None.
Isometric Viewpoint Angle
Hey. I was tooling around with making some models and I thought it might be fun to render them for StarCraft. Can anyone suggest a good angle of inclination for StarCraft's isometric viewpoint? What I mean is that when a unit is facing up (0 degree offset) it is viewed at some angle above the horizontal. I'm wondering what angle people typically use when rendering their models into sprites.
>be faceless void >mfw I have no face
I believe 30 degrees is what blizzard used, but some people like 45 degrees better. Either should work.
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
Dungeon Master
Quote
Starcraft using a “3/4 isometric” setup for its graphics engine. This
was the “big thing” at the time that starcraft was developed because it
helped give the illusion of 3d graphics in a 2d atmosphere. Now I’m
sure you’re wondering what “3/4 isometric” stands for. First off it’s an
orthographic view of an object. While the calculations aren’t needed to
be gone through (you can find them on wikipedia) you should know
that it means this: If you have the camera flat with the center of your
object you can get a “game ¾ view” by rotating the camera up around
the object by 30°. This is what starcraft uses normally. However, due to
personal taste I like to render from 45° instead. It shows more of the
unit when it’s moving to or away from you and the perspective isn’t
that noticeable. Now since starcraft graphics are isometric many good
graphics artists will tell you to use the “orthographic” view on your
camera when rendering (can be found in the camera’s edits buttons
window). However I prefer to deviate a little from this. Here’s a few
guidelines to help you to know when to render perspective and when
to render ortho:
1. if it’s a building, render ortho. (otherwise your buildings will look
quite odd. So render ortho unless you’re going for a “cartoonish”
mod.)
2. if it’s a LARGE unit render ortho. (this includes battle cruisers,
carriers, ultralisks, etc)
3. if it’s a small/medium sized unit you can render ortho or
perspective. (it doesn’t matter however I get better results with
perspective than ortho.)
was the “big thing” at the time that starcraft was developed because it
helped give the illusion of 3d graphics in a 2d atmosphere. Now I’m
sure you’re wondering what “3/4 isometric” stands for. First off it’s an
orthographic view of an object. While the calculations aren’t needed to
be gone through (you can find them on wikipedia) you should know
that it means this: If you have the camera flat with the center of your
object you can get a “game ¾ view” by rotating the camera up around
the object by 30°. This is what starcraft uses normally. However, due to
personal taste I like to render from 45° instead. It shows more of the
unit when it’s moving to or away from you and the perspective isn’t
that noticeable. Now since starcraft graphics are isometric many good
graphics artists will tell you to use the “orthographic” view on your
camera when rendering (can be found in the camera’s edits buttons
window). However I prefer to deviate a little from this. Here’s a few
guidelines to help you to know when to render perspective and when
to render ortho:
1. if it’s a building, render ortho. (otherwise your buildings will look
quite odd. So render ortho unless you’re going for a “cartoonish”
mod.)
2. if it’s a LARGE unit render ortho. (this includes battle cruisers,
carriers, ultralisks, etc)
3. if it’s a small/medium sized unit you can render ortho or
perspective. (it doesn’t matter however I get better results with
perspective than ortho.)
That's basically all you'll ever need to know on the subject.
Source: http://uploader.polorix.net//files/185/Keep%20Folder/Building%20Starcraft%20Units%20in%20Blender%203D.pdf
Options
Pages: 1
Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[03:29 am]
DarkenedFantasies -- Probably just didn't care. For example, at some point before release, they've updated the graphics of some of the Protoss buildings (Forge, CyberCore, Citadel, Observatory, Arbiter Tribunal), but instead of properly re-rendering them with edited 3D models, they did crappy copy-paste jobs on the rendered graphics.
[2026-6-21. : 4:56 am]
Ultraviolet -- I suppose we'll likely never know, but my guess would be that they already saw it operating successfully and there was no monetary incentive to finish the original work. And the dev cycle in old school Blizzard was so hectic, it's possible it just got forgotten about after the original game got released. Plus there's an element of existing MPQ files that were packaged with the original discs becoming outdated if they updated it. And it's not like they remade the original MPQs, they just made new ones for BW specifically[2026-6-21. : 4:26 am]
Oh_Man -- so that makes me think maybe the theory they are unfinished is not true and its a deliberate design decision, coz why not finish them wen ur making brood war?[2026-6-21. : 4:25 am]
Oh_Man -- the thing is thos buildings are from classic. that means they went ahead and made brood war without ever finishing the 'unfinished' buildings[2026-6-20. : 6:15 pm]
Ultraviolet -- Yeah he's talked about a lot of that stuff in his casts before. It seems plausible. Especially knowing how Blizzard of yesteryear operated.[2026-6-20. : 3:47 pm]
NudeRaider -- to clarify: couldn't recall the behavior for every single Protoss building but I was aware the disparity exists.[2026-6-20. : 3:43 pm]
NudeRaider -- Contained nothing new for me. Didn't know all building's behavior, but very much all unit's. Also Terran balance whine - also nothing new 
Members Online: jy2413804