some of you may be wondering why i have been asking about who has won which remix contests and whatnot. well it is for this reason: i figured since there have already been 10 remix contests, i would pay homage to remix contest history by making my r3 a track fully based off previous entries (not sure if this could be classified as stealing/copying, but i wont be copying). for my r3, i plan on taking the focal/most memorable element of each past remix contest winner's r3 (and in the case of g-raffe, r2) track, and incorporating that into my r3. for context, remix contest 1 was won by vapaa (his r3 track: https://www.freeriderhd.com/t/676258-ruins-of-arutad-by-vapaa). essentially i took what i believed to be the most memorable/unique elements from the track and put them in my r3, mash-up style. (pic below is what is in my r3). i figured this would be a way to show the average frhd player who hasnt really got any clue what remix contests are a chance to take a peak into frhd history and greats of remix contest. if any of you have some serious problems with me doing this, let me know.
I have a serious problem with this now let me do the exact same thing and have me reap all of the rewards
Honestly all just depends on the style of tree you want. Both trees look good but they aren’t the same tree and thus can’t be detailed the same. The first one shows a tree that has more spread between branches and thus would benefit from a more “airy” kind of leaf pattern, while the second is a lot more dense and thus would benefit from a more densely drawn lead pattern. You should also have perspective in mind. By that I mean the first one just naturally has a more angled view of the tree while the second picture is more straight on. All this to say you can 100% draw the leafs however you want and I’m sure it’ll still look wonderful but that’s my two-sense. I’m not perfect with leafs and someone like Fluffysmack would be a lot more help on how to go about detailing. I just wanted to give some shallow advice. Hope this helps
They 100% could be. All I was saying was that with no shading, the first one gives the impression of someone (the viewer/rider) on the "ground level" looking up a tree, something that would typically be used in foreground detailing or height, where as the second photo looks more dead on with little to no angle on the perspective, something that would be used more in background detailing or depth.
Ok the first one does make some sense to be from a lower point of view and the second one from a higher point of view because at the lower point of view you see the branches from the trunk and then as the viewer goes higher then those branches go behind the leaves. I don't really get what you're saying about foreground and background but are you meaning that if tree is in foreground then you can see the branches up top because maybe you're lower than the tree because trees are tall and the foreground is where you are.
That’s exactly what I meant! Just look at trees from different angles and distances and you’ll see better what I’m trying to get at
