davegee

John, I'm not seeing the same as you and cannot replicate it - 1280x800 Laptop Monitor. DG

Hi Peter, If you explore the link I gave you and enter, for instance, my figure (52.9573) for the angle and then Sheila's 53 together with a base dimension of 400 you'll see that the result is a difference of 1 pixel. My suggested figure gives 663.999xxxxxx (664) Sheila's angle gives 664.65xxxxx (665??) My suggestion is that the ONE pixel difference is noticeable and COULD be magnified by other factors, especially when the different monitor resolutions are taken into account. Try those figures in Excel and see if they are the same (?) - they should be. If a Maths Exam paper gave a figure of 52.9573 to work with then that's the figure I would use - it's there for a purpose. It's not that big a deal but my background tells me that I should be as accurate as possible in these things. I have to trust Igor's and PTE's maths capabilities until someone proves otherwise. DG P.S. Regarding your 127.04xxxx figure, what would happen if you started from a completely folded (flattened or collapsed) object and asked it to open all sides out to 52.9573? Would that be more accurate?That's the way I approached this excercise.

Jean-Cyprien, You and I are saying the exact same thing in slightly different ways. However, I would advocate the use of "custom built" Frames (independent of screen resolution) to simplify the process. For instance, if a frame of 400x400 is used in the construction of a 400x400 cube then the PAN Z values are always 100%. You could also use an 800x800 Frame to construct the 400x400 Cube in which case the PAN Z values would be 50%. One further point: PAN Z is not necessary in the construction of a cube. It is only necessary for moving the cube backwards or forwards relative to the viewer. Pan Z was not used and was not needed in the construction of the Photo Frame elsewhere in this thread. Going back to the FRAME itself, I am reminded that JPD sometimes used a CALE which was of a fixed height but ONLY ONE PIXEL WIDE. He was way ahead of his time!! DG

Peter, I can't argue about PTE rounding off the figure. However, I must admit to doing a bit of reverse engineering in designing the challenge. I tried to get a figure for the angle which produced the nearest "whole pixel" dimensions for the sides. The figure which then came up was 92.9573. Whilst the actual slope of the Great Pyramid is 92.xx it slightly less than my 92.9573. If you look at Sheila's Template you'll see that her rounding up or down has produced a much more inaccurate result than yours and mine did. Somehow, her figure came to 666 as opposed to our 664. Notwithstanding the number of decimal places issue, I still maintain that being as accurate as possible is to be desired when trying to impart a principle on others who might be trying to learn from our efforts. If I were using Excel I would be looking for a large number of decimal places in the calculations phases but rounding off the final result. Does that not make sense? DG

DEFINITION OF PAN Z I will attempt to define Pan Z. But first I must explain my terminology. An object in O&A has a "NATURAL HEIGHT" and an "APPARENT HEIGHT". If an object is created in PS being 800 pixels wide and 600 pixels high and added to PTE O&A its "NATURAL HEIGHT" is 600 pixels. If the same object is turned through 90 degrees its "APPARENT HEIGHT" is 800 pixels but its "NATURAL HEIGHT" is still 600 pixels. The definition: PAN Z applied to an object is a function of the "NATURAL HEIGHT" of its parent frame. e.g. if +/- 100% PAN Z is applied to an object which has a parent frame which is 800 wide by 600 high the object will move by +/- 300 pixels. Open to comments. DG

Hi Peter, I have to disagree - if the object that you are making is interacting with another object then the inaccuracies introduced by approximation are/can be AMPLIFIED. A discrepancy which does not show on a 1024x768 monitor might be horrible on a 2560 wide monitor (or vice versa)? I think that my point would be: It's OK to compromise/approximate when you are doing it yourself for your own use, but if you are making your efforts public or TEACHING then you have to be exact. Thanks for participating, it's been interesting, DG

Sheila, It MIGHT(?) be possible to correct your "discrepancies" by taking your triangles back into Photoshop and resizing to 800x664. If you then adjust all of the angles to 52.9573 degrees you SHOULD be there? DG

Hi Peter, The reason I mentioned the PAN Z control is as follows: IN THIS INSTANCE (and taking your method specifically) your PAN Z setting is 33% of SOMETHING which ultimately represents 132.5 Pixels - a quarter of the height of the object. 33% suggests a third, but if you say it's 135 Pixels I accept that. If it is a THIRD of SOMETHING shouldn't it be 33.3333333333% for greater accuracy? The other way of tackling it, as I have done, is to use a frame which is twice the widthof the desired movement (PAN). By adding the BASE to that turning it by 90 degrees the PAN Control in O&A can be used to move the BASE by (EXACTLY) 100%. In this relationship, moving an object by 100% means moving it HALF of the width of the Parent i.e. (EXACTLY) 132.5 Pixels. I started this thread in an attempt to UNDERSTAND PAN Z - I must admit to be still struggling. I know the EFFECT of PAN Z - I just struggle with the Maths of it. However, I can understand the concept of 100% pan in O&A being equal to 50% of the width of the parent much easier. I also think that carefully choosing the PIXEL size of a PARENT frame is very important to getting accurate results. I will leave PAN Z to the business of getting an EFFECT rather than getting accurate placement until I understand a little more. Can you offer a mathematical explanation of PAN Z? DG

Hi Sheila, Where did you get the "daemonic" 666 figure from? Peter and I agree on 664. If you turn your zoom percentage up to 500% in O&A you can see the inaccuracy in the apex of the pyramid between the first two keypoints. Also I can't see that your pyramid revolves around the Geometric Centre of the object? You have used 53 degrees as opposed to 52.9573. That figure is very important and can be inputted manually. If you use 664 and 52.9573 it all comes together perfectly at a point 530 above the base. Take a look at my Template? DG

Peter, Closely examine the differences between your two controlling frames and the 800x800 base and mine? You will notice that I haven't had to use a PAN Z setting. DG

Well done Peter!! You got it!! DG

Here's mine. The zipped folder includes the Template and the EXE. 1920x1080 V7 Beta 9 DG Template and EXE.zip

Before I look at those here's a thought about drawing a triangle. If the angle that you are trying to draw is anything OTHER than 45 dgrees you are going to get into difficulties because the pixel nature of a photoshop canvas means that your angle is going to be a STEPPED line. If you start with a 2:1 canvas then the angle will be a perfect 45 degrees. Photoshop can cope with that. Then, by making your PNG in that format it can be resized to any height you require using Image Size and adjusting height only. DG

Hi Peter, I know exactly what you mean and I refered to the "problem" in an earlier post. I turned all "SNAP" controls OFF and made sure that the rulers are set to PIXELS rather than percentage. I also worked at 3200%. I'll have a word with one of my Photoshop gurus later in the week on Club Night. DG

This site: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node102.html ....gives the proof of the Geometric Centre for a Pyramid. DG

If I understand what you have said Sheila, you have made an error in where to put the 52.9573 degree angle. It is not the angle used to construct each face. The 52.9573 is the angle that each face makes when tilted toward the apex and viewed at 90 degrees. This site: http://www.carbidede...s-trigright.asp ...might be of help to you. Think of what you know already i.e. the angle and the base dimension. It is imortant to use the angle I gave you EXACTLY and then round off your vertical height and face height to the nearest pixel. Beware of inaccuracies in Photoshop when making your sides. You might have to zoom in to 3200% to ensure accuracy. Don't worry about "nested frames" at this stage - I think that you will only need one frame to do the construction. The rotational frame(s) can be added later. DG

Here's a challenge for all of you who are trying to get to grips with Cubes and Pyramids etc in PTE. The great Pyramid on the Giza Plateau was constructed very precisely by the ancient Egyptians: Its base is a (~) perfect square and the angle of each side (for the purposes of this excercise) can be assumed to be 52.9573 degrees to the horizontal. The Geometric Centre of a Pyramid is a quarter way up from the base to the apex. The Challenge is to construct a Pyramid in PTE on an 800x800 pixel base to the same proportions as the Great Pyramid in Giza and then have it rotate in all directions about its Geometric Centre. The main dimensions which will have to be calculated precisely are the height of the Pyramid (in pixels) from its base to its apex and the height of each of the Triangular PNG files used to make each of the four faces. The height in pixels from the base to the apex will be required to calculate the Geometric Centre of the object. Post Templates here. DG

Hi Sheila, I was aware of Dropbox but haven't used it - I will! My preference is for www.YouSendIt.com but their free service is time limited. However for one-to-one file transfers I don't think there is a better option. DG

Two points from me: I have always hated and distrusted Media Fire. I would welcome a suggestion for a "better/different" option. I nearly downloaded this EXE but then I read Bill's comments; I trust his judgement and if it's not for Beechbrook it's not for me. DG

Hi Lin, Right clicking once on an object will both select it and bring up a contextual menu (on my machine). Could be something in the setup? Please note Lin's remarks. DG

Save your project. In O&A and with NOTHING selected (Click outside the Slide area) - Click on ADD FRAME in the Menu. Select all of the original objects in your Cube Assembly project and COPY. Right click on the newly created FRAME and PASTE. Delete all of the original objects. You are left with the New Frame with the Cube Assembly as a Child of the New Frame. Creating a Grandparent Frame would work the same way. DG

Hi Peter, Please check that you have opened the right one? Unfortunately the attachments in posts 28 and 33 have the same name but the one in #33 IS a TEMPLATE wheras the one in #28 is an EXE. The file size and end result also differ. DG

I'll try. I was using "folded box" construction to make the frame. It's my prefered method and I posted it a few years ago as the "Rose Cross" (inspired by Dan Brown). It works well for regular cubes!! When I wanted to create the offset required to make the frame rotate around its central axis I was having to use Pan Z to acheive it but when the sides and front/back of an object are of different sizes the calculation of how much Pan Z to use becomes a little un-straightforward. I later realised that using what I call "nested frames" was much easier for this application (photo frame). I have used four frames in total to create the 1200x900 Photo Frame. A "Rotation Frame" or Master Frame to do the animation (this can be the same res as the project). I've added a child frame (60x900) to this at 90 degrees which controls the Front and Back. The top and bottom are attached to the front. I then added a child frame (1200x900) to the 60x900 frame at -90 degrees to control the sides. A further 900x600 frame is added to the 60x900 frame to hold the inside faces of the cutout. 900x600 (3:2) images can be added directly to this. All faces are Show FRONT Side only. The image in the frame could be changed by ending a slide with the frame at 90 degrees to the viewer and beginning a new slide the same way. I will probably use it in a Start or Title sequence. Modified Template attached. DG New thin frame.zip

Ask a question Roger. DG

Why did no one mention "nested frames"? Pan Z is then not required. DG