Censor Menu

Gallons? Don't you mean billboards?

roadkillguy wrote:

Gallons? Don't you mean billboards?

I hope that was a joke :/

If so, then ahahahahahaaaaa..aaaa...ahh.. lol.

It was, iff you understand it. Tee-hee.

On topic, I think blood reduction will be easy to implement.

roadkillguy wrote:

It was, iff you understand it. Tee-hee.

On topic, I think blood reduction will be easy to implement.

yeah, implemented with one variable


Nd yeah, i got the joke

Bashinerox wrote:

Nd yeah, i got the joke

I didn't. Oh well....

So is it agreed that reproduction will be implied but not shown, and blood will be able to be reduced for the squemish/weaker computers?

yes, basically

Poisson wrote:

Bashinerox wrote:

Nd yeah, i got the joke

I didn't. Oh well....

So is it agreed that reproduction will be implied but not shown, and blood will be able to be reduced for the squemish/weaker computers?

a billboard is the name for a sprite that is the 2d representation of a 3d model.

like when trees in a game get far enough away that they "pop" out to 2d.

billboarding is done for performance reasons. while blood would usually only be 2d, and therefore not technically be a billboard (because it isnt the 2d counterpart to a 3d model), its still pretty funny

as long as it looks realistic... imagine a flat bit of blood in a angle..... it'd look weird

The idea behind billboards is that it's always pointing towards the screen. No matter what.

I brought this topic up a while ago. I'm all for just fading out and becoming a baby.

roadkillguy wrote:

The idea behind billboards is that it's always pointing towards the screen. No matter what.

Otherwise known as a "faceme". Because it faces you always. They're used for pretty much all particle effects in videogames.

Another question: what about species that reproduce by other ways than mating? Like budding. I don't think we need to really censor that...

DragonEye4 wrote:

Another question: what about species that reproduce by other ways than mating? Like budding. I don't think we need to really censor that...

This was one of my points on how censorship might get annoying. There are may ways to transfer genetic material.

Well, we sure wouldn't have to censor pollen. It's not like we have to censor everything.

~sciocont wrote:

DragonEye4 wrote:

Another question: what about species that reproduce by other ways than mating? Like budding. I don't think we need to really censor that...

This was one of my points on how censorship might get annoying. There are may ways to transfer genetic material.

But then how do we decide how to define something to be sexually explicit or not?

Bashinerox wrote:

Poisson wrote:

Bashinerox wrote:

Nd yeah, i got the joke

I didn't. Oh well....

So is it agreed that reproduction will be implied but not shown, and blood will be able to be reduced for the squemish/weaker computers?

a billboard is the name for a sprite that is the 2d representation of a 3d model.

like when trees in a game get far enough away that they "pop" out to 2d.

billboarding is done for performance reasons. while blood would usually only be 2d, and therefore not technically be a billboard (because it isnt the 2d counterpart to a 3d model), its still pretty funny

And when it hits a surface, same with paint, mud and maybe liquid, it becomes a pure 2d texture sort of baked into that surface? Meaning, even if it hits a curve, wether slight and barely noticable, or steep and very noticable, it won't really stick out into mid-air.

But I don't know if you'll want to turn a bunch of drops into one large splatter shape or have each drop land individually and eventually group them into one large texture generated by those drops? Personally I think the second option would look fancier, but it wouldn't be as easy, of course. A lot like graphics settings that only some computers can run.

See, this is the problem I'm seeing with censoring sexually explicit things: there are so many ways aliens could reproduce, in order to censor the human-like way, you would need to specifically code that way in.

DragonEye4 wrote:

See, this is the problem I'm seeing with censoring sexually explicit things: there are so many ways aliens could reproduce, in order to censor the human-like way, you would need to specifically code that way in.

That was my point in the first place. I think we can all be mature about this and simply leave it be. Unless someone really wants to code it, it's not necessary, and could just turn out annoying.

DragonEye4 wrote:

See, this is the problem I'm seeing with censoring sexually explicit things: there are so many ways aliens could reproduce, in order to censor the human-like way, you would need to specifically code that way in.

You'd have to specifically code every method in.

~sciocont wrote:

DragonEye4 wrote:

See, this is the problem I'm seeing with censoring sexually explicit things: there are so many ways aliens could reproduce, in order to censor the human-like way, you would need to specifically code that way in.

That was my point in the first place. I think we can all be mature about this and simply leave it be. Unless someone really wants to code it, it's not necessary, and could just turn out annoying.

I figure that the chances of developing a human-like reproduction process are very low.

DragonEye4 wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

DragonEye4 wrote:

See, this is the problem I'm seeing with censoring sexually explicit things: there are so many ways aliens could reproduce, in order to censor the human-like way, you would need to specifically code that way in.

That was my point in the first place. I think we can all be mature about this and simply leave it be. Unless someone really wants to code it, it's not necessary, and could just turn out annoying.

I figure that the chances of developing a human-like reproduction process are very low.

Well, it's a pretty efficient system, but it's not that great for non-social animals. There will be plenty of other ways by which an organism can produce, from spores to pollen to spawning to self-insemination.

Yes, but I imagine the actual, physical process of mating, and the motions and stuff... that people would find offensive would be radically different.

It doesn't matter if anyone finds it explicit, so far nobody wants to model or animate it.

Not to mention we cannot write a dynamic algorithm to put together DNA samples.

All methods would have to be hard-coded.

roadkillguy wrote:

All methods would have to be hard-coded.

So couldn't we just not-code that in? Make it so creatures will not evolve to have the exact mating procedures as humans?

A method would entail mixing of DNA, which, if we want to follow the 'true-darwinian path', would have to be hard-coded. I could see one function taking into account the number of donors and each of their DNA strings, but that's about it.