[Mod] mypaths [mypaths]

[Don]

Don't use gimp. It isn't good for small images. Use paint.net instead.

Maybe you should actually change the nodeboxes, so the road surface is lower than the surrounding grass.

I like the nodebox idea. I will put that on my list.
I will try paint.net. Thanks for the suggestion.

EDIT - paint.net is only for windows. They do not support linux.

Is there something like Microsoft paint, but for linux? even that would be better than GIMP.

There are a number of paint programs for linux. I will take a little time today to see which work ok.

[ExeterDad]

Is there something like Microsoft paint, but for linux? even that would be better than GIMP.

Is it April Fools Day already??

[Don]

Lol. Jump in here any time ExeterDad. I have never done anything with bumpmaps so I have to figure it out.
I have read that it is not worth it to bumpmap 16 x 16 textures. Only the bigger images benefit from bumpmapping. Can anyone tell me if that is true?

[ExeterDad]

I've bump mapped with Gimp and its not very hard. But honestly, I haven't tried bump mapping with textures for Minetest yet so I'm not sure what the engine expects to implement them.

[lightonflux]

Video howto: How to set up GIMP for pixel art

The nodebox would be another possibility, but it would need more resources because of additional vertices, but maybe that negligible.

[Don]

Video howto: How to set up GIMP for pixel art

The nodebox would be another possibility, but it would need more resources because of additional vertices, but maybe that negligible.

I understand how to use gimp. I just don't understand bumpmaps. I need to take some time and read about it. Give me a little time and I will get it.
I might make a nodebox version in the future. I have been trying to keep my mods as light as possible lately. I want them to be resource friendly. If I make a nodebox one it will be a separate mod. Don't expect it any time soon though

[12Me21]

If you simplify the borders between the grass and path (make them straight), you could use only a few nodeboxes:
for 1-wide path parts:
corner: 3
T: 4
+: 5
straight: 3
end: 4
single path block: 5

and larger areas:
edge: 2
outer corner: 3
inner corner: 3
full path block: 1
double inner corner: same side: 3
double inner corner: opposite sides: 3
triple inner corner: 4

even if you just simplified them a little bit, they would still use fewer nodeboxes than the stone paths.

[Don]

If you simplify the borders between the grass and path (make them straight), you could use only a few nodeboxes:
for 1-wide path parts:
corner: 3
T: 4
+: 5
straight: 3
end: 4
single path block: 5

and larger areas:
edge: 2
outer corner: 3
inner corner: 3
full path block: 1
double inner corner: same side: 3
double inner corner: opposite sides: 3
triple inner corner: 4

even if you just simplified them a little bit, they would still use fewer nodeboxes than the stone paths.

How much do you think the path should be lowered with nodeboxes?

[12Me21]

If you simplify the borders between the grass and path (make them straight), you could use only a few nodeboxes:
for 1-wide path parts:
corner: 3
T: 4
+: 5
straight: 3
end: 4
single path block: 5

and larger areas:
edge: 2
outer corner: 3
inner corner: 3
full path block: 1
double inner corner: same side: 3
double inner corner: opposite sides: 3
triple inner corner: 4

even if you just simplified them a little bit, they would still use fewer nodeboxes than the stone paths.

How much do you think the path should be lowered with nodeboxes?

maybe 1 or 2 pixels (1/16 to 2/16, which means the top is 7/16 or 6/16. when defining the nodebox). try out different hights to see what looks best/

[Don]

I will try to make time today to make it. No promises.

[12Me21]

I will try to make time today to make it. No promises.

Ok. the problem is the slopes. there might need to be a few new nodes for underneath the slopes, I'll explain more later, or maybe you'll discover it on your own.

[Don]

I will try to make time today to make it. No promises.

Ok. the problem is the slopes. there might need to be a few new nodes for underneath the slopes, I'll explain more later, or maybe you'll discover it on your own.

I already thought about that. It will have to be a node that is 2 high. Not sure how it will look though.

[rubenwardy]

Edit: I didn't see the second page.

Gimp is fine is you know how to use it correctly. To do pixel art, you need to use the pencil tool, select the square brush and set the size to 1. And when rubbing out you need to use "hard edge". One you've done that to set it up, then it works okay. GIMP isn't known for its intuitiveness.

GIMP runs a lot better on Linux, on Windows its windows are annoying and it takes ages to load.

[Don]

Edit: I didn't see the second page.

Gimp is fine is you know how to use it correctly. To do pixel art, you need to use the pencil tool, select the square brush and set the size to 1. And when rubbing out you need to use "hard edge". One you've done that to set it up, then it works okay. GIMP isn't known for its intuitiveness.

GIMP runs a lot better on Linux, on Windows its windows are annoying and it takes ages to load.

Thanks

[Don]

I will try to make time today to make it. No promises.

Ok. the problem is the slopes. there might need to be a few new nodes for underneath the slopes, I'll explain more later, or maybe you'll discover it on your own.

I threw this together. Give it a try and let me know what you think it. It is not complete but I just want to get opinions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t16i00wsmvo2g ... x.zip?dl=0

[Sokomine]

Very nice paths. It would be great to have some between the villages in mg_villages eventually, but I'm afraid that's going to take a lot of time. The pahs look very good.

[Don]

Very nice paths. It would be great to have some between the villages in mg_villages eventually, but I'm afraid that's going to take a lot of time. The pahs look very good.

Thanks

[philipbenr]

@12Me21: No, Gimp actually can be beautiful for little work like this. Even though the program is a bit big for the job, you will find it very capable.

So, Don: crash course!

• Azimuth: The angle at which the 3d bumping takes place. Not very important for smaller images.
• Elevation: I am not quite sure myself, but toying with this shows me that the elevation should be above the depth
• Depth: How extreme the map should be when bumping up: More depth = more contrast when bumping
• X & Y offset: Does what is says: offsets the bump that is made
• Waterlevel: Not very important for this
• Ambient: If you are going to turn up the depth, turn this up to smooth it out, and not make the bump so violent.

So, the three sliders I adjust the most would be the depth, the elevation (always higher than the depth), and this ambient. Here is a screenie for you Don.

The best result I can give you

image.png (205.16 KiB) Viewed 771 times

Hope it helps.

Edit: Does that look like what you would want?

[Don]

@12Me21: No, Gimp actually can be beautiful for little work like this. Even though the program is a bit big for the job, you will find it very capable.

So, Don: crash course!

• Azimuth: The angle at which the 3d bumping takes place. Not very important for smaller images.
• Elevation: I am not quite sure myself, but toying with this shows me that the elevation should be above the depth
• Depth: How extreme the map should be when bumping up: More depth = more contrast when bumping
• X & Y offset: Does what is says: offsets the bump that is made
• Waterlevel: Not very important for this
• Ambient: If you are going to turn up the depth, turn this up to smooth it out, and not make the bump so violent.

So, the three sliders I adjust the most would be the depth, the elevation (always higher than the depth), and this ambient. Here is a screenie for you Don.

image.png

Hope it helps.

Edit: Does that look like what you would want?

Thank you so much. That makes more sense then anything I have read. I will play with that in the morning.

[12Me21]

@12Me21: No, Gimp actually can be beautiful for little work like this. Even though the program is a bit big for the job, you will find it very capable.

So, Don: crash course!

• Azimuth: The angle at which the 3d bumping takes place. Not very important for smaller images.
• Elevation: I am not quite sure myself, but toying with this shows me that the elevation should be above the depth
• Depth: How extreme the map should be when bumping up: More depth = more contrast when bumping
• X & Y offset: Does what is says: offsets the bump that is made
• Waterlevel: Not very important for this
• Ambient: If you are going to turn up the depth, turn this up to smooth it out, and not make the bump so violent.

So, the three sliders I adjust the most would be the depth, the elevation (always higher than the depth), and this ambient. Here is a screenie for you Don.

image.png

Hope it helps.

Edit: Does that look like what you would want?

I like the original better. The other one has too much noise, and doesn't look like a real path.

[philipbenr]

The one thing that I learned about pixel art for small, but realistic, is that nothing in the natural world is smooth and not noisy. I like more noise, because it seems more like rugged, beaten up terrain.

[12Me21]

The one thing that I learned about pixel art for small, but realistic, is that nothing in the natural world is smooth and not noisy. I like more noise, because it seems more like rugged, beaten up terrain.

It looks too rough though. Paths are usually pretty smooth (but not flat) because people walking on them will flatten any parts that stick up too much.

[tulenitata]

cool

[lightonflux]

Is the new repo @mintest-mods or is that only a mirror? If it is the new home of the mod can you please change the first post? Thanks don.

[Don]

The repo is @minetest-mods but linked to my repo. They are the some repo.
I will change the link so people are not confused.