03/24/24 Update: I think it's pretty safe to say the stance on MG is "just ignore it," or something akin to that. [emoji=mirror laughing size=1]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=18&element=10&eyetype=5&gender=0&tert=10&tertgene=273&winggene=0&wings=2&auth=2b9b09ef910b242ba43ffa61e9ea7d05419cacca&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02/22/24 Update: Add another one to the pile...
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=21&element=10&eyetype=5&gender=1&tert=19&tertgene=269&winggene=0&wings=2&auth=25cdd06ca95697846a6e2e1ca41cfe117ca58347&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've lost count at how many genes needlessly clip through multigaze.
They ignore multigaze, because the way multigaze was designed is...not so great.
Please fix multigaze clipping. It's been like this since the new eye types released. (Layer multigaze under certain tertiaries in whatever art program you use??)
Edit: If the the problem can't be fixed because of the rendering system, design a system that works...?
These are only a few examples:
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=24&element=10&eyetype=5&gender=1&tert=18&tertgene=266&winggene=0&wings=2&auth=84e9866dcc83624b8b94ac44811cdd324bdce936&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=24&element=10&eyetype=5&gender=0&tert=18&tertgene=227&winggene=0&wings=2&auth=751eeae3ea6c022038f321d9be73d24e24005cf4&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=23&element=10&eyetype=5&gender=0&tert=18&tertgene=185&winggene=0&wings=2&auth=6b4a9aa89335405a09647d8efa4dda8ddac97648&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=2&bodygene=0&breed=20&element=10&eyetype=5&gender=1&tert=18&tertgene=211&winggene=0&wings=2&auth=a65aec981fa8cfa92bbff7948c0ac658886da38a&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
03/24/24 Update: I think it's pretty safe to say the stance on MG is "just ignore it," or something akin to that.
02/22/24 Update: Add another one to the pile...
I've lost count at how many genes needlessly clip through multigaze.
They ignore multigaze, because the way multigaze was designed is...not so great.
Please fix multigaze clipping. It's been like this since the new eye types released. (Layer multigaze under certain tertiaries in whatever art program you use??)
Edit: If the the problem can't be fixed because of the rendering system, design a system that works...?
These are only a few examples:
Because of how dragon layers are rendered, they literally cannot layer anything above the eyes.
But that’s still not an excuse, in my opinion, for how many terts that could easily be drawn to not intersect with MG exist. Where possible (like with genes similar to Medusa and the new Crystalline), I’d really support them drafting the gene, overlaying the MG file over it, and again WHERE POSSIBLE, shifting the placement of the tert. Maybe not for already-existing genes, but certainly going forward. For a lot of genes (again, like Medusa) it would not disturb the appearance of the tert at all and it’d be only a matter of, like, a few pixels.
Because of how dragon layers are rendered, they literally cannot layer anything above the eyes.
But that’s still not an excuse, in my opinion, for how many terts that could easily be drawn to not intersect with MG exist. Where possible (like with genes similar to Medusa and the new Crystalline), I’d really support them drafting the gene, overlaying the MG file over it, and again WHERE POSSIBLE, shifting the placement of the tert. Maybe not for already-existing genes, but certainly going forward. For a lot of genes (again, like Medusa) it would not disturb the appearance of the tert at all and it’d be only a matter of, like, a few pixels.
> My tumblr
> My AO3
X
|
 
she/her | 18+ | FR+2 | brain full of night elves
|
|
>> Avatar
>> I love pings!
>> PixelZ, not PixelS!
xxx
|
In some cases it's impossible. There is no way Willow will work with multi-gaze. Probably Riot, too, unfortunate as it is. You have to choose one or the other there.
But there is no reason whatsoever why some of these genes have to clip with multi-gaze. It is unarguably lazy that they do not check with multi-gaze and work around it where possible. Because for many (if not most) of these genes, it is possible to have both. Like Medusa or Blossom or Sparkle for goodness' sake.
In some cases it's impossible. There is no way Willow will work with multi-gaze. Probably Riot, too, unfortunate as it is. You have to choose one or the other there.
But there is no reason whatsoever why some of these genes have to clip with multi-gaze. It is unarguably lazy that they do not check with multi-gaze and work around it where possible. Because for many (if not most) of these genes, it is possible to have both. Like Medusa or Blossom or Sparkle for goodness' sake.
it would be great if there would be multiple files of multigaze that would activate when certain gene is set - basicly multigaze file that has parts of eyes erased to fit in with certain linebreaking terts. but that is too much work so we can't have that
BUT it would be so neat if at least some genes could be made to avoid where eyes are? like. this. exactly this
[quote name="DeathbyPixelz" date="2024-01-28 11:15:07" ]
Because of how dragon layers are rendered, they literally cannot layer anything above the eyes.
But that’s still not an excuse, in my opinion, for how many terts that could easily be drawn to not intersect with MG exist. Where possible (like with genes similar to Medusa and the new Crystalline), I’d really support them drafting the gene, overlaying the MG file over it, and again WHERE POSSIBLE, shifting the placement of the tert. Maybe not for already-existing genes, but certainly going forward. For a lot of genes (again, like Medusa) it would not disturb the appearance of the tert at all and it’d be only a matter of, like, a few pixels.
[/quote]
and there was whole suggestion asking for terts to be designed with multigaze in mind and examples how lot of it could be easily avoide... if there was some planing, and tert would still work the way it does. sure for some it would be wonky if applied so not possible (it could break the flow, or make too little coverage)... but for others? it could be done. the fact this keeps happening... like I am not into multigaze and I am disappointed just by pure "not much planning in design"
it would be great if there would be multiple files of multigaze that would activate when certain gene is set - basicly multigaze file that has parts of eyes erased to fit in with certain linebreaking terts. but that is too much work so we can't have that
BUT it would be so neat if at least some genes could be made to avoid where eyes are? like. this. exactly this
DeathbyPixelz wrote on 2024-01-28 11:15:07:
Because of how dragon layers are rendered, they literally cannot layer anything above the eyes.
But that’s still not an excuse, in my opinion, for how many terts that could easily be drawn to not intersect with MG exist. Where possible (like with genes similar to Medusa and the new Crystalline), I’d really support them drafting the gene, overlaying the MG file over it, and again WHERE POSSIBLE, shifting the placement of the tert. Maybe not for already-existing genes, but certainly going forward. For a lot of genes (again, like Medusa) it would not disturb the appearance of the tert at all and it’d be only a matter of, like, a few pixels.
and there was whole suggestion asking for terts to be designed with multigaze in mind and examples how lot of it could be easily avoide... if there was some planing, and tert would still work the way it does. sure for some it would be wonky if applied so not possible (it could break the flow, or make too little coverage)... but for others? it could be done. the fact this keeps happening... like I am not into multigaze and I am disappointed just by pure "not much planning in design"
|
|
 yeet
|
yeet
you
see
mE
wHy
|
|
yeet
|
|
I feel like they need to relayer the eyes instead
I feel like they need to relayer the eyes instead
[quote name="Wisdum" date="2024-01-28 12:43:19" ]
I feel like they need to relayer the eyes instead
[/quote]
Good idea in theory, but that would be a highly dependent if-then sort of thing. Since some tertiary genes are just patterns while others are extensions, it would be highly context dependent.
At this rate, it seems like they should just replace Multi-Gaze with something else.
Wisdum wrote on 2024-01-28 12:43:19:
I feel like they need to relayer the eyes instead
Good idea in theory, but that would be a highly dependent if-then sort of thing. Since some tertiary genes are just patterns while others are extensions, it would be highly context dependent.
At this rate, it seems like they should just replace Multi-Gaze with something else.
Support for fixing this. I'm not affected because I'm not into MG dergs for the most part, but it's ridiculous that it's not being taken into account.
Support for fixing this. I'm not affected because I'm not into MG dergs for the most part, but it's ridiculous that it's not being taken into account.
I don't see why "line breaking" terts couldn't be layered over eyes. Layer masks exist, it should be a matter of a few clicks to ensure that the actual "eye" location is transparent in the tert file, no? Or even putting multigaze on two separate layers, with the "main" eyes above the tert and the multi eyes below. I'm sure there's a coding reason not to do that second thing but from a graphics perspective it'd work. Regardless, it seems unreasonable not to at least check these genes with multigaze and avoid clipping where possible in the creation phase if we can't have a more comprehensive solution.
I don't see why "line breaking" terts couldn't be layered over eyes. Layer masks exist, it should be a matter of a few clicks to ensure that the actual "eye" location is transparent in the tert file, no? Or even putting multigaze on two separate layers, with the "main" eyes above the tert and the multi eyes below. I'm sure there's a coding reason not to do that second thing but from a graphics perspective it'd work. Regardless, it seems unreasonable not to at least check these genes with multigaze and avoid clipping where possible in the creation phase if we can't have a more comprehensive solution.
the reason the gene can't overlap the eyes is because the eye layer always has to be on the top because on the reverse end of things, genes that have effects around the eyes of the dragon could awkwardly overlap the main eye silhouette for other linebreaking eye types like innocent and primal.
the other issue is this would create a special scenario where the skin/accent can go UNDER the tert, but only for multigaze dragons, because the way that skins and accents work is they NEED to go under the eyes. I feel like this would just lead to its own discussion of "why does this specific kind of dragon get to have a skin/accent that goes under the tert but none of the others do". which honestly could be a suggestion all its own as I've always wished we had the ability to layer linebreaker genes over top of skins and accents rather than them getting covered up creating awkward silhouette breaks in some cases. I know I'd certainly be unhappy if only multigaze dragons were given that scenario
I can't attest for how easy or difficult an if:then scenario for just this one eye type would be but I still think the easiest solution here would just be to draw the dang genes around the eyes instead of this discussion needing to be addressed every single time a new linebreaker gene that could EASILY be adjusted to account for mg (but wasn't for some reason) is released
the reason the gene can't overlap the eyes is because the eye layer always has to be on the top because on the reverse end of things, genes that have effects around the eyes of the dragon could awkwardly overlap the main eye silhouette for other linebreaking eye types like innocent and primal.
the other issue is this would create a special scenario where the skin/accent can go UNDER the tert, but only for multigaze dragons, because the way that skins and accents work is they NEED to go under the eyes. I feel like this would just lead to its own discussion of "why does this specific kind of dragon get to have a skin/accent that goes under the tert but none of the others do". which honestly could be a suggestion all its own as I've always wished we had the ability to layer linebreaker genes over top of skins and accents rather than them getting covered up creating awkward silhouette breaks in some cases. I know I'd certainly be unhappy if only multigaze dragons were given that scenario
I can't attest for how easy or difficult an if:then scenario for just this one eye type would be but I still think the easiest solution here would just be to draw the dang genes around the eyes instead of this discussion needing to be addressed every single time a new linebreaker gene that could EASILY be adjusted to account for mg (but wasn't for some reason) is released
I will always support this. I would say it's definitely possible for most terts to be designed around Multigaze, and then they just... don't. It's incredibly lazy.
Feels especially weird for festival terts in a way I can't quite articulate.
I will always support this. I would say it's definitely possible for most terts to be designed around Multigaze, and then they just... don't. It's incredibly lazy.
Feels especially weird for festival terts in a way I can't quite articulate.
