Short and simple answers

@Grimsane reply#13
Having a beginner and intermediate tut… hmm maybe. At the moment let’s finish the perspective tutorial as good as possible. I like the idea of how to make it and what can be achieved. This is something which really motivates.

I think it’s better if we gather some beginner sprites if we show how to improve pixel technique. Here are quite often bases, trees, grass tiles etc.. maybe if we find a „great“ example we can ask to use it to experiment with a tutorial. I think we also need  to work with beginners to make sure that it’s understandable. As I said I don’t really want to talk about pixel technique within the perspective tutorial.

Your examples/simplified versions are quite nice. I also dislike the tutorials which show you exactly one way how to do it (I call them „as I’d do it“) it’s also pretty easy to spot out things which were made with those tutorials, and those things never reach a similar result because everybody sees and work different (which is really good)
I also wished I had a great resource as I started. The things which really helped me then (as I already sprited about one year were cure’s pixel technique tutorial and most of Helm’s examples in the ramblethread here (although I weren’t capable to understand all he pointed out that time).


@facet reply #14
I tried something like this with the chest. Similar to „how to“ and „what can be achieved“ the column … yeah maybe overworking. But I think it’s also a good example for a different resolution and a oblique lighting.

@corinthian baby reply#14
Most oft he stylistic choices is in the details. It’s hard to explan but with the time you learn kind of a „visual vocabulary“ and it seems that it worked for this special case. The lamp is very obvious.

@facet reply #15
Yes we will need a different tutorial for those aaprroaches, (if we want to explain them). I think it’s also really senseless to talk about working out something if the base isn’t right. I think if the construction (lineart, drawing) is right and the lighting seems to be OK (most people don’t even recognize lightning issues) it’s time to add all those fancy pixel stuff. Also design is completely another theme – PP explained in his thread some great things and with his princess designs he breaked some of his rules quite professional.

@Corinthian Baby reply#15
Grass and especially trees are fascinating me now for a long time. Yeah that’s not really related to our current stuff, but I share the same point of view.


I polished the lamp a bit more, tried to make the park bench, which doesn’t serve any purpose (to complicated, not really useful, also would be hard to explain and I don’t really like something oft he design)
I also tried to simplify the box example as much as possible. I used only 3 colors, I think everybody should be able to reproduce it. And then we can show what’s possible to achieve with lots of practice. But from the basics both are equally good and alright.
to the column: Yeah we w ill definitely need it for the tut because of the forms and the construction. I think rendering a classical version (like the box example) would simplify it a lot.

http://www.abload.de/img/tut_sprites_v5_1su7x5.png

It's pretty hard to create good tutorial stuff and there are also too much tutorials with bad materials out there. It’s not only embarassing for yourself if in your tutorial is something which isn’t alright it’s bad for all the people who are reading it and mind it in the way you showed it. It’s hard to get rid of habits you learned in a wrong way and I am still stumbling over personal mistakes in all of my works over and over.

I think it’s pretty hard to make a good tutorial which isn’t a simple „How I’d do it step by step“ and it’s even harder to create stuff for a tutorial which should really teach you something.

There is barely no place for your own lazyness and there is also no place for cheating. The last things I tried to learn were perspective, shading, materials, anatomy, facial anatomy and animating (in this order). It’s nice to learn all that stuf fand I learned fast tons of new things but I stumbled not only over the minor mistakes from one part, I stumbled over the minor mistakes from every part which makes in sum really bad art.



Off-Topic: For example this drawing here, I made it about two weeks ago and I am not rudimentary satisfied with it, it’s very easy to spot out the places where I cheated. I made it without references, just to check up how good I am at the things I was trying to get the hang of and I found out that the conception of many things is wrong within my brain. At the first sight it may look pretty okay, but it’s far away from what I should be capable to do.
drawing


Back to topic: There was no way except going back to the most basic thing (which is perspective for me) and creating a tutorial confrontates you ruthless and truthfully with all the minor things you are doing wrong. If Seiseki wouldn’t have asked for something like that I’d have delayed it once more.

I am pretty bad at admitting the mistakes I made to others, although I know mostly that I can’t dismiss the issues. And I am pretty bad too in explaining that all the mistakes are part of my own unique and awesome style and make others to think that too.



To the scale: yeah both of you are right, the first three parts were planned for 32x32 tile resolution and I revamped some stuff from my very  personal project which I’ll most probably never finish.
The column is a new sprite, the style is heavily influenced by the style of the game I am currently working on (16x16 res, strong chiaroscuro). The only thing ist that I used the colors as I’d do but don’t made it to use in game in first case. As I already pointed out I chose it because of the forms, seems that this was a silly idea...

It’s also interesting how good you estimated the scale of the charakters. I also added my shilouetts (don’t want to talk about the chars atm, the big one needs also some revamping…)
As I pointed out I don’t referenced the column tot he small sprite in first case, but it has very greek measurements and proportions.

The next thing which is completely right ist that the style of the 32x32 stuff is victorian/steampunkish. It’s hard form e to imagine how you got the idea of it with just 3 very common and very expectable objects. You must have a grimsanely good eye



Tothe chest features: the smiley face were part oft he concept. Also the paw-foots. I am sure you know Mimics. I think it’s a good thing to let the imagination play wild. Because of this I let the eyes also bright, to lead your mind to „something strange is going on with this“.



About the lamp: I also had something like this in stock. The only bad thing about it ist hat it uses a sphere and vertical cilyinders and pyramid forms instead of vertical cylinders, frontal cylinders and boxes. I think it doesn’t really fit to the content oft he tutorial because it’d be really complex fort he fourth example. Because we have to add sphere and pyramid rules to it too. But however I added it.
After doing it myself I don’t even know how somebody who isn’t even able to get the knack oft he right perspective (because I highly doubt anybody pro will need the tutorial) and want to learn it can do something as complex as the lamp. Take a look at the lighting, that mystical glow effect is nothing for someone who doesn’t even know how basic hue-shifting works. Also the gear isn’t really easy to construct and the overlapping parts are also something which is a bit harder to imagine. Maybe adding this just as imaginative example at the end of the basic constructions just to show how far it could go.  What do you think fellows?

The lamp is not completely polished. I am aware yet that the highlight at the sphere can’t be there, but I don’t found a better looking solution. Critique is – like always - welcome.
I thought about another object which combines the same forms as the column (don’t had an idea yesterday) and I came up with a a park-bench, this would also fit the scenario very well.
Then it’d be possible to remove the pillar like facet  pointed out. And we keep the 32x32 stuff for the tutorial.



Although I’d also like to create a overview over the charakters of high and low pixel res, but this will come some point later. At first I want to finish the general objects, because there you don’t even need the very basics of charakter design and anatomy which we have to touch softly later definitely.
I think we also have to come back to the grid point later, it makes (for me) no sense to discuss this without a context, like a tiled ground and other objects. At the moment the construction and perspective counts. As your edits showed it’s pretty easy to edit, maybe we find out something really  interesting together, who knows? It’s definitely worth of taking it into account.

yeah but they also become much more boring in my eyes. but it's worth to make a compromise - definitely. the barrel rings weren't meant to be segmented too. It seems that the shading don't worked how I have imagined it. I also removed this. THanks Jeremy

Once I am ready for happy and bright pieces I'll let you know it Seiseki. The contrast is very harsh with pixelation's bright background, this destroys the colors. Because of this I am posting it with a darker background.
I improved the colors further and made a new sprite - a column which is made out of blocks and cylinders.

was wrong with the length too, but i already exchanged it while you wrote your message... it was because of the angle. Thinking over this was quite a challenge.
the thing with the length would have been wrong because the cubes weren't equally big too. And the method was also wrong.

However now it's right.

Take a iso cube and a 45° axonometric cube and divide the sides by 2. then connect the new points and you'll see the difference in the angle. it's not nice to have a correct 45° axonomeric cube - ugly jaggies.
The thing you pointed out looks really fine but it's wrong. I think because the ~15-18° of the viewpoint are a small enough deviation to look still right.

-and yeah the tree diagramm is still wrong, ... you are right with your 35,...° viewing angle of isometry I should better change this too... the thing with the planes, yes I'll squeeze this also in if I find a nice place  

exchanged the tree example...

@grimsane: I don't really understand why you show how it doesn't work instead you are showing how it would work right. it's for tutorials always the better way to show how something work. If inexperienced people aren't really careful with a tutorial they are getting pretty different results, although thaey are copying it from you. If you don't know much about a theme it's better to get a right example in your mind instead of a wrong one.

@PP: yes the iso thing you are pointing out is true. although you can use a whole step to and create visual difference. it's all about the tiles edges. I think Final Fantasy Tactics uses half steps because the chars are also able to jump. Lots of isometric games have a flat world just with cliffs (you can't climb them up). The half steps in FFT also heavily influence the gameplay (movement, backing...). Also all the attack animations would look odd if they'd have used a whole steps. over and over. Although there are some whole steps on each map.

let's continue with this:

part4 is WIP