Radiant Domed Arches

[talisa]

fancy, me like

at some point if i ever make any maps i will def use something like this some time.

i always love such stuff ^^

[MadGypsy]

Maybe I should make a prefab pack. I have tons of highly detailed (for q1) map pieces. Most of them are even prelit and they generally use the same 4 or 5 textures. As long as no one ever rotated them they are ready to go. Even the slightest rotation would create an ass-load of repositioning of textures.

Primarily my work is "Gothic". It's images of gothic architecture that inspire me to try to reinvent the shapes in Radiant. However, I generally texture these away from an actual gothic feel. So, I don't know how to "genre" my work. Gothic shapes with city and industrial textures?

Let me know if there is an interest in this. If I get at least 10 people that want it I'll compile a prefab pack. It will consist primarily of way too brushy arches and columns, outdoor pieces like purgulas, palladiums, amphitheaters. Decorative pieces like various wall mounts that add dimension to an area. Kinda like a firepace would, but I never made an actual fireplace.

One thing to consider before you jump and say "make it". My map pieces look like I made them. What I mean by that is: Just dumping my prefabs in your map is going to look out of place, unless you are doing the same things to your prefabs that I do to mine. For instance I never use "axial" in the surface inspector. Mainly because creating a lot of detail leads to "axial" breaking all the design. Let me give you an example

axial


gypxial


Ya see the huge difference? Dumping my prefabs in an axial map is not going to look right. You will have to take just as much time with your texture placement as I take with mine. Which is a hell of a lot. If you really study the gypxial image you will notice that I didn't just rotate and align the textures according to some algorithm. They are rotated and aligned uniquely to break up any possible repetition that I could break. The point is to remove the seams without simply looping the texture. This goes down into the finest of details. The little sticking up part in the 4:30(ish) position (in the corners of the octagon) is textured differently that the 10:30(ish) position. This is such a small detail but they add up.

I'm a firm believer that perfect symmetry in a map is bad. There is no perfect symmetry in real life. Even the left side of your own face is different than the right, so why approach a map with an "axial" or "symmetrical" view? Even the smallest, possibly generally unnoticed, details which throw off the symmetry, make a big deal when taken in as a whole.

[golden_boy]

Re: symmetry; yes, faces are not 100% symmetrical, but their main features are symmetrical. It's the combination of those things that appeals.

[MadGypsy]

At this point, my dome is too fancy for the structure it is sitting on. The dome is now really domed. The last dome was just a series of 8 ramps (1 brush each). This dome is quite a bit more involved. I also went kabonkers on the stained glass. I actually tried to align the texture normally and it was impossible. Always off a hair here or there. So, I decided to just "repaint" the whole thing. It's the same dragon glass from the last one.




I'm actually going to remove the dome from this structure. If this structure had a dome, it would be an iron one. Maybe I'll even do that.

[Sza]

what happened there?^^ i see only half texture.

[MadGypsy]

Oh wow, you're right. HAH! I symmetrically fucked up perfect! Each piece of glass is wrong in the exact same way. What are the odds?!

[Sza]

look in the post nr 12 there is a problem too. one stained glass showing a dragon without wings, and the other is showing only wings.

[MadGypsy]

Thanks Sza, I can't believe I missed these mistakes. I'm fuckin stupid, brah.

[Sza]

No, you are tired or sleepy^^