Testing AI art from sketch

You clearly can tell now that one hexagon is higher than another. But not everywhere.

I should not nitpick about some other aspects of the map that got lost in translation. But the elevated stuff with the cliffs is what I am searching for. Although, it kept the rocks for the center piece. But the centre should be the same design as on the left and right that has forest on them. And only apply rubble when rocks are in the centre portion.

I have seen some of these before on the internet as well. Somehow, the AI seems to be losing track of some hexagons. Here I see it slowly happening as well. I guess it is because it is not given the highest priority.

Making a map like this. And including the game mechanics to depend on specific maps properties. Each aspect has 100% priority. But it doesn't have to be. Perhaps the AI can make some maps. And then we see what rules can still be applied.

Or...I should try out another way. Such that hexagons can be stand alone. And fit together seamless. Thus, removing the strips around each hexagon when designing maps. And consider each hexagon as a standalone that way.

Mission facts; terrain features that got lost:
Dessert; slows down certain units)
Swamp; allows for ground units movement, you clearly cannot tell anymore)
Some parts have become invisible to the eye since it is very isometric now.
It is very hard to tell the actual height difference. How much do we go up or down? In Heroscape you can know. But not here.
How much room is there in a forest?

***

Amazing job done by the AI.
Just not exactly what I am looking for....yet.

Can I make compromises with the given map?
I need to work my ways towards it.
I think I should not keep looping in this circle.
And find some time to draw some proper cliffs.

Isometric. But visible.

Just Google "Can I train Stable Diffusion" and you will see Google will tell you YES you can train the AI and produce a file that can be later used to produce content similar to your Art Style.

I know this because an artist wanted to see if she could get the AI to help make commissions due to a project having a high demand on "volume" (High Quantity of Images/pieces of art...) Something in the volume of 150 to 200 pieces of custom art.

But realize that "Stable Diffusion" is not as perfected as OpenAI's ChatGPT. Yet it could be interesting to SEE if you CAN Train and AI to do ART in a specific way or not... IDK. Like I said that artist said she was looking into it. Not sure how far she got!?

In any case... You are not an artist. So training is pointless to you. Since you own NO ART. I was just saying it is POSSIBLE because I had discussed it with her and another Game Designer who was using it to produce Comic Book Art.

So... Now you know it is possible. How much input data do you need??? IDK. You can of course "Google" some more and read some Reddit forum posts about the subject of training "Stable Diffusion"...

Cheers.

https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/new-game-ideas/epic-battle-pnp?...

That's what some of the "Cartoon"-like characters came to look like. I don't know how the prompts work in "Stable Diffusion"... I haven't heard from @FrankM for quite some while now (like 2-Years)... He was a regular for a decent amount of time... Like a year or two... But like I said, I haven't seen him on for a while.

You can scroll through the thread for different views of his "Comic book"-esque "Epic Battle"... I also posted an improved layout for his Sample Page...

It's not as realistic as ChatGPT... But if you want "Comic Book" type art. It ain't that bad either...

Note #1: Here is @FrankM account... In the event you may want to PM him:

https://www.bgdf.com/users/frankm

That I need to see if I can do without those in between things.
Instead, hexagons as standalone. And then have the higher ground bleed into the lower ground. That would make much more sense.

Imagine from a 3D print. You got this hexagon that exists. But has to go to a lower ground in the next one? If you want a nice little ramp instead of a drop. You have to add the ramp and place it on the outside of that hexagon. It doesn't have to be big. Just enough to indicate it is a ramp, not a cliff. And the lower elevation will remain flat as well. I think, this is a good way to think in 3D. And thus, I should find a way to make this happen in my 2D maps. Before returning to AI.

AI seems to be.... well, form time to time, you don't even know what it is doing. A very stric guidance is needed. And often, things are even forgotten. So, you need to keep reminding the AI in how to do things. Have some tests ready to see if the AI still does the job.

This goes for calculations (just discovered that the AI cannot calculate the numbers of a hexagon). No doubt, this goes for art as well.

Hey! It got the middle right, right.
Then I proceeded to look top left...the road!
It is also almost gone a bit ahead.
The swamp is a bit of nitpicking at this point.
But yeah, a good job indeed.
Especially that the savannah has returned.

There is one thing that all renders got wrong. It is also very hard to miss. Let's see if you can guess what it is :D

I rather see that you save your points. And use it for something personal. And me and my busy life kinda would like to look into the 3D prints and 2D sticker pasting. Whereas the 2D sticker pasting would be more like that very first rendering the AI did.

You know, what I described in Discord? Maybe I should draw some schematics?

I did it in ONE LAST attempt... To both convert it to ISO and to RENDER the scene too and try to restore the top-most road:

Like I said, I think this VERSION is the BEST one YET! Which means with the right kind of SOURCE Map File... And the right prompt (and experience), I can bet you that you'll get this QUALITY.

It's 98% because ATM there are no RAMPS to speak of and that could be a difference in terms of the possible types of compatible terrain given that the AI "could" understand RAMPS.

This version required ONE (1) MANUAL "tweak" ... It did require ME going into PaintShop Pro and making one manual addition.

Feel free to comment and tell me what you all think!

Cheers all.

Note #1: The reason I say it is 98% is because of the following FACTS:

1. The colors match the SOURCE Map File 100%.

2. The Savannah on the Top-Most road is correctly in a Yellow-ish grass.

3. The Road in the TOP-LEFT is pretty well done as the Hex Tiles are more-or-less even.

4. The Road in the TOP-RIGHT was added MANUALLY (Using PaintShop Pro) and tweaked a bit to blend in better.

5. All the other elevations and CLIFFs are respected.

That having been said, the water has lost some of it's luster ... But that's not a major focal point of the design.

So all-in-all not too bad especially when done in ONE PASS!

You can't REMIND the AI of JACK SH!T. It does as the SOURCE MAP given directions and produces an output based on the ACCURACY of the PROMPT. The more GENERAL the prompt ... The MORE likely the results will look accurate.

As I say... You don't have GRANULAR input into the AI to make it decide this. It does as it sees fit based on the SOURCE image. It sees rocks so it made the rocks into rocky-hills. Do you understand now???

Just REMOVE them from the SOURCE image.

It does as it sees fit. Some HEXES are intact ... Others may look a bit deformed but that could also be the ISOMETRIC Angle too...

Use a Paint Program with LAYERS and add a layer(s) for Vector Text. Don't expect the AI to do it.

And with all these RULES... Do you think the AI will render better the MAP??? Too much prompting results in more CRAPPY OUTPUT. Which again is something that I have mentioned before. If there are things you can DO AFTER the MAP is generated ... Like Add Numbers and so forth... You do it in your Paint Program not via the AI!?!?!

You seem to expect that AI will be a single pass and solve all your issues. AI is the terrain and hexes, you want NUMBERS add a Vector Layer and add you numbers on top of the JPG or PNG file. Don't expect the AI to handle it... You will be sadly mistaken how POOR the AI reacts to "artifacts" which are not necessary to the TASK AT HAND: which is rendering the terrain.

Don't be mad, I'm trying to explain because you seem to think that the AI is a miracle tool that does it all. Remember the FINAL MAP I gave you was EDITED in PaintShop Pro. Why? Because it forgot to make the ROAD EXIT on the RIGHT-HAND SIDE... I put it in manually using a Paint Program.

So even the IMAGE that you HAVE was EDITED and FIXED because the AI FORGOT a detail and removed the EXIT...

Anyhow... Please don't be upset or anything. I'm just trying to MANAGE YOUR EXPECTATIONS and AI is not the easiest thing to deal with in regards to what it produces from a SOURCE image.

Sincerely.

Note #1: Think about AI in this way:

Some times he uses the colors HE feels like using and sometimes HE takes liberties to draw what HE sees fit and not at all exact as an INPUT file is given.

He does what he wants... Sometimes you can correct him but then again he'll change details you LIKE and do something ELSE that you didn't want like make your SWAMP more like LAKES or PONDS because he does SH!T to annoy you... Get it?

He thinks he's smarter than the HUMAN asking him to PRODUCE ART... And so often does what you DON'T WANT or changes TOO MUCH or NOT CORRECTLY, etc. etc.

That's what I am TRYING to explain to you... But instead you are putting more rules and such that make it more and more complex and he will do as HE WANTS not YOU!

Well I think the ISO Views are too "ugly". The may be more CORRECT, but they produce too dark terrain effects which also seem like "chasms" instead of "Cliffs" (Holes in the ground).

Here's the LATEST and GREATEST version so far:

This attempt REQUIRED a "manual edit" seeing as the ROAD on the Right-Hand Side disappeared and was missing, I had to add it in manually in Paintshop Pro. But rest assured it looks seamless and there was some smoothing going on in that area to ensure that the road Exit/Entrance appears reasonably OK looking.

I know @X3M is working on 3D Tiles and he seems to FAVOR this version over the ISO Version because I think everything just looked a LOT DARKER and even if in terms of application was more "realistic" ... This version of the REGULAR View is much better TBH (IMHO!)

We'll see what @X3M thinks of this version. I for one think it's the best NON-ISO Version so far!

Sincerely.

Yip... I tried with a rocky texture and a path ... It turned out sh!tty too... It produced a terrible result that looked like a Hill on a Hill. UGLY!

So I re-did the road more like the original map you see in this thread. I will see how the AI processes a road with THAT "texture". But I have no credits until 9:00 PM EST tonight. That road surface is NEAR-IDENTICAL to the road with the fully rendered Terrain in this thread.

I tried some tricks like make the RAMPS "purple" hue and it did SOMETHING but that wasn't good enough. I showed @X3M what it made and clearly it's NOT good enough TBH. It's poor with brown textures unless they are on grass (Green). IDK why... I guess that's how it was trained!?!?

It kinda gets a BIT what a RAMP is... But not like in "Starcraft 1" which were OBVIOUS and you could travel to the next level of terrain via the ramps. AI so far... Doesn't seem to understand that... I'll U/L the crap and show you... In the next comment...

Well I was thinking what if I made some roads with the same texture as our "pretty map/terrain" with the Road, Swamp and Ponds.

Here's the NOT-SO-BAD result it produced:

So I am a bit "miffed" at this result. Clearly it seems to MAKE a "road" that can go up to a higher level... But it still looks a bit FORCED rather than appearing to be 100% natural.

I can say for CERTAIN ... This type of "Scenario" is FAR FROM IDEAL TBH. I was picturing more larger segments of terrain to occupy more of the SIDE it is linked to. But this puts a bit of a burden on LAYERED Maps with several levels...

You basically NEED to put in a ROAD if you want it to look "somewhat" OK. I say "somewhat" because if you've played "Starcraft 1" you'll know EXACTLY the TYPE of RAMPS that I was aiming for.

But I guess this is kinda OK. Not too sure how I feel about this version TBH.

If anyone has an opinion, wants to add to this some feedback, or have any type of question feel free to ask away and post up your response.

Cheers all.

Note #1: So this version looks very "Painted on". What do I mean? It looks like someone took a BRUSH and just painted the ROAD atop the terrain with BROWN PAINT. Yes it's better than the previous attempt... But in terms of "quality" ... It looks VERY disappointing.

You can't believe how SENSITIVE the AI is to "Textures". The wrong texture yields the WRONG RESULT. Seriously I attempted the ROAD with a "Rocky Texture" and it made an even HORRIBLE result.

At least with THIS ROAD TEXTURE ... I looks like a ROAD... Even though it is NOT 100% perfect.

Note #2: I wanted to add that THESE "Roads" add more realistic detail to the path. What I means is that the road has rocky paths on each side of the Dirt Road and it looks pretty realistic. Where it FAILS a bit is the "3D or Elevation" effect it does because it doesn't look all that great TBH.

I will re-try tomorrow with a WIDER ROAD... It's just another attempt to see HOW the AI performs with a variation on THIS "version". Tomorrow... Tonight no more credits left over...

I think we should abandon the idea for isometric for now.
It doesn't suit my game mechanics. Even though some renderings where beautifull enough to be used by others.

You could still try to get ramps and cliffs to be noticable in an isometric map. But I think that if we want to make real progress. We should go back to the basics. See if the AI can "sketch" singular hexagons.

Just to see if the AI prefers the entire hexagon to be a type of terrain. Or that the edges of said hexagons can be made that way.

I see a lot of examples out there that all have the hexagon itself having the property of being a cliff or ramp or just flat terrain. And perhaps that would be for the best for graphics. Since the entire hexagon can be used for indicating how high the terrain difference will be. The down side is that you need to make much more designs. Another downside is that the hexagon is cut into 2 pieces. And you need some sort of indication for the unit(s) standing on low or high ground.

Still, isometric...? I guess that even those hexagons, will be super difficult for the AI to work with.

I cannot find good stuff on the internet. We got this crap though:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fu073u7uwm3o11...
Someone asking the questions...not sure if they got the right answers.
It seems that isometric has more problems than just the graphics.

I also noticed that most SC2 maps have most ramps viewed as if you are playing SC1. Even though you look at a 3d map. Why? IDK.... maybe people that design the maps have problems with it visualizing it for themselves. Hence the option to have symetry in maps came along somewhere....

https://starcraft.fandom.com/wiki/Acropolis_(StarCraft_II)

Here you see shadows working for you. But still, the cliffs on the backside are hard to see anyway.
And it is only 1 level at a time when applying ramps.
If....the AI manages to have proper visual ramps and cliffs. And also has a way to show a double or triple height for the cliff. I might consider changing the rules a bit to meet in a middle ground.

Do note.... you are looking at a 3D map in that last link. You can clearly tell that the north is more isometric than south.

https://i.imgur.com/gLkRoV0.jpeg
This one shows that a height of 2 simply gives the same effect on the back.... if there is room for units hiding? Yes, most RTS games make use of this fact. And that makes things even more complicated.

In C&C, we had infantry units hiding for the commando in mission 6.
In SC1, we even got an extra roll on accuracy for hiding behind objects. Or standing on high ground. And I got rules for that too. But we cannot have a player place soldiers behind the board.

Hence, a 3D printed board is a solution for most problems. So, if the AI can make art that is suitable for a hexagon. And make art that is suitable for cliffs viewed from the side. Like, really a sideways viewpoint. Then also, make art for the bleedouts, in other words, the ramps. Then we might be getting somewhere. And we can place units on those hexagons. If there is a forest, well, one or 2, 3D printed trees can easily be added, as long as they can make room for units that need a spot as well.

So, again, let's abandon isometric for now. I must whip up in UTed2 THE 5 blocks. Make some examples. And we work from there I guess.

The plan for now:
- UTed2 for the map initial plans.
- 3D printer making the blocks as well.
- 2D printer making the stickers with the art to paste on the 3D printed blocks.