natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Telvannia wrote:i agree with the above two, if i do do an animation then i will have to do a long one, so it does not become repetitive. But as i said i will add the animations later when i have a whole map, then i can do a long one which might look alright, i probably wont do a night and day one because they are obviously repetitive.
I can wait to mess around with animation on the Ragnarök part of the map, i can have people dying everywhere .
But until i have a complete map i will leave animation alone.
Quick Question, does everyone like how Asgaror looks at the moment?
if so i will continue my map in that style.
By the way KEYOGI can you delete the poll i want to put up a new one.
KEYOGI wrote:I think either the buildings are too blurry or the wooden fence/gate too sharp. Perhaps look into trying to bring one into line with the other.
Early stages yet, but the font is pretty hard to read. At least apply some effects to it to try and make it stand out from the background.
gimil wrote:the latest update is no where near the quality of the 1st part
Telvannia wrote:i dont know what to do about Muspelheim though, it is the land of fire giants what can i add to it apart from fire?
Telvannia wrote:Does anyone know have to draw a realistic river?
my river always seem to look unrealistic in shape. For example the one in my complete picture in Midgard.
I think i will leave Muspelheim for awhile.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users