[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mountains (was: Third tutorial map)
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 19:28:49 +0200, Matthias Grimm
<matthias.grimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 16:26:51 +0000
Jens Granseuer <jensgr@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 04.06.2005 01:26, Andrej Krivul__ík 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
We are still inaccurate because the object scale doesn't match. Vehicles
are too big, mountains to small but this isn't important because it's
only
a picture of a battlefield with some symbols in it. There must be a
compromise between realistic looking objects and the ability to play the
maps.
Yeah, I didn't mean that it looks photorealistic, I had on my mind the
top-down view :-).
> be a little bit inaccurate and have the hills & mountains "from the
side".
> I think that they would look a little bit better.
Mountains in side view will completely break the current optic. You may
try but I think you will fail. Unless you want to change Crimson to
isometric view completely :-).
Well, would it be that bad idea? Apart from loads of work?
> 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.)
I'm not really confident with my mountains and will rework them as soon
as I found some time. I currently working on another project so I have
no time to work on it, sorry.
I am in very similar situation :-(. But things will get better next week
(I hope).
> I also noticed that the tiles from Matthias are somewhat noisy, I
don't
> think that was an intent or am I wrong?
What do you mean with "noisy"?
http://st.fri.utc.sk/~krivulci/tiles.png
Another topic:
You could post it in a new thread :-).
Andrej