SteamWorks

[zimmah]

i have to agree on them both, it looks very weird that the shadows are bend towards each other.

(somehow i always start a new page)

[DiM]

the shadow on both pipes is consistent with the lighting on them.
the top one has a light source on the top right and the bottom one has a light source on the bottom right. which is perfectly ok if you have 2 light sources. and if they're weak light sources (like 2 candles or 2 oil lamps) then they act like 2 completely independent lights with no interference on each other.

[isaiah40]

the shadow on both pipes is consistent with the lighting on them.
the top one has a light source on the top right and the bottom one has a light source on the bottom right. which is perfectly ok if you have 2 light sources. and if they're weak light sources (like 2 candles or 2 oil lamps) then they act like 2 completely independent lights with no interference on each other.

Okay, this makes sense, but going on this statement, you know have the shadow from the paper on the side the light is from, which is not matching the light source. My suggestion is to put the shadow on the other side of the paper.

[natty dread]

The light looks more like it's coming from the above at an angle, since the shadows are so close.

Furthermore... for the pipes even to cast shadows on the map, the light source would have to be strong enough to light the rest of the map, and if that's the case, then the light sources would overlap with the pipes. The whole map looks evenly lit, which would suggest one consistent light source, but the pipes do not match that.

I suspect the lower pipe is just a rotated version of the upper, which causes the lighting inconsistency.

Do you have any more images of those pipes (or similar ones) that you could use?

[DiM]

the shadow on both pipes is consistent with the lighting on them.
the top one has a light source on the top right and the bottom one has a light source on the bottom right. which is perfectly ok if you have 2 light sources. and if they're weak light sources (like 2 candles or 2 oil lamps) then they act like 2 completely independent lights with no interference on each other.

Okay, this makes sense, but going on this statement, you know have the shadow from the paper on the side the light is from, which is not matching the light source. My suggestion is to put the shadow on the other side of the paper.

true and done. even though i'm deeply disappointed by the double standards applied around here. not by you necessarily.


V26:

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[isaiah40]

Gee, I just saw one more thing I should have mentioned. The shadow at the bottom of the paper shouldn't be there either. Sorry, I should have caught that earlier. I would say just remove it except for the tear into the paper areas. Then this should be done, as long as no one else has any objections.

[DiM]

updated the above images.

[Coleman]

Not that graphics comments were ever my strong suit but we are reaching the point that I can not tell the difference between the before and after with the corrections. XD

[zimmah]

the shadow on both pipes is consistent with the lighting on them.
the top one has a light source on the top right and the bottom one has a light source on the bottom right. which is perfectly ok if you have 2 light sources. and if they're weak light sources (like 2 candles or 2 oil lamps) then they act like 2 completely independent lights with no interference on each other.

if the light sources are really that weak, then the map should be covered in shadow too, and it just looks weird.

in fact, following the logic of the shadow cast on the topright pipe, the light is comming somewhere from above with an angle comming in from the right, yet the light is powerfull enough to cover the whole map, it doesn't cast shadows on either the smoke (which it should) nor the bottomright pipe (which it definitly should).

i still think 1 light source would look a lot more realistic. even tho i agree that a weaker light fits much better with the theme of the map, but then at least the shadows should look more realistic as well.

or you could maybe suggest the exsistance of a 3rd light source on the left of the map by dropping a (small) shadow somewhere around the center of the map, this would suggest the exsistance of 3 weaker light sources, if you want to avoid casting a shadow at the map, then try making (one or more of) the edges of the map a bit darker, suggesting a lightsource somewhere above the map.

just my $0.02

[DiM]

Not that graphics comments were ever my strong suit but we are reaching the point that I can not tell the difference between the before and after with the corrections. XD

don't worry i'm sure this exact same standard of graphics and nitpicking was applied to all maps done in the last few years.

[Coleman]

Not that graphics comments were ever my strong suit but we are reaching the point that I can not tell the difference between the before and after with the corrections. XD

don't worry i'm sure this exact same standard of graphics and nitpicking was applied to all maps done in the last few years.

I don't want to impede the current process but there is such a thing as overworking a map to the point that artistic style starts to be ironed out of it. Are these really quality improvements or an attempt to make things look more uniform with other maps?

[natty dread]

Not that graphics comments were ever my strong suit but we are reaching the point that I can not tell the difference between the before and after with the corrections. XD

don't worry i'm sure this exact same standard of graphics and nitpicking was applied to all maps done in the last few years.

I don't want to impede the current process but there is such a thing as overworking a map to the point that artistic style starts to be ironed out of it. Are these really quality improvements or an attempt to make things look more uniform with other maps?

No, it's an attempt to follow good design principles - at least on my part. Lighting should be consistent. Similar "nitpicks" have been made on all maps - Dawn of Ages spent ages trying to get the lighting/shadow of the mountains correct...

It's not "overworking" a map to ask to pay attention to details like lighting and shadows. Those details are pretty important in any graphical design application...

Dim, maybe you think all the maps that were made after you left the site suck, and you have the right to that opinion, but most of those maps are graphically up to par I think. If a few bad ones slipped through the cracks, that's probably because the foundry has gone through so many changes in structure and population - so many old guys leaving so suddenly, etc. But there are (graphically) crappy maps among the older maps, as well. With all respect to cairnswk, but Madness comes to mind as a prime example...

And even if all the maps done in last 2 years were pure shit, would it be a reason to lower your own personal standards?

[DiM]

Dim, maybe you think all the maps that were made after you left the site suck, and you have the right to that opinion, but most of those maps are graphically up to par I think. If a few bad ones slipped through the cracks, that's probably because the foundry has gone through so many changes in structure and population - so many old guys leaving so suddenly, etc. But there are (graphically) crappy maps among the older maps, as well. With all respect to cairnswk, but Madness comes to mind as a prime example...

And even if all the maps done in last 2 years were pure shit, would it be a reason to lower your own personal standards?

it's not about lowering personal standards or thinking that all recent maps are crap, which i don't.
it's just that on one map i see the foundry foreman defending a hideous map with countless mistakes and telling me to back off with my objections and here i see another official nitpicking details that are invisible to 99% of the players.
this in my opinion equals double standards and it deeply offends me. i'm not saying i should not get this kind of nitpicking i'm just saying everybody should.

go check out maps that already have graphic badges.
1. fractured china has shadows that are inconsistent with the objects and some elements on the map don't even have them at all.
2. quad cities also has inconsistent shadow and elements with no shadow at all. additionally it has places along the borders where the thickness is inconsistent or where the border is missing. it has places where the colour of the continent goes outside the border or places where a random colour simply appears and doesn't belong there.
3. baltic crusades has shadows all over the place and in all directions. unnaturally floating parchments and letters that appear on top of places where the parchment is torn
4. california has misaligned text and some poorly placed elements.
5. research and conquer has lots of text that overlaps the outside border of the map. it has a very strong legend texture that makes reading very hard and a very bland texture on the map itself. plus it has elements with missing shadows
6. istanbul has elements with wrong shadows or completely missing shadows. it also has a very blurry bottom map but the text on the same bottom map is very crisp. absurd. it also has places where the colour doesn't go all the way to the border and it leaves a bit of a gap.

these are all 6 maps in FF which got their graphics badge. i spent less than a minute on them and found all those things. i wonder how everybody missed them so far...

if i go and spend 5-10 minutes on all maps and post what i think i'll probably become the most hated person in the foundry if i'm not already in that position. i've already been called absurd, overzealous and a jerk for posting things that are much more clear than the details i posted above. i'm afraid to even think of the new adjectives i'll receive if i take nitpicking to the extreme.

[natty dread]

Dim, you should absolutely go to those threads and post all the nitpicks you have. I appreciate all the feedback you've given me on the Korea map, even if we disagree on some things. There will always be debate and disagreements, but as long as people treat each other with respect, that shouldn't be a problem.

[DiM]

Dim, you should absolutely go to those threads and post all the nitpicks you have.

not really. i have so many little nitpicks about every single maps i'd probably drive all the map makers crazy. not all of them are willing to make changes and i simply don't have the willpower to "fight" them until they fix all things. i think the CAs/FAs/FF should take care of such things. if they don't and if nobody else bothers to post them then i'm probably the one with absurd requests.

so it is my decision from now on to just sit quiet and mind my own map like others do with absolutely no concern for the overall quality of maps around here. after all it's not my website and i have absolutely nothing to gain. in fact i actually am at a loss because i'm wasting precious time and i'm wasting my nerves debating over and over with a stubborn map maker and his die hard fans. why should i? that time would be better spent making another map, or finally learning how to do my own xml, or playing games, or simply going out for a stroll in the park.

[natty dread]

No, that won't do at all. The foundry needs your feedback.

And maybe there's some fault in you too? The way you presented your feedback on the Quad cities map wasn't exactly the most diplomatic. People tend to get defensive when you present your feedback in a way that antagonizes them. If you just calmly explain what is wrong - and most importantly, give them a suggestion on how to fix it - I'm sure they will take your advice. If not, I'll kick their butts.

[DiM]

No, that won't do at all. The foundry needs your feedback.

not true. the foundry existed before me, existed after i was away and will still exist when i'll be gone forever. nobody is irreplaceable.

And maybe there's some fault in you too? The way you presented your feedback on the Quad cities map wasn't exactly the most diplomatic. People tend to get defensive when you present your feedback in a way that antagonizes them. If you just calmly explain what is wrong - and most importantly, give them a suggestion on how to fix it - I'm sure they will take your advice. If not, I'll kick their butts.

i know i'm blunt. i've always admitted this and i know i've hurt people and it's my fault. i also understand to an extent the defensiveness of the mapmakers. however i expect certain people to maintain their objectivity regardless of the situation and the persons involved. when this doesn't happen and double standards are applied it bothers me.

anyway, this is all a bit offtopic.

the final update of the map is in this post: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3292698#p3292698
if it is considered worthy of a badge then fine. if not then it's fine again. it just means i'm not up to some of the standards and i ask that this map be put on vacation until i improve my technique.

[Nola_Lifer]

The shadows aren't that ridicules that it would bother the eye. Who cares. Make this map beta already

[ender516]

No, that won't do at all. The foundry needs your feedback.

not true. the foundry existed before me, existed after i was away and will still exist when i'll be gone forever. nobody is irreplaceable.

Saying that the foundry needs your feedback is not saying that your feedback is all it needs. Your feedback will make it better, not perfect or complete.

Dim, you should absolutely go to those threads and post all the nitpicks you have.

not really. i have so many little nitpicks about every single maps i'd probably drive all the map makers crazy. not all of them are willing to make changes and i simply don't have the willpower to "fight" them until they fix all things. i think the CAs/FAs/FF should take care of such things. if they don't and if nobody else bothers to post them then i'm probably the one with absurd requests.

I don't believe it is the job of each of us to "fight" each mapmaker until they fix every problem we pose. As I understand the foundry process based on the guidelines, we are supposed to make reasonable comments and the mapmaker is to make reasonable replies. You're right, it is the job of the Foundry staff to decide when these issues are resolved, and issue stamps accordingly. So you can have your say, and then let it go. If you feel that the issue has not been resolved to your satisfaction, and you want to keep pressing, you certainly can, but you are not obligated.

I think the best path you can take as a respected mapmaker is to continue to address the issues raised about your map and not to worry about whether other maps are being held to the same standards. If the standard you are being held to is reasonable, then you are only helping the foundry and the site by working to it. You can lead by example by producing a better map: better than you would have made otherwise, and perhaps better than the recently quenched ones which you find disappointing.

[isaiah40]

After a quick consult, I now give you this ....


Congrats DiM!!

[koontz1973]

Congrats DiM. Really really looking forward to playing this one. Splendid work.

And this chat about you giving feedback that some map makers might feel you are too harsh, be harsh if that is what you feel the map needs. Not once have I seen your feedback to be wrong. We are all grown people here and if we cannot take your criticism then maybe we should find a new hobby.

[cairnswk]

Yes congrats DiM, should be nice and tight to play.
Hope you stick around long enough to see it live now.

[DiM]

thanks.
i've pmed zimmah about the xml and as soon as he's done with it i/he will post it here and/or pm it to the xml CA which i think is OliverFA.
might be wrong on the exact procedure. i don't know if this is the exact procedure.
i found the xml check thread where it says i must inform forzaAZ but that's probably outdated.

[isaiah40]

Yes, zimmah posts the images and the XML in the XML Check thread. Oliver will then check it to make sure everything is okay, and if so, you get the XML stamp.

[Seamus76]

Congrats Dim!! Great work as always.

And to echo Koontz, please don't ever stop giving feedback. As a new map maker your insight is invaluable no matter how it comes across.