The Terrain Thread

[Bloodcount]

well... I am a verry bad terrener. I want to improove. Can anyone give me some baisic advise on terrening?

 

[D.V.D]

Did you ever see beautiful terrain in real life?

 

[Tythoid]

well... I am a verry bad terrener. I want to improove. Can anyone give me some baisic advise on terrening?

The best peice of generalized advice i can give without seeing anything (you might be very good just modest), is to blend and anything you add to the artwork should meld well with the rest this includes buildings, trees and terrain such as blending in a tree to the tileset with some shrubs as a simple example.
You should never use too many doodads, rule of three works quite well and you should never try to have one of everything as this looks cluttered and finally have something to work from such as a picture or a tutorial because its amazing how fast you can run out of ideas

 

[Ghostwind]

Dude, who the fuck would build a structure on an island that small? Islands tend to be kinda... bigger than that.

 

[black.sheep]

No xmas terrian? "Crys"

 

[D.V.D]

Ghost wind: This is just some terrain of a sunken ruins type, which means it came from below ground. Your not supposed to build buildings in it and its not meant to be playable.

 

[crystalguard]

ok well i've been gone for along while but i've been bored and created these at one point or another all the grail ones have been most recent

As the templar knights began being hunted by the goverment, simple but essential renovations must be made:

Spoiler

The Holy Grail Must be hidden...

But in a universe far far away...

Well... back to the templars...
as the local militia approached they had to work quickly to lock away their most valuable treasure...

SO it was hidden, and since then, has never been scene by non-templar eyes

The End

[sorry for no spoilers its been awhile i forgot how to do them

 

[D.V.D]

Nice terrain there. It looks like it's playable, is it?

 

[Ghostwind]

Ghost wind: This is just some terrain of a sunken ruins type, which means it came from below ground. Your not supposed to build buildings in it and its not meant to be playable.

Ofc I know that. I mean the buildings you made on the terrain, like the temples and shit.

But my point was, the island is too small. Trees and jungle do not grow on islands that small, and you don't really find ruins on them either, because nobody would've built on islands that small.

Bad island:

Good small island:

@Crystalguard: Use fucking spoiler tags -.-'

 

[D.V.D]

Did you play the wc3 campaign? When Illidan goes to the sunken ruins, there small too but they have buildings on them. So that island you see there could be a hill of a huge underwater jungle. And anyways, why does it matter?

 

[Ghostwind]

Just because terrain was made by blizzard doesn't make it perfect. I'm looking at this from a real-life perspective, which really is quite good when making environments. Even if it is a fantasy world, things tend to look very similar... >.>

And why does it matter? Well you can answer that; does it matter if your works look good? It's up to you.

 

[Tythoid]

And why does it matter? Well you can answer that; does it matter if your works look good? It's up to you.

Bit contradictive to yourself saying this after digging at D.V.D for realism though i do agree that if it looks good I dont really think about the geographical impact on settlement especially after seeing dubai where their building their own tiny islands in whatever shapes they want, where theres a will theres a way. (plus since we seem to be using paint now heres my impression of D.V.Ds island)

 

[Ghostwind]

Not realism, just following the laws of physics in nature... :/

An example: You could say trees can grow on rocks and thrive with no nutrients whatsoever because of "magic", but it wouldn't make any sense at all. There's a fine line between reality and what makes sense physically.

 

[Tythoid]

Not realism, just following the laws of physics in nature... :/

As someone with A levels in Physics and Geography your statement the laws of physics in nature is like saying the laws of osmosis in brick laying or the laws of intergration in fishing physics has no link to nature in the way you are implying. Physics being the science of forces, space energy,sensing, electricity, waves and quantum behaviour.

Biology and chemistry are the sciences of nature

An example: You could say trees can grow on rocks and thrive with no nutrients whatsoever because of "magic", but it wouldn't make any sense at all. There's a fine line between reality and what makes sense physically

But you can get trees on rocks, through precipitation and other methods of erosion cracks can be formed in rocks. These cracks can collect earth and seedlings which will grow out of the crack. An example: ever heard of trees undermining the foundations of buildings or seen hardy plants in mountainous areas, or even the desert. They do fine because rain water includes some minerals and as everyone knows most plants use photosythesis to make food.

I think your example is out of context and is more just weak reinforcement to your arguement

There's a fine line between reality and what makes sense physically

This is gibberish as reality as what we base "sense" on your kind of saying the line between reality and predicted reality

I was right to say realism the definition of which is: "The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form." Which is what we are trying to achieve with terrain to some extent atleast.

I found your arguement overall confusing, not because I didnt understand it but because you use words frequently that have nothing to do with your arguement just using vague scientific terms or words to make your arguement sound smart or sofisticated. without all the crap put in and the confusing way you wrote it your arguement is:

I wasnt digging D.V.D because of his art due what I felt was a lack of realism, an art form of using examples of reality to make artwork that matches the actual subject matter. No I was digging him because of my missinformed interpretation of the law of physic's which I will give evidence of by trying to palm off a rubbish annocodote which actually describes realism

If your going to talk rubbish im going to call you on it

 

[Ghostwind]

Physics being the science of forces, space energy,sensing, electricity, waves and quantum behaviour.

- Biology and chemistry are both elements of physics. Physics is the science of the material world, which is everything (yes, including thought, if you know anything about neuroscience)

As someone with A levels in Physics and Geography your statement the laws of physics in nature is like saying the laws of osmosis in brick laying or the laws of intergration in fishing physics has no link to nature in the way you are implying.

- I rely upon logic, not the dry knowledge you learn in school.

But you can get trees on rocks, through precipitation and other methods of erosion cracks can be formed in rocks.

I prefer not to get into the nitty-gritty details. I mean a rock, a solid fucking rock, 100% stone. Just for the sake of the example.

If your going to talk rubbish im going to call you on it

I'd rather you didn't, using a foolish, mocking insult as your clinching point essentially loses you half the argument. And thus if you can't understand my points, you've already lost the other half. Furthermore, my original point, that although such things could occur in reality due to some rare anomaly, they don't look good, still stands strong. I cannot fathom how you can even argue that as it is a matter of opinion.

 

[crystalguard]

Nice terrain there. It looks like it's playable, is it?

yea well all but the space one :-\...well its playable but no room to rele move the marine iz stuck

edit:
now now ghostwind and tythoid stop fighing over physics and science and...and who gives a f*** wat else just calm down and let it go ^.^

edit 2: ghostwind umm 2 problems 1) [see attachment] see no spoiler button idk y but nothing!!, and 2) im not a nerd i dont go around memorizing every single tag people expect me to kno, oh and also at the bottom i even put i didn't kno how to use them and that i was sorry PS thank you miz for putting it in spoiler for meh

 

[Tythoid]

The arguement was that when using the editor to make your made up landscape should you use physics or should you use realism, the simulation of something that accuratly resembles real things.

Physics is essentially a series of equation to work out the outcome of the interaction of force, energy and motion and how they interact with each other. My example is you could use a equation from physics to work out the volume of a speaker according to the variable resistor, voltage and the resistance in the wire. Famous equations inclue Einsteins E=MC2 and Hubbles law on the end of universe if Ω > 1 the universe will end in a big crunch, if Ω = 1 the universe will reach a maxium size then stop expanding or Ω < 1 the universe will continue to expand forever. As you can see physics has many uses however its uses for deciding how to paint or create a landspace are none existant.

In your last post you dont reinforce your arguement that physics is used in the way you descript but instead attack my statement I will now defend each part of my arguement you have found fault in.

Biology and chemistry are both elements of physics. Physics is the science of the material world, which is everything (yes, including thought, if you know anything about neuroscience)

You have said this because if chemistry and biology were elements of physics then you would be correct as biology and chemistry do geniunely have factors that effect landspaces however they are not part of physics. Biology is the science of lifeforms and how they interact with each other and the enviroment. Chemistry is the science of substances and how they react with each other while Physics is the science of the study of energy, motion and force and how they interact they are all branches of science but none of them are abranch of the other.
What you are saying is similar to saying ice cream is a subsection of baking it is not they are both branches of cooking/food preperation but neither is a branch of the other.

I rely upon logic, not the dry knowledge you learn in school.

This statement is very self undermining to your arguement. You say that you don't rely on science even though you say you use physics to create art this is very contractive im sure you will agree.
You say you use logic; sensible rational thought and argument rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion or whim and this relates to realism which uses evidence of the way the world looks to create imaginary worlds and could exist as they are based on what it actually looks like. You could say I use logic to paint/create landscapes by using strong evidence what i have actually have seen and how I know the world to be to create art that is more plausible. This is realism in other words monkey see monkey paint.

Ill ignore the rock arguement as it was a bad annology to begin with and had very little relavance to arguement as:

• A tree growing out of a rock is determined by biology and geography not physics
• Knowing that trees dont normally grow out of rocks even though its possible is a knowledge of realism (what you have seen)

Furthermore, my original point, that although such things could occur in reality due to some rare anomaly, they don't look good, still stands strong. I cannot fathom how you can even argue that as it is a matter of opinion.

This wasnt your original point this was

Not realism, just following the laws of physics in nature... :/

This point does 2 things it denys realism the simulation of something in a way that accurately resembles real things and that completly contradicts your "orginal point" and secondly it gives me something to argue on because I know physics has very little to do with painting a landscape.

This is how the arguement went:

1. I said that realism is what we use to create landscapes
2. you said physics is what we use
3. I gave my arguement for realism and against physics
4. You argued for physics and wrongly said biology and chemistry were part of it
5. You then denied you rely on science
6. You then supported realism by saying anomalies dont look good

So do you agree with me now that we use realism?

 

[D.V.D]

Im getting a biology, physics and geography lesson here lol.

 

[Tythoid]

Im getting a biology, physics and geography lesson here lol.

Ive got a exam coming up so this is kind of like revision :thup:

 

[crystalguard]

Ive got a exam coming up so this is kind of like revision :thup:

haha good luck

im still not completely sure why you guys are arguing though its a stupid reason its a game, things aren’t meant to be exact. if it was they would basically be labeling a cd that say's "GO THE FU** OUTSIDE" I personally think you too should just let it go this isn’t some third reality that’s needs to follow every law of science and nature there is. just let it go if a person wants to make a floating tree or a freaking portal to hell or something let them, don’t criticize them for realism