Messages

You still need some shade. Right now, room is full on ambient light and I think that shadow behind bed and nightstand are impossible, considering the position and height of window.

A bit of extreme example here:


But it shows how light bounces around and how corners and wall that has the window should be darkest.
on a side note, I fiddled with camera for 20 minutes, but never managed to get as steep perspective you have. When floor lines up, ceiling just doesn't. So I think ceiling lines should have much, much lower (more horizontal) angle. On your image it almost feels like ceiling is ambushing and about to attack anyone who lies onto bed.

Is this game from first-person view? Because I couldn't imagine character moving in room with such close and steep perspective.
Also, both vanishing points seem to be a bit off, but very little. The one for window is worst.

Dunno. I'd switch the roles (and faces) of BBC Moriarty and Mycroft. Intelligence dude sounds more dangerous (and powerful) than office worker and in book, Mycroft was an analyst, much more fitting to stock broker I think.

I found Moriarty portrayed in second movie excellent: That reddish beard, that double front tooth, sinister, empty look in eyes... perfect villain. The moment he said "I can play this game too" (or something along the lines during final thought duel) my body temperature dropped to -20C

Watched Belgravia yesterday... Felt more boring than Season 1 although ending kind of made it up. Romance and Sherlock won't mix really. I seriously hope Sherlock won't evolve into superman, because it's surely moving that direction - fight scenes so far have been ridiculous, single-hit knockouts only happen in MMA and Boxing where men have hands like hammers, not ones of violin players.
The guy from book and recent movies fight with skill in boxing and stick fighting, relying on skill mostly. The fights in modern Sherlock looked like this Krav Maga magic Jason Bourne does, but guy doesn't really look like a cage fighter who could outlast more than a round. In other words, if punches are needed to be thrown, he'd better throw them carefully like a man trained in fighting, and not single cheap knockouts Macgyver/any US tv-series since 1980- style.

Modern Moriarty sucks. He looks like crazed, overworked, spoilt-kid stock broker and not the evil genius.

The modern Sherlock? I needed some more Sherlock after seeing second movie and found that first season of modern Sherlock was actually quite awesome. Only thing that I cannot unsee are his uneven nostril sizes

It still sounds pretty much like Virtua Cop 2.

SEGA made some police games for arcades too, but I cannot remember any names. Try to find a MAME site and recognize game from screenshots.

Well, after few hours, I managed to make this myself with few lines of code. VBA is quite terrible compared to other programming languages (I honestly didn't remember such loose syntax and downright absurd mathematical operations from QBasic days... a = a+1, seriously?), but eventually I got what I needed.

Thing is like this. There's a a sports event. Marathon or track run or whatever.
Every contestant has name (or number, as on picture) and amount of laps done under corresponding column.

What I want to do is that every time contestant finishes a lap, you can just type his number somewhere (say, a query window opens where you can enter his number or whatever) and automatically "laps" count under correct contestant number will increase.

The list of contestants could be very long so it would be too time consuming to find correct contestant by hand every time lap is finished, that's why this system should work in such quicker way. I know it's basically "hello world" in any other programming language, but I'm not too familiar with scripting in VBA and no time to learn it enough to be. And they demand it'd work in excel.

Can anyone help?

Not the villain, just exploitable. Because it's business, not effort of humanity. It's scared to lose it's funds and therefore doesn't act as instrument of democracy or people's treasure.

But if we'd have one that's formed like this, it would be way different ballpark... I hope. People are ready to go long way to protect some stuff... like freedom. That's why we have colored revolutions and hacktivists and loads of bloody history and so on.

And governments can go only as far as populace lets them.

[private]

It means that if you're going to be new Julian Assange on your facebook wall or organize riots like middle-east did, your friendly neighborhood KGB-(whatever) goes to facebook, asks for your posts and tortures you in cellar based on them. It also asks for who your friends are, what did they private message you about your crazy ideas, and grabs them aswell.

That's what I meant about "laws protecting the whole thing".

In recent hacker attacks, twitter did exactly that: Gave personal info out to FBI.

And it's not wealth in terms of money I want to redistribute, but common resource or being able to socialize digitally.

Money needs to be redistributed too, but that's another thread and another talk.

Well, there's another way.
Let's say, there's Eurobook. A facebook alternative working as European Union's common effort and gets funded by some central commission, with all member countries chipping in. Like any other mutual EU project. Since it's not based on one government alone, it's not subject to abuse, like intelligence agencies tuning in, etc. Regulation would be very strict and control over it too.
The operating cost is joke to most governments anyway, considering what gets spent on social and defense budgets usually... and as mutual effort, it's almost non-noticeable. Facebook costs somewhere  between $50-$100 million a year to operate (if google is right). Divided between 27 countries in EU, it's 2-4 millions a year per country. I'm sure most countries give such sums to absolutely idiotic, non-important things annually.

Done!
Now how about Worldbook?

Well, how is Wikipedia run? Or any other free, common digital resource? Donations and common effort.
If facebook has 500 million users, all it needs is 1% of it's userbase to donate 1 dollar.

With 5 million dollars a year, I think you can run pretty much everything. And this is sum some philantropists can donate tenfold sometimes.

International organizations. Like Red Cross, Amnesty International, etc.
Since it's internet-related I think it would have shitloads of supporters.

Facebook can sell your ass to police state government anytime.

Solution is THAT simple: either de-commercialize or provide non-commercial alternative to Facebook. One-platform-fits-all style.
I see no problem in having international human registry. Because facebooks and googlepluses have them anyway already.

Facebook as a social platform has become extremely useful for everyday socializing, I think.
For example -- planning weekend with friends takes a single wall post where before FB it took ten phone calls with maybe ten more ("wait till I check") and loads of arguing who can come, convincing, etc. Same goes for loads of things. Also, it's easy to be in touch, get in touch and checking on people you know.

It's even good for stalking/background checks: someone wants to be my friend, I can instantly check who is he/she associated with, see bits of personal info and photos and make much better choice than I would based only by meet & greet. Not all spying stuff makes you a pervert, infact, it could protect you from one!

What we need is a "facebook standard". Maybe even with fancy ISO numbers and yearly audits. A site that works and looks like facebook, but is protected by law (instead of being prone to be abused by law), servers are accessible for checking, there's no trademarks of stuff owner(s) could hide or distribute or sell, etc. It could even a piece of law be in every constitution, and regulated by law. Worldwide, a heavy online social platform. Which is protected by special laws and human rights.

What I just said is we should legalize facebook and move it out from capitalists' / abusive governments' (fuck you usa, china, saudi arabia, etc) greedy claws.

Do not try to use textures if you don't know how to draw yet. It's like adding bad to bad.

I suggest tracing over a photo, so you'd learn correct proportions and shapes quicker.  Google image search is your best friend.
Also, color choice is really bad, just pick a photo and use eyedropper to get closer to realism. Games usually use realistic pink for skin with added orange tones and a lot less of saturation. Greenish yellow you used is WAY off.

As for shading, take a photo, and put treshold filter over it. Try different levels. This will show you how light and shadow really work. (if your painting program has no treshold filter, play with contrast until you reach very extremes or just download GIMP or anything free/similar)

Avoid. Those images look like advertisements for photoshop. Using filter of any kind should be subtle and creative, not yelling into your face. You want style, play with color and levels, not filters. You would get better help if you'd post originals into this thread, instead of overfiltered ideas.

Subtitles are important. I've never played a game with only speech, even though my English is quite okay. Non-native speakers and deaf need text.

In general, I think that text > speech, and if there's speech, voice acting must be either high-quality or not there at all. Bad voice acting always ruins games.

Are you sure your XY didn't get swapped at some point?