AndyDufresne wrote:Agreed. **Weeps for trees.**(Wonderful use of double e's, yes?)
--Andy
What? You prefer those green and red blobs to these treees?
Moderator: Cartographers
AndyDufresne wrote:Agreed. **Weeps for trees.**(Wonderful use of double e's, yes?)
--Andy
RjBeals wrote:1px looks much better - i even think the sidewalks should go down to 1px also so they are not so bold.
RjBeals wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Agreed. **Weeps for trees.**(Wonderful use of double e's, yes?)
--Andy
What? You prefer those green and red blobs to these treees?
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Ditocoaf wrote:The trees are viewed from the side, yet the buildings are viewed from straight above?
It gives me a headache.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
grayhawke wrote:I think top-down looks better -
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
TaCktiX wrote:That begs the question "how'd you do that?" I'm not kidding when I don't know what else to do.
TaCktiX wrote:That begs the question "how'd you do that?" I'm not kidding when I don't know what else to do.
DiM wrote:never underestimate the power of personalized brushes. create a shape of how you think a tree looks from above. let's say a star shape. now take that brush and set the background and foreground to 2 foliage colours (dark green and yellowy green) then do the following:
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.
then go ahead and paint what you need adjusting the brush size according to the height of the viewpoint.
after you paint put on some drop shadow and even bevel if it suits your need. but keep the bevel at a minimum.
here's a quick example. i didn't bother making a custom shape so i used a flower one. it looks rather bad on large trees but it works for small ones as the details are hard to spot.
and here's the file http://www.sendspace.com/file/9g965g
TaCktiX wrote:I did exactly that twice, with the previous 2 iterations of trees. People didn't like the results. The present one I will be slightly modifying to force the top-down perspective. I'm not exactly interested in copying grayhawke's trees, as they have far too much clarity for the true-scale trees seen from a few hundred feet in the air (perspective of campus).
TaCktiX wrote:I did exactly that twice, with the previous 2 iterations of trees. People didn't like the results. The present one I will be slightly modifying to force the top-down perspective. I'm not exactly interested in copying grayhawke's trees, as they have far too much clarity for the true-scale trees seen from a few hundred feet in the air (perspective of campus).
gimil wrote:grayhawke wrote:I think top-down looks better -
I think that could work, what say you tack?
yeti_c wrote:I'm not sure I like the legend grey next to the pathway grey... is there any need for them to be a different colour?
C.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users