What's the lossless or best resolution for GA?

Louis · 07-11-2003, 09:12 PM

1a. Is 1024x768x32bits the best resolution for GA ?????
1b. What's the original texture size that has been using in GA ???

2a. What's the best angle of looking at the GA ??
2b. Why the designer of GA don't want a deeper tank ????????

When we look at the gravel on the floor, the perception will let

us know how deep is the tank. If GA team can be well use of a

visual illusion to fool the user, it's a easy way for having a deeper

tank.

Louis · 07-13-2003, 08:49 AM

1.
I knew that GA is going to release a high resolution of texture version,
but we don't know the exactly date. ( 1600x1200 ? )

2. When we see the gravel currently, it make us to feel the depth of the
tank is very short. It's very difficult to present a more deeper tank. There are some solutions like changing the size of the fishes, using fog or blur.....or using the gravel density to show how deep is the tank.

Thanks.

cjmaddy · 07-14-2003, 08:10 AM

I think Louis has a good point about the perception of depth.

I am surprised this post has been passed by, perhaps it is a language problem, but I find the point is clearly made!

It would not be possible in the current MA with a large central feature, nor indeed required, since the tank depth is only 12 inches. But in a future version, or in the GA, the gravel floor could be used to great advantage to give the illusion of depth! The '3-D generic question' thread is covering similar ground. (No pun intended! )

At the present time, the impression of depth given by the gravel in GA contradicts the impression given by the fish.
Why not continue the gravel, reducing progressively in size, up to nearer the half way point? - and behind the rock!

As is said in the '3-D generic question' thread, ..... it's all about creating an illusion!

Louis · 07-14-2003, 08:05 PM

At the present time, the impression of depth given by the gravel in GA contradicts the impression given by the fish.
Why not continue the gravel, reducing progressively in size, up to nearer the half way point? - and behind the rock!

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, that's what I want.

cjmaddy · 07-15-2003, 03:21 AM

Sorry Louis, it looks like nobody has noticed that the fish get progressively smaller, but the gravel doesn't!

If that background is 3D, - I'm a Dutchman ...... (Sorry people from Holland, - it's just a British saying! )

07-11-2003, 09:12 PM	#1
Louis Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 35	What's the lossless or best resolution for GA? 1a. Is 1024x768x32bits the best resolution for GA ????? 1b. What's the original texture size that has been using in GA ??? 2a. What's the best angle of looking at the GA ?? 2b. Why the designer of GA don't want a deeper tank ???????? When we look at the gravel on the floor, the perception will let us know how deep is the tank. If GA team can be well use of a visual illusion to fool the user, it's a easy way for having a deeper tank.

07-13-2003, 08:49 AM	#2
Louis Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 35	No one want to rely ? Ok. 1. I knew that GA is going to release a high resolution of texture version, but we don't know the exactly date. ( 1600x1200 ? ) 2. When we see the gravel currently, it make us to feel the depth of the tank is very short. It's very difficult to present a more deeper tank. There are some solutions like changing the size of the fishes, using fog or blur.....or using the gravel density to show how deep is the tank. Thanks.

07-14-2003, 08:10 AM	#3
cjmaddy Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Lancashire, UK Posts: 7,854	I think Louis has a good point about the perception of depth. I am surprised this post has been passed by, perhaps it is a language problem, but I find the point is clearly made! It would not be possible in the current MA with a large central feature, nor indeed required, since the tank depth is only 12 inches. But in a future version, or in the GA, the gravel floor could be used to great advantage to give the illusion of depth! The '3-D generic question' thread is covering similar ground. (No pun intended! ) At the present time, the impression of depth given by the gravel in GA contradicts the impression given by the fish. Why not continue the gravel, reducing progressively in size, up to nearer the half way point? - and behind the rock! As is said in the '3-D generic question' thread, ..... it's all about creating an illusion!

07-14-2003, 08:05 PM	#4
Louis Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 35	At the present time, the impression of depth given by the gravel in GA contradicts the impression given by the fish. Why not continue the gravel, reducing progressively in size, up to nearer the half way point? - and behind the rock! Thanks for the reply. Yes, that's what I want.

07-15-2003, 03:21 AM	#5
cjmaddy Registered Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Lancashire, UK Posts: 7,854	Sorry Louis, it looks like nobody has noticed that the fish get progressively smaller, but the gravel doesn't! If that background is 3D, - I'm a Dutchman ...... (Sorry people from Holland, - it's just a British saying! )