[WIP] INFRA by SAC

Samwise · Post by **Samwise** » 19 Nov 2006 15:17

Viewing from your last screenshot, I wonder how 2 vehicles will fit next to eachother on those dirty-roads and the wooden bridge? It looks like the roads are smaller in the way you drew them..

Raven · Post by **Raven** » 19 Nov 2006 15:24

I feel the way in which vegetation extends to the sides of this tree gives the impression of it being flat (like if it were in front of a viewer standing on the ground), rather than from an eagleview.

SAC · Post by **SAC** » 19 Nov 2006 15:50

Darkmast49 wrote:Viewing from your last screenshot, I wonder how 2 vehicles will fit next to eachother on those dirty-roads and the wooden bridge? It looks like the roads are smaller in the way you drew them..

They aren't! It's just visual. The size of the normal roads, (in width), the dirt roads, and the wodden bridge is equally the same. If you look at the dirt road you can see that the outer lines are a bit darker compared to the other dirt. That's because I wanted to add the realism of vehicles often chosing to drive in the middle of these roads - as they're in fact dirt roads and not as solid as asphalt roads - unless they're meeting a vehicle from the opposite direction in which they chose the proper side. And that's the reason as to why the outer lines are darker, thus not as much driven on as the inner parts of the road!

Raven wrote:I feel the way in which vegetation extends to the sides of this tree gives the impression of it being flat (like if it were in front of a viewer standing on the ground), rather than from an eagleview.

You're absolutely right! I've noticed this too, and obviously I need to make this better!

Raven · Post by **Raven** » 19 Nov 2006 16:06

Have you got a limited amount of trees?

If not, adding ( to prevent clipping, small bits of) vegetation as an individual tree could prove useful. (I did so in one handdrawn minimalistic project of mine, even included some truncks, rests of firecamps, flower patchs, and tombs? <-- Didn't remember those

Also, special trees for the rocky grounds being just rocks could add variation to those otherwise good looking mountains.

If there's not such a chance, then it's fine.

Co-RNeR · Post by **Co-RNeR** » 19 Nov 2006 16:17

SAC wrote:If you think some of the stuff looks like crap, say so!

Sister: Why is he wearing a straightjacket doctor?
Doctor: Isnt' it obvious, sister. This man is raving, he's mad. The only thing he does is thrashing his arms, and scream 'WANT...IT...NOW'.
Sister: Sounds serious doctor.
Doctor: So you say, sister. More worying though, is that lately it's been reported from all over the world.
Sister: MY GOD! It's pandemic?
Doctor: I'm afraid so. Researchers refer to is as 'Spontaneous Aftermath of Crap', SAC for short.

If the above really happened, I think your work is crap SAC

Post by **Dave** » 19 Nov 2006 17:29

Amusing.

SAC · Post by **SAC** » 19 Nov 2006 19:05

Yeah, amuzing!

Still, people have different tastes and preferences. I just want to hear criticism as well!

Raven wrote:Have you got a limited amount of trees?

Well, limited as in 19 trees available for the temperate climate. I understood from something Patchman said over IRC that it wasn't possible to add more trees as they didn't used ID's!

Or something like that anyway!

19 trees seems like a lot, but when you start fiddling with them you soon realize that there could be a few more to fill "a gap"!

If not, adding ( to prevent clipping, small bits of) vegetation as an individual tree could prove useful. (I did so in one handdrawn minimalistic project of mine, even included some truncks, rests of firecamps, flower patchs, and tombs? <-- Didn't remember those

I agree! I have for instance replaced one tree with a rock, (different size and shape as each tree has 7 stages), for the ability to have some of those also on lower levels - apart from adding more shape to the mountains. But with additional trees I could certainly add more realistic stuff such as the ones you mentioned. I even had an idea to add animals to one of those tree sprites. Another good idea with this is that since each tree uses 7 sprites for their stages, one can have 7 different graphics for each and everyone of them; like a rock for sprite 1, a small pond for the second, some animals on the third, and so on. With all the stages running in a cycle it would mean a great variety!

Anyways, for this I would certainly need at least one more tree. I have already replaced one tree sprite and I'm not sure of it's such a great idea to replace yet another one. I could of course get rid of one of the pines as there are quite a number of them already!

Also, special trees for the rocky grounds being just rocks could add variation to those otherwise good looking mountains.

View my answer above. It should also be noted that I've added some extra shape to some "bended" tiles used for mountaineous textures. This adds yet another level of realism as you can tell by having another check at that screenie I posted on the previous page. Look closer at the bridge head to the right and you can see two bigger rocks slightly below. These are two of the "differently shaped" textures adding a visual effect. And even though these tiles, like roads, are flat, adding more shape to them doesn't look odd when other stuff are placed on them as it blends in very well!

m4rek · Post by **m4rek** » 19 Nov 2006 21:31

SAC wrote:

As always, comments are welcome - brutally honest if needed!

ok, you asked for it... time to take this screenie to pieces.

sir bob, yes i meant lower right...

the direction signs at dirt road Tjunctions are far too bright, they probably wouldnt be those colours in the first place and they would be weathered and dirty...

the line of pylons is weird, it goes 2 pylons, 2 pylons, 1 pylon...

the vegetation at the base of trees, is in fact making the ground look flat and from a different angle... try again

the tracks dont look right due to an optical effect generated by the arrangment of pixels, this does NOT happen on the bridges due to a minor adjustment in the pixels.

this about covers everything i can see at the moment...

bear in mind that i wrote this post :Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:14 pm

Post by **Dave** » 19 Nov 2006 21:42

Shut up m4rek.

She's already admitted about the trees.

She was asking for graphical comments, not practical ones - how she places her pylons is up to her (and in fact this happens this way in some countries).

The road signs of that colour are more common in Eastern sections of Europe, I believe... I'm sure there are some somewhere... Let's not forget America also.

There's constructive criticism and then there's pointless criticism. Yours is quite blatantly the latter.

wallyweb · Post by **wallyweb** » 19 Nov 2006 23:51

My turn!

Direction Signs:

In North America, direction signs are dark green with a white border and white lettering. That said, they are easily missed when they are errected against a dark background. I know. I have taken many wrong turns, even when I actually did read the map.

If Eastern Europe has resolved this with a brighter sign such as those SAC has drawn, then more power to them. I like those bright signs and the colours are so very ttdx.

And don't worry about putting some dirt on them. There was a good rain last night and they were thoroughly washed.

Tree sprites redrawn as rocks:

In ttdx random trees definitely do go through a growth sequence and I see SAC has a handle on this. So a question ... If a tree sprite is replaced by a rock sprite, what prevents a rock from being replaced by a tree in some future random selection and can a rock pop up where there once was a tree? This may not be a problem if all mountain ground tiles are rock, in which case, perhaps all rock tiles should have a touch of grass and soil for a future tree to take root in.

I'd ask Lester and Fester but they are busy avoiding the revenuers while running a couple of jugs of Grandpa's latest batch into the bar in town.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » 20 Nov 2006 01:25

Let me answer wallyweb's concern myself.

A given tree has 7(?) different stages, but these are particular to each type.

So tree A goes trough A1-A2-A3-A4-A5-A6-A7
tree B B1-7, and so on, but they don't jump, A3 doesn't become B4.

If you decide the object tree C is going to be some rocks, the worst that can happen is that one rock mutates intro three, and then into a squirrel
(you've got 7 stages, so go wonder what could you include in these)

Another good idea would be to group states of a tree, so 1-3 are the same rocks but with different vegetation, same goes with 4-5 and 6-7. So yes, the'll oddly mutate from time to time, but not that much.

Now if I may have a request, It'd be to test this type of things before implementing, perhaps the amount of 'tree rocks' and the frequency of change make the landscape look odd when in game, and you find you've lost at least 3 hours.

I could try to provide some quick rock graphics + vegetation if you wish. Not the squirrel I'm afraid.

Regards

SAC · Post by **SAC** » 20 Nov 2006 10:16

M4rek wrote:...the direction signs at dirt road Tjunctions are far too bright, they probably wouldnt be those colours in the first place and they would be weathered and dirty...

Unfortunately you're wrong!

I'm swedish and road signs on the countryside on "private roads", (which in Sweden is something completely different then a "private road" in another country), are yellow with a red border and black prints. Please see the attached URL below;

http://www.vv.se/filer/publikationer/VV ... en_eng.pdf

the line of pylons is weird, it goes 2 pylons, 2 pylons, 1 pylon...

I noticed this myself after posting it. I figured no one would notice, but of course I wasn't counting on you being here.

Otherwise it has been stolen, or the construction workers accidently teared it down at some point. It should be two pylons placed as you've noted! Damn you!

the vegetation at the base of trees, is in fact making the ground look flat and from a different angle... try again

Try again? Try again?

Look Mr, the grass added has been added "under" the trees to sort of make the trees blend in better with a mountaineous area. This is the only option available. In some points it may look odd, but then; does nature always look perfect?

Seriously though, not too much can be done to solve this issue, if it's in fact an issue. I personally don't think so. It looks better in game, and on top of that it also adds something to the grass areas below the mountain line where trees are growing. I'll however go ahead and make the changes already announced!

the tracks dont look right due to an optical effect generated by the arrangment of pixels, this does NOT happen on the bridges due to a minor adjustment in the pixels.

Have no idea what you're talking about here! Are you sober?

this about covers everything i can see at the moment...

Are you absolutely sure?

Dave Worley wrote:Shut up m4rek.

She's already admitted about the trees.There's constructive criticism and then there's pointless criticism. Yours is quite blatantly the latter.

Yeah, let's give him a good 'ol spank, shall we!

wallyweb wrote:My turn!

Direction Signs:

In North America, direction signs are dark green with a white border and white lettering. That said, they are easily missed when they are errected against a dark background. I know. I have taken many wrong turns, even when I actually did read the map. If Eastern Europe has resolved this with a brighter sign such as those SAC has drawn, then more power to them. I like those bright signs and the colours are so very ttdx. And don't worry about putting some dirt on them. There was a good rain last night and they were thoroughly washed.

Well, can't speak for Eastern Europe, but as explained above Sweden, (in Western Europe), do use this type of sign to point to a location available by taking a "private" road - again the "private" thing not to be confused with "private" in its true sentence. We don't have "private" things in Sweden. Anyone is free to walk, stay, sleep, make a small fire to cook food - regardless of the property is privatly owned or not! That's the law - and I believe the only existing law in the entire world!

This may not be a problem if all mountain ground tiles are rock, in which case, perhaps all rock tiles should have a touch of grass and soil for a future tree to take root in.

Well, didn't look good to be honest. It kind of took away the "mountain feeling" which is why I decided to add a touch of grass to the trees!

I'd ask Lester and Fester but they are busy avoiding the revenuers while running a couple of jugs of Grandpa's latest batch into the bar in town

LOL

Now if I may have a request, It'd be to test this type of things before implementing, perhaps the amount of 'tree rocks' and the frequency of change make the landscape look odd when in game, and you find you've lost at least 3 hours.

I can assure you I make numerous tests - constantly. Thank God it's a rather quick procedure to encode and start up the game. Otherwise I would have quit long time ago!

I could try to provide some quick rock graphics + vegetation if you wish. Not the squirrel I'm afraid.

Sure! Go ahead!

SAC · Post by **SAC** » 20 Nov 2006 10:46

I'm a bit disappointed to see that there's a .grf distributed containing my graphics - before I even had a chance to release them myself! That should have been my priviligie after all!

I'm aware that Aegir made use of the NFO and the sprite sheet I posted in order to show me how to create a "test-grf" for use with further testing of my tree graphics. I don't think that the intention was to have that particular .grf distributed to a larger audience. I don't know who's distributing this .grf but in my opinion it shows little respect to me as a creator as I would have liked to release it myself first.

Another issue is that people who haven't gotten this particular .grf is sending me e-mails wondering where to find it - or requesting me to send it to them.

Well, I'm disappointed! I'm sure any other creator out there would feel the same!

Redirect Left · Post by **Redirect Left** » 20 Nov 2006 11:16

Tis a great shame, i was looking forward to the day you released them officialy.

wallyweb · Post by **wallyweb** » 20 Nov 2006 11:23

SAC wrote:I'm a bit disappointed to see that there's a .grf distributed containing my graphics - before I even had a chance to release them myself! That should have been my priviligie after all!

For those of us who have not used that grf, you still retain the privilege of releasing it when you feel it is ready, and then we will feel privileged indeed to be able to use a grf that is complete and reflects fully the artist's goals.

SAC wrote:I'm aware that Aegir made use of the NFO and the sprite sheet I posted in order to show me how to create a "test-grf" for use with further testing of my tree graphics. I don't think that the intention was to have that particular .grf distributed to a larger audience. I don't know who's distributing this .grf but in my opinion it shows little respect to me as a creator as I would have liked to release it myself first.

Very well said.

SAC wrote:Another issue is that people who haven't gotten this particular .grf is sending me e-mails wondering where to find it - or requesting me to send it to them.

Put them into your spam bin and don't even respond to them until you announce your official release.

SAC wrote:Well, I'm disappointed! I'm sure any other creator out there would feel the same!

As are many of us users who prefer to give an artist her due.

Until SAC makes her final release any grf's out in the wild are for all intents broken. They were for testing by a select few (I'm not one of the select but that's ok, I can wait and I would rather wait)
When SAC does make her final release, any saved games and scenarios using the pirated version will probably break your games when you install the official release. You will have voided your warranties.

Sac, forget about the pirates. Don't waste your valuable time on their emails. Trash them and keep on focusing on your excellent work. That way, we who are patiently awating your official release will be satisfied that much sooner.

Pug · Post by **Pug** » 20 Nov 2006 11:34

Well said wallyweb. And let is not forget that the INFRA-Landscape set is more than those trees. I for one am really looking forward to the trees, but there are others things in the set as well. Things that also deserve attention. Things like dirtroads, wooden bridges, and what else SAC comes up with.

SAC · Post by **SAC** » 20 Nov 2006 12:01

Well, I don't want to make a BIG deal out of this! It's just a reflection on my behalf!

I can't prevent anyone with coding skills to make usage of posted files, and I really don't mind either! Heck, I have even used others work myself for improvements and such! It's just that I think that I as the creator should at least have the honor of releasing the first .grf to a wider audience myself, before others do! I don't think that's about asking too much!

Oh well, s*** happens I guess!

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 20 Nov 2006 12:07

The right to distribute always belongs to the artist who made it. It might pay off to add something like that in the forum rules or maybe there is something covering it more or less already in it. I'll have a look at that.

Now I wonder with you who distributed your grf without permission.

m4rek · Post by **m4rek** » 20 Nov 2006 16:20

SAC wrote:
M4rek wrote:...the direction signs at dirt road Tjunctions are far too bright, they probably wouldnt be those colours in the first place and they would be weathered and dirty...
Unfortunately you're wrong! I'm swedish and road signs on the countryside on "private roads", (which in Sweden is something completely different then a "private road" in another country), are yellow with a red border and black prints. Please see the attached URL below;

http://www.vv.se/filer/publikationer/VV ... en_eng.pdf

ok, thats quite fair then... but travelling from plymouth to the czech republic in a van, i saw many roadsigns... and they were often quite dirty.

SAC wrote:
the vegetation at the base of trees, is in fact making the ground look flat and from a different angle... try again
Try again? Try again?

Look Mr, the grass added has been added "under" the trees to sort of make the trees blend in better with a mountaineous area. This is the only option available. In some points it may look odd, but then; does nature always look perfect?

Seriously though, not too much can be done to solve this issue, if it's in fact an issue. I personally don't think so. It looks better in game, and on top of that it also adds something to the grass areas below the mountain line where trees are growing.

ok, ok, just try again. no, seriously, the work you do is amazing, but just try a few different ways because it just doesnt look right ATM... and nature doesnt always look perfect, but it DOES look natural...

SAC wrote:
the tracks dont look right due to an optical effect generated by the arrangment of pixels, this does NOT happen on the bridges due to a minor adjustment in the pixels.
Have no idea what you're talking about here! Are you sober?

not sure if i was sober, but i cant remember being drunk...not that anyone ever does

look very close up at the train tracks. when you zoom out, normal tracks have a nasty optical effect to them. if you look at the same tracks on the bridges visible, you see that it doesnt happen. if you look close up again, you will see that some of the pixels have changed colour, and therefore do not generate the optical effect. try copying those tracks or something very similar to replace standard rails. try it.

SAC wrote:
this about covers everything i can see at the moment...
Are you absolutely sure?

no,

sloped rock tiles have random yellow pixels, it looks... weird, try something different please, but i believe this is up to you.

i think thats it...

SAC wrote:
Dave Worley wrote:Shut up m4rek.

She's already admitted about the trees.There's constructive criticism and then there's pointless criticism. Yours is quite blatantly the latter.
Yeah, let's give him a good 'ol spank, shall we!

oh very nice... how friendly...

you asked for it, dont blame me.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 20 Nov 2006 17:17

Constructive criticism is something you offer someone with the intention to help the other person improve. It's non-hostile by nature and doesn't question the capacities of someone.

Transport Tycoon Forums

[WIP] INFRA by SAC

Who is online