next »

[eigenbom]

Here's another test, with some tweakage, and using DustyDrakes idea of making the foreground pop a bit by upping a lighting level..

[FibonacciSpaghetti]

Hey, sorry to derail the thread here, but is there some accepted way of doing this kind of lighting (the basic falloff from visible to obscured tiles)?

[jazeker]

I think you should really continue with the last effect, it works very good!

[Ashaman73]

Here's another test, with some tweakage, and using DustyDrakes idea of making the foreground pop a bit by upping a lighting level..

This looks really promising. Maybe you should add some kind of shadow from the sun (=your smiley), i.e. halfing value when not direct lighted from sun or one of your other light sources.

[eigenbom]

Hey, sorry to derail the thread here, but is there some accepted way of doing this kind of lighting (the basic falloff from visible to obscured tiles)?

You mean the actual falloff function? I don't think so, although the inverse square law will look alright.

@jazeker which one? quote the image..

@ashaman Cheers, yeh having a sun source is a good idea, but I'm really trying to find the most simple/minimal solution for lighting.

Here's some more images, crossposted from my devlog

[FibonacciSpaghetti]

These dang images have kept themselves stuck in my mind all of yesterday. Keep it up, they look great.

[jazeker]

Here's another test, with some tweakage, and using DustyDrakes idea of making the foreground pop a bit by upping a lighting level..

This one

And about the last version: I think you should have more light levels at the foreground, I don't really like the look of the current foreground of these images:

Here's some more images, crossposted from my devlog

[eigenbom]

Thx guys, I'm settling with what I've got for now.