Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Zoggles
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]

81
General Discussion / Re: December 1 '05 Quarter Election Results
« on: December 03, 2005, 12:44:35 am »
Well done Indigo, Gil, and Crab2selout, unlucky G_Dragon.. by 1 vote too. Maybe next time.

Woot.. I'm looking forward to seing some more of these talked about commercial crits now :)

-Z-

82
General Discussion / Re: Official G_Dragon Campaign Thread
« on: November 29, 2005, 07:37:43 am »
In the closing stages, but you've got my support too :)

83
Pixel Art / Re: First Isometric Character
« on: November 16, 2005, 09:00:15 am »
I cant see Kcilc's images so can't comment about that.

Very nice character and soft shading. Only thing I didnt like (as I mentioned in chat) was the leg positioning, so I know ou wanted to get away from the blocky look of the middle image in my higher contrast edit. So I quickly did a second sample (on the right, original on the left) to give an idea for putting something else in the picture to give him a different stance. At the moment he has a bit of a John Wayne stance (either that or he's constipated). The second edit also has lower saturation/contrast than the centre one which I felt was perhaps a bit too high.



-z-

84
General Discussion / Re: Isometrics (Pixipedia)
« on: October 20, 2005, 03:03:58 am »
Ah.. ok, I think I see what you are on about Miascugh, taking a surface and distorting/skewing it fit on an isometric plane. Maybe my tutorial wasnt quite clear about the intention of that bit, but it came into the tutorial as there had been a discussion on Pixelation about skewing a 2d (platform view) surface to make an isometric one.. then flipping it horizontally for the other wall. I was simply trying to point out a difference in the sizes demonstrating the reduction in width of the surface if it were to be translated to the iso surface. In this case, the arc is a shallow ellipse, where the vertical radius is 1 and the horizontal, 2. You are rotating within Iso, not rotating in 3d to apply to iso. This is simply because of the aforementioned discussion about quickly painting textures on iso walls etc

If you were skewing a surface to fit into an isometric world, you would have to scale the height of the surface as well as the width and yes, the math would be quite different, although you could still do it in two stages. First skewing the height, and then following the bit I gave for the width.

As for the the 'grid in B' differing from the cube in B - ah.. I see what you mean. (I think) On the cubes, the top face's highlight is 1px too high compared to the grid type constructions following.

Reasons? well.. I tend to only offset that highlight if I'm actually using a tile engine or grid. If its just an object/item in iso, I would probably use the cube style. However, as soon as you start tiling or using a grid, you need to offset that line.

I do really need to do a part two to that tutorial at some point soon, elaborating on some areas a bit.

Type C is very similar to type B, but the main criticism I have to that is the lower edge of each tile. Being a flat 4 across, it means that corners all appear much rounder. Wonder if there's a decent option D

-Z-

PixelBlink: have been, and still am, out in China. Yeah MIA for quite a while. Taken me quite a while to find where everyone moved to, and seems like all the good ol' faces and 'lasts from the past's (greetings Blu_monkee) have found there way here.

85
General Discussion / Re: Isometrics (Pixipedia)
« on: October 19, 2005, 07:37:21 am »
What those maths figures were in relation to in the tutorial was to simply point out a slight difference between hand drawn (or CAD isometrics for engineering/architecture) and pixel art isometrics where aesthetics are more important than the mathematical accuracy.

The actual percentage, or decimal point ratios are really irrelevant other than to point out the fact that they are nasty to look at. Isometrics, you work on a 2 across, 1 up/down. In pixel art you should never be looking to use a 'rotate' or 'skew' function anyway. Therefore the actual percentage is pretty irrelevant.

The 26.565 is simple math. Tan x = 1/2 therefore x = 26.565.
The second figure i calculated in the tutorial was indeed for keeping the 'depth aspect' in mind, and that is the figure the image would need to be squashed by horizontally before skewing it by 26.565 degrees.

Anyhow.. as I mentioned. The figures themselves (even though I still claim my maths is sound) are pretty irrelevant to anyone doing isometric pixel art.

As for the reason for 30degrees on traditional isometrics.. it has nothing to do with viewing the ground from (I can only assume an estimated angle of 45degrees), but far more to do with equilateral triangles. There is 60degrees between each axis when viewed two-dimensionally.

-Z-

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]