<\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/table><\/p>\nMy tree-building code is a lot less<\/em> sophisticated than I planned. This is really rare in programming. (And, I expect, in most other forms of engineering. Problems usually become more complex as you examine them in greater detail.) Still, this is in keeping with the spirit of this project, which is to solve 90% of the problem with 10% of the effort.<\/p>\n The first step in creating trees is to generate the trunk. I’ve got a few parameters governing how much they bend, how tall they are, the width of the base, and a few other minor details. <\/p>\n Most trees have branches. (Two exceptions: Conifer trees have their foliage affixed directly to the trunk. Trees intended to form a canopy simply have one huge umbrella of foliage at the top of the trunk.) Branches reach upward from their point of origin, but there are two ways of doing this. On the left you can see branches that reach outward, then upward. On the right you can see ones that go up, then out. The latter makes the branches look “droopy” and heavy. The former makes the tree look strong and vibrant. <\/p>\n I originally had branches that extended down from their point of origin, or ran level. Those looked wrong, or boring, so I removed that option.<\/p>\n Branches all end in a cluster of foliage. Foliage shapes vary. Some are roughly (VERY roughly) spherical. Some are bowl-shaped. Some are umbrella shaped. Some are big droopy things. I used to have foliage clusters that were made of intersecting panels (like the grass<\/a>) but they were kind of hit-or-miss. Even the “good” ones seemed poor compared to the other types. <\/p>\n The last step is to hang some moss or vines on the branches. This is only done to trees that will grow in the hottest, wettest climates. As it builds the branches, it keeps track of the points along the underside of the branch. If the tree ends up flagged for moss, it uses these points to hang a “curtain” of polygons under the branch. <\/p>\n This was intended to be my prototype. I was going to build this much, see how things looked, and then add to the system once I saw what was needed. It turned out that my prototype looked good enough. I’d hit the right style on the first try. The only real improvement I’ve made is to remove the various options that made boring trees. (Level branches, etc.) The process was more about taking away options than adding features. <\/p>\n What I quickly discovered was the the whole thing more or less hinged on the texture and coloring. That’s what makes these trees work. See, each tree has it’s own texture:<\/p>\n When a species of tree is generated, the program creates a texture just for that tree. The texture is 1024×256, and is divided into four panels. The first is the bark, the second is the foliage, the third is the hanging moss \/ vines, and the fourth is a picture of the tree itself, which I’ll talk about in a minute. Doing things this way allows me to draw an entire tree with a single pass, since there’s no need for any sort of texture-switching. Panel three is a bit wasteful, though. It’s mostly transparent empty space. I guess I can pretend that empty space is reserved for future use, and not wasted. Doing so doesn’t make the program perform any better, but it lets me stop feeling guilty about it. <\/p>\n Here is how it makes that texture:<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/table><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/table><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/table><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/table><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/table><\/p>\n