Mountains (was: Third tutorial map)

[Jens Granseuer <jensgr@xxxxxxx>]

On 04.06.2005 01:26, Andrej Krivulčík wrote:
> It's good that we have some new graphics :-). But I think that we don't  
> have to generate perfect satellite photos of battlefield. We can afford to  
> be a little bit inaccurate and have the hills & mountains "from the side".  
> I think that they would look a little bit better.

I don't think we're aiming for photorealism, but I'm not convinced that
the side view would look better. In fact, I'd be suprised if it did. It's
probable easier to draw since you may get away without trying to create a
3D effect and there's more material to, um, be inspired by, but I expect
it to look very odd when combined with all the top down images.

> Also I propose we don't  
> have three hills of different size but more single-square hills that can  
> be assembled to make bigger mountain ranges. [...] If there's one piece
> of mountain, it's quite acceptable. But placing more of them next to each
> other looks... well, let's say strange. (Also the way it is now.)

Yes, I remarked something similar back when Matthias proposed his.

> If we had more 1-hex mountain centres which would nicely fit to each other  
> and some mountain edges, the mountains would look *much* better.

It would be an interesting experiment, but...

> I wanted  
> to give it a try but even now I work on CF only because I do it instead of  
> sleeping :-). Maybe later (after completing the tutorial campaign??  
> Definitely not any time soon :-( ). I just threw in my ideas, I wonder if  
> anyone picks up anything.

.. unless someone comes up with tiles we'll have to go with what we have.

> I also noticed that the tiles from Matthias are somewhat noisy, I don't  
> think that was an intent or am I wrong?

I can't find anything wrong with them.

Jens