I really like the look and thanks for the guide you attached earlier, very interesting reading.
Korba
I really like the look and thanks for the guide you attached earlier, very interesting reading.
Korba
No prob. And thank you for the praise.
Okay, so it's been a while since I posted anything. Mostly I haven't had much time to work on things since I started my new job; picking at them here and there when I have a free 15 minutes... Anyways, I'm posting now for two reasons: 1) I am still around.And 2) I have a map I'd like some feedback on because I introduced new terrain (snow and tundra) and I want to know if it looks good to the experienced eyes lingering around here.
PEACH!
Hey, great work, looks like a great start.
For some reason the rivers seem to be at a higher level than the surrounding land, it may be my eyes but they don't seem to be 'sunken' into the land at all, maybe some sort of shading might help them blend in?? I think some of them look like they are running along the top of a line of hills rather than seeking lower ground.
Also, the snowy mountains don't seem to rise up particularly from the land, looking instead like fairly flat rough texture.
It may all just be my eyes this morning though!
Your work on the islands looks stunning, they really rise up from the sea. Your work on the coastline is good attention to detail too with all the little crinkles that are indicative of smaller rivers hitting the sea. Nice.
I can see how you could perceive the rivers that way. I think the lighter colored areas are supposed to be the valleys or plains, and the darker are supposed to be the hills. Thinking that, the rivers should be traveling from one hill or valley to another. Are there specific rivers which give the wrong impression, or just all of them, in general?
I'm glad you like the coast and islands. They're probably my more favorite parts, actually.
EDIT: When I said "hill or valley", I meant "plain or valley". Whoops.
Last edited by DgtlDrgn; 11-23-2011 at 06:20 PM.
Alright, a long time coming, and obviously still not finished...
Attached is the first and second continents of my still-unnamed world. (I've been wracking my brains for appropriate names, but still can't decide... I'm hoping, as I continue to work, that something will come to me.)
I'm really looking for some strong criticism, one way or another. I know a few things that I like and don't like, but I want to see if anyone else thinks the same or if it's just my closeness to the project that makes me (dis)like these things...
Thank you, and PEACH!
Altough i am impressed by the quality of the textures and considering the amount of work on this map, i can't get out of my mind the idea that, from far, your map looks like it has a kind of skin disease... that don't show up in the zooms. Unless this is what you looked for, this is pretty obvious in the northern region (toundra and snow) : these patches of flat lands are a bit disturbing... I can't figure if they are flat because they lack of vegetation or if it is because of a difference of elevation. It fits well in the wet areas, because it can mark the difference between forests and glades, incidentally.
Yes, it's supposed to be elevation differences, kind of to show hills. However, I see what you're saying, and I think a large part of it is that the shading is so stark on the hills, the elevation changes so drastic, that it looks really... well... sick. Perhaps, if I go in and change some of the areas to be larger plains or concentrated hills, and show more non-uniform variation, that might help. What do you think? Any suggestions how to change or fix it?
Also, regarding your forests and glades perceptions, I've been debating whether I should actually try to make forests and vegetation, or leave that out of the overworld map, using the coloring alone to depict vegetation. Thoughts?
IMO the difficulty to depict hills is somewhat related to global shading, in a sense where there is no real indication of lightsource. Sometimes i see the whiter patches as flat lands, and in another part of the map as a potential elevation... I have no precise idea how to fix it, but larger plains should be a good try. For example, i find the top-right-toundra-part better than the middle-part of the same region...Originally Posted by DgtlDrgn
I don't think adding vegetation would improve anything on a map of this size. Coloring seems very good to me. For the glades, should i suggest to add some water, like drawing inlets as in the everglades ?
Samples of what i mean here and here.
Yes, it's supposed to be elevation differences, kind of to show hills. However, I see what you're saying, and I think a large part of it is that the shading is so stark on the hills, the elevation changes so drastic, that it looks really... well... sick. Perhaps, if I go in and change some of the areas to be larger plains or concentrated hills, and show more non-uniform variation, that might help. What do you think? Any suggestions how to change or fix it?
Also, regarding your forests and glades perceptions, I've been debating whether I should actually try to make forests and vegetation, or leave that out of the overworld map, using the coloring alone to depict vegetation. Thoughts?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote