5111
General Discussion / Re: Post your (real) desktop!
« on: August 05, 2005, 08:09:51 am »
a little back-pain is needed to produce billiance!!
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.
5112
Pixel Art / Re: HAZMAT
« on: August 05, 2005, 08:07:38 am »
what's going on with the random AA? Go back to the contours of the sprite and try to smooth out the transition from colour to black more uniformly, while avoiding blurryness or the breaking effect. I know it's hard, AA is hard, computers do it better, but broken AA is even worse. Right now, at 1x zoom things are ok, I guess, but Pixel Art is artwork designed to a high degree of pixel-level intent. (god, I love the wiki) so when I zoom in, it's full of arbiterate placements and 'errors' in the aa. It's awfully close to pillow-shading in places, although I can understand the art style, so I guess a more centralized lightsource might be a good idea. I'd lighten out on the buffering of some of the detail work. Too heavy right now.
5113
General Discussion / Re: Post your (real) desktop!
« on: August 04, 2005, 04:53:30 am »
this is where the magic happens
5114
General Discussion / Re: Pixel school
« on: August 04, 2005, 04:16:57 am »
Hehe okay good luck with all of this. The 'clean lineart' pixel lines are only useful for iso work and extremely low-colour spriting. Anywhere you have a few shades more, you can aa any sort of curve into cleanness but I see the point.
5115
Pixel Art / Re: WIP: Mockup and hi everybody
« on: August 03, 2005, 12:32:31 pm »
Hi. Nice mockup.
*Completely against the dither countours in the highlights on the back sky layer. I don't see what they're supposed to be doing.
*Seperate lightsource on character sprite... when you flip the character, will you redraw all the anims with the lightsource reversed so it's realistic, or just flip the secondary lightsource as well? Heh, this is why most sprites have an overhead light only, maybe an underhead one too, so they can be flipped without trouble.
*The most foreground tilage is pleasing, and generally the pixel techniques are good. Too much 25% dithering (I call the xoxo dither 50% and if you take off every second line, 25%), though.
*The grid is very visible, but that's not always bad. It's a platformer, it's ok to see the grid somewhat.
*The main character needs to be waaay more bright and that. Remember, visibility of the sprites is key for gameplay.
*Completely against the dither countours in the highlights on the back sky layer. I don't see what they're supposed to be doing.
*Seperate lightsource on character sprite... when you flip the character, will you redraw all the anims with the lightsource reversed so it's realistic, or just flip the secondary lightsource as well? Heh, this is why most sprites have an overhead light only, maybe an underhead one too, so they can be flipped without trouble.
*The most foreground tilage is pleasing, and generally the pixel techniques are good. Too much 25% dithering (I call the xoxo dither 50% and if you take off every second line, 25%), though.
*The grid is very visible, but that's not always bad. It's a platformer, it's ok to see the grid somewhat.
*The main character needs to be waaay more bright and that. Remember, visibility of the sprites is key for gameplay.
5116
General Discussion / Re: Pixelation Complaints
« on: August 03, 2005, 07:15:04 am »
diced, making that post took a lot of balls. You and I haven't been on best terms in the past, but that doesn't stop me from telling you this, and that I am impressed, and respect your initiative. Whether you continue to do pixel art or not is your own choice, but if you do, remember that, as you said, in helping each other become better pixel artists, pixelation will always be the place to post for critique. There'll always be some forum drama and pixelation user politics, but hopefully this will not dilute the essence of the place.
Darksword: let's not get too much into eulogizing. Pixelation DID suffer from too-harsh-too-swift moderation at times, and I can tell you because I was also partly responsible. After a long time as a mod, you sorta start to lose patience with the preliminary actions that would at the end result in a lock, mostly. Bans where more considerate, of course, and it should be noted that for such a giant forum, the number of total bans were extremely low. But towards the end of the last run of the boards, there would be locked threads and deleted posts sometimes even without a single warning. The userbase just got too big to do the PM-dance with everybody that broke the rules. I don't believe this added strictness is bad in itself, but it was bad in that it didn't reflect in our FAQ and TOS of the time, and we were unable to change them. Basically, we outgrew our old FAQ very much, and were unable to update it to mirror the new set of standards. Now we can, though, so that's going to be fixed, hopefully.
Sals: I see you bow out of a constructive discussion of the matter. I'd like to see you retract the 'juvenile' accusation if you do, at least, since not seeing 'eye to eye' (which I understand as 'agreeing to dissagree' mostly) shouldn't include insulting the people you don't see eye to eye with, but hey...
Darksword: let's not get too much into eulogizing. Pixelation DID suffer from too-harsh-too-swift moderation at times, and I can tell you because I was also partly responsible. After a long time as a mod, you sorta start to lose patience with the preliminary actions that would at the end result in a lock, mostly. Bans where more considerate, of course, and it should be noted that for such a giant forum, the number of total bans were extremely low. But towards the end of the last run of the boards, there would be locked threads and deleted posts sometimes even without a single warning. The userbase just got too big to do the PM-dance with everybody that broke the rules. I don't believe this added strictness is bad in itself, but it was bad in that it didn't reflect in our FAQ and TOS of the time, and we were unable to change them. Basically, we outgrew our old FAQ very much, and were unable to update it to mirror the new set of standards. Now we can, though, so that's going to be fixed, hopefully.
Sals: I see you bow out of a constructive discussion of the matter. I'd like to see you retract the 'juvenile' accusation if you do, at least, since not seeing 'eye to eye' (which I understand as 'agreeing to dissagree' mostly) shouldn't include insulting the people you don't see eye to eye with, but hey...
5117
Pixel Art / Re: Dark Dragon.
« on: July 31, 2005, 03:02:27 pm »
Yes.
*Too dark.
*Detail and volume too evened out. Seems paper-thin.
*Good work on the red lightsource. Now put a MAIN lightsource in
Above, perhaps?
*Not a big fan of the outside curve of the wings. Did you just try to fit it in your working area? Make it a smoother circular curve rather than the kinda forced one it has now. Work on huge canvases so you never have this problem.
You're advancing a lot. You gotta pay more attention to light and colour.
*Too dark.
*Detail and volume too evened out. Seems paper-thin.
*Good work on the red lightsource. Now put a MAIN lightsource in
Above, perhaps?*Not a big fan of the outside curve of the wings. Did you just try to fit it in your working area? Make it a smoother circular curve rather than the kinda forced one it has now. Work on huge canvases so you never have this problem.
You're advancing a lot. You gotta pay more attention to light and colour.
5118
General Discussion / Re: Pixelation Complaints
« on: July 31, 2005, 02:57:24 pm »
note that bumping a thread that has literally done it's course, even if you reply with the best c&c ever, is not right. If you bump a thread by last year with critical information about my art heh, it's been a year. Chances are I've figured most of that stuff out already. Pressing critique goes to newest and what the artist considers his best work always.
5119
Pixel Art / Re: DIE! (pixel die)
« on: July 30, 2005, 11:55:42 am »
Looks good, in my opinion. The top-side dots have a stray jaggy pixel in the middle on top and bottom. What you did with the top highlight on the dots, mirroring the bottom highlight isn't a good idea because the light comes on top from an angle, it will create a specular highlight where it hits an edge at a sharp angle. The above edge just rides off with the light and wouldn't have a specular. Instead of making the dots feel more like dents ( as i guess they are ) you now have them portrude from the body of the die.
I am happy with how a gray die, if you just give it some colour is 100% more interesting to the eye. Though I think your tint is too strong, I can live with it.
I am happy with how a gray die, if you just give it some colour is 100% more interesting to the eye. Though I think your tint is too strong, I can live with it.
5120
Pixel Art / Re: DIE! (pixel die)
« on: July 30, 2005, 05:34:17 am »
Rargh! Leave the one-pixel specular highlight on the dots for sure! I will fight space-crabs for them! Lonely, but determined! No aa! No support! No nothing! They're just right.