Biggest thing is the Buildings. The Walls, Docks, etc all have a glow/shadow, but the buildings have none. As a result, there is a disassociation when looking at the map.
Biggest thing is the Buildings. The Walls, Docks, etc all have a glow/shadow, but the buildings have none. As a result, there is a disassociation when looking at the map.
Daniel the Neon Knight: Campaign Cartographer User
Never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice!
Any questions on CC3? Post them with CC3 in the Subject Line!
MY 'FAMOUS' CC3 MAPS: Thunderspire; Pyramid of Shadows; King of the Trollhaunt Warrens; Demon Queen's Enclave
I agree that the buildings could use some shadow. What I really like is the organic feel to the city, like it was built over time, rather than in a day
I'm stuck on the grid too often.
cheers,
Meshon
Thanks Folks. Especially about the building shadow. They did actually have one, the layer just got turned off somehow. Ooops. Put it back on.
Ascension, thanks for noticing all the shadow discrepancies. The light was supposed to be lower left. As soon as I turned the building shadows back on it became pretty evident. Don't know how the wall shadows ended up wrong. Okay, I do, I missed a "-" sign, carelessness I guess. I also turned the Inn with the bad shadow. There are probably a couple more little ones like that. I twisted a handfull when I was putting the roads in just to get them to line up. The little ones are probably okay since they are so small and unnoticeable.
As for the grass . . . I tried a solid colour and it was just wrong. With the emboss it looked waaaay wierd. I have come up with something though. I tossed int a noise turned green gradient layer over the grass and lowered its transparency to 75%. Now it has just a hint of that former grass texture and a much better look. I also killed the embossed layer and added a simple radial gradient set to overlay. That way the ground just gets a bit darker as it descends. I think this gives enough of a hint of the descending slope to do what I need.
Hmmmm, can't seem to upload it, I have to go will try again in an hour or so. Sorry for the wait
Hmmm. . . couldn't direct upload that one. Oh well, this is why I have a photobucket account.
Here it is, the new and improved picture. Now with 30% better grass, building drop shadows, a consistent light source and Vitamin M (for map - cause we all need it).
It is interesting to watch the evolution of a map...
The first thing I noticed when I zoomed in and took a look at your map, your docks are on top of some of your buildings. I would use layers to ensure that each layer didn't end up on top of something it belonged under. I would use layers: 1) Ground, 2) Roads (and docks), 3) Buildings, 4) Walls, 5) Clouds.
The second thing I notice is that your shrunken buildings are nothing more than re-sized bigger buildings. I would use two or three sets of buildings to replicate into the various areas of your map to keep them unique and from looking like the other areas you used to create them in the first place. Changing colors could also help with this.
My final observation is more of a question... why does this city have so many walls dividing it up like that? I'd love to hear your story about this city. Construction of walls is expensive and labor intensive. To have so many walls, the builders must have some reason for dividing the city up like this. Many historical cities have concentric walls that were built as a result of the city growing out of its original walls and requiring new walls to protect the new city sections. This alone creates different textures due to the era in which the construction happened. I like to think about "why" a particular area in my town exists, who lives there, are they rich or poor? Is there a special area of commerce or defensive feature to that part of town. Like writing a story, your city map can tell your story as you envision it while you are creating it.
Keep going, I'll be curious to see how it develops.
It's coming along really nicely, I like the 'cliff' suggestion along the coast and the use of the internal walls.
What I'm not too sure about is the underlying structure of the city, the scaling of the buildings and how they are placed in relation to each other - possibly that may be the something that 'is not right' in your title. Here are a few thoughts:
1. Buildings tend to be oriented at right angles to the roads next to them, although many of the buildings in the map are oriented in this way, there are many which are not. This tends to give the impression (to me) of randomness.
2. I think one of the problems about using pregenerated symbols, particularly where they are quite detailed (e.g. with tiled roofs) is that when you scale them to different sizes the details (like the tiles) scale too. So what you end up with are large buildings with the same number of roof tiles but larger, when one would expect the same sized tile as smaller buildings but more of them. I'm not sure whether the eye picks this up in any conscious way or whether I'm looking too hard, but it reinforces the fact that the same buildings have been used and scaled which doesn't help with consistency.
3. A related problem might also be the relative sizes of the small buildings to the larger ones. With the larger buildings one would expect to see something more ornate or complex in structure, e.g with courtyards or wings etc. If the smallest buildings are, say, 3m X 2m, then the larger ones are about 18m x 12m. Buildings that big are unlikely to look like a normal square or rectangular gabled house - most of the internal rooms would have no light at all, unless most of the building was an open space. Unfortunately this is one of the perils of city building, the more detail you put in, the more detail you have to think about and insert to make the whole thing consistent - it drives you mad after a while.
Anyway hope the above is helpful, perhaps to bear in mind for your next city!
Ah… huge improvement. It's looking much more cohesive now, which is doubtless why the critique has shifted from style to content.
Bryan Ray, visual effects artist
http://www.bryanray.name
Thanks for all the comments folks.
I think the biggest remaining problem is the lack of variety in the buildings. For all of size, detail, and orientation, more building variety could solve the issue. Essentially I need more brush pipes and more in each pipe.
Ravells - on the scale issue, you are right but the roof tiles are not that bad (mostly can't be seen) at the resolution that it will be printed out at (it will be a standard sheet of paper), it's the chimneys that get me. I noticed it right away. The eye definitely picks that up.
This too will be solved with more brush pipes. I should be able to get a consistant detail scale with 4 brush pipes. It takes a few minutes to build every building so I think it may be a while before I get that done.
For now I think I am satisfied with the results. Time to move on. I've done the regional, I've done the city, now for battlemap and buildings.
Got yer head in the right place....get it done and move on or you get bogged down. Good thinking.
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
