Cell

Members
  • Content count

    2839
  • Joined

  • Last visited

8 Followers

About Cell

  • Rank
    Forum Staple

Recent Profile Visitors

195165 profile views
  1. Certain liquid flats (FWATER* and NUKAGE*, respectively) when used in a small amount and/or a somewhat confined pool look like they're just "waving" back and forth, but when out in the huge open, you'd see them "drift" in a diagonal angle, 'specially when looking at them from the direction they "do" it from.
  2. Showcasing a silly idea of turning METAL1 into something transparent.
  3. The debate over colours is getting offtopic a bit, so here I am to seek for advice again. Classic map, blocky setup of SLADWALL and BROWN96 meeting. My question is: To SUPPORT2 or not to SUPPORT2?
  4. The reason my maps would always end up with that crampity-cramp way of feel that many of the testers of my earliest contributions have already clearly pointed out is that for some reason, in 3D mode, it just feels alot more spacious for me than ingame. Perhaps this is because whenever I'm plying back and forth in 3D mode, I can just dash through walls with no restrictions at all - and also the proportions might be a bit somewhat larger than when I am playtesting. With that said, next time I map, I'll totally just make areas that feel so hugeass for me.
  5. I was talking about the "paint artist view"/"real life convention standard view" or how shall I put that stupid thingy where red, yellow and blue are considered as primary colors.
  6. Do you mean the display being pixelated or the area made alot spacious or both? @Dragonfly: this is when you're speaking about the "absolute blue" (shade 160 in the MSPaint values) defined in the virtual RGB palette. Regular people often tend to define "blue" at about shade 140-150, which is a blue that is slightly greenish. But of course I'm not a regular person either - I admit I'm still reluctant to accept yellow being a primary color instead of green.
  7. I have an instinct that whenever I make a pool of nukage in a less justified location, I'd just want to make head or tail of it immediately. I'm here to ask your opinion on whether this is still classic-esque enough or I'll better just scrap it for good.
  8. Doom is actually infinite, and that's why it will always reach back to its roots aswell, regardless how newer technology is already making us an even wider variety to customize it. Given its impact when released back then and how it lasts after all these decades, the charm of novelty felt then is still strong enough to amaze the community again and again. ... Heck, I'm drowning in cilch├ęs just by telling the truth.
  9. Yay. Of course, farther encounters often play as a gamble, but hey, easy-to-dodge projectiles* would become boring after quite a while, and this type of challenge is a worthy asset to gameplay.
  10. Heh. Coming to all a'dis (including older posts), the only thing I truly found out about Doom is that general knowledge about how the base engine's several assets work ingame is still a yet-to-find-out (or, to be more precise, learn) for me. :D
  11. The player sprite is 32x32 in mappixels. However, one can't fit into a 32px-wide hallway... ... unless they are facing it squarely in the perfect orthogonal angle. One of these examples is the start of Requiem MAP15 - you're supposed to shoot linedefs in order to get out a cage, but if you're just running forward without the slightest turn, you'll "slip" past the grates. Not sure if this is also port-based, though - I only tested it with ZDoom, and AFAIK earlier ports actually tend to make the player sprite's X and Y attributes a bit higher ingame.
  12. Bad enough?! I bet badasses like you eat their elevenses at 10:55 straight!!
  13. I'm not known for holding grudges for long, and, on a side note, for the time being, I hadn't had a particularly awful experience by any members on this Forum for me to legitimately consider them an "asshole". But even if so... ... this would be utterly nonsense. Talent and behavior are two different things, and - though poor defense, I admit - many of the artists throughout history were actually known to be outrageously deviant. It is true that behavior may affect how people see you in general (expect reactions from you, ignore you, etc.), and it might also affect how they handle something you've produced. It, however, should only be harshly distinguished whether you, the author, are bragging or not. People repulsive to you will either mildly tell you off or simply ignore. People wanting your attention will cheeringly ensure every selfish word you say, and people who are somewhat caring for you will ask you not to be so full of yourself. And believe me, they'd be right, because braggers are prone to handle criticism badly, turning their self-polishing into a sudden ragefest and so on... and eventually they'd become some asshole mappers aswell, despite not initially they actually were. Point is, it's absolutely no matter whether you're the most perfect entity in the Universe either... bragging is a mustn't! And the point in what I am trying to make and why I brought bragging up is because it's never what personal insults on way different topics may indicate for me that the author as a person is asshole as an author or not. He or she might've even cursed my entire family with bad words (sheerly radical example, I know), but it only reflects on how poor socialising skills he or she does have. But when an author just can't stop talking about how miraculously splendid thingy they'd produced, regardless what the truth behind the actual content is... that's just flatout unsympathetic for me to stomach in all circumstances. That is where talent and behavior fatally clash and my 0-star ratings are most definitely booked.
  14. I actually subverted this. You know, there's a lot of work with constructing new textures from already-existing, newly-composed, or both patches, especially when you do something like LITE3 (or, worse, STONE). Lots of the same stuff repeated, only offsets are changing, and you have to make each offset one by one. Tedious and time-consuming, and if you happen to use a lump editor messing everything up, make one wrong step and you're basically back to square one for the hell of it. So, why wouldn't you do it in MSPaint, and make the whole thing into a single patch and then a texture instead? This above I particularly rejected and went on the hard way anyways. And even both numbers used in binary code! That makes it perfect. ^^