Tiled is an open-source 2D level editor.

Freya Holmér on YouTube has several playlists of explanations of vectors, shaders, normal maps, and other useful mathematics.

(35,882 + 151) / (2,746 + 3) = 13.11

If you haven't found them yet, I'd recommend watching Grant Abbitt's videos on YouTube. There's years of tutorials there, plenty of them regarding low-poly models, so scroll to the bottom and then Ctrl-F for what you're interested in. For example, here's the first of a four-part series on modelling, texturing, etc., a tank.

Ultimately, with anything technical you are going to have to learn technique and, with practice, you'll stop feeling out of your depth. The just-in-time vs. just-in-case learning dilemma will only feel worse if you try to run too fast before you can even crawl—throwing yourself at the steeper part of the learning curve can hurt—so, before jumping into the thing you really care about, make some simpler things that you're less invested in for their own sake.* Instead, as you practise, think about how you can apply it to the thing you do care about, and have that be the motivation for working on them. It doesn't take that long to pick up the basics and, once you do, you'll be in a better place to accelerate your learning in the specific direction you really need, because you'll be in a better position to recognise what will and won't be immediately useful to you. In the meantime, you don't have to put off the motivating project. Work on it. Refine it with each new thing you get a handle on. Soon enough you'll have something you want to show us all.

I end up having to manually do a lot of fine-tuning to make the process work with what I'm doing.

Yes, this is what makes it your work. Pretty much all creative endeavour involves combining and modifying simpler building blocks.

It's not "all the hard way in the end", but there is no end point other than the one you choose. There'll always be something new to learn, some improvement you could make, so start simple and build from there.

* This makes problems and mistakes less demotivating because it's easier to drop and try something else.

Describing the perception of longer wavelengths as "seeing" might be a bit of a stretch. When I was taught about microscopes, it was explained that resolving finer details requires shorter wavelengths of light so the radio waves would be unhelpfully blurry.

Also worth remembering that we're already sensitive to some infrared, which we experience as warmth rather than colour. If new sensing mechanisms are used to respond to other wavelengths of the EM spectrum, and if the brain is able to develop* so that it can integrate and process those inputs, then I imagine they'd be associated with experiences outside the familiar rainbow, just as warmth is.

But if you're just going to somehow redefine the sensitivity† of our retinal pigments, then our brains aren't going to know that, and will process the signals it receives just the same, even if the photons initiating those signals are very different. This is how things like cochlear implants can be useful, after all. What I'm curious about now is: what happens when the chromatic appearance of familiar objects doesn't match memories? Over time, will the brain try to synthesize an experience that links the old and new perceptions?

* Not just in infancy, but evolutionarily, since the visual cortex is going to need to work a whole lot harder. In the absence of those developments, I'd expect new stimuli, at best, to be arbitrarily mapped onto the processing regions for other stimuli, producing a kind of phantom colour experience.

† We sort of do this when we look at false-colour images, and they don't have new colours; the colours we know are shifted and spread across different parts of the EM spectrum.

Is this actually some middle manager not wanting a bad first impression on the new big boss, or is my between-the-lines reading comprehension going downhill?

I think you're right about the importance of matching teaching and learning styles. I was actually good at maths, but my approaches were often quite different from the curriculum's, and I always resented having to follow the prescribed paths for the sake of exams' marking schemes. It drained me of enthusiasm for the subject for years, so I can imagine how demoralising the mismatch might be for anyone who isn't getting right answers either.

There was a criticism of maths education I read years ago, so I can't remember the source, that a focus on calculation, which is easily tested, over imagination and understanding, which are not, but are more useful particularly at the research level, especially in the age of computers, was one of the central problems. So, yeah, there are educators who think people are being failed by this kind of thing, too.

Forte got turned into "for-tay", so why not?

Since it's been deleted, I won't say. It wasn't bad so much as misplaced. I maintain that upbears can—and in most cases are—a positive but, in this particular instance, upbears could have been interpreted as hostile, and I won't support that.

Having been a selectively mute kid, I'm not oblivious to wanting to feel comfortable expressing yourself. I want that for you. I also want that for the folks who find friendliness and utility in upbears. I notice upthread that you've once again been rather dismissive of that, so I urge you now to give the level of reflection that you ask of others.

I am curious, too, of your opinion (and anyone else's) of the following hybrid that I haven't seen mentioned yet (apologies to anyone I've not spotted): capped upbears.

If the upbear counts are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7+, then the friendly smile-and-nod–type responses I mentioned before are still possible. One or two upbears can still signal a positive connection to someone, while more can indicate a broader resonance within the community. I consider these signals useful feedback, and the distinction is important, so the cap should not be too restrictive. However, with the maximum still quite low, extreme ratios are unable to develop, which I hope would ease those who see them as invalidating, and discourage those who wish to treat discussion as a competitive activity to be ‘won’.

If anyone upbears this, I'm switching sides!

Edit: okay, upbears delenda est.

Seconded (again. Seventhed?). It wasn't dumb; you have some good points. And you shouldn't be sorry for incompleteness. I was under the impression that part of the purpose of this site was trying out ideas that aren't fully formed yet.

I understand the argument. I disagree that it must always be true.

Assuming hostility from everyone and everything is pretty corrosive to actual discussion too.

And how, exactly, do upbears "enforce" a posting style hostile to non-cynical discussion? You keep making this assertion but, if it were actually true, there'd be nothing else here. That isn't the case, though, is it?

[T]he problem with upbears is that you don’t have to express [your reasons for them].

Why should we be forced to? When I smile in response to someone, it'd be quite strange to then explain my reasons for doing so.

I also don’t get the chance to express my own thoughts.

Who is stopping you? Not anyone here.

I think it is telling that most arguments against removing them have been short and lacking any real basis or reason.

Lacking any real basis or reason? Really?

You might not think it friendly, but I do.

Do you really think that I don't have a basis for giving upbears? Are you really trying to insult my motives, or are you just not thinking about why I think something?

The most upbeared comments I've seen have been on long, incredibly educating posts, so I think your sampling method may be biased.

And what the hell is wrong with "expressing vague approval"? Should every one of our interactions be dour, interminable discussions?

I really do not think upbears remove the ability to have in-depth conversations, but they are a friendly reminder that there are other people interacting even if they aren't actively conversing.

In-depth conversation shouldn't be the only option. With people I'm in the same room as, sometimes a smile or a nod is the only necessary response. I see upbears as being in that category of response—a simple positive acknowledgement—and vastly prefer it to a series of “This”es. I do not see smiles and nods as manipulative (usually), and disagree that upbears must always be so.

If you want to post long comments, then go ahead. I remember your username from some good comments the other day—that, yes, I gave upbears to—so I'm sure those comments will be read. You seem bothered that people who "just want to laugh" won't read them, but do you really believe that what's stopping them is upbears? You can't please all of the people all of the time, or have them agree wholeheartedly. Differences are good.

I can see that a method for hiding such numbers from users who dislike them could be useful, but you should be aware that there may be other users who find value in an approval system beyond needy gaming or an addiction to popularity.

Slowly bleeding to death behind electrified doors to own the libs.

It's a request that the emergency services not try to remove you from the vehicle.

Do iPods get sent to Angola for recycling?

Every morning, we triple-check headlines, stories, and sources for bias. All by hand with no algorithms.

If reality were so easily determined, there'd be no need for professional scientists; nothing would ever need to be tested; we'd all just be able to take exactly equal measures of opposing ideas, and the truth would be the perfect blend of them. The universe would never be found to be consistently described more accurately by any other method. No injustice could ever exist so long as there were centrists around to make a good faith effort to get to the bottom of things.

If the growth rate is linear, but that only really seems to be the case with people who work for a living. For the kind of activities that turn millionaires into billionaires, wealth fuels a feedback loop—it takes money to take money.

In any case, this experiment's outcome can be predicted based on the prevalence of the "one-good-idea" super-rich. There are plenty of examples of "super successful people" who absolutely do not "maximize what they have". In spite of all their advantages, every subsequent venture is a failure—see any "start with two million dollars" joke.