New BAMs for spells

[yarpen]

That's cool! Only thing to complain is... stone bam which IMO should be darker and smoother - as Mike is doing it.

[Demivrgvs]

Wow, Mike you did an outstanding refinement work. Now it's simply perfect.

 

Thanks to both you and Scorpio.

[scorpio]

That stone version looks great - do you have the .bam files for these?

 

This is the final version of create undead:

Thank you. I hope you don't mind that I tried to do a bit of editing on them. I had to get rid of the cracks unfortunately since I couldn't get them to work on the stone background.

 

 

I don't mind at all. It looks really polished now, well done.

 

Here's the bams for fire trap:

 

http://www.2shared.com/file/6753965/a68972bd/FireTrapC.html

http://www.2shared.com/file/6753966/3f802307/FireTrapB.html

 

You're more than welcome to work on these too, and after all it's mostly yarpen's work anyways.

[Demivrgvs]

Sorry haven't noticed the new bams, I think these are quite fine. Unless Mike decides to refine them Fire Trap should already be ok.

 

P.S The more I look at what you guys did to Create Undead bam the more I'm amazed.

[Shaitan]

Create Undead is really great work

[scorpio]

I just download V2.9 to try out a few things, and noticed that the sunscorch bams looked a little off. So here's my attempt at changing them slightly. These are originally yarpen's bams, and so I will not release any actual .bam files unless and until yarpen gives permission. He did allow me to make fire trap as you can see previously, but I hesitate to release these without his approval.

 

Top picture in each case is the original, bottom one is my edit:

 

 

The c type bam was a little too dark red, as opposed to pinkish.

 

The stone background was the main issue with the b type, looked a bit bland compared to the original spells.

[yarpen]

You've got a full permission!

[Demivrgvs]

Scorpio, you've edited an old set of bams imo.

 

I'll attach here the ones Mike edited. The stone one looks a little different than the others but the overall look is great.

[scorpio]

Scorpio, you've edited an old set of bams imo.

 

I'll attach here the ones Mike edited. The stone one looks a little different than the others but the overall look is great.

 

Ah, you should make such changes public so I don't make blunders like that then!

 

Anyhows, I redid the stone one for the sunscorch you just provided. Let me know if you're interested in the bam file. Again top left is Mike's, bottom left my edit. Once again, all pending and dependant on Mike now saying it was okay for me to have edited it. Not to mention that you may not like my version.

 

 

The spellbook version looked fine to me.

[yarpen]

Cool, three guys one BAM

[Mike1072]

Cool, three guys one BAM

Tag team!

 

Scorpio, you've edited an old set of bams imo.

 

I'll attach here the ones Mike edited. The stone one looks a little different than the others but the overall look is great.

 

Ah, you should make such changes public so I don't make blunders like that then!

Yeah, that was my fault. I think I sent a copy to yarpen but didn't feel like posting in the thread at the time. Whoops.

 

Anyhows, I redid the stone one for the sunscorch you just provided. Let me know if you're interested in the bam file. Again top left is Mike's, bottom left my edit. Once again, all pending and dependant on Mike now saying it was okay for me to have edited it. Not to mention that you may not like my version.

Nope, don't mind at all any editing of my "artwork", which is mostly edits of someone else's stuff anyway. I was going for the BG2 style in mine (since I can't do those crazy shiny effects), but the BG1 style probably fits better with a low-level spell. I think Doom is pretty much the only offensive one done in BG2 style at that level.

 

Anyway, here's my critique on the edit: hmm.... Both of ours are slightly different from the spellbook versions, something I couldn't resolve without one of the two looking much worse than they currently do. I know mine might be a little on the blurry side, but I think it looked okay compared to Doom, though both Doom and it may have been out of place amongst the rest. It seems that the BG1 style is "recolour the icon used in the spellbook and draw a tiny little border around it (possibly by increasing the image dimensions before adding the border, then resizing back to normal?), then put it on a shiny rock". If you could master the former skill (getting Photoshop pronto would probably help with that ) like you have the latter, I think hands-down your version would be best. I think the vanilla BG1-style images have a bit of shininess applied to the image on the rock as well too, which make it appear as though the icon was painted onto the rock, but as I mentioned before, I've been unable to duplicate the effect. As it is now, I think yours fits in better and is probably the better choice, but the differences between it and images using the vanilla BG1 style are not yet undetectable to the eye when viewed side-by-side.

[scorpio]

Nope, don't mind at all any editing of my "artwork", which is mostly edits of someone else's stuff anyway. I was going for the BG2 style in mine (since I can't do those crazy shiny effects), but the BG1 style probably fits better with a low-level spell. I think Doom is pretty much the only offensive one done in BG2 style at that level.

 

Anyway, here's my critique on the edit: hmm.... Both of ours are slightly different from the spellbook versions, something I couldn't resolve without one of the two looking much worse than they currently do. I know mine might be a little on the blurry side, but I think it looked okay compared to Doom, though both Doom and it may have been out of place amongst the rest. It seems that the BG1 style is "recolour the icon used in the spellbook and draw a tiny little border around it (possibly by increasing the image dimensions before adding the border, then resizing back to normal?), then put it on a shiny rock". If you could master the former skill (getting Photoshop pronto would probably help with that ) like you have the latter, I think hands-down your version would be best. I think the vanilla BG1-style images have a bit of shininess applied to the image on the rock as well too, which make it appear as though the icon was painted onto the rock, but as I mentioned before, I've been unable to duplicate the effect. As it is now, I think yours fits in better and is probably the better choice, but the differences between it and images using the vanilla BG1 style are not yet undetectable to the eye when viewed side-by-side.

 

Okay, well I had no idea what I did was in a BG1 vanilla style.

 

I've only ever played BG1 with tutu applied, so have no idea what the vanilla icons are like!

 

I was going for a BG2 style - to my mind (at the time) the only style! So, I guess i've somehow ended up with this BG1 style by chance.

 

Anyways, I thought the shininess had been applied quite well by yourself; take a look at that little circle in the middle, it certainly seems to have a little shiny spot on the right side. The rest of it, admittedly is not quite so shiny. I did try, but it's obviously not noticeable.

 

I agree that it still doesn't quite fit in, the rays coming out are a bit bland and one-colour looking.

 

Also, I actually think it's okay that you canged the b type icon a fair bit from the spellbook one. BG2 tends to do this a little with its spells anyways - maybe not quite to that degree (the spellbook one has a hollow centre here, and the in game one very much opaque and rotund!) but it's not a big deal, I think, anyways.

 

I use photoshop already.

 

Finally, as I say, i'm a little confused as to whether we want a 'BG1' style, or 'BG2' style?

I always thought it was about a BG2 style since this mod is either for that, or tutu, which is the same thing in regards to spell bams.

 

I'll look into this again when I can, though.

 

Edit: New version:

[Mike1072]

Okay, well I had no idea what I did was in a BG1 vanilla style.

 

I've only ever played BG1 with tutu applied, so have no idea what the vanilla icons are like!

 

I was going for a BG2 style - to my mind (at the time) the only style! So, I guess i've somehow ended up with this BG1 style by chance.

Finally, as I say, i'm a little confused as to whether we want a 'BG1' style, or 'BG2' style?

I always thought it was about a BG2 style since this mod is either for that, or tutu, which is the same thing in regards to spell bams.

Icons for spells that existed in BG1 are the same in BG2, Tutu, and BG1. When they did BG2, though, the new spells that they added appear to be done slightly differently. If you compare Doom and Call Lightning in your screenshot, I'll go over the differences between them that I see.

Call Lightning uses a stone that's roughly shaped the same as the icon.

Doom uses the same stone shape that all BG2-specific icons used:

Call Lightning is the identical icon from the spellbook that's been recoloured, with a tiny border added, and then "shinified".

Doom is quite like the icon from the spellbook recoloured, but it seems to have been turned 3D so that it sticks out of the rock, and instead of a border it more has shadows around its edges.

 

It's probably important to mention that I didn't consciously recognise any of these differences before I started trying to make BAMs, so how identically custom icons match one style or another might not be the most important aspect overall.

 

Anyways, I thought the shininess had been applied quite well by yourself; take a look at that little circle in the middle, it certainly seems to have a little shiny spot on the right side. The rest of it, admittedly is not quite so shiny. I did try, but it's obviously not noticeable.

I was trying for 3D-ness there, hehe.

 

Also, I actually think it's okay that you canged the b type icon a fair bit from the spellbook one. BG2 tends to do this a little with its spells anyways - maybe not quite to that degree (the spellbook one has a hollow centre here, and the in game one very much opaque and rotund!) but it's not a big deal, I think, anyways.

I agree, but some of the feedback I received thought they were just a bit too different.

 

I use photoshop already.

Sorry, I guess I was thinking of yarpen working away on these things in MSPaint. Message now redirected to yarpen: get Photoshop.

[Miloch]

Message now redirected to yarpen: get Photoshop.

Or Paint Shop Pro, or Gimp... equivalent or superior features and much cheaper (free in the latter case).

[Mike1072]

Message now redirected to yarpen: get Photoshop.

Or Paint Shop Pro, or Gimp... equivalent or superior features and much cheaper (free in the latter case).

Well, don't pay for Photoshop, obviously. If you can use the others, they're probably as good but I hadn't heard that either of them had eclipsed Photoshop.