Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dibujor]

While making some tiles for spacefox I felt the urge to try my hand at making a completely new graphic pack.

After searching and reading A LOT from the forums I settled on a 24x24 size for the tiles, due to my screen being 1920x1200 so at 24 px it fits the 80x25 standard perfectly (I know with twbt this isn't a problem anymore). 24px isn't an incredibly big size to work with, but certainly an improvement over the standard 16x16, so I could convey more detail to the tiles.

Then LeoCean happened . He showed me some incredible tiles @ 32px (they're from Obsidian, I believe) and I HAD TO try to draw some tiles at that size. Man!, what a difference those 8 px make to the detail you can include in a tile. I know the bigger the tiles, the more detailed, but I think bigger than 32 would be too big for me, with how the game works atm.

Now, I can't decide what size to use. 32 px give me a lot of room to play with every tile, but I read through the forums that big tiles look awful when zoomed out and it worries me going a good looks and ending up with a non practical tileset. Is there any particular reason to go for 24 instead of 32? Or viceversa?

Below you can see what I have been up to with those sizes. Please bear in mind I'm no real pixel artist and those are proof of concept, probably they'll need a lot of contrast adjustments and maybe some editing as I don't know if they'll be too noisy when in game.

Spoiler: 24x24 tiles: (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: 32x32 tiles: (click to show/hide)

Yeah, I know, I know. I tend to get carried away and do 4 or five versions of every tile...

[Meph]

*Not a pixel artist.

They are seriously amazing. I know that more people use 24x resolutions, but 32x is nicer to see obviously. Your choice. Either one can be up/downscaled with various quality losses.

[Dirst]

Gotta agree with Meph there.  Unless those were copied from somewhere, you most definitely qualify as a pixel artist :p

I would lean slightly toward the 32px, but it depends on the types of players you have in mind for your set.

[Dibujor]

 If I'm perfectly honest, I was mostly thinking about myself. I recently was watching some images from the production designs for Dwarves in The Hobbit and loved what they did with them. I decided I wanted to make something like that. Mostly "the spirit" of the designs, not a "conversion" type of thing of modding LOTR onto DF. I wanted to create a tileset with a clearly defined identity for the dwarves in all the designs (well and all races I could, if it comes to that). Not really thinking in what types of users will use it. "Casual" users (if DF even has of that) will use the most established ones, and it seems many people still prefers the standard 16x16 size.

Now, while I'm making it I thought it could be wise to ask which size people would prefer and/or use. Though as Meph says it can be downscaled, the 32x32 even to 16x16 with some redrawing (ok, a lot of redrawing but would end up with a "standard" size and a "HD" size.

I thought of doing something simpler @24x24 but obviously after trying 32px I'm more comfortable with the level of detail it lets me use, if there's no big downsides of going for that size.

Gotta agree with Meph there.  Unless those were copied from somewhere, you most definitely qualify as a pixel artist :p

Haha, yes, they're totally mine and not copied. Well, prior of my making of some spacefox tiles I had never touched pixel art. I'm an illustrator by trade though, so I have art experience. But I can assure you "normal" 2d art and pixel art are very different matters, even the rules are not the same, mainly due to the really small sizes. And I love detailing while painting, so I struggled A LOT to make things look like I wanted with that few pixels.

[Meph]

Personally  I'd prefer 32x, because DragondePlatinum just did 24x and 48x.

[Vanst7]

Amazing! Really nice work, i was about to continue my tileset but i think i'll wait for yours! Really like the details in your tiles.

[Dibujor]

Amazing! Really nice work, i was about to continue my tileset but i think i'll wait for yours! Really like the details in your tiles.

You shouldn't, I really like where you were going. And man, I love that grass.

Half the time I'm not sure what I'm doing with the tiles so I'll be asking A LOT of questions .

[DragonDePlatino]

The decision is up to you, but this is why I chose 24px for GemSet:

The minimum resolution for vanilla DF is 80x25 tiles. And for tiles, horizontal resolution is the only limiting factor. If you want to know the maximum tile size someone can fit on their screen, you take their horizontal resolution and divide it by 80. For my monitor, that would be 1600px / 80 = 20px tiles. But...My monitor resolution isn't the most common one. After doing some research (a.k.a. Googling "Most common screen resolutions") I eventually concluded that 1920px is one of the most common resolutions for gamers. Which is 1920px / 80 = 24px tiles. 1920px is also the resolution for 1080p and if you double it, you get 4k resolution.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This means that even though I can't view GemSet myself, a vast majority of people can and those with 4k monitors could use the 48px version. 32px isn't as good an idea IMO because it's way too big for 1920px users and way too small for 4k users. Also, remember that as you raise the resolution, it exponentially increases the amount of work that goes into drawing tiles. I started GemSet on January 1st, 2015 (ahaha so ugly) and did not complete the creature graphics until May 15, 2015. Not to mention, I had experience with pixel art, drew it in 24px, used a really simple style and dedicated almost all of my free time to working on it. For someone with less pixel art experience, drawing in 32px, using a detailed style and having other work to do, you could be working on this tileset for almost a year!

*Not a pixel artist.

They are seriously amazing. I know that more people use 24x resolutions, but 32x is nicer to see obviously. Your choice. Either one can be up/downscaled with various quality losses.

He's not a pixel artist, but he's an incredibly-talented commercial illustrator. I've seen this happen so many times before...Most people with digital art experience draw really mediocre pixel art when they're starting out, but after a month of work they're better than most dedicated pixel artists out there. Man, I remember seeing this digital artist post some Japanese art on /r/pixelart. This is what he looked like when he started out and this is how good he got after a month of work. It's crazy, man.

[variablenonsense]

I have to agree with DragonDePlatino; using 24px seems more accessible for more people. They look AMAZING though, please make a full set. 

[Vanst7]

With TWBT you are not limited by 80x25, so if he want to go higher then 24 there no problem. But personally i found 24x a good middle ground, not too big or too small, just the right size for me.

[Dibujor]

I know to be the most accesible 24px fits perfectly in a 1920 resolution, and that is the most used one, even if it only was for every youtuber out there. That fits perfectly the old minimum vanilla resolution. With 32px tiles you go up to 2560 width (WQHD). That's why I initially settled on doing a 24 px tileset

Ok, I'll be honest with myself here: I WANT to work the tiles at 32 px. The ones I made at 24px (in the first example) look like crap compared to the others at 32px. What worries me is if I SHOULD to. Now that I'm making it, obviously I want it to be used. I don't know if I was expecting a big bad problem to have 32px tiles.

Not having played the game enough plays against me here.

Is it really that much of a problem for most players? with twbt 32px is a zoom level away from 24px isn't it? Does anyone still plays the vanilla game without twbt and dfhack?

Ironically, I'm quicker with the bigger tiles, the ones @24px took me a couple days of free time, whereas it only took me 3 hours to make those @32px. With the smaller tiles I have to rethink every step to show the detail I think I "need", unlike spacefox where the cartoony style made it "easier" to work at 16 even when it was difficult enough.

I can't promise a time frame for this to being finished whatever the size, however.  I have work and a little daughter, but I'll finish it. In the future it could be downsized and edited to other sizes which is quicker (the longest time is taken on the design process) but that's a big "I don't know", this is big enough of a project as is.

So there

[DragonDePlatino]

Hmmm...Interesting perspective there. As a pixel artist I've always found it quicker to draw in low resolutions, but if my digital art didn't suck I'd probably feel more comfortable drawing in higher resolutions.

People drawing more quickly in 32px isn't unheard of, anyways, so if that's what's comfortable for you then go for it! Monitors will only get better with the coming years and people will slowly start to abandon the old 16px and 24px tilesets. I doubt most people feel comfortable playing with zoomed-out 16px tiles, anyways. If you've got a 2560px monitor and zoom all the way out with a 16px tileset, each tile only takes up like 0.6% of your horizontal resolution.

[Max™]

Yeah, 24 would be the minimum I'd suggest for a new tileset if going from scratch, but those 32x ones looked great, so hey, if you like working in the size anyway, rock out man. That's part of why I stuck with bisasam for so long, the larger tilesets didn't appeal to me, and I really got to love the flavor of the 24x24 enough to start pulling in tiles from other sets. I found the 24x24 spacefox and loved it instantly, though the pheobus creatures didn't look as good scaled up so I used the CLA ones which I still love, and if you haven't seen them go check it out. Super clever representations there.

GemSet is the first time in a long time that I've used a complete set with no editing (well, I do use the horned helmet classes instead of the helmetless adventurer ones but that's just a couple of bracket deletions) and I mean that as a compliment.

Having to decide between several gorgeous large tilesets?

Yeah, that's a good problem to have.

By the way, the 4th coffin and statue in the 32x shots are AWESOME.

[Klisz]

I need to get myself a better monitor sometime. I'm still on 1366x768, so I can't easily enjoy tilesets larger than 17x17.

[Dibujor]

Hmmm...Interesting perspective there. As a pixel artist I've always found it quicker to draw in low resolutions, but if my digital art didn't suck I'd probably feel more comfortable drawing in higher resolutions.

People drawing more quickly in 32px isn't unheard of, anyways, so if that's what's comfortable for you then go for it! Monitors will only get better with the coming years and people will slowly start to abandon the old 16px and 24px tilesets. I doubt most people feel comfortable playing with zoomed-out 16px tiles, anyways. If you've got a 2560px monitor and zoom all the way out with a 16px tileset, each tile only takes up like 0.6% of your horizontal resolution.

Yep, I think in this case it has more to do with the style than with the resolution. If I wanted to do a simpler, or cartoony looking set, 24px would be plenty of room for something like spacefox or an ascii based tileset and I'd be content with that. Problem is, I begun this with an idea in mind that requires a certain style for what I want and while I could pull it off @24 I think 32 is the minimum for that particular style to look cool without struggling every step. Sure I liked what I did @24 when I did it (but was never really satisfied) but then tried to draw those @32 and something "clicked". I did them pretty fast and without much problems.... ---LeoCean I curse you for showing me that tiles ---

I found the 24x24 spacefox and loved it instantly, though the pheobus creatures didn't look as good scaled up so I used the CLA ones which I still love, and if you haven't seen them go check it out. Super clever representations there.

GemSet is the first time in a long time that I've used a complete set with no editing (well, I do use the horned helmet classes instead of the helmetless adventurer ones but that's just a couple of bracket deletions) and I mean that as a compliment.

Having to decide between several gorgeous large tilesets?

Yeah, that's a good problem to have.

By the way, the 4th coffin and statue in the 32x shots are AWESOME.

I know CLA creatures, I found that awesome for being an ascii tileset

Hehe, Gemset is going to mark the path to future sets I think. I know for now I'll be following his raws and overrides. He's doing a pretty damn good and complete job.

Various tiles... yep that's a "problem" of mine every time I draw something. I tend to do multiple versions. Probably end up with three of four tiles for most things. Perhaps in the future a poll is in order .

In the case of the statues I'd love to be able to make variants based on materials or something. My first statue looks like a good general statue while the forth looks like a good one for a hero miner or something.

I need to get myself a better monitor sometime. I'm still on 1366x768, so I can't easily enjoy tilesets larger than 17x17.

1920 monitors are pretty cheap this days, you'll notice the difference