Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

iamscotty

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from IndieGuy in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  2. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from megalofauna in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  3. Thanks
    iamscotty got a reaction from bananayoshimoto in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  4. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from bananayoshimoto in Isometric Studio?   
    Thanks guys.
    I did go to the search from the off but it didn't turn that much up "isometric, studio". 
    Probably my bad. I can be impatient at times.
     
    I skimmed through all 26 pages so excuse me of this has been said as I most likely missed a lot.
    I even needed several rum and cokes to recover.  
     
    I might be shooting myself in the foot here (almost didn't post it as I intended to design a plug-in for Ai) but I do a hell of a lot of isometric illustration and I reluctantly use Ai to do this which is very time consuming so anything to speed up the process would be a real game changer for me and others.
    (Images attached for illustration purpose, not self promotion.)


    There tends to be two approaches to doing iso illustration. The first being the grid method which is not my personal choice because I find it a bit primitive, clunky and it's not that good for accurate proportions and complex shapes like text and curves.
    Most vector app's use this approach but they're not always made by iso practitioners so I think they're missing the game here a bit. A lot.

    The other is the SSR method which is what I use.
    In this way you can take a plan elevation and accurately transform it to an isometric projection retaining the proper proportions.
    Here's a linky, link.
    The thing about the SSR method is that you have to input the scale, skew and rotation every....#$£&'ing....time to achieve this which is very time consuming, confusing,  boring and repetitive as hell so what I did is write a set of simple actions in Ai to do this with one click. (Top. Right. Left and a reverse option for each). DONE!
    I'm sure I didn't invent this but it's a bit of an isometric illustration secret.
     
    Those simple set of actions made my iso workflow go through the roof and the lack of this option has been the one thing that has stopped me from converting to Affinity Designer.
    Having the ability to write actions or even better, having an isometric transform button for each elevation would be like BOOM!
    I'm no software Dev but this must be SO simple to incorporate and wouldn't necessarily need it's own widow or menu. It could be tagged onto transform or distort.
    Top is like: Scale > 86.062. Skew > 30 degrees. Rotate > -30 degrees.....and so on.
    Just a bit of code.

    Ai doesn't have this as standard, only the ability to do so if you know how.  
    I know that this tiny addition would not only make my life easier but make me ditch Ai, move to Affinity and open up iso illustration to a lot more people because people like easy don't they?
    If you combine this with Affinity Designer's cool way of snapping stuff together,  the iso grid and even better, at a 30 degree angle (optional) it would make it the go to app for anyone wanting to do iso stuff by a long mile.
    Isometrics have become very popular in recent times due to infographics, animation and games and so on so the market here is HUGE.
    They're just a bit of a ball ache to do at present with current software.
     
    There you go...... Phew!
    Here's the small print:
     
    Note. If you do incorporate this feature I'd like a new iPad Pro, Apple Pencil, the new improved Affinity Designer app with isometric transform and some rum and coke in return.
    Oh...and a yacht as well which I shall call "The Mighty Scotty".
    (If this has been suggested before please tell me and I'll crawl into a hole with my rum and coke but without the above items.)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
  5. Haha
    iamscotty got a reaction from Przemysław in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  6. Haha
    iamscotty got a reaction from qwz in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  7. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from co.mbyerly in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  8. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from evtonic3 in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  9. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from RemN in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  10. Haha
    iamscotty reacted to SrPx in Isometric Studio?   
    Or....
     
    "Alexa, make isometric."
  11. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from Bri-Toon in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  12. Haha
    iamscotty reacted to SrPx in Isometric Studio?   
    I'm from the south of Spain, and trust me, that produces quite a worse accent, still would not find in that a reason for not making the video tut....  
  13. Like
    iamscotty reacted to Kate England in Isometric Studio?   
    Gorgeous work @iamscotty !
    I’m trilled about the iso studio, what a game changer!
    A thought, what if @iamscotty could write a tutorial on isometric art? With the new studio? On the Spotlight site?
    I was also thinking that a pack of isometric objects could be a way to celebrate the release?
    Very exciting!
  14. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from Fixx in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  15. Haha
    iamscotty got a reaction from SrPx in Isometric Studio?   
    PHEW!
    That's all I needed to know but we got there in the end. LOL!
    Shape > SSR > Stand Alone Isometric Object
    Thanks for the info.
    Reason I need to know this is that the only thing that has stopped me moving from Ai on MacBook to Designer on iPad (when it's integrated to iPad version) is this tiny function which will allow me to do iso work and switching platforms and hardware is a big risk/investment.
    Hopefully it will do what you say although I'll want a refund if it doesn't.   
  16. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from Move Along People in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  17. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from lepr in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  18. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from jc4d in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  19. Thanks
    iamscotty reacted to Ben in Isometric Studio?   
    As a dev, why wouldn't you!?
    If we didn't, we'd spend weeks/months working on something only to be told it's of no use.  Plus, we are a lean team, so we have to make sure we are making the best use of our time.  We can't throw 50 developers at a potentially throwaway little feature like some companies might be able to.
  20. Like
    iamscotty reacted to Ben in Isometric Studio?   
    ...yes...
  21. Haha
    iamscotty reacted to Mithferion in Isometric Studio?   
    Giving it a try would be benefitial, I suppose.
    Best regards!
  22. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from Mithferion in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  23. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from GarryP in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  24. Haha
    iamscotty got a reaction from Aammppaa in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
  25. Like
    iamscotty got a reaction from Alfred in Isometric Studio?   
    Hey @Ben, thanks for the reply.
     
    I really need to have a go myself as it's difficult to explain and understand via a forum but I think by looking at the work through that @GarryP did and what you've said the isometric function and edit in plane look great if it has the option to expand the SSR effect.
    I understand that Designer has a different approach to handling the SSR formula but SSR has only one task and it's super simple.
    To take an existing shape and convert it to an isometric/axonometric projection. Either top, right or bottom.
    The reason of this is that the original shape, dimensions and scale may be very important to the end (isometric) result.
    All the important making and doing is done in the flat elevation and then converted not the other way around.
    It's kind of the fundaments of working in isometrics.
    That could have it's use but it's like putting the horse behind the cart if you get my drift.
    You make flat,  then convert and then build.
    That shape is then the basis for building whatever you want to make and you've left SSR behind at that point.
    Creating in the isometric plane is okay but you're already in a distorted view so it can't be accurate from the start.
    I've been working making isometric designs and illustrations for 32 years now so I can see it from a practitioners view point and although these tools look great they do seem to be missing the point a little from what I see but enough to render it almost useless to build complex shapes and designs that are faithful and accurate to the original.
    I started off doing isometrics on a drawing board using pens, iso guides and rulers and then Mac Classic's came out and someone worked out the SSR formula in Freehand.
    That was the big transformation but the rule has stayed the same: Make your flat shape. Apply SSR. Build your isometric object.
     
    To show you how I work and use SSR to build isometrics I wanted to take something that's original (flat) appearance is very important so I chose the Affinity Designer icon/logo.
    I made a flat, paths version of it, converted it to iso using SSR and only then started to build the 3D.
    All the information I needed is in step 1.
    All the conversion is done in step 2.
    Everything after that is just embellishment, faffing about and building using the same principles as the "cube with a punched out corner" I did above.
    I can't imagine recreating the Affinity Designer logo using "edit in plane" with any degree of accuracy.
    Please don't get me wrong here.
    I have HUGE respect for you guys that put these packages together and I'm telling you this with the very best intentions (I want to use Designer for isometrics) but when it comes to this area I do feel you may be missing the point a little and that would be a great pity.
     

     
     
     
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.