One big tree (with supports) or several trees (hanging)?
Which leaf cluster looks better to you?




Edited by jalonso - 19 November 2006 at 10:57pm

I like the branches of the first one better. The second seems more uniform, less organic -- like the overall composition becomes too square. Maybe with leaves it would look more natural again -- but it's hard to say.

As for the leaves, I like the shading of the first one better but I'm drawn to the colors of the second. Maybe I vote for the first one with slightly less saturated and yellower highlights?

Overall, though, looking like this will be very, very nice. :)

You'll never cease to amaze me jal' ^^

For the tree leaves? I like the top one.

good grief, you're too good with iso, I say.

@ MoD, I went with one tree before reading your comment. I see what you mean. I was just laying out a rough so it was not iso grid accurate.

@ceddo, I would have loved a red tree but this is for a neighborhood called 'evergreen'

I have added a few leaves as possible while still making it look like a live tree :/
I will remove support poles as I add stuff like a swing and a hammock and stuff.




Edited by jalonso - 18 November 2006 at 7:39pm

Oh, that's purty. The support poles are a bit distracting and busy -- maybe cover them with vines or make them out of a less colorful material?

I rather liked the original floor textures, too. May I ask why you removed them?

@Brianna, I removed the texture on the floor because I found when I started to drop the shadows from the tree branches it bacame to messy and dirty looking. I will add some texture once all the main elements are in.

@P_O, yup, it does look like a kneaded eraser, will redraw more angular, thx.

The mud/dirt seems a bit odd to me... but you're probably working on it.

Wow, this is sexy! Reminds me a little of AOE2.

You've put too deep shadow in the highlighted areas and too bright highlights in the shaded areas of the rocks. Also I'd try different tints for the rocks, rather than just grey like that.

I think the image could really benefit from some shading on the supports.

The grass, mud, and transition between them all need much more attention. They lack texture.

I think you can make better use of the highlight tone on the tree trunk.

The water is looking fantastic, but the waterfall could maybe use a little bit of shadow...I dunno, it's a bit tricky.

The cobbled stone (that's what it is, right? Not mushrooms? ), seems detached from the ground, as if its floating above it. I think reduce the shadow tones of the gaps in between the stones, and maybe have some tufts of grass sticking up through, or something.

On the right-most footpath, theres a dark strip that make it look like there's actually a drop between the footpath and the grass&dirt. What's happening with that? I'd say remove that dark strip. If not, fix up the rocks right near it so they don't look like theyre floating.

That's all from me, keep up the great work!

hey. um. sex me.

oh HELL YES !!!

that's gorgeous sh*t man much better on all fronts then the previous one.

your rocks to the left still look like molten lead though ....
May I suggest havinh 1pixel highlight edges and highlight 'planes' to square it out. It looks so organic right now.

I would indeed leave the balcony empty. The whole is rather crowded as is and it doesn't need more detail.

btw, love the new avatar


Edited by Equinoxx - 20 November 2006 at 12:43am

Is that white thing on the right the Shiva sculpture? It looks... confusing. I couldn't tell what it was until I read the "Does the 'shiva' sculpture look wrong/bad/stupid?" question, and I'm still not sure.

saved the wips to my hard drive for extensive study :D

The rocks look a lot better now, but they seem to have too much of a constistent flat top; give 'em some variation.

Changed a few more little things and feel OK with the project.
On to the animations :)

For some reason it seems fast on Firefox.

Looks too fast in IE and FF to me. Also, the way the colors behind the hammock go from dark to light in consecutive frames. This, though logical, looks bad. Maybe take some artistic liberty here?

Whoa! That's hardcore. This piece is/has turning/turned out really well. I dig that animation, if only for the admirable skills it takes to animate swinging in iso.

The only crit I have is the copy pasted tree foliage. Although it took me a second to notice it.


Edited by Doppleganger - 20 November 2006 at 8:29pm

Watching your work in pogress is amazing :)!

Oh, I have no problem with the pots and ferns. The only realy copy/paste that bothered me was the leaves on the tree. And I only noticed that because almost all of them have a single leaf angling down and to the left near the top. Not necessarily an avid crit but something that struck me none-the-less.

I think removing that leaf from a few of the bunches of leaves would make it seem less redundant. However, I don't want to go in too deep here because I love the piece and any more work isn't necessary.

trying to outdo yourself? :P

i would keep the animation, but make the swing less "swingy"...  maybe jus a few pixels...  right now it seems a little unrealistic...  if you cut the frames and maybe set it to .3 or leave it at .2 giving it just a nice gentle swing.

things i would like to see (and i know you like to make your iso busy :P): tiki tourches, fish in the pond, and maybe some shadows moving inside the cloth windows.

keep it up!

A few Tiki Torches might look coll around the place

I love the subtle animations, but they seem centered on the bottom/left. If you could animate the leaves it would look great, but that might be really hard depending on how you've managed the layers. You can expect a 9/9 from me.

I swear to you, jal, if you use AA it will immediately look 100 times better.  AA is a necessity of pixelart.

IMO, AA ruins the coolness of pixel art and should be used sparingly in isometric especially.

I agree with the slowing down the ends of the swing animation though.

As much as I respect Indigo, I have to absolutely disagree.

Edited by Mykola - 21 November 2006 at 10:21pm