that follows the view perspective movement.
This explains it better:

So those border-lines are actually 1 pixel each in whatever view perspective.
(P.S: The example above is missing lots of details and has flaws in colors and shape (The example is actually a low-poly object), the Depth is only as an example. A lot polishment and modifications would be needed to make it up to EE´s quality standards)
_

We know smileys are 16x16 in width and height, but what about their Depth?
Not even the staff know the answer to this question, there is no data about the Depth of smileys (or any other EE object) anywhere either.

N1KF, Grilyon2, Kkay

TaskManager · 2020-10-08 23:21:45

0

mutantdevle, KyYay, Gosha, St1ckS4m(EE), Filip2005, drstereos, Slabdrill

Cola1 · 2020-10-08 23:56:15

damn i want that sleek 3D smiley coin
that's always how I've imagined them

Joeyjoey65, KyYay, Blackmask

mutantdevle · 2020-10-09 01:12:59

TaskManager wrote:

0

This is the answer. Smileys exist only in 2 dimensions and therefore have no width. Having different layers is not evidence of a third dimension, but rather that there are multiple 2 dimensional planes stacked on top of each other. Since all of these planes have a width of 0, the result of stacking them remains a width of 0.

Minisaurus · 2020-10-09 04:19:47

EE has more volume than what is apparents, this is how EE has a 3d volume but is shown as a 2d game using a orthographic view mode:

The cubes in normal mode does not fit in each other when focusing the camera one in front of the other.
But when you use the orthographic view, you can fit the two squares in the same space area, even if one is further away.
So you can have the block and the background being shown as if those had the same distance/location from the camera view.
_
Cosmetics are usually representation of real objects, so they do have Depth, that is how for example this hat creates a shadow on the smiley.

Some parts of the smiley could be considered also "cosmetics" such as the dog ears notice how the linked objects to the smiley creates shadows and lightings as well.
And the dog shows that lighting has an effect on the volume of its snout:

But the thing is about the basic base of the smiley, do it has volume?
The inside of the LOL smiley gives a hint about it, as it creates darkness inside of it, that shows that smileys do have some volume inside of them:

The forehead of the monster creates a shadow under the eyes, as so we can tell the base of this smiley has extruded pixels on it that is part of the true base of the smiley.

I consider by the evidence that smileys have volume inside and outside of them, but how much?

EEU will make these details even more evident as you will be able to customize and change cosmetics, and see how differently every smiley shadow and lighting changes depending on the cosmetic you equip.

Smileys do start all as a 1 pixel Depth basic base smiley in the center of its cubic space, but the alterations to the smiley gives to them extra Depth, (such as open mouth, forehead, snouts, etc). and the cosmetics added to it gives even more Depth with a maximum of 16 or even more pixels Depth (such as wings, hair, teeths, eyelashes, etc).
Or I might be wrong and the smiley does not actually start as a cylinder but as a sphere.
I am tented to say that EE smileys actually starts as a cylinder with spherical caps, as that makes a lot of sence.
Update: I just noticed that a sphere in orthographic view would not cause any distortion, as all would be seen as 2D only:
Extremely wacky example of a 3d cubic sphere being seen in the orthographic camera:

Still I prefer thinking of the smiley as a cylinder rather than a sphere or cylinder with spherical caps lol.
_

P.S: The dragon smiley for example could have around 14 Depth but for our eyes and the game camera orthographic view it would still be 0 Depth, in a 2D multi-layer space, but if we were able to see how the smiley actually is inside the game, like if we entered in the EE world ourselves, we could see the actual real Depth of the smileys and if so we would see that the dragon smiley is not really 0 Depth but 14 Depth (I can´t tell the correct Depth of it as I can´t visit EE world myself lol).
For EEU, as the vetors are made with maths, the surface could be more polished and smooth, adding much more details, but the Depth remains around the same for whatever EE franchise graphic version.

KyYay · 2020-10-09 04:29:45

here's a thought: shadows being part of the smiley itself, like a tattoo

Minimania · 2020-10-09 04:36:38

I cant speak for any of the designers of EE or anything but when I made graphics, I just made them to look cool. Honestly, kind of seems like you're overthinking it a little, but I at least understand your train of thought.

Gosha · 2020-10-09 06:47:23

Minimania wrote:

overthinking it a little

oh really?

Minisaurus · 2020-10-09 07:22:22

The Depth information might be useful for the dynamic lightings graphic setting.
But you can get a good result altering "the normals of the object" so the light affect differently each pixel but keeping the object strictly a 2d object.

▼ Read N1KF post for more information about that:

Also, while doing EE smileys and graphics it is good to think of them having volume (By considering Depth) rather than thinking of them being completely flat objects.

icepegasus · 2020-10-09 07:28:08

Minisaurus wrote:

We know the height and lenght (16 pixels each), but we don´t know the width.

We know the width and height (26 pixels each), but we don't know the depth.
(We actually do - it has no depth.)

Minisaurus · 2020-10-09 07:54:14

Corrected to height x width x depth, thanks

icepegasus wrote:

(We actually do - it has no depth.)

Look to this photography of a real world place (Taj Mahal).

This photo is 2d with no real depth.
But if you travel to Taj Mahal, would you still think that it has no depth?

Look to this EE smiley.

This smiley is 2d with no real depth.
But if you travel to EE world, would you still think that it has no depth?
_

Nobody knows the depth of smileys, sadly, but we can give a good guess of it.

Grilyon2

Gosha · 2020-10-09 08:00:37

congratulations you are on the edge of discovering normal maps for 2d sprites

St1ckS4m(EE)

icepegasus · 2020-10-09 08:42:18

Minisaurus wrote:

This smiley is 2d with no real depth.
But if you travel to EE world, would you still think that it has no depth?

Programmatically and graphically - the smiley (or any sprite in this matter) has no depth
There is a thing called z-index (aka layer) which determines what comes in front of what but there is no depth

Minisaurus · 2020-10-09 08:54:05

↑ Also the digital photo I shown of Taj Mahal has no depth.

I understand your point, that smileys do not have depth, the sprite of the smiley if you see it in side view, it has no depth.

I was looking for a more creative debate, where we could imagine how would it be if the smiley were actually a 3d being.
It is completely fair to argument that it has 0 depth when being seen in side view, but it is as well really boring.

Minimania · 2020-10-09 09:09:12

Gosha wrote:

Minimania wrote:
overthinking it a little
oh really?

As I said, I simply made what I thought looked cool, and I find it easiest to presume that past graphics artists like RPGMaster were simply working to make what looked cool rather than keeping tabs on depth mapping and things along those lines. The canvas is just 16x16 pixels, so just make what looks cool tbh

bunglybongle · 2020-10-09 11:36:22

haha please come outside me and the kids miss you please stop this ee nonsense

mutantdevle · 2020-10-09 12:02:19

Minisaurus wrote:

I was looking for a more creative debate, where we could imagine how would it be if the smiley were actually a 3d being.
It is completely fair to argument that it has 0 depth when being seen in side view, but it is as well really boring.

The 0 pixel depth is still the conclusion I'm reaching from imagining the 'creative' situation in which the smileys are real beings. If they are real, that doesn't mean they automatically become 3d. They are 2d beings existing on a 2d plane - or rather, they exist on multiple 2nd planes. As 3 dimensional beings witnessing these 2 dimensional smileys, we see the multiple 2d realities stacked together to create the layering system. Similarly, we are 3d beings existing on a 3d plane of reality - if there were to be a 4 dimensional being watching us, and we existed on just one 3 dimensional reality stacked against many others, how would we look to them? What kind of 'layers' would be formed by our realities?

KyYay, St1ckS4m(EE)

Minisaurus · 2020-10-09 13:58:54

Updated the debate purpose, I see that people got confused (my fault) of what was this debate about.
Now this debate is set up for what it is actually about, thanks for your previous answers guys, I look forward to see the new answers corrected for the purpose of this debate.
The smileys could actually be thinked as 2D beings, with no depth, and there is nothing much to discorver about it, lets expand our imagination of what EE would looks like in one additional dimension.
Nobody can deny that the smileys current format is 0 width, there is no way-around of it.

Now the debate with the corrected purpose gives you the opportunity to use your imagination and see what funny and creative solutions can you get to visualize the EE smileys if they were 3D, If they had depth, width and lenght.
How would the world of the smileys work if so?
P.S: For simplicity of the debate, you can keep the game working as a 2D game with only two movement axis (X and Y), or you can add Z axis for movement and allow the smiley to move in one additional dimension, you choose.
You can consider the surface of the smiley either smooth, detailed or pixel-like (or other)

peace · 2020-10-09 15:48:01

hmm
it shard becuase you cant really place an 2D item in an 3D universe as there is no back because if there was then it wouldnt be 2D since it would get dept and 2D items cant have depts even a dept of 0.000000000000000001nanometer would meant its an 3D object but i coudl imagine 3D objest into 2D universes chnaging their vieuw to be 2D we would lose our dept and we would only be able to travel left and right or use an plane lieke thing to fly up unless EE IS 3D but ther camera is just focussed on a 2D vieuw in whic case i do not think it is like in a ball's shape becuase that would mena we wouldnt be able to stand on the edge of a block i believe the smileys are some sort of shape that allows them to stand on the edge of a block wihtout rolling off it
i would say smielys and blocks ar eon the same layer but the again how to explian wigns of fairy for exmaple going over blocks? unless the smileys are like 1 pixel dept and the cosmetic slieke wings are also 1 pixel and every block has no extra dept (so the beta blocks have no extra depth) in which case EE has a total of like 8 (9 if you count block ID 0 as a seperate layer altough i tihnk it can be considered 'bg') layers which goe slike:
bg
deco/action A
smiley A, block
smiley A if entered via smiley C
smiley B,
effects (refer to the burnign effect of lava block for exmaple)
deco/action B
smiley C

smiley A is the 16x16 smiley itself smiley B is the cosmetic aka hats/wings ect smiley C is godmode deco A is deco's behind the smiley deco B is thigns infornt of

theoldinese · 2020-10-09 16:16:06

minsaurus will never give up huh

TaskManager · 2020-10-09 23:29:46

Minisaurus wrote:

Now the debate with the corrected purpose gives you the opportunity to use your imagination and see what funny and creative solutions can you get to visualize the EE smileys if they were 3D, If they had depth, width and lenght.
How would the world of the smileys work if so?
P.S: For simplicity of the debate, you can keep the game working as a 2D game with only two movement axis (X and Y), or you can add Z axis for movement and allow the smiley to move in one additional dimension, you choose.
You can consider the surface of the smiley either smooth, detailed or pixel-like (or other)

ee smileys as soon as they get the ability to move on Z axis:

KyYay, St1ckS4m(EE), Gosha, mutantdevle, Andymakeer, Joeyjoey65

KyYay · 2020-10-09 23:32:18

TaskManager wrote:

ee smileys as soon as they get the ability to move on Z axis:

TaskManager, St1ckS4m(EE), Atikyne, Gosha, mutantdevle, N1KF, BuzzerBee, Cola1, Andymakeer, Kkay, Joeyjoey65, drstereos

TaskManager · 2020-10-09 23:48:07

KyYay wrote:

TaskManager wrote:
ee smileys as soon as they get the ability to move on Z axis:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/ … mortal.png

there was under 3 minutes between our posts theres no way you came unprepared

KyYay · 2020-10-09 23:55:37

TaskManager wrote:

there was under 3 minutes between our posts theres no way you came unprepared

https://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewt … 0880&p=157, near the bottom

XxAtillaxX · 2020-10-10 01:23:41

In order to measure depth (distance in a Z-axis) you would require what is referred to as a "standard candle" in astronomy. You will find two problems with doing this however, there are no reflections in Everybody Edits nor wave lengths of light. If you can't measure the red shift, you can't measure the distance. You can only do relative comparison to other objects in the scene but you'll only ever end up with pixel depth which cannot be directly translated to real world measurements, considering the Z axis is just as infinitely scalable as the X and Y axis devoid of a real world reference scale.

I'll give you a bit of information to help you with relative depth though. You have the perceived depth of the beta block but it could be an optical illusion. A few decorations as well as half-way blocks also cast shadows. So, perhaps you can render out a simulation where the light source would have to be to cast the same shadows accurately, and from there you can work out the depth.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2020-10-08 22:49:20, last edited by Minisaurus (2020-10-10 02:55:09)

How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#2 2020-10-08 23:21:45

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#3 2020-10-08 23:56:15

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#4 2020-10-09 01:12:59

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#5 2020-10-09 04:19:47, last edited by Minisaurus (2020-10-09 07:32:25)

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#6 2020-10-09 04:29:45

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#7 2020-10-09 04:36:38

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#8 2020-10-09 06:47:23

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#9 2020-10-09 07:22:22, last edited by Minisaurus (2020-10-09 08:19:47)

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#10 2020-10-09 07:28:08

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#11 2020-10-09 07:54:14, last edited by Minisaurus (2020-10-09 08:14:23)

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#12 2020-10-09 08:00:37, last edited by Gosha (2020-10-09 08:05:18)

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#13 2020-10-09 08:42:18

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#14 2020-10-09 08:54:05, last edited by Minisaurus (2020-10-09 09:03:53)

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#15 2020-10-09 09:09:12

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#16 2020-10-09 11:36:22

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#17 2020-10-09 12:02:19

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#18 2020-10-09 13:58:54, last edited by Minisaurus (2020-10-09 14:40:17)

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#19 2020-10-09 15:48:01

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#20 2020-10-09 16:16:06

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#21 2020-10-09 23:29:46

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#22 2020-10-09 23:32:18

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#23 2020-10-09 23:48:07

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#24 2020-10-09 23:55:37

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

#25 2020-10-10 01:23:41, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2020-10-10 01:29:41)

Re: How thin would be smileys by side view if those were 3D?

Board footer