Zeta Flow

Awesome, you reviewed my level!

Actually, I was going to try some other shapes too, but the very first one I tried was the rhombus and I loved the way it looked.
Making them bigger might strain some computers, so I kept them at 100%. I haven't tried them any larger, though.

I hope you liked my level.

Not a review Sasadad... just a personal opinion about an aspect of ZF that I appreciate. I don't think MD was thinking about a webtoy when he created ZF but a few creative designers uncovered that option. I prefer the abstract art levels that create patterns... rather than the ones that attempt to replicate real life (like MD's Picassoesque farm animals )

Check this out, and see if it might be a candidate for one of your future art levels? The top groups rotate in opposite directions.

A question to MD - I was under the impression that the objects were vector graphics and the scale had no impact on performance. Am I wrong?

Zeke wrote:I was under the impression that the objects were vector graphics and the scale had no impact on performance. Am I wrong?

That's correct, scale them as much as you please. In fact, less big ones would run faster than many small ones.

And it is interesting to see it being used as a webtoy; that's one thing that sets it apart from other shmups...even though I didn't intend for it to be that way.

~MD

MD wrote:

Zeke wrote:I was under the impression that the objects were vector graphics and the scale had no impact on performance. Am I wrong?

That's correct, scale them as much as you please. In fact, less big ones would run faster than many small ones.

And it is interesting to see it being used as a webtoy; that's one thing that sets it apart from other shmups...even though I didn't intend for it to be that way.

~MD

So scaling doesn't actually impact performance? Interesting... I, not being at all experienced in Flash or anything, would think they would.

Oh, and also, thanks for commenting on Eclipse too Zeke- didn't notice you had until now. Yeah, when it separated into groups is my favorite part probably.

Edit: Interesting picture you have there, Zeke. Was that picture from a level? I already did something slightly like that, Vector Eye, but it involves separate sizes of rings of rhombuses rotating in opposite directions. Two identical or mirrored things on top of each other rotating in opposite directions... I may try it.

Edit: Interesting picture you have there, Zeke. Was that picture from a level? I already did something slightly like that, Vector Eye, but it involves separate sizes of rings of rhombuses rotating in opposite directions. Two identical or mirrored things on top of each other rotating in opposite directions... I may try it.

Sasadad - My picture is from your Vector Eye level. I was trying to figure out exactly how it differed in construction from your Void Eye level. Once I saw the difference, I started to play with the Vector Eye image to see what it would look like combined with a flipped copy rotating in the opposite direction to the original. That resulted in the bottom image in my picture. Hope that made sense. The resulting image would have the same number of parts that Void Eye does I believe.

That would make a cool kaleidoscope if the colors could be altered.

Another question for MD - Would a level with 20 instances of the same part run faster/smoother than a level with 20 different parts?

Nope, it'd be about the same. The most important factor in terms of speed is simply the number of parts, the more there are the more laggy it is.

~MD

I imagine parts that move as a single unit as opposed to independently would be faster... that is, the calculation of different vectors for each part would be more time consuming than if they shared the same movement pattern (they were anchored to one another)?

Nope again, it has to recalculate angles and position seperately for each part regardless. Because the parts aren't actually connected, more like floating at a specific point and angle around its parent (which is different for every part, or assumed to be different). Although code to rotate a piece will have some impact, it isn't enough to be worried about.

~MD

I just found a really cool new level by n3cr0m33p5, Whiplash-Visual Art. Very tentacle-like.

That is a real interesting level too, because the "tentacles" always whip in a clockwise direction while the whole object rotates counterclockwise.

The layout and speed work really well. Nice one n3cr0m33p5.

Thanks for the notice, been on the site for a while (playing and reading posts), enjoying it, and thought I'd give it a whirl myself and been having some success. Rough sometimes.

Also thought I'd play around with making ' art ' levels. Just for visual enjoyment not to be blown apart.

Hey n3cr0m33p5 - Like I said earlier... the art levels are a kind of theraphy. As much fun as it is to blow things away, it's a nice change of pace to sit back and watch some of these art levels unfold.

I've noticed you action levels also and enjoy them too. Your new Carrier vs Sub level is a combination of action and art. It's a terrific creative addition.

n3cr0m33p5 wrote:Thanks for the notice, been on the site for a while (playing and reading posts), enjoying it, and thought I'd give it a whirl myself and been having some success. Rough sometimes.

Also thought I'd play around with making ' art ' levels. Just for visual enjoyment not to be blown apart.

Welcome to the forums! I was playing your levels, and you seem to be one of the better designers out there. I love your Scorpion-No Weapons. It moves in such a realistic way.

Thank You. I was just playing around with articulation after seeing some other critter levels, spiders mostly. Mine's a little simpler as I only used one body fulcrum for all the legs, hopefully I'll get around to / be able to fully articulate a critter in the future. Maybe not, might just want to stick with simpler levels, much easier to AI