Topic: New Immovables

31 — 40 of 97 Posts ‹‹ previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 10 next ››

Astuur Joined: 2009-02-28, 09:08 Posts: 733 One Elder of Players Location: Frankfurt / Germany	Posted at: 2011-05-07, 17:08 Oh boy.... how I am fed up with this! No matter how I try, I can't seem to get it right. Animals climbing onto the stones, others correctly disappearing behind them It seems to depend on the direction they are approaching the stones. Can that be true? There must be a more intelligent way of changing the size= and hotspot= statement than try and error. What am I supposed to line up with the flag location on the terrain? The center of the stones? The lower left corner? What are the obstacle radii that the program expects for small, medium and big? C'mon anyone, give me another hint, please! Edited: 2011-05-08, 06:42 Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills. I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino). Top Quote

death Joined: 2009-04-13, 12:09 Posts: 40 Pry about Widelands	Posted at: 2011-05-31, 18:50 I think most of these boulders are simply way too big proportionally. Look at the tall skinny one. Its taller than ruins and almost 3 times as big as trees. I dont think we should have boulders taller than trees. Also, I dont think immovables should look the same for our different terrain either. That they do is rather a result of lack of graphics and not a direct desision. They also have seemingly different perspectives. Top Quote

Astuur Joined: 2009-02-28, 09:08 Posts: 733 One Elder of Players Location: Frankfurt / Germany	Posted at: 2011-06-01, 08:05 death wrote: I think most of these boulders are simply way too big proportionally. Look at the tall skinny one. Its taller than ruins and almost 3 times as big as trees. I dont think we should have boulders taller than trees. Yes, the tall, skinny one is very tall. It's a menhir! And as such one of the shorter ones. These boulders were made with three ideas in mind: They - and the menhir foremost - should look like willfully placed by some ancient, monolithic, pagan culture, and should allow the formation of groups, circles and alike, to hint at such a prehistoric tribe.(see below) They should also be usable as normal huge boulders, scattered like leftovers from a glacier. In this case they should convert a "big" building space to a medium one, and not be destroyable by players. They should be close, but not too close to the quarry stones, that were in the making then, and that you have rejected meanwhile. They do serve these purposes well enough, I think. The idea that no boulders should be taller than trees is your own voluntary restriction. At least for the menhir I totally disagree. Our trees (whose creator I otherwise truly admire) are a bit bonzai anyhow and too uniform in their height. They also have seemingly different perspectives. I cannot see that. They have none at all. They do have different orientation though. Also, I dont think immovables should look the same for our different terrain either. That they do is rather a result of lack of graphics and not a direct desision. Yes, I do agree with this. I am always one for diversity and variation. If we can better define what our worlds really are, I may try again with geologically better suiting shapes and patterns. These ones (Greenland set) is clearly granite of the type you'll find in Caledonia or western Norway. I was inspired by the mountain terrain pattern, but could not make it quite as coarse. I think they are fitting for Greenland. Having said that, it may still be worth a consideration if not similarily shaped items are better than the lack of any alternatives - or alternatives like the asparagus-like standing stones that we have. I don't want to sound disrespectful, but I have not found any location on WL Maps so far, where those would not look out of place. The Wideland project has a noticible lack of artists who contribute, and a dire need for a plethora of graphic material. Or why do you think, that I, being fully aware of my mediocre and very limited artistic gifts, have the nerve to venture in that field? Facing this situation, you as the designated interim Graphics Elder may need to replace "worse" or "non-existent" with "slightly superior". Michelangelo is not standing by to work for us, unfortunately Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills. I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino). Top Quote

death Joined: 2009-04-13, 12:09 Posts: 40 Pry about Widelands	Posted at: 2011-06-04, 10:26 "They - and the menhir foremost - should look like willfully placed by some ancient, monolithic, pagan culture, and should allow the formation of groups, circles and alike, to hint at such a prehistoric tribe.(see below)" For that we have the standing stones, also present in your picture. Their graphics were the very first work I did for widelands and as such Im first to admit that they look a bit crappy however at the time they replaced a gray blob in a lot less 3d world... If you want to do standing stones, perhaps you could replace these. With something of suitable size...Your menhir scaled down and runes applied perhaps? "They should also be usable as normal huge boulders, scattered like leftovers from a glacier." The smallest of the set, the flat one fits this purpose quite well... the rest, not so much. "The idea that no boulders should be taller than trees is your own voluntary restriction." Its not a restriction its an assessment of proportion. Trees are proportional to mountains and buildings, and rocks and other immovables should definitely be proportional to both. People are proportionally a little big but that fits the cartoon style of the game and was true for original settlers too. Top Quote

Astuur Joined: 2009-02-28, 09:08 Posts: 733 One Elder of Players Location: Frankfurt / Germany	Posted at: 2011-06-04, 13:22 We'll most likely not reach an agreement about the proportion. Your argumentation is not convincing for me. Stones come in all sizes, from boulders to pebbles; There is no such thing as a "natural" size for a stone. So, your assessment about proportion is a willful thing. But we need no agreement: You're in charge, and you decide. (and I can use in my installation whatever I like - fair enough) So let's stop the argument here. So you want the winterland stones resized? Can you give me an idea about how much smaller? 75%? I'm not sure, whether there should be any markings on the menhir. Both exist, with and without. I might give it a try and see how it looks... Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills. I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino). Top Quote

Astuur Joined: 2009-02-28, 09:08 Posts: 733 One Elder of Players Location: Frankfurt / Germany	Posted at: 2011-08-03, 21:42 I don't want to be pushy, Chuck, but if you can find the time.... This issue here is still unsettled. Maybe you have not come across it, buried so deep here like it is. To catch up, you may want to start reading here It's about the size of my boulders --ähem...I said boulders not stones! Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills. I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino). Top Quote

chuckw Topic Opener Joined: 2010-03-15, 15:23 Posts: 945 One Elder of Players Location: New York - USA	Posted at: 2011-08-03, 22:03 Push all you like. I need all the motive power I can get. I will review this issue tonight and weigh in with my perspective tomorrow (if not earlier). I see little people. Top Quote

chuckw Topic Opener Joined: 2010-03-15, 15:23 Posts: 945 One Elder of Players Location: New York - USA	Posted at: 2011-08-04, 17:00 Okay, I've now had a good look at the proposed graphics for sstones (standing stones, menhirs) and stones (quarry stones). I'll offer my comments a world at a time. blackland 1) The first thing that strikes me is the color contrast between the new sstones (orange-red) and the quarry stones. I think this adds a "special appeal" to those sstones and would be attractive for some ancient human enterprise. I love the texture detail and want that in the game. If you feel comfortable with adding any runic devices or other relics to the sstones, go for it! 1a) The texture of the stones (quarry stones) seems to convey a heavily eroded surface, almost like melted icecream. It is in stark contrast to the sstones. Acceptable as they are currently, I wonder if their textures could be roughened up a bit. 2) Sstones6 and 7 (upper-left corner) are inconsistent and should be replaced. I'd like to see how a dark basalt-like rock would appear given the predominant grays and blacks of the mountains. 3) (applies to all worlds) Regarding scale, I must agree with Alexia's impression the new sstones do appear over-large when compared to the bobs and trees. I'd like to reduce them to ~80% of their present size. I say "them" because of their potential for combination into stone rings. By the same token, I don't have an issue with the current scale if the stones are used individually in more "natural" settings. Remember that there is nothing stopping us from adding to the "ruins" catgory or even introducing another category of immovable, say something like "boulders". So bottom line: let's try THESE REPLACEMENTS at ~80% of current scale. 4) (applies to all worlds) Hot spots should, I feel, be located at the center base line of each to aid precise positioning or you can run the risk of "bobs on the rocks." (I have to research the effect of the "size=" parameter in the conf files.) desert 1) Here I like the consistency of the textures used. It's a great look. 2) (See blackland comment #2) greenland 1) Textures= GOOD GOOD GOOD. Baselines of the stones might benefit from some vegetation. (Just a thought.) 2) (See blackland comment #2) sstone6&7 are on the right of this shot. winterland 1) Textures are great. Love the snow! To sum up, I think these graphics reflect your insight, your sensitivity to natural phenomena, and your skill as a talented artist. The game will benefit from their inclusion. Humor me with the tweaks I suggest and we'll get them implemented and put to bed. I see little people. Top Quote

chuckw Topic Opener Joined: 2010-03-15, 15:23 Posts: 945 One Elder of Players Location: New York - USA	Posted at: 2011-08-10, 00:14 Just an FYI to let everyone know that Astuur's new stones have been pushed to the development trunk with rev #5931. Thanks, Astuur! I see little people. Top Quote

Astuur Joined: 2009-02-28, 09:08 Posts: 733 One Elder of Players Location: Frankfurt / Germany	Posted at: 2011-08-10, 07:33 Thanks for your assessment, Chuck! There are quite a few things, I'd like to comment on. In order not to add even more to this monster of a thread, I am starting a new one (or maybe even more). My ideas for the topic, Blackland quarry stone, Blackland boulders etc. will go to this thread. Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills. I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino). Top Quote

‹‹ previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 10 next ››