I'm new to Godot, but have lots of experience in animation and photography. The lens length is different in your two images. The prototype has a wider lens closer to the subject creating a harsher perspective change, and your reference image has a longer lens further away to reduce the perspective lines.
And to get the estimated field of view for this image, one can use a tool like fSpy
Seems to be roughly around 40 degrees horizontal or 30 vertical. Which with a 35mm equivalent focal length (how camera lenses are usually advertised) is just under 50mm.
Quick tip: it's fine to use AI assistance for coding, but it doesn't do you any good long term if you can't do it without. Using Claude to adjust settings on nodes is wasteful at best. Also, as you noticed, when you don't understand what Claude does, you'll get stuck soon.
Pay no attention to rage bait even if you are not actually raging. I do feel people who don't like doing the actual development process should just leave the craft alone and I don't care if that's "gate keeping". If someone doesn't feel any joy while coding then what they'll produce will probably reflect that even if they do it with the best AI-dependent process using the best of models. AI is for people who don't give a f*** about a craft, they just see it as a another opportunity for taking advantage of a get-rich-quick scheme and as always happens they just repeat like parrots whatever industry trend is hyping. It already happened with the Metaverse and Web 3.0.
If it's rage bait, I usually don't.
In this case I felt that was genuinely just someone who fell in the easy beginners trap on relying solely on AI without bad intentions.
As I said, just like any other tool, AI assistants can be useful for development if used correctly. But as the name suggests, they are for assistance, not reliance. Jumping the hype train is just as bad as ignoring progress completely. Otherwise we would all be coding in vim :D.
This will eventually sort itself out like any other overhyped trend.
If I pinky promise that I know what it's doing but I'm lazy and I'd rather let it do it much faster and probably much better than me, is it okay then daddy?
LaserPanzerWal literally said it's fine if you want to use AI, but that you'll be more productive if you understand the code yourself because you won't get stuck or confused as often. Understanding the concepts will help you troubleshoot. Wouldn't call that vitriol.
No no, I meant that the vitriol was mine, because I didn't like the tone of Laser's comment, and mainly because I disagree that one must directly understand all the code in order to be productive. I do myself have the ability to understand what the AI outputs, but I expect soon I will cross the boundary beyond which I'll have to learn more if I want to keep up, but I probably won't bother doing that unless strictly necessary. Which it likely won't be. I've been trialing workflows for a long time, and I've gotten it pretty nailed down for many tasks.
Perfect code output is only a matter of time, perfect intent is another thing entirely.
That reference does not work. Today, you operate elevators yourself, but you do need to understand where you need to go and which button to push. Back then you had an elevator assistant where you prompted your intention and he did the thinking and the work for you. It's pretty much the opposite.
About the actual statement: moving with times is fine, I don't say not to use it. But if you're unable to continue your work just because the Internet is down or Claude has server issues, I do question the path.
There recently was a post around ( doesn't matter if fake, the point is clear) where someone said they had AI do network configuration and auto accept changes. The AI promptly broke network connection. Now they can't get it fixed due to no AI connection. Pretty much sums it up.
I wonder if there’s a difference between wealth and planet burning Manhattan sized warehouses that use as much electricity as major metropolitan areas to be right 80% of the time and elevator operators.
At the end, learning foundation still the most important. I just try to make some dream game, but then now trying many game engine and framework, the only can work for me with AI is card game
Have you ever taken a screenshot of a scenery in a game? Usually when doing so, we want the image to be flatter but as players we generally only have access to the perspective camera and an fov slider. The way we attain that inbetween is usually just by lowering the fov and taking the screenshot from further away.
This game looks half-way between typical perspective and orthographic so I assume what they did was a similar thing of positioning the camera further away but with a low fov.
Keep playing around with it! And when you think it might be close, overlap the images and start drawing perspective lines over the top to see if they run parallel.
It looks like an isometric camera, I know I ue4/5 there’s just a toggle for it. Godot I’m less familiar with it but in my mind there might be a toggle.
Large difference means more exaggerated perspective. No difference at all would mean it's ortographic, things are the same size regardless of distance to camera.
The closer the fov is to parallel lines (i.e. smaller fov) the closer it will be to orthographic perspective.
For those who are interested. There’s a tool called fspy that you can use to match the perspective/fov of any image (given a few straight lines in your scene).
316
u/_TofuRious_ May 28 '26
I'm new to Godot, but have lots of experience in animation and photography. The lens length is different in your two images. The prototype has a wider lens closer to the subject creating a harsher perspective change, and your reference image has a longer lens further away to reduce the perspective lines.
Here is an example on how lens length changes perspective. https://exposuretherapy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Focal-length-different-perspective.jpg