Those mountains look fantastic Sapiento!
Cheers,
-Arsheesh
Very nice! That's pleasant to see you at work on it.
It's looking good, might have get it printed and framed when it's finished.
Most of the forests are done, but now I'm not sure about the design.
What looks better, left or right version?
If you mean the forest shapes, I like the less jagged edges, more rounded looks more realistic.
If you mean the shading, I think a mix would look great, darker in the shadow of the mountains and lighter in the sunlighted side, with variation across each.
If you mean how close to the rivers do the trees go, I like the trees going right to the river bank, so it is clear the river is running "under" the trees, and not in a valley between them.
Really nice work!!
Amazing map Sapiento. I must say, this is starting to become one of your best maps(amongst those I have seen)! Eager to see the final result
Concerning your question, I think the option on the right looks best. It gives a certain ease to the eye, especially with such large bodies of forest. And I can't say that I agree with Chick concerning the valley aspect. Works just fine.
Cheers,
Tainotim
Well, now that I've been challenged, I have changed my mind. I really don't like either one of them
I have always disliked having the gap between the trees and river, because it just looks too artificial and fake. But a second look and I also don't really like having the trees tight to the river.
In my own maps, I have taken to having the river disappear under the trees and re-emerge on the other side. This, of course, conceals the river beneath the forest, but that seems ok to me, unless there is some crucial reason to show the exact path of the river.
One thing I have thought of for carpet forests but never tried, is to have the river disappear under the trees, but make a very slightly darkened treetop shadow where the river runs.
Sapiento, any chance you could try that and see how it looks? You're good enough to make it look great, or to show that it is a stupid idea