Articulate Flow
+6
Opal Rider
rabid squirrel
rich
OTDE
Chuggers
ScrungleBlumpkus
10 posters
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: Articulate Flow
rabid squirrel wrote:You cherry-picked from my post to skew my point until your "quotation" was practically the opposite of what I was saying. Not constructive.
Actually not non-constructive, we're not sure what the word flow means in Line Rider contexts. You agree with me that we should use words that we all agree on the definition of! Anton was just pointing out that this is one of the reasons I made the thread (it wasn't at first but it makes it clear that we all have varying definitions). Thank you for pointing that out, rabid. I am with you on that.
I still don't understand flow well. I'm sure there's enough brainpower here to figure it out!
ScrungleBlumpkus- Member
- Interior Crocodile Alligator
Re: Articulate Flow
rabid squirrel wrote:Instead of using the word "flow" it would be much more constructive if people used words that aren't prone to misinterpretation.
I don't know how you can misinterpret this to mean "we should define flow" (as all three of you have now done >.>) My opinion is that you should say things like "I like Bosh's rotation in that moment" or "I like how he spins at 1:07 and then hits that speed boost and stops spinning" or just "I really like that bit from 1:07-1:09". Rather than just saying something like "flow was on point". My opinion is that attempts to define flow in an official manner (e.g. this thread) are futile. Flow means lots of vague things to lots of different people and this thread will not change that - because use of the word flow is only a thing in the first place because of lazy criticism. Criticism takes time and effort, and it is something you have to practice to get better at. The solution is not to define vague terms (flow) but to use specific terms (NOT FLOW) and actually working to articulate your opinions with specificity and clarity.rabid squirrel wrote:Even if some people do agree on a definition in this thread, you won't be able to convince everyone that is the definition because not everyone is going to start using the word the way you want them to.
(P.S. Everything I said here I already said the basic equivalent of in my previous post)
Re: Articulate Flow
^No, that's not where we were going with this and as valid as your opinion is, I won't take it as a solution. Thank you though! I see your point.
Why is it that we all have vague definitions, I wonder. Is it because we use it as a fall-back term?
Why is it that we all have vague definitions, I wonder. Is it because we use it as a fall-back term?
ScrungleBlumpkus- Member
- Interior Crocodile Alligator
Re: Articulate Flow
Conundrumer wrote:Flow is the time series of a 3-dimension vector <direction, rotation, speed> (which is actually simply derived from velocity).
Functions of flow can be created, e.g. "jerkiness" (opposite of smoothness) is the total area underneath the derivative of flow.
This also means flow can be plotted on a graph. I'll set aside some time to make a tool to visualize this graph.
Damn bruh that makes a surprising amount of sense. I'm interested to see what the graph looks like when direction/rotation/whatever else are factored in. I wonder how reliable any variable besides speed is when trying to visualize what we think "good flow" is
Anyway, yeah, when I say a track has "good flow", typically I mean that the creator did a good job maintaining.. stuff. When you think of any variable that you can assign to Bosh -- speed, rotation, acceleration, deceleration, average airtime, bosh's pressure on curves -- they stay pretty constant when your track has a good flow. Not necessarily all of the variables at once, of course. I think what's tough is that sometimes the variables can be kind of random, like "average time required to come to a stop during a stop'n'go track" or some shit like that.
In general, though, I think it definitely has to do with keeping (some of) Bosh's kinetic variables relatively constant
ACwazHere- Member
- fuck around and get dunked on
Re: Articulate Flow
We need very detailed statistic graphs for tracks.
Like in RCT.
Like in RCT.
ScrungleBlumpkus- Member
- Interior Crocodile Alligator
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Similar topics
» Why my tracks lack flow
» Rant on Flow :I
» FLOW : Paradise
» Flow of the waves
» How do you keep flow in a track?
» Rant on Flow :I
» FLOW : Paradise
» Flow of the waves
» How do you keep flow in a track?
Page 2 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|
Mon Mar 18, 2024 11:03 am by alpha leonis
» bubblegum - Pure5152
Thu Nov 23, 2023 4:36 am by Rafael
» Started in 2020 - thoughts?
Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:21 pm by cvang
» Hypersonic Motion - Preview and explanation
Mon Jul 24, 2023 12:15 pm by alpha leonis
» Track question
Mon Jul 24, 2023 12:14 pm by alpha leonis
» Line Rider Pointy Wobbly Italian Rat ~ Leonis
Mon Jul 24, 2023 12:12 pm by alpha leonis
» Line Rider Prism ~ Leonis
Mon Jul 24, 2023 12:11 pm by alpha leonis
» Playtime - pure5152
Tue May 16, 2023 4:05 pm by Sheldon
» I coded today!
Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:53 am by jimmysanders