Transport Tycoon Forums

brupje wrote:well I can do one house for you, it's 30 minutes of rendering

Oh, opps, i'll take a bit more care in what i request next time. I thought it may have been 30seconds or something. Maybe OTTD needs to sponsor you a render machine ... well it be nice.

About the shadows, i'm really starting to like the perpendicular sun. It looks like summer in Australia now . It's not as sexy as on an angle but i think it makes up for that by being the only way we're gonna get the shadow staying for the whole party.

Silky wrote:That makes all of the walls very dark...

He is right. All buildings will be relatively dark, because you have no light on the walls. If i understand the things right, we'll have a high noon sun at position of the equator. What would happen, if we make a very small angle? 0.5° or 1°, so that the shadows will be very close to the house walls?
Sry guys! I would test it for myself, but Blender is to complicated for me *pray to all other, which render with blender*

virusse wrote:

Silky wrote:That makes all of the walls very dark...

He is right. All buildings will be relatively dark, because you have no light on the walls. If i understand the things right, we'll have a high noon sun at position of the equator. What would happen, if we make a very small angle? 0.5° or 1°, so that the shadows will be very close to the house walls?
Sry guys! I would test it for myself, but Blender is to complicated for me *pray to all other, which render with blender*

for a small house that's doable, for a large building not.

hold up.... hold up

how did the lighting get so extreme as to be a problem in the first place?


just go back to the orginal. and have the join between tiles look not perfect on really massive buildings. the shadows should be "near noon" but not perfectly vertical.

i don't think its a big enough issue "yet" to bother with. i think all other sollutions posted so far look a little silly.

as far as i remember my lighting setup was pretty good at reducing shadows crossing tile boundaries (they would cross of course, but not massively)

these are all almost vertical shadows.










Also since the ground sprite is seperate from the building sprite (standardised grounds anyone) the shadow layer should be rendered seperately anyway (for buildings, and such) also things like lamposts and other vertically added things to otherwise flat sprites are rendered seperately also. meaning shadows will fall under them anyway. so they won't overlap other vertical things.....


i thought all this was solved before, which is why i am so suprised to see it all getting debated again.

i also am suprised and somewhat sad that the lighting setup in nothing like the original which was specifically designed to solve as many issues as possible (while not necisarily being perfect)


note: the images rendered in this post of mine are not on the same lighting as the default light setup, but they do have the same shadow angles as far as i know.

Alltaken

I understand where you are coming from Alltaken but no method of using shadow sprites is going to work without looking retarded, which is why i brought up the issue of a new lighting environment/a better way to go about shadows. Originally when i brought the issue up in this thread all i really needed to know is "are we going to use shadow sprites?" so i could build the storage system with that in mind. Maybe this is a problem that we just cant solve yet until we can see how they look in game. IMO If we want to be serious and willing to put aside a little bit of prettiness for a less dodgy looking game we should just go with renders without a shadow. For example this one that brupje posted on the first page.

Alltaken wrote:hold up.... hold up

how did the lighting get so extreme as to be a problem in the first place?

I don't know, I am just using the default lightning posted on the wiki.

just go back to the orginal. and have the join between tiles look not perfect on really massive buildings. the shadows should be "near noon" but not perfectly vertical.

i don't think its a big enough issue "yet" to bother with. i think all other sollutions posted so far look a little silly.

as far as i remember my lighting setup was pretty good at reducing shadows crossing tile boundaries (they would cross of course, but not massively)

these are all almost vertical shadows.

What would happen when you render the lighthouse from the opposite direcion?

Also since the ground sprite is seperate from the building sprite (standardised grounds anyone) the shadow layer should be rendered seperately anyway (for buildings, and such) also things like lamposts and other vertically added things to otherwise flat sprites are rendered seperately also. meaning shadows will fall under them anyway. so they won't overlap other vertical things.....


i thought all this was solved before, which is why i am so suprised to see it all getting debated again.

i also am suprised and somewhat sad that the lighting setup in nothing like the original which was specifically designed to solve as many issues as possible (while not necisarily being perfect)


note: the images rendered in this post of mine are not on the same lighting as the default light setup, but they do have the same shadow angles as far as i know.

Alltaken

Guess that using multiple layers would allow casting shadows on other tiles. That's probably the way to go. Maybe the shadow part of http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=20879 should be extended, as I don't understand it completely. Or maybe that 'shadow-only' should be included in the default templates?

PikkaBird wrote: They're Locomotion graphics.

Hi!

Do not become angry with me!
I very much respect you and I consider (count) as the teacher!

I already spoke, that I use new aerodynamic model for flights, and for the jet plane
It is necessary to me to use 49 Sprites.

I have found the proof in the archives!
I put a photocopy of the information about the plane TU-154 - first version there was at me on testing even September 01, 2006

By the way:
Inside a file I transferred you hi!

With the large respect for the professional!

Your schoolboy

Sergej

So why did you say

Graphics by Paasky

???
Also don't whine that you need those sprites...
Pikka made all that he needed by himself.

as for the standards... there is one thing I have noticed with the current buildings:
on the shots Sergej_s made, one could see the 32bit buildings in direct comparison to each other. and to me it occurred, as if the buildings were quite out-of scale in relation to each other - sure, TTD isnt true to scale, but the buildings amongst themselves look as if they are. afaik there was even a recommended "height in pixels" for each storey on a building, to keep things to scale.

now even comparing some of the works brupje did with some of other artists (just as example, no offence meant, nor bashing a particular artist!), one notices: brupje fits a small house on one tile, with a garden and all. another artist fits a villa with a pool and extensive garden on the same space!
this should really be paid mind to, otherwise the graphics will look very pieced together. I suggest that, since the tiles are already specified in meters, the artists should take care to model in a reallife-scale, and the issue should resolve itself, as all buildings have the correct scale towards each other

I agree, also the lightsetup is not consistent.

Psistorm wrote: as for the standards... there is one thing I have noticed with the current buildings:
on the shots Sergej_s made, one could see the 32bit buildings in direct comparison to each other. and to me it occurred, as if the buildings were quite out-of scale in relation to each other - sure, TTD isnt true to scale, but the buildings amongst themselves look as if they are. afaik there was even a recommended "height in pixels" for each storey on a building, to keep things to scale.

Me already quote - thank...

I wanted to tell from myself - I show new to the buildings only for preliminary viewing
And for definition of correct scales of buildings and transport

Old scale TTD-1995 - very wrong!!!

The plane is less than the bus???!!!

Personally me most of all very much to like graphic images Aracirion

Very beautiful, excellent, exact in details, very good scale

I very much would like to make a set for " of the English architecture ", but while I know only 4 buildings

Still to me to like graphic images Brupje, too very good scale, but while I know only 2 buildings

I ask other artists on me to not take offence is only my personal opinion

With the large respect for the professionals of graphic images!

Sergej

4 pixels = 1 meter height for 128.
AKA 1 pixel = 0.25m.
Still not much to render in 128. More pixels looks ugly. 256 could be 8 but 256 seems not favored.
~3m x 4 = 12 pixels per floor.

Sergej_S wrote: Still to me to like graphic images Brupje, too very good scale, but while I know only 2 buildings


Sergej

thanks

check my busstop, verhicle station and verhicle depot

brupje wrote:

Sergej_S wrote: Still to me to like graphic images Brupje, too very good scale, but while I know only 2 buildings
Sergej

thanks

check my busstop, verhicle station and verhicle depot

I wait with impatience of your new graphic images for urban structures

Sergej