Vale of Tears

[Steel General]

Played around with the shadows and highlights a bit, I think it's better now.

@JFJr - Thanks for the quick example.

[jfrazierjr]

Played around with the shadows and highlights a bit, I think it's better now.

@JFJr - Thanks for the quick example.

Your welcome.

The only problem I have with this version is they look more like raised platforms instead of mounds of dirt. This is of course assuming that I am thinking of your intent more... (say, shaped like an eggshell cut directly in half, or close to this), then you need the shadows and highlights up "higher" toward the center to round it out.

[jfrazierjr]

Also, I wonder how it might look to the have the dark obelisks have small mounds beneath them also...

[Redrobes]

Much better. I think most barrows were in fact fairly flat. There was a wall of stones around the edge and piles of stones making up passages throughout depending on size then the whole lot covered with earth. So if it was small then it would be mound like but if large then fairly flattish I would think.

This is near to me. Its called Nine Barrows or Nine burrows. Though there are way more than 9 up there. They are fairly humpy and many have collapsed in the middle.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...26178&t=h&z=16

Heres another. Its a stinker to find on the map but I know it well enough to find it. You can go here and ask the farm for the key and go inside as it was restored. I have the photos somewhere but I cant find them now.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...01636&t=h&z=20

Heres another famous one next to Avebury and Silbury Hill just north, scroll up to see that too.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl...03272&t=h&z=19

So not all just humps but various shapes and sometimes a bit flatter on top. I am no expert in ancient archeology tho. All these are just toursity places close to home.

[jfrazierjr]

Much better. I think most barrows were in fact fairly flat. There was a wall of stones around the edge and piles of stones making up passages throughout depending on size then the whole lot covered with earth. So if it was small then it would be mound like but if large then fairly flattish I would think.

That may be, but the ones here look too perfect. To me, it looks like a round selection was made and a bevel tool was run on the selection. They would have to be very good builders to make perfectly round mounds at the same height all the way around... They should look like they were hand built out of the dirt and each should look slightly different from the others as the light would not play the same unless the surface underneath it was exactly the same on all of them. I am no expect on barrows, but my understanding was that they were just big mounds of dirt used to cover dead people and I don't think most people would spend the time to make them flat on top to any great degree of effort.

[Redrobes]

Yes they are a bit too perfect. Barrows had chambers in them and contained lots of stiffs. The little token thing posted above is for the top view and interior. Each of the chambers had several people in them I believe.

That one which is a stinker. Heres the online guide book with an intrior map no less - how nice of them

http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/BathNES/en...nGuideBook.htm

For the life of me I cant find my pics of this place when I went there. Its probably when my HDD died and I lost some stuff.

[Steel General]

Hmmmm...you guys both bring up some great points, and examples. I think I want to lean a bit more toward having them somewhat flat on the top and not a complete dome, so I think they still need a little bit more work.

@JFJr - I like the idea of the obelisks also being on small mounds, but I don't want it to look to busy so maybe only the ones around the outside of the smaller barrows. I'll give it a go and see how I like it.

[Hoel]

Some mounds and barrows have flat tops. Mostly from brave adventurers digging it up to get the loots.
Here's a picture of Uppsala Högar (Uppsala Mounds)
Here's a bronze age stone mound from Ekornavallen close to my home
Here's Anundshög with a flattened top due to grave rob.. eh.. adventurers.
Here's Grönehög with more recent (192 excavations

Well, you get the picture. All those are a couple of thousand years old and erosion has done alot to flatten them. Newer mounds should be rounded according to the experts.

I don't like the mounds under the obelisks. They don't blend well with the heightmap. If you want them to blend better, try putting some stone slab under them, or some sort of plinth or something. Maybe a ring of smaller stones?

[jfrazierjr]

Hmmmm...you guys both bring up some great points, and examples. I think I want to lean a bit more toward having them somewhat flat on the top and not a complete dome, so I think they still need a little bit more work.

@JFJr - I like the idea of the obelisks also being on small mounds, but I don't want it to look to busy so maybe only the ones around the outside of the smaller barrows. I'll give it a go and see how I like it.

If you want them a bit flatter, you still follow the same process with the dodge/burn, just don't dodge/burn all the way into the center and Gassian blur less so you have a slightly harder transition line. If that leaves the bottom one a bit too hard, you can always go around the outside perimeter with the blur tool to manually soften that line OR Circle select somewhere between your base height and where you mound is flat and then invert the selection before you Blur the layer(this would be a second stronger blur) and that would keep the "top" a bit harder line than the one at the "bottom" of the mound.

[jfrazierjr]

Some mounds and barrows have flat tops. Mostly from brave adventurers digging it up to get the loots.
Here's a picture of Uppsala Högar (Uppsala Mounds)
Here's a bronze age stone mound from Ekornavallen close to my home
Here's Anundshög with a flattened top due to grave rob.. eh.. adventurers.
Here's Grönehög with more recent (192 excavations

Well, you get the picture. All those are a couple of thousand years old and erosion has done alot to flatten them. Newer mounds should be rounded according to the experts.

I don't like the mounds under the obelisks. They don't blend well with the heightmap. If you want them to blend better, try putting some stone slab under them, or some sort of plinth or something. Maybe a ring of smaller stones?

Exactly. The point is that they are all still "mostly" slope(instead of a bit of slope and then mostly flat), so you would get a variation in shadows and highlights based on the source of the light.

So, Given a 10 foot round mound, even if you have a 3 foot flat section on the top (say it's 6 foot tall, then on the shadow side, you would not have the same shadows at 6 inches from the top as you would have at 3 foot from the top and you would have even deeper shadows at the bottom. My end point is that you can fake depth in some applications by using effects such as bevel and sometimes this works. But other times it does not and it ends up looking fake and forced and that's what I see here(sorry SG, not to rag on your great work!)