ould like some opinions on texturing

[vonhammer_87]

Well as some of you may know i have been working my new route the White Creek Railway, and I am at the point here I am starting to do more texturing detail.

What I am having the most trouble with is getting mountainous and valley areas to basiclly look right, since I do plan realseing this on the dls. here are a few screens of the progress i have made. if anyone would like to review the route il be happy to send the cdp file.

 

[defacto]

Well, it looks very, very bumpy...

Are you trying to replicate a real life area, or are you making it from your imagination? In both cases, try to get pictures of the terrain type you are replicating.

if you are using TS12, try to search for TS09 and JVC textures, if you aren't using them already. They're really nice looking IMO

 

[BLACKWATCH]

To give some 'constructive criticism', everything is just too "one colour green" to me.
The basic formation of the hills (mountains) is looking ok (this always depends on where you are modelling), but it's the variation of colours in the ground textures that could do with a bit more.

I would suggest having a look through the 'Screenshots' section, there are some very good creators who have put their stuff on there, that will give you an idea of how different ground colours can be put together.
It's not easy to get it right, but with practice & the screenies of those who have been there and progressed, it does get easier.

 

[pfx]

For large areas of grass, I'd generally use 3 or 4 different textures to get rid of the flat appearance. Also, if you use the [ or ] key as you apply the textures, this will rotate the texture direction and help.

When adding the likes of rocks to a grassy area, very quick taps on the mouse button often help to partially blend the texture and on rock faces, use a single direction then change the texture direction and go back over what you've just done in a couple of smaller areas.

Hopefully you can see a little of what I'm talking about in the shots in the following links.

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showpost.php?p=790906&postcount=10773

These ones show raw and textured terrain.

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showpost.php?p=785325&postcount=10728

 

[mezzoprezzo]

It takes a bit of practice to get texturing right.

My first reaction to your scenery was that it is a good effort which could easily be improved with just a few simple adjustments.

First of all the topology. The mountains look a bit spiky. It’s an easy mistake to make at first, particularly if the topology sensitivity dial is set too high. Mine is rarely set higher than the third blip. I find that the gentler setting give much finer control. The higher sensitivity often results in peaks which look like inverted cones.

Mountains, although high, generally have fairly smooth inclines, with the “peaky” alpine bits only appearing well above the tree line.

There are probably only a couple of areas in this shot where the inclines are greater than 45deg, but it’s still possible to get the illusion of height. See what happens in the second shot, where I’ve deliberately “spiked” up the mountains. Keep checking your work from track level to see how it’s looking. Top down isn’t the view we usually have in reality.

This is what happens when the sensitivity is too high:

Regarding textures, keep a relatively simple palette. The Italian mountain area I’m currently building has just four tree and rock textures – which must be correctly rotated, but you can vary the mix, scale and radius to avoid the checkerboard effect. I also only use three or four ground textures, with the occasional splash of something interesting to highlight a particular area.

Keep at it. It improves as you progress. We’re all still learning.

Cheers
Casper

 

[Euphod]

Okay; I'll bite!

I'm no geologist, but the combination of sharp, towering peaks and green forest seems unrealistic to my uneducated eyeballs. Normally, a heavily greened, forested mountainous area would be older, and would have been subjected to erosion for longer, so the contours would be softer, more gradual, and rounded. The Appalachians in the US are a good example of this, but are not the oldest mountains technically. The Penokean mountains of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan are older.

The Rocky Mountains are younger than both, and show that lacking the years of erosion the landforms are more abrupt, angular and contain more exposed rock.

 

[nfitzsimmons]

Interestingly, there is one place I've visited where there is actually scenery like that. It's the area around Guilin and Yangshuo, China. I first saw it a couple of years ago, and was amazed.

For those of you who've seen the "stylized" paintings of spiky Chinese mountains, yes, there is a place where they actually look like that!

One of the routes I'm working is a freelanced Chinese route, and I'm going to try to incorporate some of that terrain into the scenery.

 

[vonhammer_87]

thanks guys Ill take that advice when i get to working on it again toinght or tommorow

 

[cascaderailroad]

http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/fstrainz/f7c5a5d6.jpg
Another Mezzoprezzo masterpiece !

Who need billions of trees when you can achive this look using only textures ?

I nominate Mezzoprezzo & Alberte for canidates in the US election next year !

 

[Retro00064]

<snip>

I nominate Mezzoprezzo & Alberte for canidates in the US election next year !

But Casper and Alberte are located in the United Kingdom and European Union, respectively.

Regards,

Retro.