Finished up some of my small 3d experimental landscapes with some clouds painted in Verve.
This is the first I've heard of Verve. It looks neat, but would probably fry GPU.
Whhhy did you paint over top of the mountains? It's really obvious, with that line of paint at the horizon frequently crossing the terrain, and gives it the effect of model terrain in a shoebox. If Verve doesn't handle transparent layers, you could have just painted the sky, then added the hills over top of it in another program.
I don't like the 'flat shading' setting. Smooth would get rid of the "everything is triangles" effect.
It looks unfinished, with the terrain untextured.
They're nice clouds.
Your clouds look like their all glitched out in the first two pictures. It would be a really neat effect in a setting like The Matrix. If you're doing this again, please do so with more glitched clouds, and more extreme terrain, like curved obelisks instead of gently rolling hills. Maybe some lightning or something. And now I want to draw a landscape, something I did not expect to say.
I'm running a gtx 960, and so far Verve has been running smoothly, though I've been painting in sizes less than 2000 x 2000 pixels.
Fair enough, the 3d aspect is bad and I was a bit sloppy with the painting. This certainly something that as an artist I fall short, that being I tend to be a bit messy with most of my art. Also, I have a lot of inexperience, and I do not have any idea on how to make proper landscapes in blender
.
I only painted over the mountains because I rendered the images of the landscapes first, I went back and looked at Verve there is a masking tool that allows you to mask off parts of the painting. But, I was unaware of that option when I did these pieces.
For the flat shading of the rendered 3d landscape, I just really liked the look of it, though it's more of just not using blender enough that I did not consider using smooth shading.
As for glitching clouds, that is a aesthetic I might try to do, these paintings of cloud were studies from references that I had. Which makes it interesting to interpret them that way.
Also, thanks for the critique, and I'll try to implement your ideas the next time I do something like this.