Transport Tycoon Forums

Very nice, as usual. I really like your drawing style.
I hope those nice graphics will be finished soon and someone will code them.

> your art work is fantastique
> That station is starting to look great!
> I really like your drawing style

Guys, what´s wrong with your eyes?

IMO, these are bad drawings simply because of the ugly or non-existant texturing.

Remember, there are three levels of poor texturing:

- (automatic) rendering is bad,
- dithering is more bad,
- uniform colouring is most bad.

I don´t think you´re helping him to learn to draw if you applaud every move he does in a wrong direction.

@Lt gable
Take a deep look at TTD´s original drawings by Simon Foster as long as you have no knowledge about texturing, use of colours and shading, proportions of buildings, etc. pp. The first step to drawing is to learn to see. Then, practice for your own until you really think you can´t go on any further, and only then show it to other people to get advice on specific problems. Doing it this way will support you.

But if you constantly post pictures without any reason you won´t get any better reaction as those referenced above ("awesome", "great", "superb", "phantastic", ...) which won´t get you along because these are just "void" words.

Although this may sound impolite, I think I had to write it eventually because nobody else did it - even if they´re thinking along similar lines.

regards
Michael

That HQ looks more like a prison camp

@michael blunck: perhaps you might want to try again when we have a finished product here. This is a work in progress and following Gable's other works you can see this is how he draws. He starts like this and finishes with a work of art

Some artists like to work in the privacy of their studios, showing their works only when completed to their personal satisfaction.

Other artists prefer to set up their easels on the sidewalk, showing the progress of their work to all who may be interested, allowing the observers to witness and comment upon the birth and growth of the artists' latest child.

I do believe Lt.Gable to be of the second persuasion. I, for one, enjoy watching the passion of an artist immersed in his work.

@michael blunck: perhaps you might want to try again when we have a finished product here. [...]

[...] Other artists prefer [...] showing the progress of their work to all who may be interested, allowing the observers to witness and comment upon the birth and growth of the artists' latest child.

Well, yes. Why should I have been understandable?

- Isn´t it better to insist in the beginning rather when there´s "a finished product" if someone is on a false route?

- I think its moot to "show the progress of their work" because the level of expertise here is in no way exceptional. In general, no-one of the "usual drawers" would like to discuss on this level and the non-drawers are always shouting "awesome". So, that won´t help a guy who´d be interested to improve his skills.



To make things more clear, I´ve attached a picture to show what I´ve been talking about above.

- (automatic) rendering is bad,
- dithering is more bad,
- uniform colouring is most bad.

1. The first "bad" choice when doing graphics for TTD (2D, sprite-based, 8-bit pallette) is to use a renderer (exclusively). Rendering needs 24-bit graphics to fully utilize its special capabilities like anti-aliasing, etc. Mapping the output onto a 8-bit pallette usually introduces weird colours which don´t blend smoothly for the observer and, more bad, destroy contour outlines and small details. It´s generally problematic that the artist has no control over his work on the pixel level, except when manually revising it. See picture1 (rendering) for an example.

2. "Dithering" is another bad choice, IMO. It is used to compose areas by setting pixels in different (or even equal) colours in a regular pattern. There are cases where it comes in handy, but in general, it generates surfaces which are too uniform and "artificial". In addition, it could generate Moiré patterns which will produce unwanted extra falsifications.

3. "uniform colouring" is the most bad method. It looks most strange in the TTD graphics realm and should be avoided by any means.

4. a "good texturing" would use only "natural colours" (originally from TTD´s 8-bit pallette, no conversion from 24-bit to 8-bit), thus avoiding all those "weird" colours. The pattern of texture should be "random" to avoid the "artificial" and sterile look of the dithering method. Details and outlines have to be drawn by hand to produce highest accuracy which cannot be generated by automatic tools (renderers).

HTH
regards
Michael

Well, I have to agree with Michael on some points! Personally I enjoy receive "criticism", and I even encouraged people to do so in my own thread! It's important in order to develop new skills!

As for style and drawing techniques I guess it's a matter of opinion, of personal style. I use my particular style while others use theirs, and I believe it's pretty much the same with end users; some like certain styles while others don't!

@michael blunck


your persistence is admirable but i must yet again disagree. youre commenting on the texturing of a product that isnt even shaded yet.

and gable is most certainly not on the wrong line, he works like this very often, ive followed some of his works and he is following the same pattern. he lays down the basic shapes using first wireframe, then flat colour, and then starts adding detail, shading and texturing, eventually getting to a work of art you can comment on.

also, using a piece of work that isnt even shaded, much less textured as an example of "bad texturing" isnt very helpful

and for the record, gable creates his work from scratch, at the pixel level




useful criticism is not what you have achieved here, the only constructive criticism that can be given here are technical things, such as that tiles are 32x32 pixels and not 30x30, oh wait, didnt you say something about everyone else's eyesight?

hello and first able, thank your for your interrest in what i draw,
to avoid any dispute around my stuff, i take one of my drawing as example:

the gare de l'est:

the first thing i do when beginning a drawing, is to draw the net of the terrain and i begin to draw a "ghost" of the buildings


then i add the colours that will compose the background( =building without textures) of the building


and then i continue with detailing over and over, and here's a more improved version of the station to compare with the first image.

you can compare the first picture with the airports i posted, it's of course a very early WIP there's no texture, just a ghost of a building with the shadows but the building won't be this color on the final version.

@Lt gable

> [...] here's a more improved version of the station

Well, yes. Nevertheless, you´re using that "dithering" technique in an excessive way (see attachment), but your building is neither properly textured nor shaded in an attempt to make it as realistic as possible. And however you´ll try "adding details", the building as a whole will always look ugly, sterile and artificial if you don´t give up that unsuccessful technique.

regards
Michael

"more improved version" doesnt means "final version", i havent yet touched the walls, it's still the "background". i use the dithering technique to have an overview of the building, then after i add some random pixels all over this background (who are both dithered or uniform) i still have A LOT of work to do on this station, but i'm getting closer and closer from the final version. the only thing i'd call near final on those drawings are the platforms. (but i havent cut the mockup for coding (that's where i'll add the last details and correct the dimensions) a mockup doesnt have to be errorless, it just have to give you an idea of the final product. it's like a demo.

Not that the rendering into an 8-bit pallette looks bad, it does, but that building shown there as example 1 is a quite bad looking byproduct of my early Blender age, there are other buildings of mine around the ECS which I'm very ashamed of, even if they are used in a 24bit engine.

Those were just apologies for spreading uglyness. Now I must agree Michael.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to be a common practice to praise effort (no matter how little), while quality is the only thing that matters in the end. In this way, I find forums a bit counterproductive to the pace of creation of an artist, and bad praise also hinders development.

Rough and constructive is the attitude that really helps.

Regards

To be honest, as much as I respect Michael and his comments - and I love his work, I have to say I find I disagree.

Of course it's down to taste and EVERYONE (even people who don't draw) is entitled to an opinion.

IMHO, that building looks fine. Yes, as Michael says it's not technically perfect, but does it have to be? It looks good (NOT fantastic, not excellent, not any other superlative).

Yes it needs improving - but it certainly looks passable, in my eyes.

Taste and opinion, of course. And also (and this isn't a dig at MB, but rather just a general comment on the situation), just because you're widely regarded as one of the best (or maybe THE best) artist, it doesn't mean that your opinion is any more worthy than anyone elses.

Dave Worley wrote:Of course it's down to taste and EVERYONE [...] is entitled to an opinion. [...] it doesn't mean that your opinion is any more worthy than anyone elses.

Well then, excuse my fruitless attempt to offer constructive help and carry on with your own taste and opinion.

Raven wrote:Maybe it's just me, but it seems to be a common practice to praise effort (no matter how little), while quality is the only thing that matters in the end. In this way, I find forums a bit counterproductive to the pace of creation of an artist, and bad praise also hinders development.

You´re more than right on this.

> Rough and constructive is the attitude that really helps.

To be rough isn´t my type of behaviour. And constructive help seems to be offered here in vain.

regards
Michael

michael blunck wrote:constructive help seems to be offered here in vain.

regards
Michael

I must disagree, your help here is simply telling everyone what they already know, and you most certainly are not helping gable here. for the last time i will tell you this, what you are commenting on are not final textures, but mere placeholders.

if youre listening, regards
m4rek

I think rough wasn't the word there

Being too sweet not to hurt each other doesn't favour progress. Sometimes things have to be said, and you're now critizing the only one able to do so in a thoughtful and constructive way? Wow, there's even a study of the types of bad texturing styles in there, thanks for that michael, understood one or two things.

Sometimes I wonder if it's worth the time to wander around. Is something learn or thaught? This is not about pride, or is it?

> for the last time i will tell you [...]

Well, for me it´s EOD here.

Only for those who might be in danger to take your incompetent ramblings for true, let me repeat those original quotes:

wallyweb wrote:your art work is fantastique

Snail wrote:That station is starting to look great!

Wile E. Coyote wrote:I really like your drawing style

My comments were only in reply to them. I´m not talking to you.

regards
Michael

michael blunck wrote:

Dave Worley wrote:Of course it's down to taste and EVERYONE [...] is entitled to an opinion. [...] it doesn't mean that your opinion is any more worthy than anyone elses.

Well then, excuse my fruitless attempt to offer constructive help and carry on with your own taste and opinion.

If I'd've meant that, I'd've told you - in no uncertain terms - to shut up.

Okay - let's put this in perspective. If you like the look of something, you say so. If you don't, then you say so by offering constructive criticism.

That doesn't mean that constructive help shouldn't be given, does it? If you can help Lt. Gable my making his work more attractive, then all the better, in my eyes. I was merely pointing out that others may disagree with what is essentially your own opinion - no matter how experienced that opinion may be - and thus should have no qualms in praising someone's work.

But of course, I'm just a humble bystander who can't draw. I couldn't possibly know ANYthing about the quality of graphics.

Let me put this to you in a different way - I am a musician. Does this make my opinion on the quality of a piece of music more valuable than yours? The answer is almost always going to be no.

Either way - let's not discuss this here. I somehow seem to be derailing Lt. Gable's topic.

[about the legitimacy to criticize]

Dave Worley wrote:Let me put this to you in a different way - I am a musician. Does this make my opinion on the quality of a piece of music more valuable than yours?

In general: yes. Because if it boils down to knowledge, the opinion of the knowledgeable has a higher priority than that of the amateur. Not only in music, but e.g. in mathematics, medicine and - good god! - in the art of drawing.

> The answer is almost always going to be no.

You´re wrong, and not only because I´m also a musician.

regards
Michael

michael blunck wrote: > The answer is almost always going to be no.

You´re wrong, and not only because I´m also a musician.

regards
Michael

Since you've now exhausted my arguments, I shall resort to petty, stupid little insults to satisfy myself.

You are, without doubt, the biggest SQUIRREL I have ever seen.