(11:52:11) Prescottsayshi: hmm
(11:52:16) Prescottsayshi: he're a weird thought
(11:52:33) Prescottsayshi: pretty much all FPS's are done through human eye like rendering
(11:52:45) Septagon1: Yeah?
(11:52:45) Prescottsayshi: they see like we see
(11:52:50) Septagon1: Right.
(11:52:53) Prescottsayshi: what if we simulated something else ?
(11:53:02) Septagon1: Compound eyes!
(11:53:07) Prescottsayshi: yeah
(11:53:09) Septagon1: Non-binocular vision, with two fields of view.
(11:53:15) Prescottsayshi: or different visual light spectrums
(11:53:21) Septagon1: Yeah, that would be fun.
(11:53:45) Septagon1: I think part of the trick is that animals with very different eyes don't process the images the same way we do.
(11:53:57) Septagon1: So it would be tricky to really get across how they perceive the world.
(11:54:02) Septagon1: Compound eyes are a good example.
(11:54:10) Prescottsayshi: yeah
(11:54:15) Septagon1: Arthropods are much more sensitive to motion than we are.
(11:54:34) Septagon1: I read that you'd have to bump your frame rate up to around 400 before it started looking like fluid motion to an arthropod.
(11:54:59) Septagon1: They're sensitive enough to motion that 30 or 60 hz looks like a slideshow.
(11:55:15) Septagon1: So maybe you could get that across by slowing down time in the game.
(11:55:23) Septagon1: That's a rather crude trick.
(11:55:44) Septagon1: But yeah, there are other differences too, ones which would be interesting to try and communicate.
(11:55:59) Septagon1: For instance things with compound eyes don't really see shape the way we do.
(11:56:33) Septagon1: They detect the direction light is coming from, and they're really good at detecting motion.
(11:57:04) Septagon1: But I don't think they model objects around them in the same way we do at all- how might one convey that in a game? That would be neat.
(11:57:16) Prescottsayshi: It'd be an interesting thing to explore
(11:57:23) Prescottsayshi: Or even something as simple
(11:57:35) Prescottsayshi: as having multiple views rendered
(11:57:53) Prescottsayshi: sort of this weird fisheye, broader perspective
(11:57:58) Septagon1: Yeah, or maybe you could have a really wide field of view, and only render bits that are actively in motion.
(11:58:28) Septagon1: I wonder how they compensate when they turn or move around?
(11:58:39) Septagon1: Because that would effectively cause everything to be in motion.
(11:58:53) Septagon1: They must have a way of filtering out effects caused by their own motion.
(11:59:15) Prescottsayshi: hmm