Jump to content

Talk:2.5D

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tanscan27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GIS

[edit]

Having done some advanced GIS. The meaning of 2.5D was for exemple rendering a 3D scene from an elevation map, where the value of elevation of each point (pixel) would be the z axis. This rendering do not allow hole or floating object and is not made of vertex. I find this page really embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.130.41 (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment. In the GIS world, there is a third meaning to 2.5D: objects (or "features") that are mostly 2D in a 3D world. More formally, where there is only one z per x/y coordinates.
DEM (elevation) falls into this category, but also polygons, lines, points where each vertex has been associated a Z (to follow a DEM for instance).
Can we add this meaning to this article? Autra2 (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NP-complete

[edit]

The writer claims that "while optimal cutting tool paths for true 3-dimensional objects can be NP-complete, although many algorithms exist", I don't know where did the author get that knowledge, but based on my years' of study on path planning problem, unless you only allow the cutting tools to move along finite directions, for example, only along x or y directions on a grid, you cannot proof this problem is NPC.

"Gimbal Lock" is a nice buzzword, but in how far is it related to the subject? Apart from that, Quake (like most ego-shooters) has only 5 degrees of freedom (or 4.5 DOF, if you account for jumping as only 0.5), so gimbal lock should not be of such a big issue anyway? How do you rotate around 2 axes and produce gimbal lock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.163.234 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

This article needs a photo.

First-person shooters

[edit]

I don't think that the lack of "room over room" is related to be a 2.5D game. The well known example where this is the case is Doom, though this limitation is due to its 2D BSP tree and not the 2D sector structur. Also well known are the Jedi engine (Dark Forces) and the Build engine, which don't use BSP and are in fact able to let sectors overlap, so you can in fact have rooms over rooms. Yet they are both considered 2.5D. Overlapping sectors can even share the same height in space which would be impossible in a true 3D environment. One of the DM levels in Duke 3D actually makes use of this "feature", and in the 6th Dark Forces level, there is a room crossing an elevator shaft (probably an oversight by the designer). I'd say, it comes all down to the vertices, which have 2D coordinates in all those 2.5D engines, and 3D coordinates in true 3D engines. LogicDeLuxe 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be split?

[edit]

Wouldn't this better be suited for a "multiple meanings" page leading to different articles? This would maybe make the photo problem easier as well. I agree, a photo would be nice but to what topic of the many? (Sorry for the bad english) 80.135.100.134 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of pseudo-3D

[edit]

The Pseudo-3D article covered the same information so I merged them. The choice of 2.5D over Pseudo-3D as the main page was based on three factors:

  1. the 2.5D page has foreign pages associated with it (JA, PL, ZH) while Pseudo-3D had none
  2. the 2.5D page had more "What links here" links (61 or so vs 22)
  3. the 2.5D page already has redirects, so I would have had double redirects to fix up; the Pseudo-3D page had none

I have no passion one way or the other on which page name is used. The resulting merged page does still need cleanup, however. --Ishi Gustaedr 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be undone. Pseudo-3D and 2.5D are entirely different things. In fact, they are exact opposites. This article incorrectly presents pseudo-3D as being an alternate term for 2.5D, and states that the terms can refer to one of two things. The first of these, "Gameplay or movement in a video game or virtual reality environment that is restricted to a two-dimensional (2D) plane with little to no access to a third dimension in a space that otherwise appears to be three-dimensional," is 2.5D, the second, "2D graphical projections and similar techniques used to cause images or scenes to simulate the appearance of being three-dimensional (3D) when in fact they are not," is pseudo-3D. These terms and respective definitions are strictly separate, and should not be equated on this article. Jack.P.Valentine (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too think this should be split.

[edit]

I believe that at the very least, this article should be split between 2.5D in terms of graphics and 2.5D in terms of gameplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.222.51 (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organize Into Categories

[edit]

This should be more organized. The article tries to mention road engines, isometric projection, parallax scrolling, and other techniques all jumbled together. This makes for a very confusing read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.216.39 (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Outrun-arcadescreenshot.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite

[edit]

I did a fairly major rewrite to the article, fixing a lot of grammar mistakes, reorganizing topics into sections, and merging the "3/4 perspective" section from Auxiliary view. I also paid special close attention to the "Axonometric projection" (now "Parallel projection") section since it contained a lot of inaccuracies. The article in general still needs to be better sourced. SharkD  Talk  06:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visual perception and cognition

[edit]

The section on visual perception and cognition can probably be split into a different topic since it is not really related in any way to the rest of the article as far as I can tell. SharkD  Talk  06:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example animation

[edit]

Can someone fix the example image? Because it's scaled down from original, it only displays a single frame, so it's not a very good example of parallax scrolling! David (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... It used to be that GIF images would remain animated even after scaling. I don't know what changed. SharkD  Talk  06:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording needed

[edit]

Quote: "The advantage of these perspectives are that they combine the visibility and mobility of a top-down game with the character recognizability of a side-scrolling game."

I don't disagree with this statement, I just think it sounds like crap. Any rewordings to suggest? SharkD  Talk  19:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per consensus. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:29pm • 09:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC) —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:29pm • 09:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2.5D → Pseudo-3D – While "Pseudo-3D" redirects here, I guess the better alternative will be to rename this article "Pseudo-3D", and redirect "2.5D" to this. Reasons: "Dimension" mathematically means something more concrete/formal (see Dimensions, topological dimension, Hausdorff dimension, Fractal dimension). Using any of the formal mathematical definition of dimensions, a 2.5D space is invariably a fractal set. The term "2.5D" in this context is used informally and means something different. "Pseudo-3D" is more appropriate and does not conflict with the mathematical definition of dimension due to the presence of the prefix "pseudo". We can of course mention in the article that "2.5D" is also used informally to refer to the same thing.

Please discuss below and vote with support or oppose.

- Subh83 (talk | contribs) 20:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Placing RFC for attracting more discussion and comments on this.

{{rfctag|sci}} Comments requested on the proposed move 2.5D → Pseudo-3D. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 22:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I was going through the references in this article. Not even many of the references use the term "2.5D". As the "history" section details, the original concept was called "pseudo-3D". Moreover, the word "dimension" in its normal mathematical sense is much more widely used than "2.5D" is used in the context of this article's content. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 21:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The rationale above appears to be that we should promote the use of the (allegedly) original term. Not according to WP:AT and long-established policy and practice, we shouldn't. The subsequent claim that this original term is still more widely used needs to be supported by evidence. Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have doubt that the term "dimension" was not originally coined by mathematicians to describe a mathematical concept, I would point you to Riemann's 1854 lectures on Riemannian geometry. You can also check the works by Cayley, Hamilton and other innumerable mathematicians that worked on topology and geometry. Also, please do remember to check the references in the following articles: Dimensions, topological dimension, Hausdorff dimension, Fractal dimension - I am sure you will find evidences more than you need. Most of these concepts regarding dimension in mathematics originated at least 100-150 years back - long before computers even came to being. More recent & popular reference to dimension in mathematics/physics that uses the original concept include Einstein's space-time, embedding theorem by J.F.Nash, String theory, etc. The list of topics that use "dimension" in its original mathematical sense is truly humongous to fit in this talk page.
Interesting. The term in question is Pseudo-3D, and the question under discussion is whether it's a better article title than 2.5D. In both cases of course the D stands for dimension. The above rationale seems to be on the same lines as the previous: It's argued that the proposed name is what people should call the topic. Personally I'm of two minds as to whether we should allow such arguments in deciding article titles, but current policy and practice is not to.
Question: Does the advocacy of the term "free energy" in its original scientific context as the more accurate and acceptable use of the term over the pseudo-scientific concept of free energy be justified as promotion or advertisement?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: It's a bit hard to parse that sentence, its grammar is at least convoluted and probably faulty, but so far as I can see it's an attempt at an analogy, and I don't think it's even relevant. It seems to assume that the reasons for choosing this other article title are exactly the same as for this one, and that's quite a stretch considering how different the fields are.
It is beyond doubt that the term "dimension", if used in context of current day computer graphics, has been borrowed from the mathematical definition of dimension. While I have no complain against that, I think we should be transparent about it. Just as the original term "free energy" really belongs to the scientific concept rather than the pseudo-scientific concept, we should avoid twisting of the original meaning of "dimension" in a way to make it appear that the modified meaning is more correct. Moreover it seems to me by checking the references in this article, that the only sources for the term "2.5D" are the popular gaming web-sites. All the other reliable sources use "pseudo-3D" or "3/4 view". And it absolutely makes sense. No logical & reliable author cannot not ask the question why it is not called "2.50001 D" or "2.49999 D" or "2.61 D"! - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 21:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're both acceptable titles in terms of WP:AT. The question is, which is the better? This out-of-hand rejection of one of them as nonsensical has no support in terms of Wikipedia policy and practice. The naming rules of English are often out of step with mathematics, or even completely nonsensical on the surface, as are many other aspects of English and every other natural language. Andrewa (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. There are plenty of reliable book sources [1][2][3][4][5][6] including sources referring to 2.5D as what it is "poorly but traditionally called" [7], and academic sources [8][9][10][11]. Both Google Books and Google Scholar show significantly more results for 2.5D than they do for "pseudo-3D". (From a completely personal and inadmissable experience in software development, I've never once heard the technique referred to as pseudo-3D.) TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was No Consensus. SharkD should have closed this discussion way back in August 2011 (merger discussions are supposed to last one month at the most), at which point there was no opposition to the merger. Since then things have changed, and Isometric graphics in video games is a considerably different article than it was three years ago. This proposal has gone stale. NukeofEarl (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging Isometric graphics in video games to here. A lot of the content is already duplicated, and I don't think there's a need for two articles. SharkD  Talk  18:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-proposal: merge 2.5D into Isometric graphics in video games. Reason: 2.5D is just a colloq term, there are no "half" dimensions. -- Kays (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Technical aspects & generalizations

[edit]
«The reason for using pseudo-3D instead of "real" 3D computer graphics is that the system that has to simulate a three dimensional looking graphic is not powerful enough to handle the calculation intensive routines of 3D computer graphics, yet is capable of using tricks of modifying 2D graphics like bitmaps.»

I object to this statement, which claims that technological limitations are the only reason to employ pseudo-3D visualization. This would be like claiming that the only reason for a movie not to be filmed in 3D (or color, for that matter) is if its creators were not able to. It is clear in both cases though that these are fundamental artistic decisions that heavily influence a work, particularly in video games where it does not only affect the look, but also the interactivity. I think this paragraph should be reworked and/or extended; maybe it could be reworded to make it clear that, according to the section heading of "technical aspects", it is not the only reason for pseudo-3D, but the only technical reason. 84.227.27.182 (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. Go right ahead. SharkD  Talk  20:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3D characters & 2D backgrounds

[edit]

Are games like Resident Evil 2 and Grim Fandango 2.5D games since they have 2D backgrounds with 3D characters moving in them? --Mika1h (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are fixed 3D, not 2.5D. SharkD  Talk  19:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard and used the term 2.5D used specifically to describe games that combine 2D game play with 3D graphics or vice versa. Conversely I've always heard 2d graphic techniques that create the illusion of 3D as pseudo-3D. It is after all a colloquial term that originates in the video game industry in a broad sense. I think the defining difference is that pseudo-3D doesn't use any actual 3D programming. I would consider the early Resident Evil games as 2.5D in that they have fixed 3D game play with 2D backgrounds in place of 3D modeled environments. Games such as Strider 2 that use environments rendered with 3D models but restrict game play to 2D are also 2.5D games, and I've heard them referred to that way in video game magazine articles. Thus, I would also support the separation of Pseudo-3D and 2.5D into their own articles. ~Vanya Thursday, 1 August 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.77.14 (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely confusing article that collates far too much information

[edit]

This article contains a wide variety of valid information, but it's not particularly clear why it is collected together.

There is little to no linkage between these topics. What does parallax have to do with bump-mapping? Or axonometric projection with Trine 2? If these are different concepts that all share a term, we should have a disambiguation page that points to "2.5D graphics", "2.5D engines", "2.5D gameplay", etc. If this is supposed to be a catch-all page to describe all means of representing 3 dimensions in 2, it should be titled more appropriately ("Pseudo-3D" might work) or some sources need to be be cited as evidence that "2.5D" is indeed used in that catch-all sense.

The colloquial term "2.5D" as it is used in the current gaming discourse *almost always* means "2D sidescrolling gameplay in a 3D environment". See http://www.giantbomb.com/25d/3015-660/games/ http://www.raywenderlich.com/4551/how-to-make-a-2-5d-game-with-unity-tutorial-part-1 http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/2.5d http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1723480

And that's all from the first page of a Google search for "2.5D games". If that is the most popular current usage of the term, why is Wikipedia evidencing something different?

It seems clear that 90% of this article is about various topics (such as graphical projections of 3D environments into 2D), which - even if it has been called 2.5D, which none of the sources suggest - are clearly separate from the topic of games set in 3D spaces that restrict movement to a 2D surface. I cannot see any reason that these topics should be combined under the banner of "2.5D" when no cited sources combine them. This seems very close to Wikipedia inventing/redefining a term. If I'm wrong, we need some citations using the term 2.5D to describe both games like Lincity AND New Super Mario Brothers in the same breath.

Otherwise, they are two separate topics and this page should be divided at the very least into two articles, one for "Pseudo-3D graphics" and another for "2.5D games". Yourself In Person (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2.5D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HD-2D

[edit]

Hi. I dunno if this is the right place to ask (sorry in advance if its not). Should this "HD-2D" style, that was arguably popularized by Square Enix's Octopath Traveler, be given a subsection or atleast a mention somewhere here?

With Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes, Triangle Strategy, the Dragon Quest III remake and now the Live A Live remake (and other games I forgotten or don't know about using the same or similar style) I feel the use of "HD-2D" has become kinda like a thing now. Thanks in advance for the reply.--37.123.169.90 (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2.5D&oldid=1196345650"