[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/


File: image.jpg (3.15 MB, 3264x2448)
3.15 MB
3.15 MB JPG
No amount of tweaking or work makes a grass texture look good in an environment. People always use polygon grass.


Why is it that environments with grass textures instead of polygon grass look like shit?
>>
Pic related, a grass picture I took
>>
because grass textures lack depth, obviously.
Same reason everyone thinks low polygon hair looks like shit.
>>
>>501174
Because you're expecting it to have some sort of depth but really it is just a 2D image end you end up disappointed.
>>
use earth texture and redo the parts where green areas should be

used bushes and grass ontop but not too much
>>
Your eye is trained to pick up subtle details which would be too costly to replicate in real time 3d. It's not impossible to make a satisfyingly convincing grassy dirt but it's just no worth the resources
>>
File: poorfag.jpg (20.99 KB, 540x338)
20.99 KB
20.99 KB JPG
>>501174>>501179
It comes down to style as well. Graphically trying to represent hair in low-poly will look shit unless you are working on something that will only be seen from one perspective.

With stylised representations you can get away with a lot more. Look at LoZ windwaker.Grass looks fine in most circumstances even without normal mapping.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.