New bridge

[Roel]

you can see that the perspective is all wrong, especially compared to the house.

I don't know how to explain this in english but the bridge like it is drawn is seen from a much higher viewpoint than the house is

The stone bridges have the same problem

[freim]

you can see that the perspective is all wrong, especially compared to the house.

I don't know how to explain this in english but the bridge like it is drawn is seen from a much higher viewpoint than the house is

The stone bridges have the same problem

I fully aware of that, but I don't think the bridge will look any good against the terrain with the same perspective as the villages. There are not much room left in the tiles to draw it like the houses either.

[Woodwizzle]

I think the wooden bridges look excellent. The stone bridges look like a bad photoshop eboss filter though. Concerning perspective: The bridges perspective is much closer to correct than the villages' However the villages can usually get away with their bad perspective when they're sitting in a mass of boring terrain. The bridge just seems to bring out the bad in the village. Ideally I guess the best way to fix this would be to redraw all the villages to a much closer to accurate perspective but I doubt that will happen. And what is accurate anywho? Units are drawn almost head on. Castles and some terrain like forests are more 3/4. Water and grassland look like bird's eye views.

[Roel]

the trees and the hills have the same perspective as the vilage so I think the bridge should have it too

[quartex]

I agree with Roel. the trees and villages and landscape have sort of an isometric or a viewpoint from diagonally above, as opposed to directly above. The bridge's perspective doesn't match the rest of the landscape. It's not a big deal, but if you look closely you can see that it is a bit off.

[turin]

I agree with Roel. the trees and villages and landscape have sort of an isometric or a viewpoint from diagonally above, as opposed to directly above. The bridge's perspective doesn't match the rest of the landscape. It's not a big deal, but if you look closely you can see that it is a bit off.

its not "true" iso (which is 2 pixels over, 1 up), but yeah... the perspectives seem wierd.

[Eponymous-Archon]

I agree with Roel. the trees and villages and landscape have sort of an isometric or a viewpoint from diagonally above, as opposed to directly above. The bridge's perspective doesn't match the rest of the landscape. It's not a big deal, but if you look closely you can see that it is a bit off.

its not "true" iso (which is 2 pixels over, 1 up), but yeah... the perspectives seem wierd.

I believe that the perspective from which isometric views are shown is variable.

[Jetrel]

I think the wooden bridges look excellent. The stone bridges look like a bad photoshop eboss filter though.

Filter -> Texture -> Mosaic Tiles

actually. But who cares...

Concerning perspective: The bridges perspective is much closer to correct than the villages' However the villages can usually get away with their bad perspective when they're sitting in a mass of boring terrain. The bridge just seems to bring out the bad in the village. Ideally I guess the best way to fix this would be to redraw all the villages to a much closer to accurate perspective but I doubt that will happen. And what is accurate anywho? Units are drawn almost head on. Castles and some terrain like forests are more 3/4. Water and grassland look like bird's eye views.

I think the castles and forests are exactly the way things should be. The new mountains and hills fit with this.

Christophe, you said before in work on those canyons that the perspective is top down. I don't think it should be - I think it should be 3/4. Draw everything that way. It contrasts less with the units, and allows for overlaps like the castle, which look wonderful.

Many of the units are at a slight bit of an angle - there are some like the troll warrior and elvish fighter that are a bit not, but others like the archmage and assassin are quite tilted.

As for the water and grassland, given the way they look they could be anything. I have my own plans for the water that will blow everyones socks off. I may have time to work on them when I get the second half of this summer off from school.

[Christophe33]

I had to redo the diagonal bridge from the n-s one since the previous was only 70 pixel wide and not well aligned. I guess the problem is not the initial filters. When you tilt 60 degres, the result is very blurry, specially with image having strong horizontal/vertical lines. So I had to sharpen afterward and it might have been too much but I'm not convinced of that. You need sharp contrast and a somewhat rough shape to suggest a old style stone bridge. On the other hand, I agree that the pavement itself could be more smooth. The question is whther or not a stone bridge is going to be used in BfW.
About the wooden bridge:
-the initial wood bridge is a bit blurrry after convertion from70 pixel to 72, so I suggest starting from the initial 70 pixel one and add a pixel on each side. If you really want to make pilar, there should be only two per hex but bigger one something like 6 pixels, maybe with a stone or brick base.
The perspective used is not that off from the rest beside the village that might need to be redone anyway since they are became also a bit blurry.

Since the canyon tiles are apparently not going to be used, they are not a problem for perspective.

[quartex]

Since the canyon tiles are apparently not going to be used, they are not a problem for perspective.

That's too bad. I really liked the canyons and thought they were really well done. Why were they rejected?

[Dave]

Since the canyon tiles are apparently not going to be used, they are not a problem for perspective.

That's too bad. I really liked the canyons and thought they were really well done. Why were they rejected?

I think mainly because no scenario designer has started using them.

They also open up problems of 'should units be able to get down into the canyons' which will likely create a host of disagreements.

David

[Christophe33]

Well, no scenario designer can use it until the canyon tile is implemented in the game, so it is a circular argument.
Also it was already discussed that only flying units could cross it.
Maybe we could restart a poll or discussion about that and the underground terrains that were not used (I'm remaking them by the way) to see if there is still some interest for these terrain.

[quartex]

I suppose it was christophe33's cavern screeshot I saw. But I remember that his chasms, fields of stalactites, and stone bridges added a lot to the normally bare cave levels. I think some of his terrain features could add a lot to the dwarven caves levels of Heir to the throne and other campaigns. I like the idea of fields of stalactites being like an underground forest.

[Jetrel]

PLEASE make more underground terrain. And if you could make visible walls to go against the solid rock of the "Cave wall" terrain, that would rock.

Something *much* like the canyons, please. For reference on what I mean, look up the game "Secret of Mana" by Squaresoft.

Not zelda style.

[Eleazar]

Made some new bridge tiles.

IMHO we're missing the obvious. The bridge should look like the pier in this image, only longer. I propose that there be no N-S bridge, but only angled ones, so we can avoid weird perspective issues.