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 - ndchristie
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 240

41
Pixel Art / Re: Need help comprehending Iso
« on: May 18, 2010, 01:44:27 pm »
The proper construction techniques are fascinating...but time consuming and take a long time to learn and not always accurate.

If you get plain old stuck on a form, the best thing to do is to draw it on a regular square and then skew the drawing in photoshop (26.5) or (26.6) or in MSPaint (26) or (27).

I'd help you out with drawing this but I don't know what you're trying to accomplish..."point the bottom" isn't very specific and doesn't look like what you're doing so I wouldn't know where to begin.

42
Pixel Art / Re: Remake of an old pixel piece
« on: May 17, 2010, 03:21:03 am »
4 years late your kick a lot of ass dude!

Trees (leaves) don't separate well from the ground plane, probably a hue thing (kick them towards teal a touch and they should work better IMO)
Olive-colored grass blades stick out and get a little jaggy, pushing them back would help too.

Also my hat's off to you because of the realistically depicted warhammer, although single-handed varieties were intended for cavalrymen.  Also would help if we saw the haft come down a pixel or two below his hand, too, so that we can see he's got a nice grip.

43
Pixel Art / Re: go go gadget happy heart
« on: May 11, 2010, 02:58:26 am »
Quote
I prefer to be a bit more "wacky" then most of you guys.

Not to be completely off-topic, but I sorta feel like there's something backwards here; the titles are highly engaging but the sprites actually tend to be dudes standing in a line.  Call me peculiar but I get excited when I see a post like "ravenous ravenous rhino" and get a little disappointed to just see a bunch of the same stuff again.  Like I said it's not really relevent to the sprites in this thread, but to me I'd be ten times more interested in a thread that was called something boring like "rhinocerous sprite [WIP]" and then had an energetic and 'whack'y image or a rhino.  The same is true for go go gadget happy heart - your titles have me imagining artwork that would actually be really exciting!

[/unfair:criticism]

44
Pixel Art / Re: go go gadget happy heart
« on: May 10, 2010, 05:20:43 pm »
I'm just here to put in a plug for descriptive or at least relevent post titles.  The trend towards pretentious/noninformative wordvomit is making the forum annoying and less navigable.  Im not looking to start an argument, only saying this once...I just thought it needed to be.

45
Pixel Art / Re: See through.
« on: May 04, 2010, 05:46:08 pm »
Dress folds seldom break horizontally anywhere near the bottom, they almost always turn down into a vertical wave by that point, unless they are being caught or stretched by say, the knees.

It has to do mostly with gravity and the way things hang.  The default is to go straight down, like so, and only very stiff fabrics will resist this.

46
Pixel Art Feature Chest / Re: Spectra-Bird
« on: May 01, 2010, 03:17:44 pm »
Quote from: Mathias on April 29, 2010, 07:25:40 pm
Is perspective of cage and figure jivin' ok? We're looking slightly down at the figure, yet looking upward at the cage. Scrutinize it; see what you think.

I was going to point this out.  It's dynamic, but not necessarily in a way I enjoy...

47
Pixel Art / Re: See through.
« on: April 24, 2010, 06:53:49 pm »
I think it's a bit glossy, unless it's meant to be like cellophane ?

Also I think it's a bit too universally see-through.  Most transparence/translucence is most apparent where the material is tight to the underlying form (i.e. bones and other protrusions) and more opaque where it's hanging off (under the breats, between the legs).  Also things are more opaque as the curve away from the viewer, while most transparent as they become flat to the picutre plane.  More opaque where light falls on it and more transparent where light is coming through.

in all though a great study :).

48
Pixel Art / Re: Iso NW Character
« on: April 22, 2010, 10:28:06 am »
Quote from: Sabata on April 19, 2010, 01:40:34 pm
After fixing over and over and over I am out of ideas and dont know what to do...

I seem to have trouble with North view of this character, when on rotation it seems a bit shorter than the other? Also I have no idea of what to do with legs and foot, I dont like them right now.

If you look closely, he is shorter.  A few pixels, which is a lot.  His rump is a lot lower and his head falls what looks like a row lower as well.  Extending the legs a bit will not only help with this, but to regain the flow of the south view pose.  His back might also be fatter than his chest, which will help make him look shorter.

Pipe - unless the game is specifically tailored such that dirction defines action, it makes no sense to change behaviors based on angle of observation.  It's not hardware that limited this, it's common sense.  The situation doesn't change because he's tunred around, and so long as he's planning the same or similar actions, his pose should be fairly consistent.

49
Pixel Art / Re: [WIP] Isometric Buildings
« on: April 21, 2010, 07:44:33 pm »
the issue is that you're trying to use an odd-sized (3-pixel) pattern in a projection which is 2:1.  Patterns, to keep the perfect lines, must have widths that are divisible by 2.

The reason it works for blackbeltdude is that he's got a 3-pixel wide window space with a 1 pixel wide gutter, making his pattern 4 pixels wide.

Similarly, over a wide enough area, even odd-width patterns will begin to become regular, however this will be every pair, because (odd width) + (odd width) = even width, which can repeat.

Basically, you can't treat the line as all the same.  There are pixels which are mostly above the perfect line, and pixels which are below it.  You have to treat these as though they are at different heights, because, well, they are.

here's some examples :

50
Pixel Art / Re: [WIP] Landscape [C+C]
« on: April 17, 2010, 03:08:04 pm »
The illusion of space in landscape relies on the compression of forms as we retreat into the picture plane, meaning not only that objects receding in space will become smaller, but that, because the X axis will expand indefinitely to the horizon, we see far more notable flattening in the Y axis.  That is, features like your shoreline, treeline, and mountain ranges will need to grow flatter and flatter towards horizontal lines as they approach the horizon.  Moreoer, unless an object above the horizon is grossly huge in comparisson to the objects before it, if it is farther away it should diminishwith comparisson to closer objects, i.e. your nearby mountains should be taller than the further ones, unless we have some reason to think that they are much smaller.

EDIT : hats off for using thomas fricking doughty.  I didn't know most other folks had even heard of him.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 240