with no thought as to the end goal of doing so.
My end goal was to correct the common misconception that Build is not a 3D engine - it is a 3D engine.
I said BUILD isn't a fully 3D engine and instead of agreeing and moving on
What you wrote is "Classic BUILD games are 2D with lots of engine trickery to make it look 3D" which is wrong. When i replied to that part in my
original post i didn't even outright disagreed (because i didn't disagree with the "fully 3D rendered", i disagreed with the "Classic BUILD games are 2D").
(because spoiler: it's not a fully 3D engine)
Ok, you may call this "hair splitting" but to me it is conflating similarly sounding but actually different things: Build
is a full 3D engine, everything it handles is done in three dimensions, that is the very core of a 3D engine. I wouldn't call the rendering in most of the games that use it fully 3D because it relies heavily on 2D sprites, hence my agreement that it isn't "fully 3D rendered", but the engine itself is 3D (it can even be made to use 3D objects even in the original DOS versions via voxels, but even without that the engine is still a full 3D engine due to how it treats the world as three dimensional).
you've got on some tangent about how it uses trapezoids to display wall sprites as if that somehow disproves it not being a fully 3D engine
No, my "tangent" was to explain why the limitation for looking up/down exists in the engine and how this has nothing to do with the engine being fully 3D or not.
and then end up agreeing anyway that it's not a fully 3D engine.
I did not agree that Build is not a fully 3D engine, i agreed that its rendering is not fully 3D - these are two different things: one is about how the engine handles the data for the world, objects, collisions, etc (Build isn't just a rendering engine, it is a full game engine) and the other is about the renders it performs - and really the main reason i agree is because the whole "fully" thing is a bit subjective (so i didn't really want to argue about something that it depends on how much "3D" you see on something): it still produces partial 3D renderings since even if it uses 2D sprites, these are positioned in 3D space. Note that the part about the engine being fully 3D isn't subjective: it does handle everything in three dimensions and that is a fact.
Your posts are absolutely tiring and pointless.
TBH i get the impression that you are not interested in correcting your misunderstanding, but at least i hope my comments are informative to others to avoid perpetuating the myth that Build is not a 3D engine.