I don't have any idea, how to use all those 3D rendering stuff (I just politely ask Schreibi/Schlabber for help). ![]() I'll use my oldfashioned method for future projects, cause:ΔΆ. Taken together it is a choice between Cholera and Pest, what method to use. So, my statement: 3d (anaglyph or whatever) works in VPX, if there are real transparencies in the textures. Or also to see, if a ball rolls below it. There's a big area at the upper left and with F6 camera view, changing inclination, you can clearly see, that stuff below is rendered correctly, with inbuilt VPX anaglyph and surely also with shader or whatever. I used "real" tranparency for the surface textures. Don't get me wrong, I adore Flupper's work A LOT. Flupper's tables are a good example for it. Means, there is NO transparency on surface textures at all and so, the stuff below cannot be rendered in real 3D no matter, what method. ![]() Surfaces are actually "simply textured onto the transparency" to look real (in 2D). I think the reason for your experiences is: In some and many newer tables, surfaces were first rendered in Blender (or so). ![]() I wonder if desktop/cab GL mode might help with an odd problem with regards to the 3D anaglyph rendering of transparent surfaces? The current issue is that everything that is viewed through/below/underneith a transparent surface (ramps, plastics etc) only has the same visually apparent 3D depth as the transparent surface itself (everything under the transparency appears to look like it is simply textured onto the transparency).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |