I agree with @Rosemont_Line — these Style Development threads are my favorite. The arctic options are great, and I am looking forward to all the options: grassy, arid, arctic, the works. I am also hoping for the possibility of a complimentary regional map in the future.
Ah, no. They aren't filigree wonders, Quenten. Just carefully matched background textures. Here's the Arctic version without the map file, in an 'as-drawn' state - before exporting to png for CC3+. It just happens to be a really good match for the snow fill in CC. That's partly because it IS the snow fill, and partly because I've made it just the right amount darker and duller.
Map files shade fantastically, but they also make everything brighter and more vivid than the original.
One of the reasons it's taking so long to make one mountain ridge is the hand drawn map file. If you look at the layers panel on the right you will see how much fiddling is involved. There is a way to export map files from FT3 and Wilbur, but I have found them to be too good - too detailed to work well. So I drew a grossly simplified one by hand, as if this was a house symbol, rather than a mountain.
I am hoping to get faster and tidier as I do more of them.
The smudge/smear tool leaves a lot to be desired in Affinity, or these would be smoother transitions ;)
Just so pleased Joe had leapt in with the geomorphology/geology explanation for you before I was back online to find you'd essentially asked the question you did without asking, Sue, if you follow 😉! Saved me a lot of effort and time certainly, as a once-upon geologist 😊.
As for remembering the names of things in geology (and pretty much every other subject), it's just the jargon, which as with anything, you'll remember if you use it often enough, and have to look it up every time if you don't!
And things take the time to create that they do. Exploring new ways of doing things doesn't mean following a simple, easy, linear route those who haven't done that before can assume sometimes, after all 😁!
Just so pleased Joe had leapt in with the geomorphology/geology explanation for you before I was back online to find you'd essentially asked the question you did without asking, Sue, if you follow 😉! Saved me a lot of effort and time certainly, as a once-upon geologist 😊.
It was a very interesting explanation!
As for remembering the names of things in geology (and pretty much every other subject), it's just the jargon, which as with anything, you'll remember if you use it often enough, and have to look it up every time if you don't!
I think I gave up about 100 pages into "Rocks and Minerals The Definitive Visual Guide" by Ronald Louis Bonewitz. It wasn't a course book, but a recommended tool for identification purposes. I still have it on my bookshelf - for identifying things. Maybe it goes into too much detail on the chemistry of each mineral. It all vanishes into a blur in my memory. I love watching Myron Cook videos on Youtube, though. I think process interests me far more than chemistry.
And things take the time to create that they do. Exploring new ways of doing things doesn't mean following a simple, easy, linear route those who haven't done that before can assume sometimes, after all 😁!
Absolutely true! I've shown some of the wacky things I tried along the way, but only about half of it.
For geology, I was fortunate in studying it first at school, as there was a strong physical element to the curriculum. We did have textbooks with all the chemical technicalities in (particularly at uni), but the key thing was you had to be able to identify actual rock and mineral specimens, and (for minerals especially) know what field tests you had to carry out to confirm a visual examination - especially as that latter often isn't as useful as you might hope. And then there were the fossils, which is a whole different ball-game, though often essential for identifying the ages of sedimentary rocks!
I don't think we got as far as fossils. Shame, really. I'm very interested in Palaeontology, and binge watch hours and hours of video documentaries relating to that.
Come to think of it, most of what I know today is generally from watching documentaries and Youtube videos.
I don't think we got as far as fossils. Shame, really. I'm very interested in Palaeontology, and binge watch hours and hours of video documentaries relating to that.
So we can expect to see more fossils in Sue-designed dungeon styles in future then 😉?
Yeah, I was just thinking that overlapping might allow the mapper to get different shapes, but I guess that could happen by putting them close to each other.
They don't really change the shape of the underlying hill because all of them are transparent - sort of. I added the second sheet so they could be put closer together than they can on just one sheet.
That's why I need to try and get all the most useful shapes ready made.
They're solid grey, just a bit darker than neutral grey, and because they are mapped symbols I can use an Overlay Blend Mode to make them take up the colour of the terrain.
The blend mode does odd things around the edges if I feather the edge of the symbol, so the EFI after the Blend Mode is to soften the base and help the hill sit into the terrain.
They're relatively simple map files, exported from Blender. I made a material that could mimic a map file and put it on a very simplified 'Landscape' object. The blue part of the map material is a simple blue material that reflects more or less light from the 'BLUE SUN' directly above it. The red part of the material is a radial gradient based on the normals of the object faces, and expressed as an emission, rather than reflected light. That way it stays constant depending on the direction each face is facing, and regardless of the sun.
The grey image is a gradient material that maps only the parts of the ladscape above a certain point.
I think the colour is an acquired taste, possibly, or maybe it's never found in direct juxtaposition with Himalayan alpine tundra (the mountain ridge textures).
While everyone is considering the colours generally (not just the deserts) I will carry on with the mountain ridges.
Comments
I agree with @Rosemont_Line — these Style Development threads are my favorite. The arctic options are great, and I am looking forward to all the options: grassy, arid, arctic, the works. I am also hoping for the possibility of a complimentary regional map in the future.
Ah, no. They aren't filigree wonders, Quenten. Just carefully matched background textures. Here's the Arctic version without the map file, in an 'as-drawn' state - before exporting to png for CC3+. It just happens to be a really good match for the snow fill in CC. That's partly because it IS the snow fill, and partly because I've made it just the right amount darker and duller.
Map files shade fantastically, but they also make everything brighter and more vivid than the original.
I guess I'd better do a desert one as well...
@Rosemont_Line - Thank you :)
One of the reasons it's taking so long to make one mountain ridge is the hand drawn map file. If you look at the layers panel on the right you will see how much fiddling is involved. There is a way to export map files from FT3 and Wilbur, but I have found them to be too good - too detailed to work well. So I drew a grossly simplified one by hand, as if this was a house symbol, rather than a mountain.
I am hoping to get faster and tidier as I do more of them.
The smudge/smear tool leaves a lot to be desired in Affinity, or these would be smoother transitions ;)
Just so pleased Joe had leapt in with the geomorphology/geology explanation for you before I was back online to find you'd essentially asked the question you did without asking, Sue, if you follow 😉! Saved me a lot of effort and time certainly, as a once-upon geologist 😊.
As for remembering the names of things in geology (and pretty much every other subject), it's just the jargon, which as with anything, you'll remember if you use it often enough, and have to look it up every time if you don't!
And things take the time to create that they do. Exploring new ways of doing things doesn't mean following a simple, easy, linear route those who haven't done that before can assume sometimes, after all 😁!
Wyvern said...
Just so pleased Joe had leapt in with the geomorphology/geology explanation for you before I was back online to find you'd essentially asked the question you did without asking, Sue, if you follow 😉! Saved me a lot of effort and time certainly, as a once-upon geologist 😊.
It was a very interesting explanation!
As for remembering the names of things in geology (and pretty much every other subject), it's just the jargon, which as with anything, you'll remember if you use it often enough, and have to look it up every time if you don't!
I think I gave up about 100 pages into "Rocks and Minerals The Definitive Visual Guide" by Ronald Louis Bonewitz. It wasn't a course book, but a recommended tool for identification purposes. I still have it on my bookshelf - for identifying things. Maybe it goes into too much detail on the chemistry of each mineral. It all vanishes into a blur in my memory. I love watching Myron Cook videos on Youtube, though. I think process interests me far more than chemistry.
And things take the time to create that they do. Exploring new ways of doing things doesn't mean following a simple, easy, linear route those who haven't done that before can assume sometimes, after all 😁!
Absolutely true! I've shown some of the wacky things I tried along the way, but only about half of it.
For geology, I was fortunate in studying it first at school, as there was a strong physical element to the curriculum. We did have textbooks with all the chemical technicalities in (particularly at uni), but the key thing was you had to be able to identify actual rock and mineral specimens, and (for minerals especially) know what field tests you had to carry out to confirm a visual examination - especially as that latter often isn't as useful as you might hope. And then there were the fossils, which is a whole different ball-game, though often essential for identifying the ages of sedimentary rocks!
I don't think we got as far as fossils. Shame, really. I'm very interested in Palaeontology, and binge watch hours and hours of video documentaries relating to that.
Come to think of it, most of what I know today is generally from watching documentaries and Youtube videos.
Sorry, @Royal Scribe For some reason I missed your earlier comment in the turn of the page.
Thank you :)
I don't think we got as far as fossils. Shame, really. I'm very interested in Palaeontology, and binge watch hours and hours of video documentaries relating to that.
So we can expect to see more fossils in Sue-designed dungeon styles in future then 😉?
I walked right into that one! LOL!
Thank you so much for this, Ms. Sue. I can't tell you how much I appreciate all your artwork.
Cal
I haven't done any more mountain ridges, but I have worked out a way to make hill symbols that let the underlying terrain texture show through them.
What are the most useful shapes for hills, seen top view?
These shapes are good but I would also do some more circular ones. Do they cluster well together or do they look weird if they overlap?
Yeah, roundish or shorter would be good.
They look weird if they overlap on the same sheet, but ok if you use a second sheet for the ones on top.
In a top view style there's not much point in overlapping them too much. It's not like an isometric view.
Yeah, I was just thinking that overlapping might allow the mapper to get different shapes, but I guess that could happen by putting them close to each other.
They don't really change the shape of the underlying hill because all of them are transparent - sort of. I added the second sheet so they could be put closer together than they can on just one sheet.
That's why I need to try and get all the most useful shapes ready made.
Symbols that are mostly transparent white with a normal map?
They're solid grey, just a bit darker than neutral grey, and because they are mapped symbols I can use an Overlay Blend Mode to make them take up the colour of the terrain.
The blend mode does odd things around the edges if I feather the edge of the symbol, so the EFI after the Blend Mode is to soften the base and help the hill sit into the terrain.
They're relatively simple map files, exported from Blender. I made a material that could mimic a map file and put it on a very simplified 'Landscape' object. The blue part of the map material is a simple blue material that reflects more or less light from the 'BLUE SUN' directly above it. The red part of the material is a radial gradient based on the normals of the object faces, and expressed as an emission, rather than reflected light. That way it stays constant depending on the direction each face is facing, and regardless of the sun.
The grey image is a gradient material that maps only the parts of the ladscape above a certain point.
Those are awesome.
Thank you, Don :)
There are 3 ways to make hills in this style.
Just what the doctor ordered, Sue.
Have I mentioned lately that I can’t wait til March? Worth repeating.
Thank you, both :)
If the symbols take on the terrain texture of the terrain beneath it, what happens when a hill symbol is placed on the rough ground texture?
The result is a combination of both - like you get with a bevel hill.
I'm messing with the colours. I made all the tree textures darker and adjusted the rest of the textures to fit.
An improvement?
Personally, I'm not very keen on the red desert alternative, but it's a real thing. What do you think?
I like the darker colors in general, but I prefer the yellower desert.
Both are available. The desert is drawn on both sheets, so you hide one and show the other.
Definitely need red deserts - I am sure you understand as I am from australia, home of vast areas of red desert.
I think the colour is an acquired taste, possibly, or maybe it's never found in direct juxtaposition with Himalayan alpine tundra (the mountain ridge textures).
While everyone is considering the colours generally (not just the deserts) I will carry on with the mountain ridges.