The Terrain Thread

[Romek]

The whole 'argument' started because buildings and trees the size on an island the size of a phone looks ridiculous.
And people where just trying to find reasons to say it didn't.

No need to bring any science or anything into it, really.
It looks silly.

 

[Ghostwind]

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. 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.


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)

This wasnt your original point this was

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?

I didn't read the wall, but from the bullets, you are somewhat kicking your own ass. Seeing as my points were all rebuttals to your points, and on the same subject.

Anyways, all other arguments and trifles aside, what looks good is what matters, and tiny islands with trees and buildings on them don't really look too good to me.

 

[Tythoid]

Anyways, all other arguments and trifles aside, what looks good is what matters, and tiny islands with trees and buildings on them don't really look too good to me.

I agree sorry for starting this by the way Ghostwind. It started as a debate which is something I love doing but it quickly turned into arguement and thats not something I want to be part of.

 

[2-P]

Holy...
About time school starts again, you kids have too much free time.

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

Practice.

 

[Miz]

Get back to Terraining, Slackers

 

[Ghostwind]

Practice.

Good advice. Most people say "omg wtf reed teh tutorizals that dont exizt"

 

[Pharaoh_]

Something i posted recently on Hive (i was unaware of being able to post such thing within TH), so here it is (it's first attempt and it needs fixing with the pipes). I named it Connection of the Two Worlds, but i will remake the pipes and make it more modern-looking (more to come, even better):

For a better quality try here: http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/f267/pharaoh_s-connection-worlds-1st-terraining-attempt-112277/

 

[Draphoelix]

WIP I guess, there's a lot to improve, just don't know how.

Spoiler

 

[D.V.D]

Looks weird probably because of the rocks. There textures aren't so good. And the fact that the ones in the back are lighter than the ones in the front. other than that nice.

 

[Geelottaja]

In a well lighted picture the objects often look lighter the further they are from the viewer. Same as in a dark image, where it adds some depth to to have it the other way, the further you go the darker the objects become.

But yeah, they look a bit odd, perhaps you should try adding some subtle objects that give some more scale to the pic, like trees that are smaller in the background, or some other object thats scaling we know, since trees might not really fit there.

I like the idea you had there.

 

[Romek]

My second proper terrain. (Excluded the gold mine one.. It was an image of 2 doodads).

Spoiler

...I know.. The lake needs a monster..

 

[D.V.D]

Nice one. It would actually be good if it had a monster and was playable.

 

[Ghostwind]

Hrmm, it's ok, but it's a bit boring and the mountains in the background are crap. Don't worry though, that's going to be my next tutorial :]

 

[D.V.D]

2 new picks:

 

[CaptDeath]

not a bash or anything but there all odiously wc3 cause no place would have a froest floor a 100% flat and constant and not muddy
purely off mdls alot harder to tell lol

 

[Ghostwind]

Floating trees, unnecessarily exaggerated height variation yet no rocks to explain it, and the height variation is too smooth for its steepness.

 

[D.V.D]

Im going to fix the floating trees, the floor isn't flat. If you look closely the first pic is a bit of an angle. Here are some more pics:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Tythoid]

The first one reminds me of a level from left4dead all really good i like to see terrain where the colours blend well and 2 and 3 are great examples of this

 

[Chocobo]

(from w3fate by kokosign2002)

This town-type terrain looks very good. (much better than any terrain I know except fate/another 1.2ft)
http://cafe.naver.com/ArticleRead.nhn?clubid=12892995&articleid=129775

 

[D.V.D]

Thanks for the reply's.