this would be so useful for so many things it's insane.

1: 3d games
a costume could be a texture and you just shape it to the wall to make it 3d. no pen required, and saves a lot of work.

2: animations
someone needs to lean back, but it's just a simple in-between and doesn't need it's own frame? skewing it back could work better than rotating depending on the circumstance.
Someone needs to turn around, but you're in a situation you can't change the rotation style? use flip!

3: just to fit in
rotate, scale, move, and all that. why not skew, squash or flip?

go to x: () y: ()
point in direction (90 v)
set size to () %

set flip X to () % :: looks
set flip Y to () % :: looks
set squash X to () % :: looks
set squash Y to () % :: looks
set skew X to () % :: looks
set skew Y to () % :: looks

Flip X

Flip Y

Squash X

Squash Y

Skew X

Skew Y

1. [Removed]

2. Look below.

3. Please elaborate on what skew and flip are (flip sounds like sprite flipping…)

set rotation style [left-right v]

Edit: Sorry, I thought you were suggesting a 3D scratch.

1a3c5e7g9i wrote:

1. Read the “rejected suggestions” sticky.

2. Look below.

3. Please elaborate on what skew and flip are (flip sounds like sprite flipping…)

set rotation style [left-right v]

i was short on time when i first wrote it and i fixed it now.

DerpyHead0 wrote:

1a3c5e7g9i wrote:

1. Read the “rejected suggestions” sticky.

2. Look below.

3. Please elaborate on what skew and flip are (flip sounds like sprite flipping…)

set rotation style [left-right v]

i was short on time when i first wrote it and i fixed it now.

Thanks for clarifying!

bunp

Why bump if it's already been rejected? Also, as blocks these literally don't make any sense. Affine transformations affect points, so these blocks would the locations of a sprite as a whole. Which, that is workaroundable with transformation matrices. Maybe if it were something in the costume editor…

Lataliat wrote:

Why bump if it's already been rejected? Also, as blocks these literally don't make any sense. Affine transformations affect points, so these blocks would the locations of a sprite as a whole. Which, that is workaroundable with transformation matrices. Maybe if it were something in the costume editor…

1) when was this rejected?
2) i don't care what they do, with the parameters i set, you can transform it in any way and that's the only point.
if you're saying it's too complicated, beginners in scratch can go to the more blocks section and make blocks saying: draw a pentagon. it'll never work, they get confused, and just give up.
3) if this was part of the costume editor, that kinda defeats the purpose
4) enjoy making all the costumes necessary for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDWKedOHitU
see that wavy hold part? that'll require so many costumes it'll take up tons of ram. at that rate it might even crash some laptops.
5) i'm trying to make a game like that. i can't finish the game until i get these blocks. i don't care how unreliable they are anymore, I NEED THEM.

Lataliat wrote:

Why bump if it's already been rejected? Also, as blocks these literally don't make any sense. Affine transformations affect points, so these blocks would the locations of a sprite as a whole. Which, that is workaroundable with transformation matrices. Maybe if it were something in the costume editor…

I fixed my response . I thought it was rejected when it was actually talking about something else.

I support this suggestion because it would be really useful for 3D games. However, I think you should consider what happens to the sprites when you, say, skew them and then turn them.

wizzwizz7 wrote:

I support this suggestion because it would be really useful for 3D games. However, I think you should consider what happens to the sprites when you, say, skew them and then turn them.

they skew on it's own axis, because if it was the global axis you could repeat the same thing in a different order to gain different results. if you then undo it in the other order everything would be at 0, but it would still be distorted.

EDIT: actually, this is wrong, and it would be more useful to turn on the world axis. this will just depend on what order the effects are placed, and i think this should be an option like rotation mode.

set rotation style [left-right v]
set rotation style [don't rotate v]
set rotation style [all around v]


set transformation style [relative v] :: looks
set transformation style [world v] :: looks

in world mode it always skews on the x/y axis no matter how the sprite is rotated, and would be useful for pseudo-3D
in relative mode it skews according to how the sprite is rotated (note this can be combined with the don't rotate mode for a weird effect!)

Even though explaining it in words would be nice, I understand it from the images…

My only question is:

Why is other art software a non-viable option?

Lataliat wrote:

Also, as blocks these literally don't make any sense. Affine transformations affect points, so these blocks would the locations of a sprite as a whole.

Specifically I'm talking about skew and flip blocks.

wizzwizz7 wrote:

However, I think you should consider what happens to the sprites when you, say, skew them and then turn them.

Yes.

DerpyHead0 wrote:

2) i don't care what they do, with the parameters i set, you can transform it in any way and that's the only point.
if you're saying it's too complicated, beginners in scratch can go to the more blocks section and make blocks saying: draw a pentagon. it'll never work, they get confused, and just give up.
3) if this was part of the costume editor, that kinda defeats the purpose

You set no parameters… I did not say it's too complicated, lel I was asking if you even knew what you were talking about.
3) I see. It defeats the purpose of having blocks, but typically these are options on other graphic software thingys.

MathlyCat wrote:

Why is other art software a non-viable option?

Cause it can't be automated in run time.
(Unless you make a lot of frames, but who's got time for that )

Sigton

Extra note:
combinations.
i need all of these from 100 to -100, so
skew x, skew y, flip x, flip y, squash x, squash y.
200x200x200x200x200x200

64000000000000 costumes
That's just for one, and that will crash any computer.
also, if we use blocks, it can be unlimited. remember, it doesn't need to calculate every costume, just calculate how to warp it.

bomf

DerpyHead0 wrote:

set flip X to () % :: looks
set flip Y to () % :: looks

Flip X

Flip Y

Isn't flipping (stretching) going to be in Scratch 3.0? (I didn't find it! ).

change horizontal stretch by (...)::looks
change vertical stretch by (...)::looks

Setting horizontal stretch to -100 would be the sprite reversed horizontally; 100 would be the normal layout.
Same for setting vertical stretch to -100.

Question: Is the sprite going to flip X and Y with the point of reference based on the [+] sign in the costume editor?

DownsGameClub wrote:

Question: Is the sprite going to flip X and Y with the point of reference based on the [+] sign in the costume editor?

all transformations are relative to the center, just like everything else.

a wild BUMP appears!

I think that you would need more inputs for some of the blocks, like

set skew effect to point x: (x  ::variables) y: (y  ::variables) relative to [sprite v] centered at line with [slope-intercept form y=(m  ::variables)x+(b  ::variables) v] to (percent  ::variables)%  ::looks

in order to specify…say…which to skew towards?