I agree. As an OG myself (not to brag) (it’s not a flex guys) I find myself more on the theoretical guide. Weird.
I like how most people think this should be in clay-institute.
There isn’t a no option, and I don’t recognize anyone among these profiles who would have a lot of experience with the clay institute problems.
I know, I’m just saying.
what is a 3d view point
Where you can mouse and your perspective will change along with it.
Yeah, there technically isn’t a yes option either…
i still don’t get it
The only option is to put it in clay institute, which would be the yes option.
Also, the lack of major clay institute gimkit voters severely undermines the opinions of those who are not as good with gimkit.
You know how in a 3D game, you can look around using your mouse?
That’s the system being created in theory here.
ohhhhhfhjs;irdgblaiwkejsbfshkdfhb okay that makes more sence
The only option on the poll is: “Should this be in clay-institute”. Which is a question, not a decision.
It’s implied that by voting you are saying yes.
Yeah, I know, just semantics, but it technically isn’t a choice, just a vaguely implied agreement.
Is gimmaster an og? (He said yes)
I don’t remember him from my earlier days on the forum, but then again I do have shaky memory.
What I do think/know (suspect? idk) is that he doesn’t have much experience with the clay institute problems, and so he probably doesn’t have the best idea as to what qualifies as one.
So just asking - what can go in clay-institute?
I was called!
So, what are we going for here? Basically just summarizing the basics of rendering?
If so, what you have written is pretty good. The angle tracking will be annoying, since the player needs to click for things to be sensed. Also, realized we can use sentries for the angles instead of props, so we don’t need to use anything non-renewable. OR GIMKIT COULD JUST ADD RENEWABLE PROPS.
Anything else?
Problems, that if solved, would revolutionize gimkit.