Re: forest tileset
Posted: 19 Mar 2008, 04:58
It looks better now. Not perfect, but better.
Feel the mana power growing inside you!
https://forums.themanaworld.org/
Actually, your also not taken into account that light reflects off objects (so the earth also becomes a light source)Pauan wrote:True, the difference is subtle. But it is still there. Our eyes are complex enough to tell when that subtle difference is there... or not. Also, that only applies when the tree actually has foliage.Len wrote:With a light source such as the sun it hardly makes much of a difference, actually the closer to the top of the tree the darker it would become. Because some of the light is obstructed by the vegetation of the tree.The farther an object is from a light source, the darker it is. Since the sun is up high in the sky, that means that the closer you are to the ground, the darker you become. The reason it looks like the tree is bending backwards is because there is too much light near the roots. By darkening the areas closer to the ground, you fix that error.
Modanung's tree is a good example
However the earth is a horribly poor reflector of light. In fact, so much so that I think this does not offset the darkness caused by distance. The only way to settle this is to create a 3-D model of a tree at the precise 45* angle needed and then use it as a base for our light sources.Len wrote: Actually, your also not taken into account that light reflects off objects (so the earth also becomes a light source)
However, light itself does not just get weaker because of distance. It would only have visible effect if the weather is foggy or hazy. Or were you referring to umbral effect caused by an object partially shadowing another object with multiple light source (reflected light)? Or were you referring to spot light, which is understandable because the light do not travel in the same direction, so the closer the object the more hits to light rays.Pauan wrote:However the earth is a horribly poor reflector of light. In fact, so much so that I think this does not offset the darkness caused by distance. The only way to settle this is to create a 3-D model of a tree at the precise 45* angle needed and then use it as a base for our light sources.Len wrote: Actually, your also not taken into account that light reflects off objects (so the earth also becomes a light source)
Please don't take this comment as a negative position or harsh, is just a comment....Saphy wrote:However, light itself does not just get weaker because of distance. It would only have visible effect if the weather is foggy or hazy. Or were you referring to umbral effect caused by an object partially shadowing another object with multiple light source (reflected light)? Or were you referring to spot light, which is understandable because the light do not travel in the same direction, so the closer the object the more hits to light rays.Pauan wrote:However the earth is a horribly poor reflector of light. In fact, so much so that I think this does not offset the darkness caused by distance. The only way to settle this is to create a 3-D model of a tree at the precise 45* angle needed and then use it as a base for our light sources.Len wrote: Actually, your also not taken into account that light reflects off objects (so the earth also becomes a light source)
Btw, most 3D renderer is based on empircal model, which is physically incorrect and only apply to a set of situations.
This isn't accurate. I'm not trying to rain on Pauan's parade, and I strongly encourage him to keep applying science to things exactly as his is right now. Even if this specific theory wasn't right, that's easily corrected, and the general practice will make someone a good artist MUCH faster than if they're not doing any of that, and just relying on their instincts regarding "what looks right" - which are bound to have major flaws in every individual, even the insanely skilled.Pauan wrote:However the earth is a horribly poor reflector of light. In fact, so much so that I think this does not offset the darkness caused by distance. The only way to settle this is to create a 3-D model of a tree at the precise 45* angle needed and then use it as a base for our light sources.Len wrote: Actually, your also not taken into account that light reflects off objects (so the earth also becomes a light source)
A much better explanation of what I was trying to get at earlierJetryl wrote: Anyways:
The most important thing with the projection feeling right on this tree is the shape of the trunk, and how the ellipse there matches up with the crown. Probably, what's goofing it up is that it's got two trunks placed perfectly horizontal to each other. If you move one down so their bases are diagonal to each other, it'll probably give a much better sense of depth - that, or add in a third one below.
Speaking of theories! I have this theory that only players, monsters, and dropped items (loot from monsters, things people dropped) should stand out from the background. (Feel free to disagree with me) The ideas being that these things need to stand out for gameplay reasonsThis isn't accurate. I'm not trying to rain on Pauan's parade, and I strongly encourage him to keep applying science to things exactly as his is right now. Even if this specific theory wasn't right, that's easily corrected, and the general practice will make someone a good artist MUCH faster than if they're not doing any of that, and just relying on their instincts regarding "what looks right" - which are bound to have major flaws in every individual, even the insanely skilled.
I concede defeat.Jetryl wrote: This isn't accurate. I'm not trying to rain on Pauan's parade, and I strongly encourage him to keep applying science to things exactly as his is right now. Even if this specific theory wasn't right, that's easily corrected, and the general practice will make someone a good artist MUCH faster than if they're not doing any of that, and just relying on their instincts regarding "what looks right" - which are bound to have major flaws in every individual, even the insanely skilled.
The bottom of the tree would be lighter than the top, because the bottom of the tree is illuminated (like the top), by the primary light source of the sun, and the secondary light sources of the ground and sky. However, it's extremely close to the ground, and the "power-of-two" falloff in illumination intensity per square unit of area actually has a rather large difference per distance to that source, whereas it has a relatively low difference per added distance for the sun, because the sun is so distant, and the light coming from the sun is mostly following parallel angles of incidence.
Because the sun is so distant, a far more important factor is the angle at which the surface being illuminated is with regards to the sun. This is such a big difference that it's why 3d rendering programs have separate "directional light" and "point light" sources.
Anyways:
The most important thing with the projection feeling right on this tree is the shape of the trunk, and how the ellipse there matches up with the crown. Probably, what's goofing it up is that it's got two trunks placed perfectly horizontal to each other. If you move one down so their bases are diagonal to each other, it'll probably give a much better sense of depth - that, or add in a third one below.
I'm aware of that@ Len: It's partly the saturation of the tree leaves, and also that there is a lot of white highlights. This added brightness causes them to stand out more so than the rest of the background, which lacks these highlights.
Since it was a pain to edit the old version, I am redoing the foliage using the trunk png.Len wrote:I'm aware of that@ Len: It's partly the saturation of the tree leaves, and also that there is a lot of white highlights. This added brightness causes them to stand out more so than the rest of the background, which lacks these highlights.
I honestly believe that eventually the old tilesets (and a lot of the old/new maps) are going to need to be revised as a whole rather than just mini revisions and additions. Basically the pixel artists and mappers are going to need to do what the programmers have been doing with the TMW server (rethink it all together)Crush wrote:Saphy, would it be poossible to make trees like
and
which fit into 64x96 pixels?
Then it would be possible to replace the two existing trees in the woodland tilesets with them without having to remap anything.
Yes, we're pretty much going to scrap it all along the way. Hence we've been calling it pseudo content for years.Len wrote:I honestly believe that eventually the old tilesets (and a lot of the old/new maps) are going to need to be revised as a whole rather than just mini revisions and additions. Basically the pixel artists and mappers are going to need to do what the programmers have been doing with the TMW server (rethink it all together)Crush wrote:Saphy, would it be poossible to make trees like
and
which fit into 64x96 pixels?
Then it would be possible to replace the two existing trees in the woodland tilesets with them without having to remap anything.
Or tilesets like AxlTrozz’s temple, I’s concrete walls and Saphy's and my forest are going to seem horribly out of place
Sure. Here they are:Crush wrote:Saphy, would it be poossible to make trees like
and
which fit into 64x96 pixels?
Then it would be possible to replace the two existing trees in the woodland tilesets with them without having to remap anything.