frankthedm
First Post
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.
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.carborundum said:I'm inclined to say the first one. The vertical axis mirrors the horizontal one, unlike #3, and the transitions seem fair.
frankthedm said:Seems fair? Fair often takes a back seat to rules. Have we forgotten 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.
Thanks for the math. It is not my strong point.carborundum said:Ah, I forgot the spurious mathematical justification! Humble apologies!
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.
However...
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.
frankthedm said: