Reply With Quote
This is looking really good - and it's certainly not an easy problem by any means. Well done.
Whenever you're creating textures and objects for use online, just remember this...
As big as you can make it the better. You can always shrink it down later and still maintain image quality within reason, but you can't increase the size and have it still look good.
This is looking really good - and it's certainly not an easy problem by any means. Well done.
I would suggest 100 px for all your stuff. That is a decent native size and it is easy to resize if the VT requires something different.
BTW, this is a great set!
Bill Stickers is innocent! It isn't Bill's fault that he was hanging out in the wrong place.
Please make an effort to tag all threads. This will greatly enhance the usability of the forums.
Dunjinni works at 200 ppi though.
And Dundjinni is not a VT.
Bill Stickers is innocent! It isn't Bill's fault that he was hanging out in the wrong place.
Please make an effort to tag all threads. This will greatly enhance the usability of the forums.
So? It's often used to make maps for VT's and the slopes would be useful for more than just VT's.
My original post was referring specifically to VTs. 200 pixels in a VT will make data transfer of the images take much longer than it has too. 100 pixels should be the maximum for VT objects. If we are talking about a single map, we need to consider the overall size of that map for transfer over the network. There is another thread around here that discusses all the technical aspects of resolution for VTs so I will not rehash them here. If you want to discuss it further, please search for that thread, read the details there, and post as needed. That way we won't derail this exceptional thread. Thank you for your understanding.
Bill Stickers is innocent! It isn't Bill's fault that he was hanging out in the wrong place.
Please make an effort to tag all threads. This will greatly enhance the usability of the forums.
This forum is for more than just VT mapping. If you're going to make something, you should always start with the largest resolution you're comfortable working with to provide greater control and detail. Then when you're done, you can run batch scripts to resize everything for the different resolutions and scales.
Comments duly noted. I'll go check for that resolution thread.
What I understand, though, is that while 64px is all I've ever known, 100px is the VT standard. The inspiring Crypt tileset uses that resolution, too. Dunno why 100px is the standard, but I'll use it from now on.
However, I think I should draw the tiles at a higher resolution, maybe 200px, so that people can choose between resolution and speed. Agreed?
Oh, and if I'm redoing all that (which... I will, I guess), I want some feedback. Is the slope texture clear? Universal? Are the top and bottom distinct? Is every square's content obvious? Do the cliffs look right? And is the small number of tiles flexible enough?
It looks clear enough once you start laying out the tiles. As for resolution, just remember, you can always resize them to be smaller using a batch process or saved action if you use photoshop. I can resize hundreds of images in minutes that way. I only suggested 200px because that's what dundjinni uses and mappers can always resize their finished maps if they don't use the tiles inside the VT itself.
