Page 7 of 313
Posted: 21 Jul 2005 01:05
by GoneWacko
Dextro wrote:d00mh4mm3r wrote:sweet as dude.
add a mail box (the blue ones) out front, and a news-stand and its all set

nahhh add a red telephone booth

Funny, I didn't read d00mh4mm3r's post, and when I read your suggestion to add a phone booth, my first thought was 'nah, not a phonebooth, add a mailbox'.
'Twas only after that that I noticed that's what d00mh4mm3r suggested

Posted: 21 Jul 2005 02:25
by d00mh4mm3r
well, its his choice

Posted: 21 Jul 2005 13:02
by dmh_mac
update
Posted: 21 Jul 2005 13:07
by Dextro
dmh_mac wrote:update
Very very nice, keep up the great work
Can't find anything wrong with it now but that's just my opinion

Posted: 21 Jul 2005 13:38
by d00mh4mm3r
ahh, now thats one cool building right there. if people where realy fussy i guess, satelite dish's on the roof, a safty rail on the roof as well would be asked for, but I say its cool for TTD right now:D
Posted: 21 Jul 2005 14:07
by Purno
Looks very cool

Give us more buildings

Posted: 21 Jul 2005 14:37
by Burgundavia
Wow, the details make the building.
Corey
Posted: 21 Jul 2005 14:39
by George
dmh_mac wrote:update
Sorry, but it looks too... cubic? It does not look like a building, but like a simple 3D model. TTD graphics were much more alive. I suppose the contrast is the problem. The image should be much more contrast.
Posted: 21 Jul 2005 14:56
by dmh_mac
Allthough the original ttd graphics contain some buildings with rather distinguised architecture, there are also lots of buildings that are fairly basic in style as well as detailing.
Posted: 21 Jul 2005 15:17
by StavrosG
Yep, it is very nice now!
I can't wait for the next one!

Posted: 22 Jul 2005 03:32
by George
dmh_mac wrote:Allthough the original ttd graphics contain some buildings with rather distinguised architecture, there are also lots of buildings that are fairly basic in style as well as detailing.
Yes, but they look more alive, because, I suppose, of the contrast. Try to render you building to be more contrast and post here. We shall look, if my supposition correct.
Posted: 22 Jul 2005 08:28
by dmh_mac
A small mockup.
cityscape1.jpg = how it is now
cityscape2.jpg = increased saturisation and contrast
You probably prefer 2.
I don't, since I'm not going for the cartoony oversaturated look of ttd (which is fine in it's own right), but for semi realistic city colours and lighting.
Posted: 22 Jul 2005 08:39
by LordOfThePigs
The second one definitely looks more TTDish.
Posted: 22 Jul 2005 08:40
by d00mh4mm3r
I vote for number 1 (err pic 1)
Its not cartoony as pic 2.
Posted: 22 Jul 2005 08:41
by Villem
LordOfThePigs wrote:The second one definitely looks more TTDish.
I agree, its so much more warm in its looks, looks more lively.
Posted: 22 Jul 2005 08:43
by bobingabout
its hard to decide, i think i'd go number 2.
Posted: 22 Jul 2005 09:30
by spaceman-spiff
Number one
Posted: 22 Jul 2005 10:33
by George
dmh_mac wrote:A small mockup.
cityscape1.jpg = how it is now
cityscape2.jpg = increased saturisation and contrast
You probably prefer 2.
I do. Lets make a poll?
BTW, the garden is enought contrast in the 1 image
dmh_mac wrote:I don't, since I'm not going for the cartoony oversaturated look of ttd (which is fine in it's own right), but for semi realistic city colours and lighting.
One more idea - try to change the windows' texture. Now it looks like a paper
Posted: 22 Jul 2005 10:36
by Aegir
I say number two, even though I would prefer number one. Why? With 32bit, I see tinting and other effects as being a real possibility. So having somthing that looks bright and cheerful at first, will be a good start.
Number two looks more TTD'ish aswell. Bright, warm, lively.
Posted: 22 Jul 2005 10:53
by Arsenal
Definitely number 2. More colour = more attractive (to a certain extent, of course).