Edit | Leave a Comment | Favorite
More Like This: (Beta Temporary Feature)
User Comments:
Ezalias commented at 2007-10-02 16:09:17 » #810
VISPLANE OVERFLOW
In all seriousness, it's not that bad. It's just misleading. There's a landing on the right as well as the left, it's just poorly implied. More worrying than the wonky geometry is that even if your force your mind to correct them into something non-Escher-inspired, they have a grade of about 40%. This artist couldn't even make parallel lines to keep the stairs at the same angle.
3 Points
Flag
VISPLANE OVERFLOW
In all seriousness, it's not that bad. It's just misleading. There's a landing on the right as well as the left, it's just poorly implied. More worrying than the wonky geometry is that even if your force your mind to correct them into something non-Escher-inspired, they have a grade of about 40%. This artist couldn't even make parallel lines to keep the stairs at the same angle.
3 Points
Flag
InvaderJim42 commented at 2007-10-03 12:53:40 » #855
Nice DOOM reference with the visplane overflow. But I still can't even get my mind to see the possibility of a landing there. The middle hand-rail doesn't end soon enough for it to make sense...
2 Points
Flag
Nice DOOM reference with the visplane overflow. But I still can't even get my mind to see the possibility of a landing there. The middle hand-rail doesn't end soon enough for it to make sense...
2 Points
Flag
Ezalias commented at 2007-10-03 15:44:40 » #861
Those aren't really handrails. They can't be. They're twice the height of the steps. They're like runners or rims or something similarly useless. I'll readily grant that the artist knew nothing about architecture, this is at least euclidean.
2 Points
Flag
Those aren't really handrails. They can't be. They're twice the height of the steps. They're like runners or rims or something similarly useless. I'll readily grant that the artist knew nothing about architecture, this is at least euclidean.
2 Points
Flag
InvaderJim42 commented at 2007-10-03 17:38:17 » #862
But if you look at the steps that are aligned with the 'rail' bend at the lowest 'landing, the spacing between it and the next step up is the same, even though that step is further back in the scene... which would require that further-back step to be taller than a regular step in order to look like this... someone should copy this image and upload it with raytracings and notes or something. This makes my brain hurt.
2 Points
Flag
But if you look at the steps that are aligned with the 'rail' bend at the lowest 'landing, the spacing between it and the next step up is the same, even though that step is further back in the scene... which would require that further-back step to be taller than a regular step in order to look like this... someone should copy this image and upload it with raytracings and notes or something. This makes my brain hurt.
2 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2007-10-03 22:00:17 » #864
I just noticed something horrific. Look at how much room you've actually got on these steps? If they're hand rails, then you have to like... hoist yourself up two feet for every step. If they're runners (and according to the dimensions of other objects, it's more likely), then you have about three inches to plant your feet!
3 Points
Flag
I just noticed something horrific. Look at how much room you've actually got on these steps? If they're hand rails, then you have to like... hoist yourself up two feet for every step. If they're runners (and according to the dimensions of other objects, it's more likely), then you have about three inches to plant your feet!
3 Points
Flag
1 2