A link to a page all about tessellations, which will help enormously with getting to grips with the situation by helping me to decide about footprint shapes and sizes, and an additional thought - to have them snap to a grid if preferred by the user, rather than just plonking them down any old how. I'd keep both alternatives - a matter of turning snap on or off, but its nice to know that the more precise individual can line them up 'just so' if required.
If I use as many different shaped footprints as I can reasonably fit into a standard set of mountain symbols (the set may have to be a bit larger than is usual to cope with repetition problems that might otherwise become obvious in a range of mountains that don't actually overlap all that much and hide different bits of each other each time) there's no need for them to look artificially lined up - not even if they are all plopped down in the same row.
I might also do quite a few that are combined footprint shapes - as you suggest. That's good too. It means that if I'm basing it all on the same tessellation pattern the mountains can still all be different shapes and sizes, even though they are at the same scale
EDIT: and there's just no way I would ever ask you to do all that coding for a single unproven and as yet never drawn style
Posted By: Loopysueand there's just no way I would ever ask you to do all that coding for a single unproven and as yet never drawn style
General heightmap manipulation is on my list for other reasons. Composing a heightfield based on chunks like I described is just one aspect of that sort of thing.
For the map, you might want to consider having the unused parts of the map as (0,0,128) to represent a flat area. It probably wouldn't hurt to lose the soft edge on the mask as well. I don't think that the system samples map pixels where the alpha channel is fully transparent, but it never hurts to be sure.
I am just following the instructions in his new tutorial on how to make Wilbur mountains for CC3+
He uploaded it a few comments back. Anyone can do it
(as for why I'm still awake at 5 am, you can blame the gale that's rippling the tiles across the roof like all the horses hooves beating the ground in a battle charge, and causing all the security lights for miles around to flash on and off. Its also setting the car alarms off every ten minutes or so. And its louder than any thunderstorm, hailstorm, or firework display rolled into one.)
I think trying to add a stone texture is a bit of a mistake. The shading is so detailed that all it does is interfere with the shading, so the third attempt will just have a plain coloured bitmap, probably with altitude banding of some kind. Maybe derived from Wilbur
I think I will also try a few different kinds of mountains. I need mesa, and then there are cliffs, and ravines.... burble-burble-burble....
@Joe - is there a way to slightly bias the shading so that the average face of the slope is taken into account? I think that might help make them look a bit more pointy, like they are standing up out of the page.
At the moment every single rill has a fully lit face and a fully shaded face.
Maybe if I make the erosion quite a lot more subtle? As in - don't make the rivers so deep and sharp?
Note to self: When having a brilliant idea about using the background paper as the texture for the mountain bitmap, be sure to make sure that the paper is mid tone, not nearly white!
One way to reduce the overall apparent detail level is to reduce the intensity of the normal map by reducing the scale value that you enter when saving it.
I will try some different numbers, and maybe use other different types of export to enhance the detail of the visible bitmap - as you suggest in your tutorial
And I promise I will try not to give everyone snow blindness again :P
Gong to take a short break from doing the mountains. Its occurred to me that I really need to generate an acceptable 'Mountain' fill to sit these mountains on. I think I may already have done it with the 'Land' fill here, but I may need to think a bit more about the overall colour scheme.
Once I've got it right, that will dictate the colour of the roots of each mountain at least, whatever else I do with them.
The shaded mountains are why I'm also trying to develop a suitable set of top down textures to use them with. The projects are running in tandem, but slowly - because I keep hopping backwards and forwards between them.
These are looking awesome Sue! I wonder if you will do a whole range symbol too instead of just one mountain at a time? I'm only asking because I'm lazy and don't want to lift that much rock :P
Comments
A link to a page all about tessellations, which will help enormously with getting to grips with the situation by helping me to decide about footprint shapes and sizes, and an additional thought - to have them snap to a grid if preferred by the user, rather than just plonking them down any old how. I'd keep both alternatives - a matter of turning snap on or off, but its nice to know that the more precise individual can line them up 'just so' if required.
If I use as many different shaped footprints as I can reasonably fit into a standard set of mountain symbols (the set may have to be a bit larger than is usual to cope with repetition problems that might otherwise become obvious in a range of mountains that don't actually overlap all that much and hide different bits of each other each time) there's no need for them to look artificially lined up - not even if they are all plopped down in the same row.
I might also do quite a few that are combined footprint shapes - as you suggest. That's good too. It means that if I'm basing it all on the same tessellation pattern the mountains can still all be different shapes and sizes, even though they are at the same scale
EDIT: and there's just no way I would ever ask you to do all that coding for a single unproven and as yet never drawn style
Here's my first experimental mountain. It doesn't work, and I don't understand why.
This is the texture file (I thought I'd go with the conventional idea and have some kind of stone-like image to shade - albeit rather crude right now.
[Image_10116]
And here is the map file. Maybe I did something wrong, I just don't know.
[Image_10117]
And you know what? I've just realised what it is. I've misspelt the filename on the map file! DOH! *rolls eyes at self*
For the map, you might want to consider having the unused parts of the map as (0,0,128) to represent a flat area. It probably wouldn't hurt to lose the soft edge on the mask as well. I don't think that the system samples map pixels where the alpha channel is fully transparent, but it never hurts to be sure.
And I'll be trying all kinds of variations as well as attempting to improve my Wilbur techniques
This is the first test mountain - working, now that I've corrected the file name.
The dark fringe around the edge is, I think, part of the problem with fading to black on the map file to match the fade on the image file
Its really late over here (2.47 am) so I'd best get to bed. I just had to get to this point before I put it down for the night.
I am just following the instructions in his new tutorial on how to make Wilbur mountains for CC3+
He uploaded it a few comments back. Anyone can do it
(as for why I'm still awake at 5 am, you can blame the gale that's rippling the tiles across the roof like all the horses hooves beating the ground in a battle charge, and causing all the security lights for miles around to flash on and off. Its also setting the car alarms off every ten minutes or so. And its louder than any thunderstorm, hailstorm, or firework display rolled into one.)
I should have a second attempt to upload in a few minutes...
Here is the rather delayed second attempt.
I think I will also try a few different kinds of mountains. I need mesa, and then there are cliffs, and ravines.... burble-burble-burble....
@Joe - is there a way to slightly bias the shading so that the average face of the slope is taken into account? I think that might help make them look a bit more pointy, like they are standing up out of the page.
At the moment every single rill has a fully lit face and a fully shaded face.
Maybe if I make the erosion quite a lot more subtle? As in - don't make the rivers so deep and sharp?
The bit where it says 70 mph on the first map is right over where I live.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42549441?ns_mchannel=email&ns_source=newsdaily_newsletter&ns_campaign=NEWS_NLB_Wk1_Weds_3_Jan&ns_linkname=bbcnews_eleanor_newsuk_eleanor&ns_fee=0
Ignoring the blinding brightness (if you can), does this look a bit better?
[Image_10120]
I used the exported height map as a layer in the GIMP file in screen mode to highlight the ridges.
(Oh please don't groan too loud. My head hurts! LOL!)
I'm going to go and try to get a couple of hours sleep before I have to go and see mum.
TTFN
I will try some different numbers, and maybe use other different types of export to enhance the detail of the visible bitmap - as you suggest in your tutorial
And I promise I will try not to give everyone snow blindness again :P
Once I've got it right, that will dictate the colour of the roots of each mountain at least, whatever else I do with them.
These are only the early stages yet. I'm hoping to do all kinds of different things
Great work.
Cavan
All I'm doing is following Joe Slayton's instructions from his latest tutorial on using Wilbur to create shaded mountains.
When I've perfected it (there are still a few things that aren't quite right) I'll see about making them available as some kind of symbol set
The shaded mountains are why I'm also trying to develop a suitable set of top down textures to use them with. The projects are running in tandem, but slowly - because I keep hopping backwards and forwards between them.