So, if i create more of these-- would it be less confusing to add to this bunch or create a new "package" on OGA-- like i did with the packs of spell icons?
It seems like it is still on a delay much longer than 5 minutes. On the list it is still at 9, where it was at least several days ago, while it's actually got 14 faves.
I believe there is a very large overlap with the more traditional discipline of writing. Can you write short (or long) stories that people want to read? If not i suggest studying that. The skills and knowledge that go into that are largely the same for games, movies, tv, comics, and plain old text, though each has a unique twist.
You've borrowed a lot from Wesnoth, which is fine, but you've borrowed from an older version. Many kinds of terrain look much better in the current version, if i do say so myself.
Of course, as Quandtum thinks, an object can be made to "pop" without a gradient background. It depends on the object weather well-chosen gradient is a good, bad, or indifferent way to make the object stand out nicely. Contrast is the key.
"These are ugly and disturbing which can lead to the viewer disliking the viewed image. They might be hard to see on some screens but in many cases they will be subtley noticed. Note that "subtle" is especially dangerous, since the viewer does not know the reason for the discomfort while viewing the render and is likely to interpret it as not liking the 3D model."
Obviously an image without artifacts will look better and more pleasing. But the vast majority of images on the internet are compresses to some degree. People are used to it as long as the compression is not excessive. Whenever you can, sure, it's will look better to use minimal compression. But minimizing artifacts in the least important part of an image (a detail-less background) while leaving them in the main part of the image accomplishes virtually nothing.
JPGs are not all equal. A JPG with the lowest compression will not have visible artifacts, even under magnification. So the problem to be alert for is the use of JPGs that have been compressed too much weather or not a gradient is involved.
I couldn't upload these as "textures" but it did allow me to edit it and change to texture, however the previews of the files do not show up.
So, if i create more of these-- would it be less confusing to add to this bunch or create a new "package" on OGA-- like i did with the packs of spell icons?
Discuss...
Oh, you want to commission me to make more similar signs-- i sent you an email...
Yes, that background is some of my own stock photography -- part of how i pay my bills. So, sorry i'm not giving that part of the source away.
Thanks.
It seems like it is still on a delay much longer than 5 minutes. On the list it is still at 9, where it was at least several days ago, while it's actually got 14 faves.
Thanks for the warm reception :)
I believe there is a very large overlap with the more traditional discipline of writing. Can you write short (or long) stories that people want to read? If not i suggest studying that. The skills and knowledge that go into that are largely the same for games, movies, tv, comics, and plain old text, though each has a unique twist.
You've borrowed a lot from Wesnoth, which is fine, but you've borrowed from an older version. Many kinds of terrain look much better in the current version, if i do say so myself.
Thanks. It's still fun for me to see my work show up in real games.
Of course, as Quandtum thinks, an object can be made to "pop" without a gradient background. It depends on the object weather well-chosen gradient is a good, bad, or indifferent way to make the object stand out nicely. Contrast is the key.
"These are ugly and disturbing which can lead to the viewer disliking the viewed image. They might be hard to see on some screens but in many cases they will be subtley noticed. Note that "subtle" is especially dangerous, since the viewer does not know the reason for the discomfort while viewing the render and is likely to interpret it as not liking the 3D model."
Obviously an image without artifacts will look better and more pleasing. But the vast majority of images on the internet are compresses to some degree. People are used to it as long as the compression is not excessive. Whenever you can, sure, it's will look better to use minimal compression. But minimizing artifacts in the least important part of an image (a detail-less background) while leaving them in the main part of the image accomplishes virtually nothing.
JPGs are not all equal. A JPG with the lowest compression will not have visible artifacts, even under magnification. So the problem to be alert for is the use of JPGs that have been compressed too much weather or not a gradient is involved.
Pages