Little Fighter 3. Hopes and expectations

[empirefantasy]

I suggest to go with lf2 sprites first, then, who wants can make some chars with bigger (and HQ) sprites.

Also u mentioned that this engine support 3D, I think there will be needed to create 3D sprites right?

[Hate]

I suggest to go with lf2 sprites first, then, who wants can make some chars with bigger (and HQ) sprites.

Also u mentioned that this engine support 3D, I think there will be needed to create 3D sprites right?

3d sprites don't exist, they're called 3d models.

[A-Man]

seriously though, am i the only one who sees HF as a LF3??!

No, I do too. But the way HF is going now on a mobile platform, and the fact that it can't be modded already puts off a large portion of this community. Hero Fighter is way less popular than LF2, and so is Lucas compared to Davis.
I'd personally love to to see the Little Fighters revamped.

Also u mentioned that this engine support 3D, I think there will be needed to create 3D sprites right?

It supports 3D in addition, so it's not required to use 3D. Plus, I find 2D to fit and look better in such a fighting game. 3D models might prove useful in designing stages (a whole stage can be designed in a single model), and maybe with giant objects which extend a lot in the z-axis.

[Som1Lse]

3d sprites don't exist, they're called 3d models.

You triggered my pedantism: 3D textures are totally a thing, and as a result you could totally create a 3D sprite. Admittedly it would be totally impractical for games in comparison to a 3D model, but it would still be doable.

[A-Man]

3D textures are actually useful for edge-interpolated Skymaps/Cubemaps. I am planning to implement those sometime in the future, but just placing the textures around you in a cube can do. I doubt an LF2 beatemup-like game would need those though.

Edit: They're actually useful for point source shadow-mapping, and reflective/refractive materials too. But the latter aren't for the engine users to be concerned with I guess.

[Silverthorn]

LF1 (Click to View)

LF2 (Click to View)

LFO/LF3 (Click to View)

HF/LF3v2 (Click to View)

Obviously a major graphics-improvement between every step. Sticking to the classic "LF2-style" for a potential "LF3" (which I actually deem LFO and HF to be as well) therefore seems unnecessary. I like that Sänger's approach is a bit outside-the-box; helps getting some creative ideas going. Replicating that design-approach, though, could become quite challenging. Then again, my contributions to the whole project would probably be next to nothing

[Som1Lse]

3D textures are actually useful for edge-interpolated Skymaps/Cubemaps. I am planning to implement those sometime in the future, but just placing the textures around you in a cube can do. I doubt an LF2 beatemup-like game would need those though.

Edit: They're actually useful for point source shadow-mapping, and reflective/refractive materials too. But the latter aren't for the engine users to be concerned with I guess.

3D texture are useful yes, using them to make 3D sprites is not. Sky box cube maps (which is what I assume you are referring to, if not please correct me), are not 3D textures. They are 6 2D textures, handled in a special way in order to interpolate them properly.

[A-Man]

Blue Phoenix made a good point there (even though LFO style wasn't the upgrade we were looking forward to). In order for the style to stay consistent, what say if we work towards a template character first?

Sky box cube maps (which is what I assume you are referring to, if not please correct me), are not 3D textures. They are 6 2D textures, handled in a special way in order to interpolate them properly.

You generate the 3Dtexture cubemap using 6 2D textures. They're 3D textures which you even need to use the r coordinate to get a fragment off :P

[Som1Lse]

You generate the 3Dtexture cubemap using 6 2D textures. They're 3D textures which you even need to use the r coordinate to get a fragment off :P

You are wrong.
This is a cube map texture: https://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/AR...be_map.txt
This is 3D texture: https://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/EXT/texture3D.txt
The cube map extension even mentions 3D textures, but it never refers to cube maps as 3D textures. Despite them being accessed with a 3D vector does not make the texture itself 3D. The thing is a 3D texture already means something, so also calling cube maps 3D textures only serves to confuse and make the term unecessarily ambiguous.

[A-Man]

Haha, 4 sharp sentences. QED I guess. It is a confusing notation. Thanks for clearing my misconception.

Edit: Found what marks the clear distinction:
"while a 3-D texture assigns a different pixel in the texture to every point within a volume, a cube map assigns a different pixel in the texture to every direction from the center."
source: https://www.panda3d.org/manual/index.php/Cube_Maps