LarryG on 9/6/2010 at 16:47
Definitely higher resolution detail. but shouldn't rusty metal be a bit more dinged up? To my mind this looks brand new. I'm thinking more surface corrosion depth might be a good thing on them.
Nameless Voice on 9/6/2010 at 18:53
I agree about the bevelling.
Inline Image:
http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/1091/06092010200913.jpgSubtle difference, but I think it makes it look better. More would probably look silly.
Edit: Made the embossing clearer by removing most of the roughness and wear on the symbol.
Unsure about the dents in the rusty metal - clearly defined dents would make the repeats in the textures even more obvious.
Lady Rowena on 9/6/2010 at 19:48
Damn NV, I wish that you did it before.....I retextured all the rusty objects that I needed a few months ago....I can't tell about the result though. :o
Nameless Voice on 9/6/2010 at 20:28
Quote Posted by Lady Rowena
Damn NV, I wish that you did it before.....I retextured all the rusty objects that I needed a few months ago....I can't tell about the result though. :o
I made at least some of those a long time ago, but I was too scared to post them in case you saw them! ;)
ZylonBane on 9/6/2010 at 21:41
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
I agree about the bevelling.
Subtle difference, but I think it makes it look better. More would probably look silly.
Edit: Made the embossing clearer by removing most of the roughness and wear on the symbol.
To me, that looks worse now... very sharp and stamped and colored-in, not like a rough-hewn pagan book would look. Also, the symbol itself is subtly wrong. The top arc isn't a solid region in the original, it's two lines. The top circle isn't solid either.
Hooray for old beat-up pagan lore!
(
http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/medievalbook/leather_chains.htm)
Inline Image:
http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/medievalbook/pics/570pixW/4600no54_cover.jpgTaffer418 on 10/6/2010 at 05:00
Awesome :thumb:
