so I opened up the scrying workshop and this was the random dragon i got. I don't know if anyone else has already mentioned this and apologies if they have and I only just noticed, but the eyes very much overlap on top of Beetle where it looks like they shouldn't.
TOPIC | Veilspun Beetle+Multigaze clipping
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=144&bodygene=0&breed=19&element=9&eyetype=5&gender=1&tert=115&tertgene=65&winggene=63&wings=29&auth=2b8ad0f7379f3ff1bdb1853bfb34d116346dd2b8&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=144&bodygene=0&breed=19&element=9&eyetype=5&gender=0&tert=115&tertgene=65&winggene=63&wings=29&auth=5ef598c5aa17f59cd29bcaafacf2df879a6c859a&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
so I opened up the scrying workshop and this was the random dragon i got. I don't know if anyone else has already mentioned this and apologies if they have and I only just noticed, but the eyes very much overlap on top of Beetle where it looks like they shouldn't.
so I opened up the scrying workshop and this was the random dragon i got. I don't know if anyone else has already mentioned this and apologies if they have and I only just noticed, but the eyes very much overlap on top of Beetle where it looks like they shouldn't.
Not Found
It's still an error. If Eyes are clipping through a gene it's an error. This is half an eye.
Pretty sure dragons are not supposed to have half an eye.
Their gene bugs report mention multi-eye on other genes/dragons but not this one.
Not Found
It's still an error. If Eyes are clipping through a gene it's an error. This is half an eye.
Pretty sure dragons are not supposed to have half an eye.
Their gene bugs report mention multi-eye on other genes/dragons but not this one.
@CyclopSeeker eyes are layered above genes, so this is how it's "supposed" to look like. multigaze and many line breaking terts simply are incompatible, and nothing can be done about it at this moment, because it would require reworking the entire dragon image generation system from scratch.
@CyclopSeeker eyes are layered above genes, so this is how it's "supposed" to look like. multigaze and many line breaking terts simply are incompatible, and nothing can be done about it at this moment, because it would require reworking the entire dragon image generation system from scratch.
@Ralzakark
Right, I know this that it's 'supposed' too. It's just kinda ick. I wonder how they are gonna work around this, or of they even do. XDD
Gotta find eyeballs that work with him now.
Right, I know this that it's 'supposed' too. It's just kinda ick. I wonder how they are gonna work around this, or of they even do. XDD
Gotta find eyeballs that work with him now.
@Ralzakark
Right, I know this that it's 'supposed' too. It's just kinda ick. I wonder how they are gonna work around this, or of they even do. XDD
Gotta find eyeballs that work with him now.
Right, I know this that it's 'supposed' too. It's just kinda ick. I wonder how they are gonna work around this, or of they even do. XDD
Gotta find eyeballs that work with him now.
@SecretGardens
As already said, it's not actually an error.
To quote the official gene errors thread on an error that was fixed:
[quote]Clipping does happen between multi-gaze and line breaking tertiaries on ancients. That's a limitation of our layering system. This is a bit different as its clipping with the base line art, tertiary excluded, and is thus considered an error where the ancient dragons multi-gaze tert clips are not.[/quote]
@SecretGardens
As already said, it's not actually an error.
To quote the official gene errors thread on an error that was fixed:
As already said, it's not actually an error.
To quote the official gene errors thread on an error that was fixed:
Quote:
Clipping does happen between multi-gaze and line breaking tertiaries on ancients. That's a limitation of our layering system. This is a bit different as its clipping with the base line art, tertiary excluded, and is thus considered an error where the ancient dragons multi-gaze tert clips are not.