I wish I could have, since my goal is to produce a believable pictures and I 'm only happy to use existing stuff. But if I do just that, like with Ziggurat and some of those Roman buildings I make a point saying so.
As you know in Civ buildings are drawn, not photos. If I cut something I usually go through the whole cut recoloring it and making new lights and shadows with a one pixel brush. For example with bathhouse I did it twice since the first one just didn't look right and I also changed the perspective manually. After I was finished there was little left from the cut I had. The Ziggurat is the only building which demanded practicly no work, the pic I used was already a drawn computer model.
As I see it there is some rules for believable building graphics: It must be close to the Civ3 perspective and color so you can imagine it to be a part of the city. Then the building has to look heavy, like it really lays there.
Sometimes when I do a building completely from a scrath like it looks kind of light, like it is floating one feet above the ground. Sometimes I manage well like with the Slave plantation. But if there's a simplest structural cut to be used I'll use it for the outcomes sake. Unlike Mr. Adolf Hitler, I'm a painter not an architect.
And that is clearly visible when you look at my statue wonders, I draw the statue always but use that same pedestal every time
La Scala took time. I used the two pics you can see below. From b&w one I took the cut and pasted that on the grass. The night pic I just looked at and painted the whole thing on top of the cut except the roof which I colored with the photoshop.
The fast answer grew to be a whole monologue about my work as Civ3 constructor!
ukas
Thanks Ukas, you're the best[dance]
