![Image](http://sigmgmt.com/Course%20Design/Graphics/ApplebrookAriel2.jpg)
![Image](http://www.lagiraudiere.com/golf/resources/medoc_golf_course_layout.jpg)
More importantly than the graphics however, is the gameplay... I'm still not convinced by the way that everything is set up and laid out at the moment... get the structure right first, and then let the graphics improve
![Wink ;-)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Moderator: Cartographers
DiM wrote:shape dynamics>
> size jitter 100%
> minimum diameter 0%
> angle jitter 0%
> roundness jitter 68%
> min roundness 25%
scatter> adjust as you please dependng on what you need
colour dynamics>
>fore/back 100%
> saturation 50%
the rest at 0%
and check smoothing.
mibi wrote:I have no idea how the gameplay will turn out, but graphically, this is one of the most cohesive maps out there. Well done.
The title needs sprucing up though.
Ethitts wrote:mibi wrote:I have no idea how the gameplay will turn out, but graphically, this is one of the most cohesive maps out there. Well done.
The title needs sprucing up though.
Cheers mibi. It's comments like that, mixed with others on the opposite perspective, that confuse me as to where I should go with this map (graphics-wise). Looks like the wooden paths were most popular, so I will incorporate those in certain places. I think a new poll may be needed though - Stating: "Are the graphics on the right track? Or is a complete revamp needed?"
EDIT: Of course the tree's need replacing though.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users