Scrolling Backdrop perspective?

[Mike]

What perspective is possible to use when you are using a scrolling game?

[PypeBros]

I'd be tempted to say that parallax is always possible. I have seen all sort of perspective in side-scrolling platformers: from "full flat" (ā la SuperMario), with top-down perspective (Rayman 1) and even angled perspective (Commander Keen : Goodbye Galaxy).

However, the perspective you pick might restrict the depth of objects you show (e.g. if you have an angled perspective, avoid a path that goes from front layer towards horizon, as it will distort oddly).

HTH

[Mike]

Oh oops now that I read my post again I realize I wasn't being very specific.  What I meant to ask was "What perspective can you use for the very far backdrop, the one that isn't on the play field.?"  I tried to use a 3 point perspective but the farther away I got from the vanishing point the wonkier things got.  So I guess what I'm asking is, is it possible to use real perspective on a scrolling background?

This is what I was going to outline in photoshop...

[ndchristie]

So I guess what I'm asking is, is it possible to use real perspective on a scrolling background?

the short and final answer is no; if you are changing your point of view then your perspective changes with it and you cannot use a static image.

depending on what you like, you can often change the perspective between shots; that is, insert a large object in front of the background (like a building) and pick up on the other side with a new vanishing point - the space in-between will be 'broken' in perspective, but invisible because of the building.

other methods include the layered approach (where several objects are seen in frontal perspective and recede only in scale, not angle).

[Dusty]

You could always try some simple 3D rendering for the background.

[vierbit]

What you search for is probably whatīs called "2,5D". Keeping the gameplay 2D and the graphics 3D.
A correct perspective is simply not possible in all cases, as 2d gfx is all about "faking"(thats on reason I love it).
Vanishing points can be used though.
For example, you can use your image here as a background, if the scrolling is very slow. So the image donīt have to
be very wide, therefore avoiding the extreme perspective on the left and right side.

[Mike]

I found this

(I hope I can hotlink this)

Is this how game background art that scrolls is made?  By not using points that converge, and only using points that are parallel?

I know how to do isometric in pixels by using the 26.555 degree angle instead of the 30, but how do you do Bimetric, and Trimetric using pixels?

[Dusty]

The problem is, he wants a dynamic background from a static prospect. Perspective is always changing because of viewpoint, and static images, even with parallax, can not portray that. Because the background is scrolling, but the image is static, it won't reflect that in the 3D viewpoint. Isometric(or any other varieties) is not going to give him the result he's hoping for, either.

[shy_dude]

I've been thinking about this for quite a while,  it's got me really stumped. You need gaps in front of the vanishing points (I think?) so it can loop on and on forever, I've tried 3 point perspective but it always turns into a wonky mess: from a top-down view to whatever is the opposite of a top-down view is, it's all wonky. I don't get it.

2 point perspective seems more manageable but... Nah wait, I'm lost .

[Helm]

shy dude, take your perspective points waaaaaay out of the drawing area. third point needs to be very high, and at least one of the two horison points needs to be far enough so there's not so much camera distortion.

[Willows]

You could forge a "perspectived" background using a couple parallax layers, no?

[Dusty]

You could forge a "perspectived" background using a couple parallax layers, no?

I don't think there is a way to emulate the perspective changing, though, while the player is moving through the level. Using a static image is fine, but if he starts doing parallax, I assume he wants the background to scroll and it's going to look terrible having the background scroll with a static perspective like the one he has drawn out.

[Mike]

I made a test of this in photoshop and my vanishing points were thousands of pixels apart.  Unfortunately this didn't really fix the problem and it still became warped and wonky.  This makes sense of course since it is impossible to have a static image portray moving perspective because the vanishing points would have to change along with it.  Hell I even tried that, but I think my gaps were too far apart.  GAAAHHHH!!!

Ok so exactly how am I supposed to make backgrounds that have depth like how they look in Megaman X.  I don't want to put simple profiled views of buildings if I don't have to.

[Sherman Gill]

Have it so as you go right layer 1 of a parallax background (the building 'faces', y'know, the whole front) moves relative to a second layer, which is like a 1 color side of a building (Like an alley)? It'd look cheap, but that's because it is cheap

[ndchristie]

few things since perspectival systems are totally my jam :

as stated before you cannot change the perspective on a static image.  ever.  if your viewpoint moves in relation to a linear, nonparallel system, it will goof the whole thing.  The only way to scroll an image without changing the perspective is to accept abstraction in the form of wonky buildings or use of a parallel projection, such as isometric.

size is irrelevant, only angle.  The sun is a thousand times bigger than human imagination yet it appears only a few degrees wide due to distance and perspective.  Some people will forget this, and argue for the implementations of other systems to account for the greatness of an object, but this is a falsehood originating from neglecting the fundamentals on which the system was founded.

3-point perspective is an answer to the greater problems introduced by camera pitch.  it is not intended to be used in pieces where a horizon is in the main field of view, reasons next.

THE WONKINESS YOU SEE IS NOT THE RESULT OF A BROKEN SYSTEM OR IMPROPER IMPLEMENTATION, BUT OF AN IMPROPER VIEWING OF IT.  Linear perspective relies on a fixed point of observation in relation to the image.  This means that, on an infinite surface oriented to the viewer, all of the wonkiness is actually just correcting for natural increases in space needed to convey the same sized object in perspective.  Because the human eye cannot properly focus on these areas, it goes generally unnoticed.



so hat does this mean in practical terms?  don't move the viewpoint on a static image for one.  two, if you want perspective to look right, you have to assume an average viewing position and coordinate from there using angles.  I have to go now but if someone wants a practical demonstration of this (it's off-topic for the original question posed) they can ask.

[Mike]

I would like a practical demonstration please 

[Conzeit]

Would you mind posting the test you did with the extremely far apart perspective points? I cant shake the sensation that you just have some insane standard of quality in mind for this piece.

You mentioned megaman X...if you mean the first game then, yeah it pretty much just uses paralel lines...not even diagonal lines, it actually uses the same exact projection lines as the foreground.

On sidescrollers, you usually only see 2 point perspective on screens which will not scroll, or will atleast be viewed for a while before they are scrolled, but it's almost always bullshit perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChQqkbwHaCM&feature=related here's legendary MetalSlug(2), the statue face in the BG has perspective, and so do the columns in the foreground but there's NO WAY the vanishing points of those two will match....neither is 3 point. I've only really seen 3 point on objects that are so far in the bg they've got fog surrounding them and there's no way to really connect them with anything else in the picture.

if you wanted to get into this really really teep-----there was this very interesting tutorial a while ago...that seems to be offline now (DAMN) on something called ten point perspective...which creates a sort of Fish-Eye view, but you can sort of link up a bunch of fish eye views, and create a functional scrollable picture.

The tutorial claimed this was the true nature of optics, and this straight line based perspective was exclusive to humans. This idea DOES seem to have some ground, because this is the actual perspective used in those those apps that let you have panoramic phtographic views of famous places...they're made by linking together a bunch of fish eye perspective photos.

They also use it in animated features like the 2D StarWars:The Clone wars that was aired in Cartoon Network. They draw this big ass 10 point perspective drawing, and then scroll trough the image with a proportionally very small viewing area...creating that illusion of changing perspectives.

[ndchristie]

what they call "ten point" is what i'm going to assume is another name for cylindrical perspective, or panoramic perspective, which is not scrolling at all but in fact rotation - you start facing one way, turn 90 degrees, 90 again, 90 again, and 90 again to reach the first and fifth point, athough i'm not certain how they would spread the other 5 out (probably between up or down).

true spherical perspective has a lot of trouble existing on paper because at least one point MUST exist as an infinite line instead, like a backwards mercator map.

the true nature of optics though is a silly thing to suggest on paper because optics are three dimensional, dynamic and binocular.  hold your hand in front of one eye and tell me how you would draw that image

[Mike]

Wow I did not expect any of these answers, what a crazy topic!  10 point perspective whaaaA??  I took a class on perspective but we only got up to 3 point perspective...

[ptoing]

They draw this big ass 10 point perspective drawing

Show me a 10 point perspective picture and win a cookie. I will give you even one for a 7 point one. It's not really possible per se.

There are 3 dimensional axis, 6 directions max. 5 point perspective is hardcore fisheye view, like following picture by M.C. Escher.



It's not possible to do more, just think about it. Take a cube and then distort it towards more than 5 directions on a 2 dimensional plane.

http://www.termespheres.com/perspective.html

Here you see 6 point perspective, tho it is just 2 5point images. Of course you could go and warp the back around the outside of the front, and then you would have the whole room on one plane.

[Conzeit]

cool, I'm only repeating what I read on that page....I dont really know much about it and since it seems to be down now (cant find it) I was posting here hoping I got some more clarity on it.

Regardless of what the guy there said, what I saw in that page pretty much looked like what Helm linked to as 4 point...although, I couldnt know maybe it was two 5 point perspective pictures stringed together?

What Ndchristie is saying about cylindrical perspective is most likely what was going on,
But the person did atleast reference spherical perspective, he at least linked to one example of spherical view of famous places.
The page showing it was just a small rectangle that could scroll in any direction. I remember the matrix site used to have one...but it's down now.
http://www.revolutionviewing.co.uk/novaloca/spstandard/?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=570&width=780 this seems to be spherical but...I dont remember the matrix one being so grossly distorting.

EDIT: ok..now that I remember there was not ONE straight line in the "ten point perspective" drawings....and even the 5 point perspective one in helm's has straight lines coming out of the central perspective point, so that's probably why he needed such a ridiculous amount of points.

Maybe the person who made the page was trying to tout his notion of "10 point perspective" Because the page made examples of an imaginay real life situation to back up his claims, the starwars Clonewars thing, and also used a 3d checkered floor to support what he said. Which is why I thought it was a really cute and informative page...and I wish I could find it now :p
----------------------------------------------------


AAAANyway, I was just trying to say that maybe using a cylindrical perspective could be useful for scrolling scenarios.....but did not have the terminology to say it.

EDIT: hahahah. Look what I found http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/MODES-PROJECTION/en_prefecture_rectiligne.htm scrolling perspectiveless pics made out of a bunch of stringed photos...maybe you'll get some ideas off of that!

[dekutree64]

Ok so exactly how am I supposed to make backgrounds that have depth like how they look in Megaman X.  I don't want to put simple profiled views of buildings if I don't have to.

Do you have some screenshots, or better yet videos of the kind of scene you have in mind? I think I remember some SNES game doing fake perspective on buildings using clever scrolling and palette shifting. Might have been one of the Megaman X games, but I haven't played them in many years so I'm not sure.

[ndchristie]

conceit - that second ref is a nice one for a number of ways to address changing perspective in real life using photographs and restricted to a linear path.

the other ref though is multiple distorting images, not a single static one.  it's classy but not suited to backdrops.

to sum up :

single point perspective works nice for static vistas but not much else.  it distorts the farther you go from the vanishing points and is a very "obvious" method. Z orthogonals, static X and Y
double point perspective works nice for broader vistas but unlike single perspective distorts the closer you get to the vanishing points laterally.  Z and X orthogonals, static Y
triple perspective.  Only for looking in a direction which is pitched up or down.  All 3 axes on partial orthogonals.

cylindrical perspective - great for panoramas, never really fucks up but is not pan but rotation.  pan is impossible with current methods.
hemispherical perspective - a funny one which also orks with rotation and can include either up or down.  lots of distortion.  not suited to backdrops.

[Conzeit]

True about the first ref Ndchristie. To be honest I was just trying to summon up more of my memory..about that page to try and figure out wether it was all a bunch of bull or not...sorry to stray it so much...I do feel a "to sum up" post was necesary after my antics C.c

Still, even though it would not be truthful to it's use in photography or any realistic sense of optics, I feel a cylindric perspective could posibbly have its uses in scrolling backgrounds when you want to make wacky/omminous backgrounds.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/google-street-630.jpg I could see this as a background in a game, and I have seen distorted backgrounds in Street Fighter 3 and Metal Slug, so I dont think it should be ruled out entirely.

[Dusty]

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/google-street-630.jpg I could see this as a background in a game, and I have seen distorted backgrounds in Street Fighter 3 and Metal Slug, so I dont think it should be ruled out entirely.

I think that could work with some minuscule amount of 3D effects or distortion to flatten it out into a presentable background.

[ptoing]

As far as static images with changing perspective goes, it does work in games that scroll automatically, like shmups.

There is some good examples of this in later levels of Gunlock, where they have a fucked up distorted background scrolling by to make it look you are flying up a wall. It totally works.

[Mike]

Here is a cool backdrop

http://vgmaps.com/Atlas/SuperNES/MegaManX-Highway.png

also this backdrop is mildly confusing.  It looks like it is using a 1 point perspective, but only on the roads.

[Conzeit]

There is some good examples of this in later levels of Gunlock, where they have a fucked up distorted background scrolling by to make it look you are flying up a wall. It totally works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmfxMA13O-I&feature=related
You mean like 1:00 - 1:20 here?

[ptoing]

there is a tiny bit of this at the very beginning 0:08 then that bit you mentioned, tho not as extreme, and then 2:05 again. It's basically just "changing direction" with a 2d background. Very nicely done.

On a sidenote, this game is from 93 and kicks pretty much everything around that time in the balls when it comes to visual effects and fake 3D stuff ala mode 7 (just about 1000 times better)

[Mike]

there is a tiny bit of this at the very beginning 0:08 then that bit you mentioned, tho not as extreme, and then 2:05 again. It's basically just "changing direction" with a 2d background. Very nicely done.

On a sidenote, this game is from 93 and kicks pretty much everything around that time in the balls when it comes to visual effects and fake 3D stuff ala mode 7 (just about 1000 times better)

I'm impressed with the way that city like curves up into a wall.  That was nuts.  Was any of that game in actual 3D?

[ptoing]

They have some pseudo 3D stuff going on. Stacked layers scrolling at different speeds and linescroll stuff. That and mostly really good art.
No real 3D processing afaik.

[Gil]

Wouldn't this work?

Screen width = max the distance between two fat lines

[Dusty]

I don't think so.

[Gil]

Of course it doesn't work scrolling that fast and as I said, screen width should be maximum the size between one segment of those thick lines.

Also, the badly drawn cubes inside do not really pose a picture of what can be done. Unfortunately, it was the best 4point continuous perspective drawing I could find on the interweb that was not embedded into a movie or similar.

I also know of an easier way to fake it, which is 2 point continuous perspective, I'll try to get some sort of pictures of what I mean...

[Dusty]

Even slow, all it accomplishes is the look that different things are at different angles, not that the perspective is changing. Instead of saying, "hey, that building is changing perspective" you say, "hey, that building was built at a different angle than the others". I would have had it slower, but I did it all manually and I wasn't going to go past 10 frames... Maybe someone who has an animation program that does automated scrolling can throw together something slower.

[Gil]

You can't actually change the perspective in 2D. That's silly.

What I'm saying is that with these continuous perspectives, every frame you can possibly take out of the big picture is going to be of a sound perspective. This means that when you scroll it slow enough (as in a background), the visible part is going to seem real.

I don't see why you would see buildings at different angles? Whatever part of the image you take that is maximally one segment wide is going to be in correct perspective, with correct angles. The image breaks down only when extending it too far upwards or when moving it too fast (with a fully rendered scene, it would make you dizzy, as if looking at those annoying fish-eye skate movies, but different).

In summary, the image as a whole might not make sense, but any segment will. It's still faked, but it makes sense and looks the part...

[Dusty]

You can't actually change the perspective in 2D. That's silly.

What I'm saying is that with these continuous perspectives, every frame you can possibly take out of the big picture is going to be of a sound perspective. This means that when you scroll it slow enough (as in a background), the visible part is going to seem real.

I don't see why you would see buildings at different angles? Whatever part of the image you take that is maximally one segment wide is going to be in correct perspective, with correct angles. The image breaks down only when extending it too far upwards or when moving it too fast (with a fully rendered scene, it would make you dizzy, as if looking at those annoying fish-eye skate movies, but different).

In summary, the image as a whole might not make sense, but any segment will. It's still faked, but it makes sense and looks the part...

The buildings just look like they're turned at different angles because there is no perspective being implied. Therefor, they just look like a bunch of buildings that are each at a different angle. Of course you can't change the perspective with 2D, but that's what he is asking, or at least a way to fake it. While your method is probably a better one than a boring, no-perspective solution, I don't think it gives the effect he wanted.

[Gil]

Actually, you could just as well construct the scene he did with all the buildings, and it wouldn't look like buildings at different angles.

There was a thread some years ago here that worked with this perspective and it did work. The guy who drew this pic just drew some random cubes, that's why it looks like random cubes...

[Helm]

The best way to do this then from all I've read in this thread is to make different 2-points and segment them by something up close for a bit before putting in the next 2-point section.

[Gil]

Yeah, that seems to be the best option. The grid I show with the 4 point sewn together is less of a hack, but visually harder to construct and easier to confuse the player with.

I suppose that the best way to do it is to construct two 2 points, put them together, take half of the left part, half of the right part, and construct a building in the gap. There will be a perfect 1 point perspective in that image, so it shouldn't be too hard.

[Helm]

But the merit of this whole thing is debatable. Why not just parallax layers of parallel perspectives like since the dawn of pixellry?

[Indigo]

for the sake of curiosity:


I think it works quite well and I have yet to see a game that uses this method for an infinitely scrolling background.  Although it emulates rotation rather than pan, I still think it could work out

[Jad]

This is true! For simulating a background that loops around in a circle, this works amazingly well!

Especially for extremely linear games like shmups, this could give a welcome feeling of changing perspectives/not just riding along a straight line. I like it.

[Mike]

Wow that is awesome looking!!  I didn't even know this stuff was possible!

Ya know I'm starting to recall crazy perspectives while playing Odin's sphere

Check this vid out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxJygK07clY

This town is incredible!!!

Also this video is pretty impressive too.  Specifically note the curve in the atmosphere that doesn't seem to scroll, but the screen does scroll...its nuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vC2vhbkzYU

[Gil]

Youre my hero indigo, that was exactly what I was talking about

You avoid the sharp corners around the perspective points this way. I'm sure that it even works better if the vertical are straight.

[Indigo]

I know many fighter games did this wonkey cylindrical perspective, but never in such a way that it loops.

as per the discussion of 10-point perspective, thats just silly.  In reality there is infinite-point perspective because there are no such thing as straight lines.  straight lines are a man-made figment.  vanishing points allow us to interpret straight lines much easier, but as you see with cylindrical perspective, there are none (at least by way of the horizontal lines).  In a real would scenario, we have spherical perspective.  our eyes do actually see a small sliver of *rotation* rather than a pan segment, and if our eyes were to capture more, it would complete and entire spherical map of changing, curving, perspectives.  -But since it's so small, we do not see the curving lines.  The argument that there could only be up to 6 point perspective is also silly because our vision is spherical, not cubic.  -confusion on my part

[TrevoriuS]

Well as far as I'm concerned it's only possible when you are going to run in a circle, or when you manage to take the 10 point perspective principle to represent not a closed environment, but an opened up one in a longitude shape.

And if that escher drawing is 5 point perspective, this most certainly would represent ten:
http://www.heddalstavkirke.no/pano/heddal.jpg
It's the reflection of a room in a sphere, but mapped and flattened out, to display ALL the reflection of all sides, and not just half of them from one side, into a 2D image. So if 1 sphere side's reflection results in a 5 point perspective image (I didn't know, really) - then the above image is 10; and then probably that's what they did with the star wars feature too.

Now processing that image is a different story, I wouldn't know how to, but this applet does it with that image I mentioned before:
http://www.heddalstavkirke.no/pano/ptviewer.jar

Still a closed environment. Though I think it actually is possible making the second side, the back, which is seen after 180 degrees rotation, a completely different scene. If you then keep linking new 5 point perspective images together, you will keep cycling around, but a new environment keeps appearing. How to actually make this... I don't know, model a 3D environment and bake such a 10 point environment map? Then still you'd have to find out how to process the outcome.

Another option, which only works on boxes, would be to just draw the front view, and scale it in X based on the distance it is from the center, the lack of image created by scaling it down, can be then filled up by a side view image, scaled again to fit into the cerated space. It's the kind of fake 3D GTA 2 simulates.

[Conzeit]

So, realistically you could make a pretty cool boss room where the player goes around in a loop, or a level comprised entirely of some sort of staircase...

Other than that, I think that if you dont have any elements in the drawing actually reach close to the viewer you could make a background more interesting than what we're used to see. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasnt it "AstroSpoon" that made a pseudo 3d game about a warrior nun...and it used some kind of perspective similar to this in some of it's levels?

Anyhow, I'm glad I suggested this silly use of the perspective from some page I never understood, I think it got us thinking of ways of using 2D art that we had never considered before, and wrong or right I think that is a good thing. Sometimes I think we miss looking at how things should be done in the future, instead of taking apart what already IS, and I wonder wether this makes projects critiqued here stall instead of being comleted.

[Indigo]

I think the fact that it's a complete circle turn-around is far less visually important or noticeable to a player than would be the simple effect of changing perspectives.  Like TrevoriuS was saying (i think), There is no reason in my mind why this technique would be limited to a 360 turn-around of a single location, but can be stretched accross many many scenes that use the same principal.  logically does it work?  no.  but neither does nearly all 2d games that try to simulate depth.  We take the liberty to break some things in order to create a grander illusion.

another thought occurred to me.  combining parallax layers to cylindrical mapping.  I'm curious how this would look.  Something tells me it wouldn't work just by the very nature of pan vs rotation, but it'd be interesting to try none the less

[Jad]

in a side-scroller this would imply a curved movement and in the end circular movement for me, I just can't look at the example you made without getting the feeling of rotation.

[ptoing]

The argument that there could only be up to 6 point perspective is also silly because our vision is spherical, not cubic.

Go draw me an image where one object is transformed towards more than 6 points. DO IT. On paper you can not have more than 5 point really. If you wanna try and do more and I mean real 6 or more point, not just glueing shit together, be by guest.
Also whether lines are straight or not is not so much important, what is important is that we percieve stuff as going towards a vanishing point, or multiple vanishing points, such as Horizon, Zenith and Nadir in 4 point perspective. Of course this stuff is all approximation of what we can percieve with our eyes. We percieve 3 spatial dimentions which have 6 directions and with that you can pin down every point in space (or again, at least what we can percieve). If you wanna go all mathematical you can have as many dimensions as you want but that is purely theoretical stuff and has no application in how we see things or in art at all. You will never draw an image that fakes more than 3 dimensions believably.

Plus how much we see does not have to do with the size of our eyes, but moreso with their position on the head. We are hunters hence the eyes go forward for better depth perception.
Most herbivores have sideways pointing eyes and they actually have a pretty much 360 degree view of what is going on, but worse depth perception.

[ndchristie]

indigo - I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of points.  they do not define edges, but rather, axes.  objects which are curved or skewed or rotated are merely connecting coordinates within those 3 dimensions.  We have three dimensions which stretch infinitely towards 2 directions each - max 6.

If you're talking about the differences between linear and curving perspective, you're misinterpreting the picture plane.  linear perspective assumes a viewpoint observing a point on an infinite plane (the straight lines BECOME correctly curved when observed by a human eye) while other systems demand a cylinder sphere or hemisphere, and it's not right to compare them to each other as being more or less correct outside of their own contexts.

even 6 cannot be properly represented on a flat page.  5 is the most directions that will align properly to a single point (a wheel with four points around a central focus), and even these observe significant spacial distortions and demand that the sixth direction (the opposite of the central focus) be expanded from a point into a circle (aka multiplied by infinity).  the far more applicable "continuous" system for the rectangular screen format is, properly, 4 point panoramic perspective - in which BOTH directions of a chosen, non-orthogonal dimension (that is, either X or Y) are expanded from points into infinite lines (again, like a mercator map).  although this has less flexibility in containing two broken dimensions it is far easier to scroll around - in fact it's the only system properly capable of a simple scroll motion in even a single direction without *incredible* distortion.

also this is not to indigo but there are a few examples with bowing verticals in the panoramic/cylindrical perspective - I don't know hose idea it was but it's a silly one - if we are properly observing a cylinder, then up and down should be illustrated as PERFECT linear verticals.  the broken concept of this system is evidenced by the fact that nobody knows how to adjust the curves when they meet.  if it has a place it's in the sort of cubic perspective that indigo suggested, which is a terrible system with all the flaws of the others and none of the virtues unless you are trying to paint an optical illusion in an actual box-room.

[Indigo]

I may have been mixing up my concepts a bit.  This is the point I was trying to make



the very nature of this object allows there to be 8 vanishing points going in all different directions.  Not because we're measuring on any different number of axis, but because the orientation of those axis is always relative.  Do note that I'm speaking of vanishing points in relation to how an artist uses them for reference and guide lines.  things simply get smaller (or move towards a vanishing point) radially - no matter what direction you are oriented.

[TrevoriuS]

I'm not gonna mix into the discussions of actual vanishing points or potential... misinterpretations around them, but Indigo, that's one neat and interesting approach; would it be possible to map that as a flat texture on a cylinder, which then rotates to get this effect? Because I don't think so right now; and if we were to simulate the way you currently did this in a 2D game, it'd be just as easy to create real panning with it.

[Ben2theEdge]

I think what Indigo is advocating would basically be a panoramic image.
http://www.inaball.com/

This would work perfectly except you'd need to write code for distorting the background... otherwise it is exactly the same as just having a flat image.
AND as a rule you would be confined to a circular track... even if you're not, the illusion will still create that effect.

[Conzeit]

Ben: I dont think he is...I think he's trying to advocate that scrolling an image in this perspective system does not necesarily create the feeling of a circular track.

Personally  I think this is true as long as the elements are not too close to foreground , because as he said any kind of realistical perspective in a 2D scrolling is nonesense anyway, so this should only suffice as an extra tool to create illusion of depth on top of parallax, obviously you would have to plan your backgrounds around it so as to hide it's weakness as with anything else.

TrevoriouS: Not what Indigo did...but most of the images in this thread....someone even posted a javascript app that already does it.

Indigo: I'm no expert....but as far as I know, in regards to drawing techniques(methods whatever) the vanishing points serve as reference to the direction of your lines, so it doesnt really matter what shape the object has you cannot invent vanishing points, the number of edges in that object will tell you how many lines to draw to the vanishing points...but not the number of vanishing points.

[ndchristie]

indigo - you're right that any system of perspective can support a literally infinite number of subordinate points and lines, but this is merely clutter and not an advancement in perspectival systems.  These points and guides exist WITHIN in system, and do not DEFINE the system in the way that the chief dimensions do.  These additional points represent angles defined rather by a changing x,y,z dimension, they are wholly dependent, do not add anything that cannot be found in the other 3, and so on.

the fact that that object has eight sides which recede from whatever point it is seen from is completely irrelevant to the discussion of perspectival systems, does not even represent the presence of a perspectival system, 8-point or otherwise (there actually are none present in your example, unless you count each frame - the object could easily exist in any perspectival system, or none at all, because it is not spatially defining, merely an object that is dependent upon the system within which it resides) and it's very important to recognize this for a fact.

[Indigo]

as mentioned in my last post - I understand the difference.  the confusion simply lied in perspectives vs vanishing points as used by artists - my unintentional mixing of those two concepts.  Thanks for setting that straight.

[TrevoriuS]

TrevoriouS: Not what Indigo did...but most of the images in this thread....someone even posted a javascript app that already does it.

I posted the app >< And it does the same as the flash app ben just posted. Again, with correct design and a bunch of 180-degree rotatoins of different scene's matched in a row, could create an endlessly varying background, that does the 360 rotation, but without the limits of only 1 environment, because you only see half (or less) of it. So any newly loaded space on the left could be a different image than the newly loaded space on the right.That said, I don't know enough about how to construct an app like this... else I'd have one doing the endless scenery by now

[ndchristie]

as mentioned in my last post - I understand the difference.  the confusion simply lied in perspectives vs vanishing points as used by artists - my unintentional mixing of those two concepts.  Thanks for setting that straight.

yeah sorry, i hear people confuse the two all the time and i started foaming at the mouth trying to correct the issue and missed a few qualifying statements from your post 

[PypeBros]

I think what Indigo is advocating would basically be a panoramic image.
http://www.inaball.com/

This would work perfectly except you'd need to write code for distorting the background... otherwise it is exactly the same as just having a flat image.
AND as a rule you would be confined to a circular track... even if you're not, the illusion will still create that effect.

Maybe i completely missed the point, but if you need some software to distord your art so that it provide the right perspective from the source picture, won't it completely ruin the pixel-precise picture you've been working on ?
It seems to me that it would be preferrable to go either for a static picture seen from far enough (and allowing yourself to have a vanishing point that scrolls over the screen) or to replace your pixelated city by polygons.

[TrevoriuS]

Oh but if I were to create actual perspective in the background - I'm most certainly not intending to go to the pixel art board on this forum; but rather the low spec
And it is true that you may be better off using polygons, but that only goes for simple stuff. Of course to keep consistency it would be better to then too use photographic images for the game characters, or which is more easily achievable and much more fun to do, create hi-resolution scene's with polygons, and then prerender these into background texture maps and foreground scenes/sprites.

[PypeBros]

there are certainly plenty of examples that have appeared since then, but i'd like to point out one of the first successful one i've noticed: death rally
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMbmV0MyBPA&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnBAufqfwA0&feature=related)

Basically, it worked much like micromachines, with a top-down view of a circuit, but they used polygons (fairly low-spec and untextured) to produce nice perspective effect.

[Gil]

That's a 3D game with sprites, of course it has perspective

[TrevoriuS]

there are certainly plenty of examples that have appeared since then, but i'd like to point out one of the first successful one i've noticed: death rally
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMbmV0MyBPA&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnBAufqfwA0&feature=related)

Basically, it worked much like micromachines, with a top-down view of a circuit, but they used polygons (fairly low-spec and untextured) to produce nice perspective effect.

Appeared since when?
What does this has to add to the topic of  scrolling backdrops?

[PypeBros]

That's a 3D game with sprites, of course it has perspective

(that suddenly makes me feel old)

well, sorry if it sounded completely obvious and off-topic, then. I used to see it as a 2D game, very honnestly, because the way camera is managed make sure bitmap objects (more raytraced than true pixel art) are always at their best by not being shrunk or rotated aggressively.

[Metaru]

probably this would work as an example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWYZa9g3TjU

and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGTYdYnpXAg

[TrevoriuS]

All I see is parallax scrolling and no perspective going on whatsoever? Please point out your intetions~

[Gil]

TrevoriuS: Both movies have a different scene around 1:30, with different perspective.

I think it can be done better, but yes, those are proper examples of the circular room type of deal I guess.

[TrevoriuS]

My apologies for too hastily looking through the movies here. I dig the concept used in the megaman, though the Kirby version pityfully still is parallax. They're both ways of doing this with sprites, though I'm kind of interested in appling this with more advanced means. Perhaps it's easier to actually map a texture to a sphere and draw flat planes in a very basic 3D engine with sprites on them though.

[Metaru]

Please point out your intetions~

be helpful to the discussion, somehow.

kirby wasnt the best example, but there are surely better ones around. not to mention i too want to learn from what has been said aroud, so posting an example is a somehow way to see if i get the concept.
btw, would this count as perspective?

[Helm]

haha that's actually a pretty great method of dealing with it. As long as no more than a single repetition is on screen and it scrolls slowly, nobody would notice that it warps and loops.

[Mike]

This perspective is crazy!  How did they plan this out?


I took the liberty of red lining the orthogonal lines.

[Gil]

Haha, they sorta just make it a mess I guess, but it works so good. Brilliance!

[lollige]

I guess that would not be too hard mike. Draw 4 different buildings, make sure their perspective points all end on the same horizon and then paste them over and under each other. DONE!
Per object, they use an individual 2 point perspective, where only the (in real) horizontal lines are parallel to each other. Thats why you would only need to place them right on the horizon, and you can drag everything horizontally (not vertically) around as much as you can. Draw some more buildings, fill up the gaps, think about general tiling stuff and tadaah, you are done.

I really think it would not be that hard.

[Gil]

Nothing in this thread is really "hard to do", it's coming up with it that makes it hard

A lot of study is required in game design. It's part science imo

[lollige]

it's coming up with it that makes it hard

Originality.. It is always the easiest part and still the hardest to get the most out of it.
Weird

[Metaru]

Haha, they sorta just make it a mess I guess, but it works so good. Brilliance!

Metal Slug is full of those wild backgrounds in terms of perspective. that background in context http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsRdwXjRzL4 (2:32)

[Dusty]

Hm... what if you made a film-strip sort of background image. A backdrop that consisted of frames, and where it 'scrolled' to the next frame instead of just looping. Also, make the 'frames' longer than the screen as well, so you could add an offset and loop it as well. It would basically be animation that would be calculated by the movement of the player rather than timing.

If that makes any sense.

edit: In a more 'mathematical' explanation: You have 5 'frames' each frame is 100 pixels in width, you lay these frames in one long horizontal strip that ends up being 500 pixels long The viewing area is 50 pixels. You set the scroll speed to 105 pixels. Each time it moves it will move to the next frame AND five extra pixels, to give the effect of scrolling as well as an animation.

[Conzeit]

that background with the houses seems really interesting to me.

I find that whenever you look at actual photographs of things, the best way to hide perspective and try to make it seem like some form of paralel line-based construction like the isometric pictures we're used to, the best way to do it is from far away, and above.

I think the contruction of the perspective in that picture was divided in two, the far-back area which uses paralel lines much like ISO, and the closer area...where in reality one would actually notice the perspective...has that made up perspective

PS: for the ones looking at that megaman vid...PLEASE try to not look at MegamanX5, X6 they are really quite horrible copies of X4, cash ins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwVZq5kCUY if you watched the other vid you'll see they do something very interesting with a spiral staircase, only that the angle is completely wrong for the sprites....this one is the original with an angle more on accord with sidescrolling sprites

[TrevoriuS]

Fun fact: spiralling staircase is the opposite of the rotation to create perspective using scorlling here, as they're creating rotation with parallax - perspectiveless - scolling here.

[Jad]

Except it's not scrolling since it changes perspective, thus it's actually a looping animation (:

[Metaru]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwVZq5kCUY if you watched the other vid you'll see they do something very interesting with a spiral staircase, only that the angle is completely wrong for the sprites....this one is the original with an angle more on accord with sidescrolling sprites

ah that was the one i was looking for

[Mike]

Not to resurrect an old thread but that's exactly what I am doing.  Here I found this neat little tutorial about how to do perspective scrolling.  http://www.maidenart.co.uk/perspective-scrolling.html

Furthermore the way I was going to do my effect of changing perspective(Not really a change of perspective really but simulated) was by using prerendered pixel textured(of course it wouldn't be perfect) 3D cubes that were animated rotating from its center at 180 degrees.  Afterwards I would assemble all 60 or so images in a gif and then import it.  As the character runs across the game field the buildings will rotate(which is just changing animation frames) based on the players current position.  The further the player was from the start the more the player could see of the other side of the building.  However when I told a friend about this idea he asked how I was going to allow the player to see the tops of the buildings and my answer was I have no idea.  Currently I can't think of a practical way to do that.  You would have to have a bunch of combinations for each side being turned horizontally and vertically.  So just for one turn you would need multiple animations that show the building as you are looking down on it as well as up.  Though this could all be solved by having super tall buildings that the player cannot see above.

Anyway I'll probably do something like this for my game, that best thing about it is it can still be parallax scrolled.  Let me know what you guys think?

Furthermore let's continue this riveting discussion.

[Jakten]

Sorry for digging this up but I figured it would be good to keep this in here since its related.

I was wondering if it would be possible to take a top down shmup facing upwards and rotate the perspective to a side scrolling shmup facing right entirely with a scrolling map. It would get pretty complex since the camera would have to scroll as well as rotate so the plane could end facing the proper direction. But I assume this would be done using a 5 point perspective?

[Conzeit]

I am sure that it CAN be done. I know they did it in old Looney Toons cartoons, not precisely from top down to sidescroller but there was a lot of complex perspective change like that, the bad news is I have no idea of what toon features it.

I am sure there is some of that in the 2D Star Wars the Clone wars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiudMz223PM&feature=related I believe there is something like what you want to do from 1:30 and a few moments later when the ship crashes EDIT:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThY_F8Z7u08&feature=PlayList&p=C413DBA01A38A7E8&index=9 here is a long ship fight http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C413DBA01A38A7E8 here's a playlist of all the episodes, I think they employ it a lot when there are ships flying.

Also remember the Gunlock vid I posted earlier http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmfxMA13O-I&feature=related you should probably check the whole game since they do it all the time.