[Never Forgotten]

I have a problem using TROR...



does anyone else get this problem?

[Jimmy]

Your sectors look pretty simple, I would imagine you did it incorrectly or you're using polymost or something.

It'd help if you posted your map.

[Micky C]

If you read the TROR mapping guide on the wiki, you'd see that polymost doesn't really support TROR.

At your current level of skill though I'd suggest avoiding TROR and focusing on good layout, gameplay and detail instead. It's easy to use things like TROR and new art as a gimmick in place of true quality, as we've seen time and time again with many people.

If you haven't already, read through my guide to making maps quickly.
and my guide to making good maps.

I strongly recommend you read them, especially the guide to good maps, before you release your first map. Otherwise if you release it without reading the guide, and nobody likes/plays it and you're wondering why, it's probably because you didn't follow the guide's advice.

[Zaxtor]

Some complex TROR does that but when you use polymer it eliminate it and it seems to accept wickely complex TROR without any problems.
Like he and the wiki says polymost and TROR doesn't fit well.
But polymer makes TROR virtually 100% glitch free.

Example:

I did this weird star shaped sector thing with 2 tror (3 floors)
and without polymers is all hommy and ugly.
Polymost usually can handle simple TROR.

But with polymer is beautiful and perfect.
Means you can make some sick cool TROR tricks.



So setting your thing to polymer would eradicate this hom in your "complex hole"

[Paul B]

** Crap I posted in the wrong Thread. Sorry.

[Micky C]

I find polymost usually has trouble with even the most simplest cases of TROR. There are some basic guidelines on cases and circumstances that usually appear glitch-free, but to make things more complicated, there's evidence to suggest that the level of glitchiness varies on different computers. Half the time it just comes down to luck.

Best just to avoid TROR in polymost altogether.

[Zaxtor]

Simple squarre TOR doesn't do that.
Sometime when you do 2 TROR in diff place but they're visible from eachothers it does some bugs.
Sometimes these bugs can be "hidden" from sprites or thin sectors,

TROR with slops causes that but when you make a thin non sloppy sector before the slop it hides the bug.
And more.

[Micky C]

Like I said I've had very simple square TROR glitch, it seems to depend on the computer.

[Zaxtor]

I see.
It can depend on PC and more factor.

[Jimmy]

Can we all just agree that Polymost blows? Stick to 8bit or Polymer.

[Zaxtor]

Btw the infamous window tricks used in my MOD.

And other people used it too doesn't work in polymer mode.

[Loke]

Jimmy, on 07 April 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

Can we all just agree that Polymost blows? Stick to 8bit or Polymer.

I use Polymost almost exclusively.

[Micky C]

I managed to get the first level of the DNF DLC to work 99% correctly in polymost with TROR.

[Kyanos]

Jimmy, on 07 April 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

Can we all just agree that Polymost blows? Stick to 8bit or Polymer.

No. We can't. Polymost rocks! Fast and functional, beats flashy and laggy on my AMD craptop. Classic's screen skew crap has always bothered me a bit, I prefer OpenGL TBH.

[Micky C]

If you play long enough in classic you don't even notice the distortion after a while. In fact, in some ways it's more realistic than openGL's perspective (try looking up at something with straight vertical lines; those lines will stay relatively straight and parallel unlike in most 3D games where it becomes much thicker at the bottom than the top).

And while there's something of a need for polymost at the moment, if/when polymer is finished, polymost will be dropped faster than [insert witty and relevant analogy here].

[Hendricks266]

Polymost will never go completely.

[Jimmy]

ITT: Luddites

[Striker]

Micky C, on 08 April 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

If you play long enough in classic you don't even notice the distortion after a while. In fact, in some ways it's more realistic than openGL's perspective (try looking up at something with straight vertical lines; those lines will stay relatively straight and parallel unlike in most 3D games where it becomes much thicker at the bottom than the top).

And while there's something of a need for polymost at the moment, if/when polymer is finished, polymost will be dropped faster than [insert witty and relevant analogy here].

So.... you're saying that Software's lack of any proper perspective and concept of pitch is more realistic? Not even fucking close. I want you to press your face to a telephone pole, then look straight up along it's length, and tell me if it remains perfectly orthographic. (Ie. the end of the pole looks just as close and large as the base of the pole.) Or, take a camera, take a picture of a skyscraper looking at it's base, then take a picture looking up at the top from the same location for comparison.

A proper perspective view (not specific to the OpenGL API, just specific to accurate 3D) like in Polymost / Polymer will ALWAYS be much more realistic than the always upright view of an old 2.5D software renderer. Old renderers like that took a very tall, but forward facing image, and simply scrolled it up and down with no notion of the orientation of the viewer.

Do you even vision?

[Micky C]

It seems you glossed over the key bit of my post. I said in some ways it's more natural.

StrikerMan780, on 14 April 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

I want you to press your face to a telephone pole, then look straight up along it's length, and tell me if it remains perfectly orthographic.

I think you'd be surprised how parallel those lines stay.

StrikerMan780, on 14 April 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

take a camera, take a picture of a skyscraper looking at it's base, then take a picture looking up at the top from the same location for comparison.

Now THAT is precisely the problem. Cameras, as well as 3D renderers in games, don't represent what we actually see. They create a perfect geometric perspective, good for them, however what the human brain does is that it takes what's seen by the eye and reprocesses it so you get what you end up with.

A good example is the photo below. Same location, the one on the left is taken by a camera, yet the one on the right is what you would normally see by eye (it's been digitally corrected). Assuming the 2nd photo is realistic, which renderer would be more accurate in this case

I'm not saying classic is exactly what we should be seeing, of course it isn't. But in some ways it's leaning more in the correct direction.