en

# Why Can't the Buildings/items be rotated at a 360 degrees?

Prev1
171 posts
Dyl26 wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering for the longest time, why aren't we able to rotate buildings/items at 360 degrees. Why do we have a limited rotation?

I ask this because some lands of our city are facing a certain direction so, it would be nice if we were allowed to rotate the buildings/items facing all around with out it being limited.

+1

## Replies

• 4 posts
edited May 2013
Because all these "Donuts" we've been buying and shoving down EA's throat have made them too lazy to do so.

• 60 posts
edited May 2013
Agreed. This has to be possible.
• 1 posts
edited May 2013
The simple answer is game size. By limiting each building to just 2 models (facing down or facing left) they don't have to create/store models for the other two directions. This helps save actual memory (game is smaller, half as many possible versions of every building) as well as RAM (making the game load faster).
• 6 posts
edited May 2013
From a programming perspective it's certainly possible, but there is an actual reason for it.

When you're playing something like this, the intended look is a 3D like feel. It's not 3D but its designed to give depth of field. That's why you're viewing the town from an angle. The land is essentially diamond shaped, which tricks your brain in to seeing things with "depth" to them when those diamonds sides have things facing them. If you violate that spectrum by turning an item against it, the brain will process it slightly different. So you'd go from items that appear to have depth thanks to the diamond angle to a flattish look. I know it seems silly but it really is true. It's all about tricking our brain.

Get out some graph paper and give it a try. You'll see if you we're to draw a row of houses but turn one, it gives the illusion that the 3D plane is broken and that this house has flattened out. Your brain processes views on three different horizons points. Games like this are animated in a way that allos you to see those points.

So think of a flat line you are looking straight at. You see it from one horizon point and it will look flat. Just a line. Turn your overhead look to a look from one side you might discover that your flat line is actually a piece of paper. So now you see two horizons. This is where old games like Mario and Donkey Kong would be. You're seeing a second dimension or horizon point. If you viewed those games from straight down overhead you'd see nothing but lines. If you took that same line you were looking at and turned the paper at an angle, you might see that it's actually a tent. You've added a third horizon point that simulates a third dimension. But if you turn it against your viewing angle, you view it differently. It flattens out your horizon and removes that feeling your brain gets of depth.

Moral of the story: They COULD turn them the other ways, but trust me, you don't actually want them to. Try drawing out some 3D shapes on paper and it might help you understand.

(It's way too early to be babbling on about all this science mess.)
• 13 posts
edited May 2013
bp6316 wrote:
From a programming perspective it's certainly possible, but there is an actual reason for it.

Moral of the story: They COULD turn them the other ways, but trust me, you don't actually want them to. Try drawing out some 3D shapes on paper and it might help you understand.

(It's way too early to be babbling on about all this science mess.)

When I first read your post I thought "****! That can't be true! I've seen games where you can turn your objects 360°"
But after thinking more about it and visualizing, I actually understand what you mean, but I couldn't begin to explain how.

Thanks for your eleborate explanation! But I keep picturing other games where you can rotate your items 360° - or is it just my imagination and are all such rotations in other games limited to 180°?
Does it make a difference if you're able to change your own point of view, your 'camera' angle?
• 171 posts
edited May 2013
Thank you for all the detailed explanations it actually helped me understand this a lot better. However it makes me think with all the money people are spending on this game, that they would be more opened to expanding and giving us new ideas which we didn't have before.
• 6 posts
edited May 2013
That's absolutely correct. In games where you can see the buildings turned etc you would typically be able to change your visual perspective. So technically you would still be viewing it the same way, just as though you had moved. The technology behind that kind of game engine is certainly commonplace but I wonder if most mobile devices would be able to process it without major hangups. I doubt the issue is about the money to do it, it's more the ability for anyone to utilize it if it was built that way.

If they were to put this on Facebook or as a PC game it would be a no-brainer.
• 1811 posts New member
edited May 2013
Blame Obama. It's part of his Obamacare package.
• 60 posts
edited May 2013
bp6316 wrote:
From a programming perspective it's certainly possible, but there is an actual reason for it.

When you're playing something like this, the intended look is a 3D like feel. It's not 3D but its designed to give depth of field. That's why you're viewing the town from an angle. The land is essentially diamond shaped, which tricks your brain in to seeing things with "depth" to them when those diamonds sides have things facing them. If you violate that spectrum by turning an item against it, the brain will process it slightly different. So you'd go from items that appear to have depth thanks to the diamond angle to a flattish look. I know it seems silly but it really is true. It's all about tricking our brain.

Get out some graph paper and give it a try. You'll see if you we're to draw a row of houses but turn one, it gives the illusion that the 3D plane is broken and that this house has flattened out. Your brain processes views on three different horizons points. Games like this are animated in a way that allos you to see those points.

So think of a flat line you are looking straight at. You see it from one horizon point and it will look flat. Just a line. Turn your overhead look to a look from one side you might discover that your flat line is actually a piece of paper. So now you see two horizons. This is where old games like Mario and Donkey Kong would be. You're seeing a second dimension or horizon point. If you viewed those games from straight down overhead you'd see nothing but lines. If you took that same line you were looking at and turned the paper at an angle, you might see that it's actually a tent. You've added a third horizon point that simulates a third dimension. But if you turn it against your viewing angle, you view it differently. It flattens out your horizon and removes that feeling your brain gets of depth.

Moral of the story: They COULD turn them the other ways, but trust me, you don't actually want them to. Try drawing out some 3D shapes on paper and it might help you understand.

(It's way too early to be babbling on about all this science mess.)

This is still hard for me to understand. Wouldn't the dimension still be the same? For example, the Simpson's house would be the same dimension just looking at the back of the house. Visual learner here
• 3 posts
edited May 2013
Right buildings could be seen from same angle just seen from the back. I will say the lengthy explanation as todiamond theory is correct for why there is one view but the back of a building would still be from same veiwing angle. Ill stick with lazy reason
• 86 posts
edited May 2013
i would've thought the reason was that they'd need to graphically draw the other 2 sides of the building, which takes time for the artists and design crew and more images to implement in the game.. For example, at the moment we only see the front and one side of a house. To be able to turn it 360 means they'd need to design the back too! Same goes for everything else..

Yes I'd like to see it happen, especially when being able to rotate 360 almost means having twice as many options in the game (well, actualyl literally there are twice as many options in placing an item)..
• 10 posts
edited May 2013
Also take into account that we've very rarely seen the back of buildings aside from the Simpsons house etc

It would be an entire waste of time for animators to design completely new sides of buildings that serve no purpose except to cater to a few unsatisfied people who are ultimately playing a free game.

You can blame EA all you like but it's The Simpsons animators who are in charge of designing new buildings etc. I'd prefer more new buildings rather than wait for such a long time for 360 designs.
• 276 posts Member
edited May 2013
Rotating would be nice but a tremendous ea effort to do. I rather have a zoom out function
• 1 posts
edited May 2013
Yes I wondered that too.
It looks a little weird.

However I don't know if all the buildings look that good from behind.
• 6 posts
edited May 2013
They certainly could animate them from behind and the side and allow you to fake the feel in essence...but from an art and brain perspective, most brains would see that perspective as broken.l, for the reasons I outlined above.

Next time you're driving anywhere near tall buildings, look straight up at them. They'll look flat to you if you're directly in front of it. But if you looked sideways your dimension perspective would change. Turn even one of those buildings and your eye would see that as leveled off. The same way you see a flat horizon on a round earth. Or the way you see a hill and the top looks flat. It isn't really. But your mind thinks it is because of perspective. Anyway, I'm babbling now.

The easiest way to illustrate this would be to take graph paper and draw out the shapes of houses on a diamond grid. Turn one and you'll notice it goes against the grain of the diamond.

The best way to handle it would be to be able to change perspectives. Not to turn the current houses.
• 95 posts
edited May 2013
The real issue is just needing to creating twice as many faces for each building. It has nothing to do with "perspective". Take the isometric orientation. Rotate it by 180 degrees and it is still the same orthographic representation. It just needs new images painted on the face. So the poster that mentions the need for a back "face" is more correct than that odd stuff about perspective.

Take a Rubik's Cube. Orient it so that it is in isometric perspective to you. BTW, isometric perspective is where the base of the object is "tilted" so that the base lines are at 30 degrees to the bottom edge of the "paper" or your horizon line. Now rotate the Rubik's cube so that you can see the back side of the cube *while maintaining the isometric perspective". Unlike the claims about odd perspectives*, you can easily see that you can rotate the 3D object so that any of its faces present an isometric view regardless of which faces you rotate into your view.

So it's just a matter of EA not creating the missing 2 faces. EA's artists did not create the other two faces and that's the *only* reason there are not 4-direction buildings.

*Before anyone mentions that my example only mentions a Rubik's Cube, the same principles apply to rectangular shapes such as most of the buildings in the game. Don't bother challenging me, I've been involved in 3D documentation for decades. I am a Design Technology Manager doing Virtual Building Design. I know a "bit" about 3D modeling and 2D representations.
Post edited by Unknown User on
• 7 posts
edited May 2013
bobbell234 wrote:
The real issue is just needing to creating twice as many faces for each building. It has nothing to do with "perspective". Take the isometric orientation. Rotate it by 180 degrees and it is still the same orthographic representation. It just needs new images painted on the face. So the poster that mentions the need for a back "face" is more correct than that odd stuff about perspective.

Take a Rubik's Cube. Orient it so that it is in isometric perspective to you. BTW, isometric perspective is where the base of the object is "tilted" so that the base lines are at 30 degrees to the bottom edge of the "paper" or your horizon line. Now rotate the Rubik's cube so that you can see the back side of the cube *while maintaining the isometric perspective". Unlike the claims about odd perspectives*, you can easily see that you can rotate the 3D object so that any of its faces present an isometric view regardless of which faces you rotate into your view.

So it's just a matter of EA not creating the missing 2 faces. EA's artists did not create the other two faces and that's the *only* reason there are not 4-direction buildings.

*Before anyone mentions that my example only mentions a Rubik's Cube, the same principles apply to rectangular shapes such as most of the buildings in the game. Don't bother challenging me, I've been involved in 3D documentation for decades. I am a Design Technology Manager doing Virtual Building Design. I know a "bit" about 3D modeling and 2D representations.

Much better put than I could manage!
• 556 posts
edited May 2013

Not all Premium Characters have voices. Just like not all free characters have voices. The two big ones are Fat Tony and Hank Scorpio, who are both voiced by celebrity guest stars and thus would need to be compensated if their contracts didn't already include a clause for this type of use.

Same is true for some of the more "regular" members of the supporting cast (Martin, Kearny, Milhouse, etc).

But to complain about EA being cheap and that's why we don't have 360 rotation? You have to ask yourself...is THAT really the one thing you want most? To see the backs of buildings? Oooh. Exciting.

I don't mind the lack of 360 rotation. But I would like to know if there's a way to set up fences so other decorations can be placed right up next to them on either side.
bobbell234 wrote:
So it's just a matter of EA not creating the missing 2 faces. EA's artists did not create the other two faces and that's the *only* reason there are not 4-direction buildings.

It's not just 2 extra faces, it's additional support for animations from these two new views. And when you consider that the Aztec Theater isn't exactly known for it's legendary backyard, is there really that much value from a usage standpoint? I've seen some pretty amazing towns on this board without the ability to do 360 rotation.
• 52 posts
edited May 2013
I understand why the building aren't made to rotate 360 but why can't they make the parking spaces turn 360. This drives my OCD crazy because I don't like how it looks for some buildings. I would like to think that making the one little parking space rotate would not be to difficult and not conflict with the 3D effets or memory space problems. I would love some other decorations to be 360 but at least give me the parking spaces lol.
• 28 posts Member
edited May 2013
We should be able to rotate items such as fences in any direction. This would make for less building limitations. It's the only factor in the inabability to rotate that frustrates me.
This discussion has been closed.

#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.