[Gambit]

It'd probably take a fair number of new frames (and a bit of new programming), but it'd be fairly simple to make the ghora's body glow with the fire. Making the area around the fireballs glow would probably have to be done with some special effects and therefore wouldn't be a part of the sprite.

[HeartAttack]

I wouldn't think so. If the fireballs around him can be rotated during the animation, I don't see why a reflection of the rotating fireballs couldn't be cast on him. Not to get into the whole "what makes sense and what doesn't in a Sonic game" argument, but it doesn't make much sense that the sun casts a highlight on him, but the bright flames, which are a mere few inches away, do nothing.

Of course, I don't know how possible/impossible adding moving reflections would be, and I know I certainly can't make it happen. I was just basically throwing the idea out there for thought

EDIT: that was geared toward Solaris. Thanks for the info, Gambit

This post has been edited by HeartAttack: 25 April 2010 - 05:50 PM

[Hivebrain]

The reflections could themselves be sprites. It wouldn't require any extra programming.

[Hamneggs]

That was tree I made a while back even though the lighting/shadows are giving off some funky stuff and the render is missing the top of the tree.
I would need to dig around for the file to find it again though.

Now there's the volume it lacked.


...Except for the trunk, for some reason?

Now when one complains about the top of the tree, why is this one never considered? It is amazing IMO; perhaps there was a reason it was refused, and I never heard it. Mind filling me in?

This post has been edited by Hamneggs: 16 May 2010 - 11:32 PM

[Canned Karma]

When I look at it, I see a lot of potential in the shapes. I also see a mess with the way the shadows currently are, as the coloration throughout the top isn't cohesive. The shading on it needs to be re-evaluated entirely.

[Gambit]

Well, I've got this weird way that I see these trees, and I also actually think it's why they all seem to fall short. Anyways, here's a description of what I see, hopefully it'll make sense. Alright, so. The shading on the middle front below each segment is all exactly the same. This is implying that each segment goes down at an exact interval and does not vary. This makes sense on its own, but those really big spikes on the left and right sides that just seem to come from nowhere completely shatter this, because they look like they're in some kind of weird perspective when they should line up with, or almost with, the spikes in front of them.

These things combined end up making it look like the tree is being viewed from a slight downwards angle, and it also makes it look like it's using some kind of broken perspective that just doesn't work. I'm not just talking about that tree up there either, I'm talking about all of them and the original sprite. I firmly believe the tree will just have to have an improvised top made.

[dsrb]

What's with the lines, particularly those just above the points of the middle leaves? Also, the leaves on each side look too long (as I think Gambit was trying to say).

[The Growler]

OK, I decided to Google around for some pictures of real pine/conifer trees (which I assume that's what they're based off), and it got me thinking...

Perhaps this could be one of those occasions where we don't have to follow *exactly* the style of the branches sticking out. If we are to HD this, wouldn't it be logical to add a lot more [textual?] detail to it, rather than have the same shape, but only has good shading and lighting to it?

I found this picture of a 3D pine tree (albeit poor quality), and thought this (much improved, of course) wouldn't look too bad on top of a long trunk. What do you guys think?

source: http://lightstarstudios.blogspot.com/2009/...pine-trees.html

Or possibly something like this - it seems to be the closest to what Sonic 2's one looks like, but these ones don't have long trunks. But even them don't have the shape quite what we want:

This post has been edited by The Growler: 17 May 2010 - 10:13 AM

[Cerulean Nights]

Perhaps this could be one of those occasions where we don't have to follow *exactly* the style of the branches sticking out. If we are to HD this, wouldn't it be logical to add a lot more [textual?] detail to it, rather than have the same shape, but only has good shading and lighting to it?

This is the right attitude to have for the project. We are not just using the exact same shapes as the sprites with some textures added, we are re-imagining what they could have looked like if the creators didn't have the limits of the megadrive. Everything should still keep that Sonic 2 cartoony feel, but also feel new, and better. Using the sprite is a great way to start out, but you then need to refine it and make it something that will really "wow" people when they see it, making them truly understand how much love went into every single aspect of the game.

[ICEknight]

Now when one complains about the top of the tree, why is this one never considered? It is amazing IMO; perhaps there was a reason it was refused, and I never heard it. Mind filling me in?

There weren't any other reasons than the 3D model being lost, as far as I know.

This post has been edited by ICEknight: 18 May 2010 - 01:43 PM

[MaximusDM]

I didn't lose the file. I just didn't bother re-rendering it because its 3D.
And I have no idea if 3D is okay NOW. But when I first posted that, staff said no 3D. And then it moved to maybe and then it moved to SOME things will be made with 3D.
And I have no idea where that stands now. Is it even worth re-rendering? I personally like my tree, and I could touch it up in photoshop to correct some weird AA and shadowing.

But Cerulean Nights is looking more for a re-imagining of the tree.

My trunk sucks, and there was a post a while back where someone cut out my trunk and put it with someone elses. And I thought that looked great.

[Hamneggs]

I didn't lose the file. I just didn't bother re-rendering it because its 3D.
And I have no idea if 3D is okay NOW. But when I first posted that, staff said no 3D. And then it moved to maybe and then it moved to SOME things will be made with 3D.
And I have no idea where that stands now. Is it even worth re-rendering? I personally like my tree, and I could touch it up in photoshop to correct some weird AA and shadowing.

But Cerulean Nights is looking more for a re-imagining of the tree.

My trunk sucks, and there was a post a while back where someone cut out my trunk and put it with someone elses. And I thought that looked great.

I remember making that merge. Perhaps you could re-render your top, then let us play with the image, stacking it on different trunks. Just saying...

Also, if you do re render your tree, take into account how Gambit said it looked like we had a downward perspective. Perhaps try lowering the camera, then angling it up very slightly.

This post has been edited by Hamneggs: 18 May 2010 - 05:11 PM

[Cerulean Nights]

But Cerulean Nights is looking more for a re-imagining of the tree.

Right now, to me personally, the tree is very un-inspired. If you want to use a model as your base to get the right angle and shadows, you will need to completely overhaul it in Photoshop or similar after the inital render to give it that hand-drawn, cartoon look. We will not be using 3D for things like trees, fire, sprites, etc. In fact, I can't think of anything that will be 3D right now (sans the special stage). It just looks tacky against a 2d image.

Our final art direction is set right now, and in the past there might have been some confusion because things were still all over the place, things still didn't blend together, and staff was experimenting wth different ideas. I can't say with 100% certainty, I wasn't here then. What I can tell you now is that the art direction is set, and none of it has included 3d renders.

[Hamneggs]

Okay, I thought a bit about the tree, and I conjured up an idea to spice it up.

What if you took a 3d-ish version of the tree, similar to MDM's and layered a green version of the Emerald Hill soil checkerboard over it to give it the depth that it lacks? Just a suggestion...

[Gambit]

That sounds like it would end up making the tree look incredibly strange. I'm not talking about depth with texture, just the shading and form. It should also still retain the simplistic shapes that are present in the original.

Also, that tree was dismissed because it would need a fair amount of work to make it fit in. That and even if we were to take it and use it as a base shape and draw around that, I'm still not entirely happy with the shape of it, so it wouldn't have done much good anyways.

It kinda clashes right now.