I'll second jfrazierjr there...
but i'd go over the river with a nice scatter brush, maybe a bit cloudy and make some highlights and ripples... On some places the highlights is a bit off and you can cover those areas with some ripples and foam
(chalk brush, 2-3px size, 100% size and angle jitter, scatter a bit, for/back color jitter with white and a light blue, apply with 30-50% opac and draw along the edges)
Thank you, but I can't really take credit here. It's basically Pyrandon's (shame on me for the probable misspelling) technique from his tutorial with some minor variations (for example using more different heights and more spotty strokes).Originally Posted by jfrazierjr
I was trying to get something to that effect, so thanks for that gift on a silver platter. Also using a chalk brush is just ingenious and plays very well on my compulsive need for minute details
Last learned: Changing layers in PS to Smart Objects before Free Transforming them allows lossless transformations.
The chalkbrush is also good for trees and foliage on a smallish scale (tends to look a bit to cloudy if too big >20px) and you can make great ice and snow with it too...
The chalkbrush is my go-to brush when I just need something quick or I don't have any custom brush
i didnt draw the river...that's an actual screenshot of the Mississippi River i prnt-scrn-ed from Google Earth....
I don't think you'd actually be able to get any idea of direction at this distance. The speed the water would need to be moving at for you to be able to discern movement at this scale would have to be pretty intense. Maybe you could add some disturbance on the downstream side of stuff sitting in the water?
Beyond that, having that much contrast and cloudiness in the water makes it look more like non-stop white water rapids. I would expect to see a more even tone, with the color growing darker where the deepest water lies. Have you tried wandering around google maps looking for reference material?
Next: 20+ rambling questions with Nytmare!
I tend to see town building as a kind of storytelling. The following questions and critiques aren't necessarily me saying that I think you've done something wrong. They're more me wondering what the story is that explains why things are the way they are.
What do you see the purpose of that wall as? It blocks off the river, but has wide ungated openings at 3 points around the city. To the north, it has two huge towers looming over a tiny footpath right next to a gap the size of a football field. It would appear to be primarily guarding the stretch of river around the bridge and stopping people from being able to use the river as a means of travel? Is it meant as some kind of blockade?
I have to agree with Torstan. The city walls and the bridge would cross the river as directly as possible. Building over water is much harder than building on solid ground, and they'd avoid it as much as they possibly could.
Do the people in that town use the river? There are lots of small buildings along the waterline inside the walls, but the main access to the water appears to be that one road to the east of the city on the north shore. I'd expect the river to be much more central to the layout of the city, and have it choked with buildings and docks and markets. There's also that little inlet to the northwest. It seems bizarre that something like that exists and there aren't people taking advantage of it. It almost feels like the river is more in the way of the people who live there than it is the reason why they're there.
There are a lot of really big structures outside that wall, much bigger than any of the dwellings inside. The roads inside the walls are nice and wide and made of gravel, but there are very few, practically unused roads outside the walls leading to the largest buildings. What does a layout like that mean to you?
I'd expect almost the opposite to be true. I'd think that the older city was more chaotic and had lots of small buildings built on top of each other around some central landmark with narrow twisting roads springing up between them. Then, as the city grew, and as it drew more people to it for goods and services, the larger buildings would start springing up on the outskirts, wider roads would be needed to accomodate all the extra people, better roads would be needed to handle all of the carts.
Great points Nyt and I agree with every one of them since I approach city building the same way...storytelling combined with practicality. As Sigurd says, "The buildings look convenient to the mapper and not the citizens", which is the single best bit of advice for city building I've ever come across.
If the radiance of a thousand suns was to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...I am become Death, the Shatterer of worlds.
-J. Robert Oppenheimer (father of the atom bomb) alluding to The Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 11, Verse 32)
My Maps ~ My Brushes ~ My Tutorials ~ My Challenge Maps
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote