Renzatic on 8/8/2017 at 19:05
That's pretty cool, Al. Thanks. :D
Renzatic on 12/8/2017 at 20:04
Now that looks pretty damn good, Pyrian.
If there's one thing I think you need (which is advice you should take with a grain of salt, since I can't paint for shit), it'd be more transitional tiles. Like something that segues between dirt, grass, and stone.
Pyrian on 12/8/2017 at 21:41
Thanks, Renz! :D 'Koob said the same thing about transitions, and I agree, but... The scale is just staggering. There are 21 terrain types and four sprites for each. If there was a unique sprite for every possible triple-corner I would need 222,264. Obviously that's out of scope, but even just doing the bare minimum to have some transitions adds a ton of work. Once I've got all the tiles and add-ons in I'll see about trying to add a few.
henke on 12/8/2017 at 21:46
Yeah, very nice Pyrian. The rock/stone tiles look especially great.
Nameless Voice on 12/8/2017 at 21:53
You might be able to drastically cut down on that number by making the transitions as overlays.
For example, you make one tile of rocks fading into grass on all sides, but you only overlay the parts of the texture where the transition should be, using the base rocks-only texture for the other edges.
WingedKagouti on 12/8/2017 at 23:49
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Thanks, Renz! :D 'Koob said the same thing about transitions, and I agree,
but... The scale is just staggering. There are 21 terrain types and four sprites for each. If there was a unique sprite for every possible triple-corner I would need 222,264. Obviously that's out of scope, but even just doing the bare minimum to have some transitions adds a ton of work. Once I've got all the tiles and add-ons in I'll see about trying to add a few.
Assuming that every terrain type could border any other terrain type, that'd still be ~400 different overlays if using NV's suggestion, not doing both "Stone next to grass" & "Grass next to stone" and ignoring the 4 unique per terrain type. Quite a lot of work compared to the 84 you already have.
For a more managable set you could limit yourself to the most common transitions that the 3-4 most common terrain types have. Just enough to make the most frequent terrain borders not be as jarring.
Yakoob on 13/8/2017 at 00:28
The rocks look good but don't stand out from the background very well, maybe give them some bottom shadow or darken overall? Also not huge on the rocky ground, a little "too rocky" and seems like it would difficult to even walk on. Maybe tweak contrast down a bit?
Renzatic on 13/8/2017 at 08:37
Quote Posted by WingedKagouti
For a more managable set you could limit yourself to the most common transitions that the 3-4 most common terrain types have. Just enough to make the most frequent terrain borders not be as jarring.
Right. He doesn't have to have a transition set for every single possible combination, just the ones that are most likely to be set against each other. Like, for instance, rocks to grass to beaches to sea. You wouldn't want too many anyway, since having a tile for every conceivable blend would end up looking too noisy.
Think of it less as "I need transitions for everything" and more "where would a transition look good".
Oh, and I agree with Yak. I'm assuming that the larger stones in the rock set aren't traversable, so you'll probably need to darken the base rocks (or vice versa) so the larger ones look more like ridges that aren't meant to be walked on.
