3d object requests

From the Asset Store
112 High-Quality destruction sounds for videogames
  • My main wish would be to set the origin face/frame to the top rather than the bottom.

    Its easier to try to match the collisions for other things that are on that z.

    Another suggestion would be repeating texture offsets. Think limited skybox.

  • Yeah repeating textures, like how we have the tiledBG, could be useful for things like the ground etc.

  • +1 for repeating texture offsets

  • I should probably add that repeating textures also mean non stretching textures.

  • I'll add two things to this rather than make a new topic.

    Is it possible to fix the alpha? For example, if you make two boxes and blank the middle of each side (leaving the edges), then rotate/intersect the boxes, the boxes will both fully render from some angles but not all. Picture an old-school wireframe look.

    Might not even be possible since I'm sure it's more of a "trick" than a full 3D object. It just would be nice if all sides were visible even when intersecting with transparencies.

    Also, would love to see the ability to swap the texture on a side. Either through an event, or having an animation on each side.


  • Transparency in 3D is extremely complicated. To get correct 3D rendering, you have to use a depth buffer, and depth buffers assume everything is opaque.

    It should work providing everything is drawn in back-to-front order, so adjusting Z order may make a difference in some cases. But this is a fundamental limitation of 3D rendering. This kind of thing is really just the tip of the iceberg of the incredible complexity that you get in to if you want to make a real 3D engine, which I'm keen not to go in to - the design of 3D shape is aimed at basically a 2D shape with depth, or "2.5D" as some people call it.

  • Ashley That is a fair and reasonable response, and I wouldn't expect you to add a full 3D engine to support these things.

    I will say though, any feature like this you can come up with to add, you should. Compile enough of them, and maybe you'll pull a few people away from Unity. It got me to take a look after how ever many years.

    3D does add value to a game. As a random example, let's say you have two identical "city-builder" games on steam. Both are identical in terms of features and gameplay, except one is 2D and the other 3D. More people would likely want the 3D game because you can rotate the camera around and get a better look at your city.

  • Hello all;

    As long as we are talking about 3D adding to a game -- I hope this 2.5D interlude doesn't detract from continuing to build a very strong 2d only engine. Anybody serious about 3d is going to go elsewhere. You are better off doing your part of the game 2D market extremely well than a little 3d halfway.

    Still, I like to see 2.5D shapes as a minor distraction same as the next fella.



  • To be honest I'd rather see a comprehensive and solid Mode7 implementation than this minor 3d stuff.

  • Mode7 is such an outdated effect, though I'd never say to not add features just because it's old.

    I always prefer features that are inventive and push things forward, not backward.

    EDIT:My point is, rather than just add a Mode7 effect, take a different approach. Examples: Add a perspective feature to the tiled backround object, or make a new "Horizon" object and add new things to it than just a flat plane with perspective.

  • Or innovate underused features rather than using the same tired ones.

    Think Don't Starve, rather than Mario Cart.

    Next Penelope, rather than Minecraft.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • I know Ashley is worried about going too far with 3D features, but there's still some additional 3D features that would fit this kind of engine (e.g. the repeating textures, spinning an object, or tilting the perspective/camera).

    You could almost do a mode7 type effect now with the 3d shape object?

  • What's on the top of my wishlist is being able to move the "middle point" of the effect (center of the screen now), or even better a option to shift the entire z-elevation/height effect in x/y. I have no idea if this would be a simple addition (it would still be fake 3D at least) or if there's a lot more to it.

    A very sloppy example of what I mean, please don't look too close at the code:


  • Maybe these features should also be requested here officially?


  • There's a 3d section there already. Its hard to tell how far They will go down the 3d rabbit hole so I'll refrain. Feel free if you're skippy.

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)