Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [GD] 2D vs. 3D
It's not nostalgic users it's because for example valuable charts for training for example are way more accurate then new ones in new template introduced also some tools worked only on old layouts etc ..
That's true. But It could be adapted to new layout. It's a problem of this one.
Anyway, Raul said he would try to keep old layout.
Anyway, Raul said he would try to keep old layout.
I would like to mention something that may be not a problem for many of you, but I am having this issue:
In the 3d viewer I only got like 9 fps, that makes the game laggy. Meanwhile with the 2D I got like 30 fps, and everything goes as it should be. I think, It should be related with my pc specifications, but there may be some possible users with the same issue.
In the 3d viewer I only got like 9 fps, that makes the game laggy. Meanwhile with the 2D I got like 30 fps, and everything goes as it should be. I think, It should be related with my pc specifications, but there may be some possible users with the same issue.
well if new features were implemented properly and we were not left with maintenance for so long time we would never go back to old layout in first place. Now is different story so lets see.
(edited)
(edited)
It would be nice if people would stop making things up.
First, you can't set up the camera in 3D so it looks like 2D. We all tried.
2D is unrealistic, but it is made so you can have a better view of the pitch.
You can clearly see everything on the other side, while you need to glue your face to the screen to see the action on the other side in 3D. It is simply more pleasing to watch.
Also, camera in 2D doesn't rotate.
Second, what nostalgia? Stop telling us what we think.
There is no nostalgia when I am picking something that looks better.
2D looks cleaner. You can see everything clearly. Animations are much better. Even the "models" are better, I would always pick a clean design over more detailed garbage.
First, you can't set up the camera in 3D so it looks like 2D. We all tried.
2D is unrealistic, but it is made so you can have a better view of the pitch.
You can clearly see everything on the other side, while you need to glue your face to the screen to see the action on the other side in 3D. It is simply more pleasing to watch.
Also, camera in 2D doesn't rotate.
Second, what nostalgia? Stop telling us what we think.
There is no nostalgia when I am picking something that looks better.
2D looks cleaner. You can see everything clearly. Animations are much better. Even the "models" are better, I would always pick a clean design over more detailed garbage.
You can set it up in 3D so it gives you almost the same perspective as 2D. Try tower camera at 0% height and 70% zoom. Of course it's a matter of taste what you think looks better.
I repeat myself: maybe we should understand what the strengths and weaknesses of the sokker "product" really are, before inventing needs that could prove artificial.
Everyone who ever studied marketing / business strategy learns how to make such an strength and weakness (SWOT) analysis and it is part of the first steps. I hope this is done way before this all started. But I'm affraid this forum was one of the first steps, and that is not the right order.
A SWOT is not only internal but definitely also external. Know the market, the competition, the available technology, etc.
Everyone who ever studied marketing / business strategy learns how to make such an strength and weakness (SWOT) analysis and it is part of the first steps. I hope this is done way before this all started. But I'm affraid this forum was one of the first steps, and that is not the right order.
A SWOT is not only internal but definitely also external. Know the market, the competition, the available technology, etc.