Bloodcount
Starcraft II Moderator
- Reaction score
- 297
well... I am a verry bad terrener. I want to improove. Can anyone give me some baisic advise on terrening?
well... I am a verry bad terrener. I want to improove. Can anyone give me some baisic advise on terrening?
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.
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)And why does it matter? Well you can answer that; does it matter if your works look good? It's up to you.
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.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
This is gibberish as reality as what we base "sense" on your kind of saying the line between reality and predicted realityThere's a fine line between reality and what makes sense physically
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
Physics being the science of forces, space energy,sensing, electricity, waves and quantum behaviour.
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.
But you can get trees on rocks, through precipitation and other methods of erosion cracks can be formed in rocks.
If your going to talk rubbish im going to call you on it
Nice terrain there. It looks like it's playable, is it?
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.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)
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.I rely upon logic, not the dry knowledge you learn in school.
This wasnt your original point this wasFurthermore, 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 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.Not realism, just following the laws of physics in nature... :/
Ive got a exam coming up so this is kind of like revision :thup:Im getting a biology, physics and geography lesson here lol.
Ive got a exam coming up so this is kind of like revision :thup: