Isometric Studio?

[Ben]

And you should be able to do this.

 

You could work in two artboards - one with a axonometric grid, and another in 2D.  Design in 2D - copy and paste to the other, then click "Fit to plane" and it will apply the SSR.

 

[iamscotty]

That's cool but it's all about what you can do after the SSR.

Is the shape after the SSR has been applied still in the "edit in plane" mode?

[Ben]

It's just a regular object.  There's nothing special about it - it has just been scaled and skewed.

 

"Edit in plane" just affects how tools behave - they apply knowledge of the current axes plane to adjust how they work.  The objects are still just objects.  They are no different to an object created in 2D.

 

[iamscotty]

6 minutes ago, Ben said:

It's just a regular object.  There's nothing special about it - it has just been scaled and skewed.

So..The shape would behave just as if you'd drawn it using the pen tool from scratch and all the paths nodes would react normally?

[Ben]

...yes...

[Mithferion]

Giving it a try would be benefitial, I suppose.

Best regards!

[iamscotty]

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.   

[Ben]

iPad support for stuff will come a little later.  It needs the UI components, which need a subtly different approach to the desktop versions.

 

This may sound like a sales pitch, but you should think about the desktop version of Designer.  It will offer more control due to the addition of the keyboard.  Some of our tools have very carefully worked out use of modifier keys which really open up functionality.  Our Pen and Node tools are a good example of this.

 

[iamscotty]

No...I get you @Ben!

Totally understand the different way the iPad works with gestures and UI so understand the delay but I'd deffo go desktop before that and when it is integrated on iPad along side it.

My ideal would be to run Affinity Designer/Photo on desktop + iPad and move away from Adobe for the most part (I'd still need Ae).

I invested in a Wacom Cintiq to work with Ai and it sucked big time but I LOVED using the iPad with Procreate and heard great things About the way Affinity works with it too.

I don't mind waiting a little until then but it's deffo on my road map.

 

I'm still a little took aback at how you guys are happy to talk to your users and potential users.

 

Good-on-ya Serif!

 

[Ben]

34 minutes ago, iamscotty said:

I'm still a little took aback at how you guys are happy to talk to your users and potential users.

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.

[iamscotty]

20 hours ago, Ben said:

As a dev, why wouldn't you!?

Sadly, it's not always the case @Ben and not just with Software Development.

It's like me not listening to what a client wants from a design or illustration for instance. I'd be doomed if I didn't.

Not all people do.

 

For me personally Ai does the job for me pretty well but....I'm not going on an Adobe rant.  

 

I just think it's refreshing that you speak to people properly and not just a generic C + V or hyperlink reply to suggestions/questions and take the time to explain and take on board and I appreciate that for one.

 

I'm very optimistic that Designer will be able to offer what I need and look forward to the day when I can swap.

Please excuse the long winded posts as it's hard to explain and understand things when it's not face to face over a UI.

I just wanted to make sure you had the grass roots of isometrics covered and it seem you do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kate England]

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!

[iamscotty]

On 4/27/2019 at 1:14 PM, Kate England said:

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!

Thanks @Kate England. That's so kind of you and I really appreciate it.

 

Me too!

Anything to make the process of making isometric easier, more fun and more accessible to others can't be a bad thing.

Plus...To eventually have all that on an iPad! WOW!

 

I've been thinking about doing an iso tut for SkillShare but I'm from the North of England so I doubt many people could understand me.  

 

 

[SrPx]

6 hours ago, iamscotty said:

I've been thinking about doing an iso tut for SkillShare but I'm from the North of England so I doubt many people could understand me.  

 

 

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....  

[iamscotty]

5 hours ago, SrPx said:

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....  

I truly admire and appreciate your confidence in me.

[SrPx]

Oh, don't jump into conclusions.... you haven't heard me speaking "Engrish". 

Also, I regularly listen to a pair of "podcasts" , one from a certain Scottish guy, and another from someone from New Zeland, both having a really difficult accent (meaning, harder to get than other people I've listened to from those countries).... and I thought US southern accent was difficult, lol... I mean, these people would surely make it easy for you to pass as very fine English narrator (no offense to the others, plus, I believe their accent is indeed a good selling point for them, somehow).

[v_kyr]

On 3/23/2019 at 3:53 PM, iamscotty said:

Top is like: Scale > 86.062.

That looks like a typo and isn't the right scale factor to use here, with that value it will not lead to clean stitching. - Instead a factor of 86.602% has to be used.

[SrPx]

86.60254037844386467637231707529

I haven't tried...  So, would it work better 86.603 ?

( When I've done it is in a way I never remember the numbers after the fact, lol, and a big while ago.... )

[SrPx]

Or....

 

"Alexa, make isometric."

[v_kyr]

2 hours ago, SrPx said:

86.60254037844386467637231707529 

I haven't tried...  So, would it work better 86.603 ?

( When I've done it is in a way I never remember the numbers after the fact, lol, and a big while ago.... )

As you can see it works well. - I think here for a scale the important part is more the first decimal place, so 86.603 || 86.602 versus 86.062, instead of the third decimal place in this case.

[iamscotty]

I've just gone through the set of iso actions that I use and I got this for the top: 86.603%

I'm no Mathematician but it's always worked for me.

[Alfred]

1 hour ago, iamscotty said:

I've just gone through the set of iso actions that I use and I got this for the top: 86.603%

I'm no Mathematician but it's always worked for me.

cos(30°) = sin(60°) = 0.86602540378 = 86.602540378% (which yields 86.603% when rounded to three decimal places)

[Ben]

That's good for isometric.... but our cube grid system will let you work out correct grids for any arbitrary axes with the same base scale.  And you won't need your calculator.

[Ben]

Also - while 86.603 sounds like a good approximation - that's actually quite inaccurate if you start to rely on our snapping.  So - if I were to try to align a set of objects relying on that scaling, but applying various rotations to fit to the three isometric planes - you'd find that there would be a significant error, and that error would grow as you snap one object to another.

 

Our snapping system has a certain tolerance when determining equality in snapping lines.  The best solution is to use our cube system to maintain the highest precision.  If you were to do the SSR transformation yourself, you are better off using "*sin(60)" in our transform panel to scale the object.  That will produce a scaling that is as accurate as possible (for computer maths).

[JET_Affinity]

Iamscotty,

Quote

I'm sure I didn't invent this but it's a bit of an isometric illustration secret.

There's no "secret" here. Many users of AI and other drawing programs have devised their own macros "("Actions" in Illustrator parlance) for doing this for many years. Examples of them are found in the user forums of the various drawing programs.

Actually, skewing is unnecessary, and by understanding the underlying principles, the "rules" at play make more sense, the numbers do not seem so arbitrary, and the rationale is easier to visualize and thereby remember.

As an illustrator from the days of drawing "on the board," you are surely familiar with the angle that is imprinted on every isometric ellipse template: 35°16" (35 degrees, 16 minutes).

Just as with any regular drafting ellipse template, the ellipses are an orthographic projection of a circle viewed at a particular angle relative to the view's line-of-sight. In other words, the ellipse cutouts of a 25 degree drafting ellipse template are projections of a circle that is tilted 25 degrees from being viewed "edge-on." The geometry of orthographic projection dictates that the minor diameter of that ellipse is scaled by the sine of that angle.

It's exactly the same with isometric ellipse templates. The minor diameter of the ellipses are scaled by the sine of 35°16".

Orthographic projection also dictates that object edges perpendicular to the plane of such an ellipse (i.e., the axis which "pierces" the ellipse) is foreshortened by the cosine of the ellipse's "angle." In other words, measures along the axis about which a 25 degree ellipse "orbits" would be scaled by the cosine of 25 degrees.

Again, it's the same with isometric ellipses: Measures perpendicular to the isometric ellipse are scaled by the cosine of 35°16".

So to distort a 1" square into the "top" surface of an isometric view, all you need to do is:

• Rotate it 45 degrees.
• Scale it vertically 57.74% (sine of 35°, 16", expressed as a percentage rounded to two decimal places).

After doing that, measure any of the sides of the path. You will find that its length is .8165 (cosine of 35°16" rounded to four decimal places).

Since all three visible sides of cube in isometric orientation make the same angle with the line of sight, creating the other two sides is just a matter of rotating copies of the "top" 120° and 240°.

Thus, measures along all three axes in isometric projection are foreshortened by 81.65%. All ellipses (which represent circles laying on any of the three iso planes) have minor diameters 57.74% of their major diameters.

Of course these transformations work for any artwork drawn "in the flat," not just squares. Any plan view (which can include paths of any shape, text, or whatever) can be distorted into an isometric "top" view (or "floor" if you will) by those two moves. You just have to think about which direction you rotate the drawing 45 degrees, and follow the vertical scaling step by rotating either 60 degrees or -60 degrees.

If the kind of drawings you do are like that (basically distorting a plan view into an isometric "floor" and then drawing verticals from that), then you can ensure correct proportion by simply multiplying your vertical height measures by  .8165 (or in Affinity, keying "* sin(35.26" into the height field).

Quote

...The thing about the SSR method is that you have to input the scale, skew and rotation every....#$£&'ing....time.

But here's the thing: The whole reason for the existence of axonometric methods is to avoid all that tedium by enabling an illustrator to draw directly into the desired perspective without having to first draw multiple object sides "in the flat" and then "project" them into an auxiliary view, as is done in multi-view drafting. The reason is in the name; it's all about drawing by measuring along axes.

Quote

 ...the grid method which is not my personal choice...

It's not mine, either. In fact, in the 45 years or so that I've been doing axonometric drawing professionally, I've never met a fellow mechanical technical illustrator who was dependent on grids. Before computers, we used scales attached to the heads of track machines, with angular click-stops at the axes. So instead of grids, our axes (and measure origin) effectively just fluidly moved along with our hand holding the pen. I have yet to see an interface in a 2D vector drawing application that comes close to that kind of fluidity. (Certain functions of the screen overlay utility, Lazy Nezumi Pro, comes as close as I've seen.)

Nonetheless, the axonometric grids feature of Affinity Designer is certainly more powerful than having to do scale, skew, rotate routines. It is well on its way toward exceeding the similar feature in much more expensive Corel Technical Designer.

Moreover, we have to remember that programs like Affinity are not just for technical drawing. These are general-purpose illustration and design programs, many users of which derive a sense of "security" from page-spanning grids as they make their initial forays into isometric drawing.

Quote

Fact is, isometric work is more about having the patience and tenacity as it's based on simple shapes and very basic rules.

Fact is, isometric drawing is about much more than the relatively trivial drawing of boxy shapes extruded vertically. One doesn't engage in serious axonometric drawing long before encountering subjects which are not so conveniently boxy in shape and arranged parallel to the drawing axes or to each other. Drawing Legos is one thing. Drawing Tinker Toys is quite another.

Think of an exploded parts diagram of a bicycle wheel; hub, brake caliper, spokes and nipples, chain, sprockets, rim, all in their various as-installed orientations, all to correct proportion and fit. Think of a phantom cutaway in axonometric perspective showing the inner workings of a V-twin engine. Such drawings for commercial applications are not just the domain of 3D modeling programs. Axonometric drawing is by definition a 2D drawing discipline. And it's done every day in mainstream 2D vector drawing programs, despite their usual dearth of features expressly supporting it.

Off-axis object edges abound in most manufactured products. So do whole objects which are not aligned to the axes and parallel to the planes. All those measures have to be drawn in correct proportion, too, even though the drawing is done by isometric method. Fasteners, for example, are commonly positioned in all kinds of orientations in exploded isometric drawings. So providing reasonably intuitive and productive solutions for proportionally correct rotation about the axes is also of key importance.

Even though its interface approach is not perfectly in line with what would be my ideal, among affordable mainstream 2D drawing programs, Affinity is presently leading the way toward (at long last) awakening more illustrators to the fun and rewarding world of axonometric drawing. And trust me, the functionality is still more direct and powerful than mere scale, skew, rotate routines.

JET