Thanks for your comments, CC!
I totally understand your point of view regarding direction of light and shadow. However, in all my maps the information to the reader of what terrain lies above the other for game playing purposes is more important than maintaining proper shadow direction. In addition, most maps of this style would most likely be used in a virtual tabletop application. In those applications, light sources are located in the hands and visual range of the PCs with fog of war effects (what is outside their visual range is blacked out). Predefined directional light is less useful when a map is used in VT app.
I've used 3D applications for 10 years, though much less so in recent years, so I am very familiar with proper light and shadow based single and multiple light sources, ambient light, reflective light - which I consider great training in the understanding of light and shadow. So I understand what some terrain should appear under proper light and shadow. However, even for my photo-realistic maps like these, they are intentionally informative game maps first, and photos of some piece of terrain second. Conveying the information of what sits above the other (ledges, cave walls, building walls) casting some shadow on the floor/wall beneath is more important than maintaining directional light and shadow.
The mammoth you'll notice has a glow type shadow (though a slight drop shadow is in there too). Glow shadows are especially useful for objects for VT apps - again in an effort to not predefine light direction.
The mammoth, like the maps are beveled vector shapes with fur image fills (fractal cloud color on the tusks) and shadowing.
Its not because of a misunderstanding of directional light, my shadows are done this way intentionally.
I do, however, create maps with proper directional light and shadow - when the effect of doing so is informative for a particular map (especially when I want to show shape of object detail in shadows of trees, columns, buildings and other verticle objects). If I'm not shooting for that effect, I do what you see in these maps.
Aside from not being able to do actual image editing and bump mapping - yes, Xara can do most of what Photoshop can do with layer effects.
Reply With Quote