+ Log in or register to post
Results 61 to 70 of 96
Monday, 26th March, 2007, 03:52 PM #61
I currenly do my grids / templates on a grid where each box is 59 pixels across and the lines are one pixel themselves. One or two were done by merging 4 squares into one, but those are larger than I like working with.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Monday, 26th March, 2007, 06:56 PM #62
These were done on 96x96 pixels to the inch grids
Last edited by frankthedm; Monday, 26th March, 2007 at 07:39 PM.
Monday, 26th March, 2007, 11:58 PM #63
Are you a player looking to join a D&D game in the Toronto area? Send me an email at email@example.com
Tuesday, 27th March, 2007, 08:03 PM #64
Seems fair? Fair often takes a back seat to rules. Have we forgotton how the counting squares rather than measuring steals area from a 20' radius? That theft does have to be replicated in 3d to achieve a proper result. If it seems "fair" too much area has been given.Originally Posted by carborundum
Last edited by frankthedm; Tuesday, 27th March, 2007 at 10:37 PM.
Wednesday, 28th March, 2007, 03:46 PM #65
Wednesday, 28th March, 2007, 08:41 PM #66
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
I never noticed how much area you lose from a radius by using the "count the squares" method.
BTW: I used the Steel Squire templates last night in game -- I even modified my bad guy a bit so that I could use them all! (20'r., 10'r., 30' diagonal cone, 30' straight cone) Great fun, and definitely worth it.
Last edited by Nail: Today....just a few minutes ago
Thursday, 29th March, 2007, 12:56 PM #67
Gallant (Lvl 3)
Ah, I forgot the spurious mathematical justification! Humble apologies!Originally Posted by frankthedm
A quick 4/3*PI*r^3 (with r=4 square-lengths) gives us a volume of 268 cubes.
Counting cubes in the templates gives 208 cubes, 168 cubes and either 228 or 232 cubes (depending on the corners).
Initial evidence would point to the third one being the most reasonable.
When using a 20' radius template and counting squares, we are told to use 40 squares, while the real area is about 50. One could argue that 80% coverage is therefore demanded by the rules, and choose the template giving the closest to (268*0.8) 214 cubes. Number one!
I await your critique of this spurious justification with a quivering bladder.
Thursday, 29th March, 2007, 09:51 PM #68
Thanks for the math. It is not my strong point.Originally Posted by carborundum
One seems about right. As I said before the rules are not kind to area effects. One does not get measure area to determine what is effected. One has to count squares. We already have a three for two rule when going diagonally in 2D. For 3D, we have to first figure out what standard of square counting to use. The amount that cliped may wind up increasing once a third dimension is introduced. Once that standard is made, the it has to be followed, regardless of how badly it clips the area.
Lets say going from the two corners farest apart in the cube costs 2 squares, which of the three in this post match that best?
Thursday, 29th March, 2007, 10:12 PM #69
Gallant (Lvl 3)
Did you mean how does the three for two work out numbers-wise in diagonal steps?
If you take a 2x2, Mr. Pythagoras says the diagonal is 2.8 (square root of 8). Three for two isn't that harsh really.
For a 2x2x2 cube, the longest diagonal has one side 2 long and one 2.8. This works out at about 3.5 (3.46) - what would you call that? A cost of seven for four diagonal 3D hops, I guess.
Sorry, not quite sure what you mean with the "two furthest" thing, Mr. Frank. I'm glad you liked the argument though
Thursday, 29th March, 2007, 10:21 PM #70
Gallant (Lvl 3)
One certianly seems to be the most intuitive 3d representation of the 2d template even if it's not the most accurate model of a 20' radius in 5' cubes.Originally Posted by frankthedm