Feature 04 - Tank

[Opacus]

It's a tank!
I know I should have waited with dithering and detailing etc. But I'm bored, have a headache, and I'm pissed, so I wanted something to do.
Here it is:
NEWEST:
OLDEST: White outlines:
Tell me which one you prefer.
The design is Metal Slug inspired. 12 colours inc trans.
Any comment welcome.

[AdamAtomic]

the left one is much better, the white outline adds nothing.  I'd darken the little antenna bits coming off the roof, they look a little foregroundy right now.  The bit of armor extending over the treads looks too flat and weird - the shading is rounded, questionably, and there is no indication of thickness or volume to it.  The blob on the side of the tank seems a little soft and confusing in shape and purpose.  I'd like to see the front of the armor, between the treads there, have some more details, it's a little dull right now.  The treads are pretty sloppy, both in color application and general shape and size.  The interior of the wheels need to be shaded darker.

I like your colors, and I love metal slug, and generally speaking your lighting and shading is solid; only the antennas, wheels and treads strike me as problematic renderings in that sense.  The dithering is well done, and it adds a weathered texture to the surface that works very well.  I think its mainly the linework that is really lacking in this piece; if you fix the lines for the treads, the front armor, the blob on the side, and maybe a little work on the main gun, you will have a pretty solid piece here!

[Souly]

Don't ever dither metal.
Metal is smooth and shiny.

What's up with the left side?
I see a wheel then some random block, and then another wheel.
The perspective looks weird cause it's overlapping the tire.

[JWW]

that's not the greatest advice, dithering can easily be applied to create a metal texture.  Right now dithering covers the entire piece.  Make more areas of solid colour and dither more sparingly.

[Ryumaru]

if you want the dithering to still cover the entire piece, interlace dithering could be used to give a smooth metallic effect.

[Opacus]

Thanks everyone, especially Adam.
Souly: I think dithering can work fine on metal. Just an example:
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/5823.htm

Here's an edit, I hope it fixes most problems:
New   Old
-Heightened the gun by 1 pixel.
-Fixed the rough shading and lines on the tracks.
-Fixed the shading on the side part.
-Gave the part inbetween the wheels more depth, and let it overlap the back wheel instead of the front.
-Added some stuff to the front armour to make it more interesting.
-Fixed antennas.
-Darkened the wheels.

[AdamAtomic]

I think that's a big improvement.  The piece around the treads that confused Souly still needs a little work I think - maybe just make it extend an extra pixel upward so that it doesn't seem so thin over the top of the tread there?

[Opacus]

I think that's a big improvement.  The piece around the treads that confused Souly still needs a little work I think - maybe just make it extend an extra pixel upward so that it doesn't seem so thin over the top of the tread there?

Hmm, my English is good, but I'm still not sure what is ment here. Something like this?:

[Souly]

It's not really the fact that you dithered metal that bothers me.
It's just such a boring dither nothing but 1x1 pixel grid.

Try learning some new dither techniques.

[Opacus]

It's not really the fact that you dithered metal that bothers me.
It's just such a boring dither nothing but 1x1 pixel grid.

Try learning some new dither techniques.

That I do not apply different dithering techniques doesn't mean I don't know any:

Not sure if I like it though.
Could anyone inform me on what interlaced dithering is? I don't know that.

[Ryumaru]

ugh, i did an edit earlier today using interlaced dithiring but then thought for some reason you knew it, so i ddint save it.
edit:
here you go, fresh off the plate.

[Stwelin]

Souly, with a piece this small, using dither techniques other than 1x1 is just going to make the metal look MORE dull. If you switch up the dithering style it will just look like blemishes. 1x1 looks fine.

@opacus, the 1x1 is much cleaner than that example. stick with the old(er) one.

[Souly]

Well I actually like ryu's interlaced dither.

[Ryumaru]

i havent even really done a piece using it so someone like helm would be better to discuss it with.( i think pep introduced me to the tecnique when he showed an example of it to someone)

[Opacus]

Thanks alot Ryu
I tried it, I kinda like it:

Tell me what you think.
And even if it isn't that great, was a good practice anyway.

[Helm]

I am not sure myself of how much interlace is too much and so. I think it's useful for showing rough texture... I wouldn't use it on metal a lot unless I wanted rust and such, and I'd always offset it with nondithered bodies of color. I like the piece, but what I feel it suffers from is lack of volumetric distinction. It's too blobish. Where are the corners? Sharper, defined edges and flats is what you need I think.

[Opacus]

I am not sure myself of how much interlace is too much and so. I think it's useful for showing rough texture... I wouldn't use it on metal a lot unless I wanted rust and such, and I'd always offset it with nondithered bodies of color. I like the piece, but what I feel it suffers from is lack of volumetric distinction. It's too blobish. Where are the corners? Sharper, defined edges and flats is what you need I think.

Good point there Helm, never really thought alot about the forms, but I think you are right.
Tell me if this works:

[Vertigo-zero]

No it doesnt maybe it will work if you take 1 pixel of the ends to make it less pointy and then make all other end more pointy (looks like you only did the ends that are next to the white back) anyway keep it up

oh and your tank jump, so it has an angle, keep that angle on the door on top! (thats no problems with you other versions)

[alkaline]

by corners he also means not just the edges. if it's square in shape then add more edges on the inside too.

[Evil-Ville]

Maybe this edit will help?

[Opacus]

Wow Evil-Ville, that's just briliant. Thank you so much for that! Those colours, the shapes, they're all FAN-TAS-TIC!
I'll be sure to use that as a reference to the future edits of the tank, now back to the drawing board.

[ZoSo]

Maybe this edit will help?

Yea that rocks. Thats how it should be .

[Opacus]

I've made an edit based on Evil's:

?
(Not fully finsihed with the edit yet, but, wanted to know if it improves it before I continue.)

[Ryumaru]

major improvement so far.

[ndchristie]

now i think the forms get lost more than before, since you've lost the sense of lighting completely, and i much preferd the round tank, it was cuter.  that could just be me, but id say go back to the round one and just try to make it clearer.

[Opacus]

Phew, you're making it hard for me
Well, then I'm just gonna go for my own oppinion, and I really love Evil's, it was how I wanted it to be. It might look cute in the first picture, but that is not how this is intended. It's intended as a metalic killing machine with maybe a few cartoony features. And I think that's exactly how Evil depicted it. And that's how I personaly want to continue.
Here's an update, maybe the last:

(Btw Adarias, I think the lighting isuess are solved in this edit)

[zeid]

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post. times 3 but this is still pretty valid i think

I don't agree I say definitely not going about it the right way!

You should be giving it crisp edges but you don't need to compromise the entire shape of the tank just build on it. I made a very minor edit to reiterate some points made by Evil-Ville you may have overlooked and bring up some points more clearly by others. Firstly palette change, yours is looking ok, but i do miss the green tones (the edit hasn't got exciting colours but it allows for more subtlety with the interlace). Secondly and this is probably one of my main points the shape has just become flat squares and all perspective has been lost. This problem may have actually been translated from Evil-Ville's edit, if you look at the shape of the side It's actually poking out towards us a bit too much as if we are head on to the side of it as oppose to on an angle. I think everyone is fine with round parts but just make them crisp (as is in the original between the tracks for instance). to help support the fact that it is metal add lighting effects such as refractions. Also the dithering on dark areas can look very off such as in the tracks, either elude to the presence of more within it by distinguishing the general shape of cogs etc. as seen in my edit, or show it straight out like Evil-Ville's.

I know my edit isn't to pretty but i hope it helps.

[Opacus]

Well Zeid, to be honest, that perspective was not intentional in the first place. It all had to do with the forms on it. The forms might've made it seem it had an interesting perspective, but that was not intentional. I noticed it immeadeatly on his edit, and I liked it. I wanted it to be like that. (Oh, and btw, I added green tones while you were typing in the last edit )

[Opacus]

It's an animation attempt...I feel the body is too static, but I wouldn't know how to make it move without it looking like a cut & paste job...

[ndchristie]

subpixelsubpixelsubpixel.......

it only has to rock back and forth a little bit, but it would make it look so much better

[Opacus]

Well, my experience/knowledge of sub-pixeling...is,well, zero I'm afraid...anyone care to edit?

[Ryumaru]

you probably shouldnt even use this, since im not an animator at all. in fact i probably did this to help me more than to help you; maybe it will atleast give you an idea:

[alkaline]

kinda ryumaru, if i feel not lazy enough and have enough time i will make an edit

[ndchristie]

subpixel motion is when an object is animated such that it shifts in non-integeral distances, such as moving and edge X.5 pixels down, etc.

kinda like....AA but animated in a way, in that AA is showing when an edge is half-on half-off a pixelwidth....and subpixel movement is such that a frame shows it half-on half-off a pixellwidth.  even at it's simplest it is different than cut-and-paste in that you are required to redraw at least the edges of colors in order for it to be subpixel.

to be honest i always thought it was the same as redrawing AA on each frame for the longest time.

does that make any sense?

heres an example of a simple line moving up and down one pixel over 4 frames; so moving .5 pixels per frame, <1 pixel, subpixel.  hope that makes sense



the reson i suggested it is that for a low-res job like this, you dont have room for huge changes of pixel placement.  slight changes in slope and height are required to make it look nice.

and using the beautifully dithered line by .takam

[Evil-Ville]

I added a cheap (and quick) subpixel wobble to demonstrate it a bit.



I never knew how much fun making edits would be.

[Sherman Gill]

There's also my avatar .

To be honest, I don't think either of the edits given are very good examples. Neither of them make that much sense and Ville's is mainly just moving large sections up and down

[Ai]

subpixel motion is when an object is animated such that it shifts in non-integeral distances, such as moving and edge X.5 pixels down, etc.

kinda like....AA but animated in a way, in that AA is showing when an edge is half-on half-off a pixelwidth....and subpixel movement is such that a frame shows it half-on half-off a pixellwidth.  even at it's simplest it is different than cut-and-paste in that you are required to redraw at least the edges of colors in order for it to be subpixel.

Actually it can be done using copy + paste -- you select the area that you want to move, plus some bordering (if you're moving it 0.5 pixels down, you need to select with an extra row on the top; if you're moving it 0.5 pixels left, you need to select with an extra column on the left, ...); Then you copy it, paste it; Round the offset up to the nearest integer and move it that number of pixels (eg. if the x,y offsets were 0.25,0.25 you move it +1,+1 pixels); then you set the opacity to match the offset (eg. 25% opacity to match 0.25 offset)) and merge the pasted layer with the underlying sprite.
in short: copy, paste, move, set opacity, merge. (and reindexize it to the previous palette)
That doesn't handle masking/transparency in a sprite-ish way, so you would have to touch up some edges if you needed to offset a partially-transparent bit. unless you had alpha channel in your sprites, in which case it would be perfectly correct and excellent.

That method is always perfectly uniform, so it's usually a good guideline.
Using paintprogram rotation to get subpixel rotation and combining that with the above technique is also good for working out guides.

to be honest i always thought it was the same as redrawing AA on each frame for the longest time.

I think it's easier if you have the frames without AA and then render them all at once.
Then it works to just 'push around' the AA for any minor movement effects.

[ndchristie]

that all sounds good for a speed job; im not sure how "pixel-art" there is in letting the computer figure for you though, and for pixel-art opacity is all or nothing - no fancy blending.  It also seems like you would get very dirty/unpredicatble results (using a paintprogram rotation is another way to get dirty/unpredicatble  results >.<) so i cannot reccomend either, and to use them together seems like it would only divide your chance of getting something nice even further.

What these automatic-type-things are good for is producing an idea how how the proportions should hold up, which can be pasted on the side of your canvas and used as a reference.  Not sure if that would help in this case though

[Ai]

for pixel-art opacity is all or nothing - no fancy blending.

eh? You only need opacity to perform the subpixelization, not to actually draw the sprite.

  It also seems like you would get very dirty/unpredicatble results (using a paintprogram rotation is another way to get dirty/unpredicatble  results >.<)

Well, the second maybe (but for pixel art, it only needs to be within 20% of correct positioning for a ref.)
The first is perfectly fine -- you just convert it back to the original palette and clean up any stray bits. The more exacting precision is needed, the more benefit you'll get from a computer's help.

[Opacus]

Here is a sub pixel attempt. Wouldn't have a clue how to improve:

[Blick]

It looks glitchy now, I'd suggest slowing down the frame times.

[Helm]

for every bit of brightness you add on the top row, that's about as much brightness you shoud substract from the bottom row.

[Opacus]

[Helm]

I'd say this is a good effort for now and that you should move on to the next piece. Congratulations on your effort here.
to

I'd say this is feature material. I'll talk it over with the rest of the mods.

[Opacus]

I'd say this is a good effort for now and that you should move on to the next piece. Congratulations on your effort here.
to

I'd say this is feature material. I'll talk it over with the rest of the mods.

That would be a true honour to have it featured. Thank you Helm.
I will submit it to PJ now.

[Souly]

I think if you straightend out the tracks it would look better.
Because right now the end part of the tank where it meets the tracks just look all wrong.

[Opacus]

I think if you straightend out the tracks it would look better.
Because right now the end part of the tank where it meets the tracks just look all wrong.

You're right, I think I like it more:

[Souly]

Bit of an edit.

[Opacus]

[zeid]

I think that looks a lot better with the tracks aligned and not shrinking. The old tracks form didn't suite the new forms in the turret in my opinion. A great piece it certainly has come a long way. I cant say I'm a fan of the excessive dithering but it is stylistic. I do however have a few minor things i would like to see, Firstly i would bring the right part of the turret inwards slightly, and sharpen the form where the turret meets the base of the tank. The bringing the side in is because it doesn't quite look as though its on the right angle in my opinion.

[Opacus]

Thanks Zeid. Not too sure about the edit though, and I think I'm gonna leave the design for what it is now. I will only change technical errors from now on.
Here's a shoot anim I did for fun before the track edit:

Feel free to comment on it. I know the feedback might be a little to static.

[fawel]

The cannon itself should jolt back much more quickly, and the upper part of the tank should lurch back as well.  The whole explosion/flash sequence is also very long. 

For the smoke, I think the falling ashes ashes look better if instead of a 3x3 to 1x1 (pixels) fade out sequence 4x4 to 2x2 looks much better stylistically for that type of explosion.

[Atrophy]

I think it would look much better if the tank itself had animation when firing like to front of the tank lifts up and moves back a little.

[eck]

the firing animation is a good start, but it does have a few flaws i would like to point out =P.
-if this thing is going to have an idle animation, it needs to go from idle to shot while still in idle.  you don't turn off the tank to fire the cannon.

-recoil.  when you shoot a rifle, you feel recoil from the gun.  i know this, as when i shot a rifle for the first time, i accidentally dropped the gun because i didn't have a tight enough grip.  the back of the tank should jut backwards, if only by one or two pixels.

-the smoke needs some serious work in my oppinion.  it just kinda floats up.  not sure how a tank works, but i think it would flow a bit better if little chunks burst from the black and white flash (which i do like), and sorta deteriorated into mid air.

[Faktablad]

I think the animation you have doesn't do the piece justice in terms of character design.  Something that cute should have an animation that is also cute; why not have the barrel warp with the oversized projectile, or have the kickback knock the tank on its back, or something creative like that.

[ptoing]

FEATURE GET!

[Rerg1]

Opacus,

Brillaint work.
You started with a good concept and you made it work.
I commend you on your improvement and I look forward seeing stuff from you in the future.

Well done.

[Opacus]

FEATURE GET!

It is an honour! Thanks alot!
Thanks Rerg
About the shot animation, I'll fix it later today.

[Checkworth]

It's very cool to see how far this has come.
I personally like the dithering a lot; coupled with the shiny edges, it makes the tank look like scratched but shiny metal.
And now I know (sorta) what people mean when they talk about subpixeling.

[philipptr]

is it me or is there really no subpixelling in the last version? O_o
didnt analyze the gif frame per frame, but it looks pretty much like copy-paste an area one pixel lower/higher.

[Opacus]

Hmm, You know what. I've had enough of the tank, gonna keep it like this, not spending any more time on the shot, was for fun anyway.
I'd like to have it open for some final comments for another 12 hours or something, then this can be closed and moved to the feature board.

[SCiDT]

I just had to say that the "bouncing" is annoying, it ruins the piece. The light looks like it shifts, in animation the most common mistake is not animating mass. Everything has mas I would suggest to revisit the animation and animate the mass, cause at the moment it looks like the light source is bouncing up and down.

The fire animation I love the explosion 10/10 the tank needs to move too though.

[Faceless]

I can't say I think this is feature worthy.
Sure the pixel technique and overall detail improved, but the artist's original vision has been perverted by other peoples' edits.
It looks nice, but it isn't the same tank anymore. Not even close.

[Stwelin]

I agree with faceless. I think the original tank is more true to the style, with freeform shapes and a more organic feel to it. The new ones seems to rigid. This just doesn't feel finished to me. The animation doesn't satisfy.

[Xion]

I verbatum twice above.

I preferred the smoothness of the original to the boxiness of the new. And the point of subpixel animation is to make a smooth transition between two frames or imply movement more subtle than possible otherwise, which I don't think this piece needs. If anything, more exaggerated motion would be more fitting.

[Opacus]

More true to the style? What style? I wasn't going for any style in the first place. And second, I prefer a blocky tank. Tanks arent green blobs like the first one. You might disagree this deserves a feature, or is an improvement of the original. But as Blick said, I can't please everyone. And maybe some of the forms arent better, but the dithring techniques, the colouring, I even learned sub pixeling from this. And it was a great experience I have learned from. That's what this feature is about.

[Helm]

The only one in the position to judge whether what they made is true to what they wanted to do, is the artist themselves. Talk of 'perversion due to edits' is pointless.

You people seem to forget that features are both for art that is vastly improved from the original technically (check, in my opinion) and also more prominently about people who put lots and lots of effort into making their art better, listen to edits they agree with, and update. If I were for example, to post a shit piece of art and then proceed to listen to critique I already knew I would get and slowly build it up until it's presentable, that would not get featured because it would be obvious the original piece was subpar and that it didn't take me much effort to fix something that bad. The krux is EFFORT.

Opacus is young, and he's been pixelling for a short time. In this thread he seems to have made astounding progress. Whether you think he adhered too closely to edits or not, he has the rest of his artistic life ahead of him to keep 'true to his style' (whichever this may be, it doesn't manifest at 13 years of age). This is a place of learning, not a place to endure people's critique and keep your 'style' no matter what.

[Stwelin]

I just want to clear up: i wasn't agreeing with this being not feature worthy, it is. I just think the integrity of the original could have been kept more intact in the final product.

also:

More true to the style? What style? I wasn't going for any style in the first place.

and:

The design is Metal Slug inspired.

Yes, i know that design != style, but the original had a lot of interest.

Somewhere along the way you changed your mind, i think. If you are happy with the blocky style, then by all means, go right ahead, nothing stopping you. I just feel that somewhere the edits influenced the choice too much. Either way, it's not up to me, or anyone else but you, for that matter.

So anyway, I would continue working on it, i don't think you should call it finished (although it is very good!). for an artist, calling something finished is limiting your skill! you're convincing yourself that you have given it all that you are capable of. Well, opacus, from your beginnings you have come a long way, keep on going.

I'd look up some of the metal slug animations and study the animation on the subpixel level, and then apply it to your tank. And as said before (forget the poster, but i am in a hurry) you could exagerate the movement as well. For example having the hatch flop open as the tank is chugging along, making it look more fluid. Small things like that add a lot of character to the piece. Also, try to get more movement into the tank in the shooting animation, have the tank fly up onto it's back treads when it fires so it looks more forceful, anything like that.

It's very good work.

[ndchristie]

IMO any gross trasformation due to the input of many is pretty much feature worthy, for "better" or for "worse" (and both are highly relative to the observer)

[Feron]

This thread may not have ana OMGAMAZING finished product, but what it does show is the valueable critique and enormous improvement from the community and the artist respectiveley.

I did prefer the original design, and i think the piece has gained a lot more pixel-technicallity, but lost some of its original charm.

[GOODNIGHTdestroyer]

I prefer the old tank so much more. It was more dynamic, more original.

The new nimation doesn't even look like the tank's body and turret is moving it just looks like the pixels are moving up and down.

He should have kept the original design, and just worked on the shading more. =\