![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
well what im going to try is to add the texture detail over the solid colours, that info needs to be taken from the normal channels with a mix of my own art. theres a pic a few posts back of me in photoshop with solid colour and some texture lighting that should explain what im gona try. with your image try not mix more than 2 fields of same colour next to each other. and atleasst 2 light coloured fields in every quadrant. appreciate you thoughts on this pupaxx !
also im realising the the mimmick of the alpha channel needs split up more. like it is on the right hand image. Doh. Last edited by Ali Fish; 06-08-2011 at 02:34 PM. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
@Ali
about 'same colored adiacent fields' my thougt is I would avoid to fragment too much the fields, I'm afraid of patch-work looking. In the pict below u can clearly see a lot of adiacent fields of the same color, they are differentiated by edge row, trees and so on. Here's why I made in this way. i'm with u it doesn't look good without edgerow and trees layer. pict1.jpg cheers Last edited by pupaxx; 06-08-2011 at 04:29 PM. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
yeh agreed on too much fragmented is bad. roads between is currently a good thing tbh given lack of hedge rows. i believe that for those field areas without roads between a simple slight hue change would be good. i think half the problem with the original textures is fragmented nature. radical changes from 1 field to the next adjacent. think i might try 3 similar green everywhere on the map and break it up with the rest. top left quadrant must be fragmented as much as possible. the other quadrants can be "not as fragmented. 1 quadrant should have higher frequency lighter fields.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|