How to get height level of tile in iso view


How to get height level of tile in iso view.

The purpose of this graphic is to determine the unit height of an agreed isometric tile. This unit height is important to when modelling 3d objects which feature floor levels. The next height level should always correspond to the tile above.

  • Need the Hypothenus to get the diamond’s upper and lower tips.
  • Knowing the camera angle and the Hypothenus, what is the Opposite.
  • tan θ = O/A (in which case ‘A’ is the Hypothenus)
  • O= tan θ * A (multiply the tangent of the angle by the Hypothenus)
  • In the example above, O = 50.4367359
  • If O and A is known, what is the angle?
  • θ = atand(O/A) (arctan in degrees)

Solve for the camera angle needed to match a 2x2m tile’s height with the grid if the height is 100cm and 200cm.

  • 200^2 + 200^2 = 80000
  • A = sqrt(80000) = 282.8427
  • θ = ( O / 282.8427)
  • if O=100
    • 100/282.8427 = 0.35355
    • atand(0.35355) = 19.471
  • if O=200
    • 200/282.8427 = 0.7071
    • atand(0.7071) = 35.2643
  • if O=250
    • 250/282.8427 = 0.8838
    • atand(0.8838) = 41.4729


.. and it will stay as a hobby.

(Part 2 of the first rambling, I guess.)

I’ve been making the art for the environment lately. It’s been fun, but I sometimes wonder when the fun will end. Sometimes the inspiration peters away and I’m left trying to find out what I’m going to do next. It’s never a nice feeling, the gradual dissipation of inspiration, the inevitable melancholy.

But I do what I can. And I have a set of concepts that I have drawn, that I’m determined, for better or worse (meaning better or worse art), to get done. The total will be 5 assets. Then I will draw up some more, and do the cycle again.

Of course, the way I say it now, it doesn’t sound much fun. But assuredly, it is. However, I know that there are times when the fun part diminishes, but one must go on. And while I’m feeling  pretty good right now, I know that it will eventually go away. But it comes back, for sure, but sometimes I don’t find myself taking the opportunity to get back on to it again.

One shouldn’t take this thing too seriously. Surely enough, if I felt that making a game was as bad as doing particle simulations, I would seriously question why I’m doing it. I always thought building a game was like playing Lego, only that you can build the nature of the world and building conversations, and not just its physical manifestations.

C3 was announced the other day, which was greeted predominantly by the dominant folksies with jeers and boos. These are indie devs, and hobbyists alike not thrilled with either their pricing structure, or their browser-based implementation of the Editor.

For myself, I had been eagerly awaiting C3’s announcement. I was not particularly impressed with either the pricing structure, nor the browser app, but I was more concerned with the limitation brought on upon the browser implementation: folder-based projects were not supported. Originally, what really interested me in C3 was its promised Editor SDK which allowed users to create Editor tools, presumably to control more of the objects and workflows better. I always saw C2’s an unsophisticated editor, so this SDK surely piqued my interest. Unfortunately, even if the trickle of news eventually reveal this SDK, folder-based projects are essential for me. I am a newbie in C2, but not quite a newbie in coding and production workflows, and this is how I choose to work because all my production experience is geared towards accessing discrete assets from multiple application in my system, eg modifying source files directly from custom tools, or modifying source images from Photoshop. This is surely part of the fun I have in making games.

So, in short, until they overcome that fundamental limitation of ‘single-file projects’ by releasing desktop builds, C3 is a technical no-go.

In the Scirra forums you hear experienced indies and hobbyists alongside straight-up newbies, and each one has their own problem with it. But I am a hobbyist, for sure, and I don’t hope to take this so seriously that I will have a ranting fit just because I don’t agree with the developers vision for his product. If I was really serious, I could take up a more serious engine. But I’m not that serious. At the end of the day, after I complete this game, if i find that I’m getting more involved with it, perhaps I’d be more inclined to write code using Corona SDK, or even Phaser, or perhaps get back to Unity again. C2 provides a very nice and easy method of making games and that was the allure. But I’m not adverse to complication.

I won’t deny it, however: I will feel a sense of loss if C3 is still a no-go by the time I have to make a decision.

There is a kind of seriousness needed to be able to finish something. With Citizen 2401, I need a bit of that seriousness. But it’s not a seriousness connected to the platform I’m using, since I know that I can achieve anything with any platform; it’s just a matter of nutting it out. And nutting it out is something I do every day anyway.





It started as a hobby…

…CG, that is. Now, I’m a professional. I’ve been so for 15 years. After a while, though, it becomes a tedium. If you’re good at certain things, it’s quite easy to be scoped in to do those things over and over again because employers would rather employ you to maximise the benefits of your proficiency.

This itself isn’t half bad, if only bosses actually knew what you did.

As I began my career, ‘career advancement’ never entered my mind. That meant that I didn’t know I was coming into a career, nor did I expect my bosses to advance my career while being employed by them. I think this is because I was actively advancing on my own. I was learning new things, I was getting better at the things I already knew.

Now, there is a great dissatisfaction when that advancement stops. When it does, I question why the company doesn’t do more for me. Then I come to understand that even if I had been given a SIGGRAPH pass, or sent to NAB, or some artist convention in Europe, simply knowing more is not career advancement. Neither is a job title — I’m a “CG supervisor” — and neither is a pay raise.

I’ll tell you what it is.

There is a situation that doesn’t allow me to apply what I learned. To be compelled, by my situation, to allow things that go against my knowledge and common-sense tells me that my personal advancement only goes so far as my nose.

When there is no utility in learning or experience, ‘career advancement’ stops.

Let’s compare that with being able to take charge of a situation and come out on top. To apply what I know, to make ignorant mistakes, and by its very virtue to gain experience, that kind of ‘advancement’ is the kind of satisfaction that made me love the craft so much.

This other situation is not dissimilar: not to have the space to learn something new. I want to explore new ground, especially the world of interactivity (it combines my creative interests with the coding skills I’ve learned through the years), but there is no enthusiasm to explore this in the studio where I work. It is only interested in what it already does and continues to ply the same trade routes year in and year out.

When learning is limited to the scope of your established career, –a.k.a boredom — ‘career advancement’ stops.

What started out as a hobby became a profession. It was satisfying as long as you were improving, and learning new things. But 15 years down, it’s become more about evading egos and enduring the squabbles for the Almighty Dollar.

Then there are yearly reviews which tell you that if you only did this or that you’d be worth a lot more.