Stalagmites!

JMunsonII · March 2017

Greetings!

If at first you don't succeed...

Round 2 of the stalagmites... They are varicolor so you pick the color...

Thoughts?

Jon

Wyvern · March 2017

Probably just me, so feel free to ignore, but it looks as if they're all hovering above the floor; I think it's the effects shadow though, not the symbols themselves. I have the same problem with some of the extant CC3 and add-ons stalagmite and rock symbols and the effect shadows...

JMunsonII · March 2017

Yup, that would be the effects shadows... I didn't mess with them, just "stock."

Wyvern · March 2017

These would also work rather nicely for mould and slime creatures, like amoebas, especially with that varicolour option.

JMunsonII · March 2017

I can see that!

Gathar · March 2017

I have the same feeling that they are above the ground. I think this feeling is increased by the thick black line around them, where I would expect them to merge into the ground.
Maybe on a separate sheet with some inner fading would look interesting...

JMunsonII · March 2017

OK, for those who can't get past the shadow from the default SYMBOLS sheet... (and I'm teasing here)

does this help a bit?

Loopysue · March 2017

Are these your symbols?

If they are, then you could remove the black line that goes around the outside edge altogether and feather them to transparency around the base, so that the base blends into the ground its sat on. That would stop them floating altogether, and make them a proper part of the floor.

EDIT: you hooked my interest, so I had to have a go at it myself to see if I might be right about fading them into the floor rather a lot more. This is not a symbol, but it could be reinterpreted as a symbol if you are drawing your own.

[Image_7784]

I attached the FCW for you so you could see what the various components are.

JMunsonII · March 2017

Just as FYI, the symbols are meant to compliment the Schley symbol set.

That is a very cool rendering of a bump you got there.

Loopysue · March 2017

I see

I came in half way through this conversation, so forgive me for getting the wrong end of the stick

Its much more difficult to make symbols to match a previously existing style than it is to make your own style. I take my hat off to you if you can match Schley

Loopysue · March 2017

As for it being only a bump (and thank you for the compliment by the way) - the shading of the sides could probably be deeper, and if I had added more radial detail lines that would probably also have helped to make it look more like a stalagmite

But I was only trying to show you what I meant about fading out the base line around the outer edge.

JMunsonII · March 2017

And you did a fabulous job! I will download the file and see how you did it - still learning that part of the system so it'll be a help. Thanks for including it!!!

Loopysue · March 2017

I was being lazy

I should have drawn an actual symbol for you because they are far easier to use and port around than a few squiggled lines on different sheets with different effects, but now that I know you are trying to do a Schley!?!

I surrender! LOL!

JMunsonII · March 2017

As for Schley, I am getting a further understanding of how he technically does his work, but, there is still more to figure out. He has a brush I have not yet been able to recreate, making the line work a little dissimilar to his style. But, then, I am not trying to be a copycat but rather get close enough so what I might make will match well enough.

Imitation is flattery after all... or so they say...

JMunsonII · March 2017

I have posted some screenies of other symbols I have created - now at 60 - check out the forum threads, you might like them.

Loopysue · March 2017

I can't get into Schley at all. I appreciate the skill and all, but I just can't warp my own style close enough to his to even attempt to make anything similar enough to fit in with it.

JMunsonII · March 2017

It is a good way to learn various art techniques and keep one from becoming too boxed in style-wise.

Loopysue · March 2017

Boxing in only occurs to those who never try anything new. I adore Herwin Wielink, but already I've moved on from that and I'm doing my own thing now. A lot of my current work involves multimedia maps, which is why I haven't been posting up here very much just lately. Too much is other than CC3 right now, but I expect I will swing back towards CC3 once I've discovered the limitations of things like GIMP and Sketchup and get bored with them in the way that I usually do with raster processing software (and haven't yet with CC3). They, after all, cannot be used to produce maps of unlimited size and detail in quite the same way that CC3 can, even though its nice to be able to use shading and scribbling for a little while

JMunsonII · March 2017

have you tried Inkscape?

Loopysue · March 2017

My first adventures were with Vue Pioneer, a 3D environment that is one of several I've used in the past when I was into 3D animation. This was to generate new tree symbols for use in CC3. Then I got into making a set of new houses for myself - just to be different to the set styles (I don't have any of the annuals or symbol sets). This was before Dogtag nudged me in the direction of using the automatic house tool, which is better than any symbol set because every new house is perfectly unique and can be drawn in any shape or form in an almost infinite variety of ways using any kind of roof texture and style you like. I was already into making my own textures by then, which I do with Genetica, though I must warn you that I have been warned several times over at the Guild that Genetica will eventually become abandonware, where the owner/creator eventually wanders off to new fields and leaves the website to rot. This is what's happening to homemade texture apps all over the place, because most people who bother about textures use them in animations and computer games, and there's a new and faster way of doing those kinds of textures than by hand. Nowadays they are automatically generated by the machine itself, with little or no human interaction at all. Its a sad day for anyone who finds a joy in making texture tiles by hand.

I also use CorelDraw, Corel Photopaint, GIMP, Krita (you can make seamless textures with this piece of kit as well), Blender (another 3D modelling and animation environment), and have recently been introduced to Inkscape for its facility to warp text into the kinds of irregular shapes that fit on flapping banners (for instance), though sometimes its easier to do such things in Blender if you want total accuracy.

There's a lot of semi-playful teasing over at the Guild - people trying to get me to move entirely over to Photoshop, or some other such ridiculously expensive raster app, but I find that nothing can beat CC3 for flexibility and potential and sheer power. I can produce a map at any resolution I like with as many sheets as I like in CC3+, where most raster apps max out and die at just 7 full layers and 8000 pixels square on my machine. Krita is the worst. That just freezes up and then requires the Task Manager (CTRL+ALT+DEL) to shut it down.

As Korash said (he's one of the Community Leaders over at the Guild), I'm a CC3 mapper at heart and I always will be, but there's no harm in keeping more than one tool in my tool set - or words to that effect, and I happen to agree with him

Monsen · March 2017

Posted By: Loopysuebut there's no harm in keeping more than one tool in my tool set

That's absolutely true. And that can easily be proven just by going to CC3's symbols. If you just want to map using what is available, you can of course just use CC3(+), but if you also can handle raster painting and 3D modelling, you can extend your CC3 experience that much. And of course, CC3 can't do everything either, so some tasks it is best to not even involve it at all.

JMunsonII · March 2017

Gee, Loopysue, you sound a little like me...

Though with some key differences.

I messed with Vue, but, didn't get very far. I have CorelDRAW! X16, but rarely use it as it is PC-only and I use both Mac and PC. GIMP I've only had a brief exposure to, and not sure I messed with Krita.

Blender, on the other hand, I got further with, and was using it to model a shuttlebay for a TOS Enterprise model kit (that kit didn't have one):

.

However, I had to stop. What I was intending there was to have it 3D printed (both halves are identical, so only needed on half of course), and then do a shuttlecraft to put in the bay.

I got started in all this via Corel Painter - love that program. And now I have access to Adobe CC. I've also got Paintstorm Studio and Rebelle - both excellent in their own rights.

As for CAD - I used to have TurboCAD, and have used Dynascape too. Back in high school, I used AutoCAD (still green screen then!).

Loopysue · March 2017

Remy - I usually end up importing everything I haven't already done in CC3, to CC3 and composing it there, simply because you just can't manipulate things in any other package like you can in CC3

Jon - That's a great model, and far better than anything I can draw. Maybe I should ask you to do my most recent Cartographer's Guild challenge map - my first space ship! Background in GIMP, space ship in Blender... (weeeell - its trying to be a space ship!!!), and composition/fine detail drawing (the actual map part of the graphic) in CC3.

I already know I'm not going to make the deadline, but its been great fun tyring

I'll show it in a new thread here when its finished, along with all the other hybrid maps I've been doing... but for now, we really are getting a very long way from stalagmites! LOL!

JMunsonII · March 2017

No worries, 'tis my thread, I'm allowed to wander a touch...

So, back to the regularly scheduled thread... and I have map 2 of 4 to work on now that I've got my symbols made up...

ProFantasy Community Forum

Stalagmites!

Comments