Unit Graphics

[Mark_Everson]

Hey Shaun, gotta give you the official welcome to the Clash forum first!

And a guy that shows up with work already done is great.

I think your art certainly shows promise. I think we need to get you and Fiera together to figure out a sensible division of labor. He has just let us know he's still in , and you can find a recent chat in the Map Graphics II thread. Hopefully we can work something out that makes everyone happy, and pushes things forward. There is all kinds of work to be done, but its important to have continuity in the graphics. Which may mean one person does units, and another terrain, or some such division.

I like the demo images, but I think the colors need to be a bit bolder to stand out well in all sorts of terrain

And with the human images, (I have no artistic talent whatsoever, and all I can do is guess) I think you need to avoid bright colors on the curved borders. Because of the pixelization resulting from the inability to make a uniform curve, the shield borders look a little strange to me.

But a good first effort!

-Mark

[shaunfletcher]

hi mark

the shield border was one specific thing i was thinking when I said they were a little rough! that sudden edge is an artifact from integrating the pics to your 40ish high icon size, and Id definitely lose it in a final image, didnt have time to fix it last night.

on the colours.. a consistent 'look' is vitally important for a game of course, but then that needs to be balanced with not looking too primary! Id like to subtly ramp up colour amounts till I could achieve a nice balance that everyone likes, and keep posting things here till thats reached. I do agree they look too dull as yet, especially given the quite vivid shades in the terrain/other units.

using the working methods I do, its extremely easy to do things like change colours, directions, details poses etc so dont feel the way they look now is in some way fixed.. I can also do terrain work if fiera feels the difference in styles is irresolvable for the units.

Shaun

[Mark_Everson]

Hey Shaun:

Got it. Sounds like a plan. I've emailed Fiera to make sure he's aware of your existence and hopefully you'll hear from him soon.

[Gary Thomas]

Shaun, I like your figures. I especially like the fact that you have different orientations for the same figure, something I have been pining for. The comment that different positions are easy to implement implies that you are using a 3D program. Which one?

Cheers

[shaunfletcher]

cool, Ill look forward to hearing from fiera with his thoughts. I will also have few more samples for you to look at this evening. maybe something from a different era!

All my work is done using lightwave, rendered with an pseudo-isometric camera set up to provide the right sizing then post processed in photoshop. These are by far the smallest images Ive ever produced in lightwave, its almost a shame because they look so damned nice twice the size!

Shaun

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by shaunfletcher
These are by far the smallest images Ive ever produced in lightwave, its almost a shame because they look so damned nice twice the size!

Well, we could use larger graphics in other places, so don't be too despondent. FE when calling up a detailed report on a battle perhaps we could show the original battle lines at 2x the map size. Its a long way off before we need such stuff, but there could be many uses for it!

[shaunfletcher]

okay here is a slightly redone version of the roman with a little more care taken and a touch brighter in photoshop (though probably going back to the model and changing cloth colours etc will be more effective there). the one caveat to this image is that while it IS a gif it undoubtedly consumes many more colours than will be available which will lose a little subtelty in the final images



Shaun

[shaunfletcher]

okay heres something else.. not sure what to do with the scaling of a horseman, so I shrank it to the same overall height as a footman



Shaun

[Mark_Everson]

The newer stuff looks Good! The only thing that bothers me is that I personally prefer them in 'fighting' stance rather than 'rest' or 'parade'. We had a bit of a discussion on horse size vs man size earlier in this thread. At least then the horse units were being drawn to the same scale as the footmen so they would look right when put together in a battle line or such. I still thing that's the right decision, although it does lead to either the man figures looking just a bit small, or the horse ones just a bit big on the tiles.

[shaunfletcher]

I thought about the stance.. And I agree they look too 'placid' especially the knight . How do you feel about a sort of 'en garde' stance, rather than an outright charging pose or something? just I guess a map full of madly charging units all going nowhere for ages might look a bit 'silly'? posing isnt TOO hard though its one of the trickier bits to get looking good!

on the size.. can a small amount of overlap be handled by the graphics engine? ie if a unit like a mounted knight (probably as tall as they get) were to cross the feet of a unit on the square behind by a little (not a lot obviously to avoid a mess) will the engine be smart enough to draw from back to front so this isnt a problem? or is it vital that things fit in their 'box'?

Shaun

[Gary Thomas]

All my work is done using lightwave, rendered with an pseudo-isometric camera set up to provide the right sizing then post processed in photoshop.

I am quite jealous.

okay heres something else.. not sure what to do with the scaling of a horseman, so I shrank it to the same overall height as a footman

I think perhaps the foomen are a little large.

on the size.. can a small amount of overlap be handled by the graphics engine? ie if a unit like a mounted knight (probably as tall as they get) were to cross the feet of a unit on the square behind by a little (not a lot obviously to avoid a mess) will the engine be smart enough to draw from back to front so this isnt a problem? or is it vital that things fit in their 'box'?

Overlap is fine. The present ones overlap quite a bit.

However, for some bizarre erason, Mark insists on having shadows under the figures. So the options are:

• Add shadows.
• Talk Mark out of it.

Cheers

[shaunfletcher]

I'll try some tests tonight with slightly smaller footmen and slightly larger horsemen to establish a scale. Ill look at some of the other recent images and try and match those a little. Im glad overlap is okay.

on shadows.. if shadows could be semi transparent then they would be great, but unless Im wrong thats not possible in the gif format I think? unless the rendering engine could render one allocated colour as semi transparent and that colour in the palette could be reserved for shadows but thats probably asking a bit much! if shadows are solid they look a little off but if they are wanted I can of course add them easily

one more question.. Im going to do another test piece, so what is the 'most desired' unit?

Shaun

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by Gary Thomas
However, for some bizarre erason, Mark insists on having shadows under the figures.

I do lots of things for bizarre reasons, but... I don't consider shadows under the images essential, and don't think I've ever said that. I remember aesthetic comments on the shadows Fiera was drawing already. Anyway shadows are none are just a decision we need to make as a group.

I thought Gif 87a (or is it 89a) supports an alpha channel, but I'm not sure.

Most requested unit... heck if I know. How about an alternative warrior band? The one Fiera did is good, but we could use a clothed one for cooler climes.

[shaunfletcher]

I THINK gif89a supports just one transparency level.. shame but there we go. now an engine that supported a TRUE alpha channel.... would be in my dreams only I think. depends on the engine you are using to draw on screen.. is it a custom routine or some sort of gif-library?

just to confirm that, I found this.. "The process is not as robust as you might initially think. This is not as powerful as an alpha* channel, where a whole range of opacity can be specified. The GIF 89a specification simply allows one table entry* to be designated as transparent; i.e. a pixel either has color information, or is transparent."

Shaun

[Gary Thomas]

Hey we are talking about a shadow area only a few pixels across. The only reason for semi-transparency is for colour matching, but I think a mid-grey-green would probably cover all the situations we need.

We need identifiable skirmishers and bowmen. I did an archer one that should be replaced (). I would also like actual Republican Roman soldiers, and their Carthaginian equivalents. The Osprey series of books have the general idea. If you don't have access I can scan the Roman ones and send them to you.

Cheers