[FND]forest tileset

All development of pixel art and graphics
User avatar
Pauan
Novice
Novice
Posts: 236
Joined: 15 Aug 2006, 08:28
Contact:

Re: forest tileset

Post by Pauan » 19 Mar 2008, 05:58

It looks better now. Not perfect, but better.
User avatar
Saphy
Novice
Novice
Posts: 371
Joined: 09 Nov 2006, 19:32

Re: forest tileset

Post by Saphy » 19 Mar 2008, 06:15

I accidentally overwrote my lastest version of the tree xcf file >_<.

I guess I will just leave it as is, unless someone what you make changes to it... It certainly could use more detailed leaves, but I would make another tree instead now that the layers are all merged and became difficult to edit.
User avatar
Len
Knight
Knight
Posts: 1479
Joined: 05 Feb 2007, 07:17
Location: Lurking in the shadows

Re: forest tileset

Post by Len » 19 Mar 2008, 06:22

Pauan wrote:
Len wrote:
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.
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.
Image
Modanung's tree is a good example
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. ;)
Actually, your also not taken into account that light reflects off objects (so the earth also becomes a light source) :wink:
Image
Pixel Battalion
User avatar
Pauan
Novice
Novice
Posts: 236
Joined: 15 Aug 2006, 08:28
Contact:

Re: forest tileset

Post by Pauan » 19 Mar 2008, 06:30

Len wrote: Actually, your also not taken into account that light reflects off objects (so the earth also becomes a light source) :wink:
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. :)
User avatar
Saphy
Novice
Novice
Posts: 371
Joined: 09 Nov 2006, 19:32

Re: forest tileset

Post by Saphy » 19 Mar 2008, 06:34

Pauan wrote:
Len wrote: Actually, your also not taken into account that light reflects off objects (so the earth also becomes a light source) :wink:
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. :)
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.

Btw, most 3D renderer is based on empircal model, which is physically incorrect and only apply to a set of situations.
User avatar
AxlTrozz
Warrior
Warrior
Posts: 843
Joined: 05 Aug 2006, 00:12
Location: Now from TX

Re: forest tileset

Post by AxlTrozz » 19 Mar 2008, 16:09

Saphy wrote:
Pauan wrote:
Len wrote: Actually, your also not taken into account that light reflects off objects (so the earth also becomes a light source) :wink:
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. :)
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.

Btw, most 3D renderer is based on empircal model, which is physically incorrect and only apply to a set of situations.
Please don't take this comment as a negative position or harsh, is just a comment....

I would say, lets try to keep the things simple, In a 2D environment is really hard to show all the lights reflections, we work more in a "optical illusion" than a real life scenario, and from my point of view there is no distance factor in the light because 45 deg from top and camera always on the top of the user doesn't allow to much room for distance factors :) consider also the player is not affected by these effect either (at least not now) :wink:
User avatar
Jetryl
Novice
Novice
Posts: 113
Joined: 16 Mar 2005, 21:55

Re: forest tileset

Post by Jetryl » 19 Mar 2008, 19:15

Pauan wrote:
Len wrote: Actually, your also not taken into account that light reflects off objects (so the earth also becomes a light source) :wink:
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. :)
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.
Image
User avatar
Len
Knight
Knight
Posts: 1479
Joined: 05 Feb 2007, 07:17
Location: Lurking in the shadows

Re: forest tileset

Post by Len » 19 Mar 2008, 23:46

Jetryl 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.
A much better explanation of what I was trying to get at earlier

Image

Image

Image
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.
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 reasons

Currently, Shapy’s new trees are standing out too much (at least according to my theory)
Image
Pixel Battalion
User avatar
Pauan
Novice
Novice
Posts: 236
Joined: 15 Aug 2006, 08:28
Contact:

Re: forest tileset

Post by Pauan » 20 Mar 2008, 01:37

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 concede defeat. :)

@ 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.
User avatar
Len
Knight
Knight
Posts: 1479
Joined: 05 Feb 2007, 07:17
Location: Lurking in the shadows

Re: forest tileset

Post by Len » 20 Mar 2008, 01:42

@ 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'm aware of that
Image
Pixel Battalion
User avatar
Saphy
Novice
Novice
Posts: 371
Joined: 09 Nov 2006, 19:32

Re: forest tileset

Post by Saphy » 20 Mar 2008, 07:00

Len wrote:
@ 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'm aware of that
Since it was a pain to edit the old version, I am redoing the foliage using the trunk png.

ImageImage

This version should blend in to the background better.
User avatar
Crush
TMW Adviser
TMW Adviser
Posts: 8046
Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 17:08
Location: Germany

Re: forest tileset

Post by Crush » 20 Mar 2008, 10:31

Saphy, would it be poossible to make trees like
Image and Image

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.
  • former Manasource Programmer
  • former TMW Pixel artist
  • NOT a game master

Please do not send me any inquiries regarding player accounts on TMW.


You might have heard a certain rumor about me. This rumor is completely false. You might also have heard the other rumor about me. This rumor is 100% accurate.
User avatar
Len
Knight
Knight
Posts: 1479
Joined: 05 Feb 2007, 07:17
Location: Lurking in the shadows

Re: forest tileset

Post by Len » 20 Mar 2008, 12:16

Crush wrote:Saphy, would it be poossible to make trees like
Image and Image

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.
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)

Or tilesets like AxlTrozz’s temple, I’s concrete walls and Saphy's and my forest are going to seem horribly out of place
Image
Pixel Battalion
User avatar
Rotonen
TMW Adviser
TMW Adviser
Posts: 3154
Joined: 08 Sep 2004, 20:48
Location: Espoo, Finland

Re: forest tileset

Post by Rotonen » 20 Mar 2008, 14:59

Len wrote:
Crush wrote:Saphy, would it be poossible to make trees like
Image and Image

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.
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)

Or tilesets like AxlTrozz’s temple, I’s concrete walls and Saphy's and my forest are going to seem horribly out of place
Yes, we're pretty much going to scrap it all along the way. Hence we've been calling it pseudo content for years.
This message used to be meaningful.
User avatar
Saphy
Novice
Novice
Posts: 371
Joined: 09 Nov 2006, 19:32

Re: forest tileset

Post by Saphy » 20 Mar 2008, 16:38

Crush wrote:Saphy, would it be poossible to make trees like
Image and Image

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.
Sure. Here they are:

ImageImage

They were just a simple resample of the orignal image. But if we are going to use both, it would be better if the trunk is different, so I made a small change to the trunk for one of them.

And like Len said, we may need to replace the rest of the tileset or it will seem out of place.
Post Reply