So, there are some good things, but the same problem exists for each of the models: it doesn't seem like you're drawing the same thing from two different angles.
The proportions change between the two; the car is a very good example: it looks much wider when viewed from above than in perspective, with a much shorter and wider hood as well.
The same issue applies to the other two.
Pay close attention to the proportions. I really need to get the impression that it's the same object. Also, pay attention to the position of the wheels in the top view (the front wheels); you've moved them, etc. All of this is a lack of precision. Stay focused, observe your model carefully, and be logical.
Go ahead and try again, with different angles if you prefer this time. Take your time and pay attention to your proportions đ
Les proportions changent entre les deux, la voiture est un trĂšs bon exemple : beaucoup plus large vu de dessus qu'en perspective, avec un capot beaucoup plus court et large aussi.
The robot is pretty cool. As for the car, Iâm facing a dilemma. Because itâs well-built and consistent in all its views (similar proportions, etc.), BUT⊠itâs not at all the car that was given as a model. XD
In fact, it looks like youâve stylized it, which is quite funny. It reminds me of the kind of design you might find in animated films. It would fit right in. So, Iâm facing a problem because your car is consistent and works in its style from all angles. But itâs not the model that was given. Try redrawing just a side view that corresponds to the proportions of the car provided as a reference (with nice, round wheels too ^^), and it should be good :3
This is all good. But there are a few minor issues. Firstly, I donât necessarily get the impression that all the chosen viewpoints are of the same object (for example, the two in the middle). Make sure to maintain consistency in the proportions from all angles. And especially on the one in the upper right, when I look at your drawing, I donât quite understand it. I see shapes that arenât necessarily connected to each other, and they seem to be floating a bit. I donât really understand what is attached to what, what is embedded or clipped into what, etc. And most importantly, this view creates inconsistencies with the one just below it. For example, the kind of cylinder in the middle of the robot seems to be coming directly out of the base in the lower view, but in the view just above it, thereâs a gap. Why? How does it stay in place? Which is the correct version? In all your views, your two cylinders are stuck together, except for the one in the upper right; again, thereâs a gap.
Take your time, observe, and think. Be logical.
You can do it; it just needs a little more precision and logic: 3
There are a few minor perspective errors, but itâs a significant improvement compared to your first version!
For the ladybug, just pay attention to the symmetry (Iâm thinking about the top view when I say this). Itâs flatter on one side than the other, which is a shame because everything else works really well.
In the meantime, I approve, itâs very good, well done! đ
The main issue with your work is the proportions. Youâve stretched the ladybug, making it much more elongated, almost like a cockroach, and youâve compressed the car, making it almost cubic.
The ladybug is not only longer but also much flatter than it should be. You made this mistake in all of your views. I would still suggest that you revisit this.
For the car, youâve compressed it: the hood is shorter than the cabin.
Also, pay attention to the 3/4 view; the axis of the front wheels is completely skewed. You should move the view closer to us and lower the one in the back. Given how youâve drawn the rest of the car, the ground seems more or less horizontal. Therefore, your wheels, which are resting on it, should also be almost on a horizontal line, which is not the case here.
You donât necessarily need to use grayscale in your drawings. It looks nice, and youâve managed the grayscale levels quite well, but it also prevents me from clearly seeing whether youâve understood how different things are connected. For example, the headlights. There are also some misunderstandings regarding the kind of bumper (the bar that runs in front of the wheels), which is clearly in front of the right front wheel but disappears into nothingness towards the left wheel.
So, I would like to see a revised and corrected version of the 3/4 view of the car (without grayscale, if possible :3).
But overall, there are good foundations; itâs mainly a lack of observation that I see here. Take your time and refer closely to your model :3.
Hereâs a simple and clear first attempt. I think itâs good ^^ (just, thereâs a small inconsistency in the bottom drawing: where is the smallest cylinder located? We should normally be able to see it).
You can try to add more detail if you want in your next designs ;p
Hereâs the car from a different angle, as you requested, Rakjah. Itâs an absolute nightmare to represent complex shapes in perspective⊠when it comes to volumes that follow the lines of perspective (so cubes or similar), itâs manageable, but as soon as there are diagonals and, even worse, curves, I end up doing something more approximate than something thatâs really based on careful consideration. I donât see how, other than by using reference images, I could accurately reproduce these things. See the front wheels in my drawing (especially the front left wheel).
You did a great job, Tobias. Itâs well-structured and coherent, well done! đ
Yes, curves and ellipses are quite difficult to manage in perspective. Either practice helps you develop âan eye for it,â as they say, or in the case of ellipses, you try to build them starting from a square (because circles are inscribed in squares ^^). There must be a video on the subject on Dessindigoâs YouTube channel. I wonder if thereâs also an article on the subject on the blog (I vaguely remember having covered it, but I might be wrong).
Yes, I saw that regarding the circles constructed from squares. If I understand correctly, you need to draw your square in the desired perspective, and then take the midpoint of each side of the square, as well as the intersection of the squareâs diagonals. The center of the circle will be this intersection point, and the circumference of the circle should pass through each midpoint of the squareâs sides, right? However, for a sphere in perspective⊠even if you try to inscribe it in a cube, itâs really difficult! :p
Sorry for the very late reply; I didn't receive the notification about your response.
A sphere in perspective remains a sphere no matter what. So there's no need to include it in a cube, except perhaps to give you an idea of the size you want it to be.
As for the ellipses, you've understood the principle correctly. It just takes a lot of practice to be able to draw ellipses that don't look too much like potatoes.
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 0
Nombre de réponse(s) : 6
28/03/2020
Want to learn drawing?
See our coursesInteractions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 0
Nombre de réponse(s) : 6
28/03/2020
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 0
Nombre de réponse(s) : 6
28/03/2020
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 3
Nombre de réponse(s) : 2508
29/03/2020
So, there are some good things, but the same problem exists for each of the models: it doesn't seem like you're drawing the same thing from two different angles.
The proportions change between the two; the car is a very good example: it looks much wider when viewed from above than in perspective, with a much shorter and wider hood as well.
The same issue applies to the other two.
Pay close attention to the proportions. I really need to get the impression that it's the same object. Also, pay attention to the position of the wheels in the top view (the front wheels); you've moved them, etc. All of this is a lack of precision. Stay focused, observe your model carefully, and be logical.
Go ahead and try again, with different angles if you prefer this time. Take your time and pay attention to your proportions đ
Alors il y a de bonnes choses et le mĂȘme problĂšme pour chacun des modĂšles : on n'a pas l'impression que tu dessines la mĂȘme chose sous deux angles diffĂ©rents.
Les proportions changent entre les deux, la voiture est un trĂšs bon exemple : beaucoup plus large vu de dessus qu'en perspective, avec un capot beaucoup plus court et large aussi.
MĂȘme genre de souci pour les deux autres.
Fais bien attention aux proportions. Je dois vraiment avoir l'impression qu'il s'agit du mĂȘme objet. Attention aussi Ă la position des roues sur la vues de dessus (les roues avant), tu les as dĂ©placĂ©es, etc. Tout ça, c'est un manque de rigueur. Reste bien concentrĂ©, observe bien ton modĂšle et reste logique.
Allez rĂ©essaye, avec des angles diffĂ©rents si tu prĂ©fĂšres cette fois ^^ Prends bien ton temps et attention Ă tes proportions đ
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 0
Nombre de réponse(s) : 2
28/03/2020
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 3
Nombre de réponse(s) : 2508
29/03/2020
Well, actually, itâs not that bad.
The robot is pretty cool. As for the car, Iâm facing a dilemma. Because itâs well-built and consistent in all its views (similar proportions, etc.), BUT⊠itâs not at all the car that was given as a model. XD
In fact, it looks like youâve stylized it, which is quite funny. It reminds me of the kind of design you might find in animated films. It would fit right in. So, Iâm facing a problem because your car is consistent and works in its style from all angles. But itâs not the model that was given. Try redrawing just a side view that corresponds to the proportions of the car provided as a reference (with nice, round wheels too ^^), and it should be good :3
Eh bien c'est pas si mal que ça en vrai.
Le robot est plutÎt cool. Pour la voiture je suis face à un dilemme. Parce qu'elle est bien construite et cohérente entre toutes ses vues (proportions similaires, toussa toussa) MAIS...ce n'est pas du tout la voiture donné en modÚle XD
En fait on dirait que tu l'as stylisĂ©e, c'est assez marrant. Ca me fait penser au genre de design qu'on pourrait trouver dans des films d'animations. Ca y aurait totalement sa place. Du coup je suis face Ă un problĂšme, parce que ta voiture est cohĂ©rente et fonctionne dans son style et ce, sous tous les angles. Mais ce n'est pas le modĂšle donnĂ©. Essaye de refaire juste une vue de profil, qui corresponde aux proportions de la voiture donnĂ© en support (avec des roues bien rondes aussi ^^), et ça devrait ĂȘtre bon :3
Try our courses for free
See our coursesInteractions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 0
Nombre de réponse(s) : 14
29/03/2020
Caio S.
Caio S.
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 3
Nombre de réponse(s) : 2508
29/03/2020
This is all good. But there are a few minor issues. Firstly, I donât necessarily get the impression that all the chosen viewpoints are of the same object (for example, the two in the middle). Make sure to maintain consistency in the proportions from all angles. And especially on the one in the upper right, when I look at your drawing, I donât quite understand it. I see shapes that arenât necessarily connected to each other, and they seem to be floating a bit. I donât really understand what is attached to what, what is embedded or clipped into what, etc. And most importantly, this view creates inconsistencies with the one just below it. For example, the kind of cylinder in the middle of the robot seems to be coming directly out of the base in the lower view, but in the view just above it, thereâs a gap. Why? How does it stay in place? Which is the correct version? In all your views, your two cylinders are stuck together, except for the one in the upper right; again, thereâs a gap.
Take your time, observe, and think. Be logical.
You can do it; it just needs a little more precision and logic: 3
C'est sympa tout ça. Mais il y a des petits soucis. En premier lieu, je n'ai pas forcĂ©ment l'impression que tous les angles de vues choisis sont ceux d'un seul et mĂȘme objet (les deux en plein milieu par exemple). Attention Ă rester cohĂ©rent sur les proportions sous tous les angles. Et sur celui en haut Ă droite en particulier, quand je regarde ton dessin, je ne comprend pas tout. Je vois des formes, pas forcĂ©ment connectĂ©es entre elles, qui semblent un peu flotter, je ne comprends pas trop ce qui se fixe oĂč, ce qui s'accroche Ă quoi, ce qui est emboitĂ© / clipsĂ© dans quoi, etc. Et surtout, cette vue crĂ©e des incohĂ©rences avec celle juste en-dessous. Par exemple, l'espĂšce de cylindre au milieu du robot, sur la vue du bas semble directement sortir du socle, mais sur la vue juste au-dessus il y a un vide. Pourquoi ? Comment ça tient ? Quelle est la bonne version ? Sur toutes tes vues, tes deux cylindres sont collĂ©s l'un Ă l'autre, sauf celle en haut Ă droite, Ă nouveau il y a du vide.
Prends bien ton temps, observe et réfléchis. Sois logique.
Tu peux le faire, c'est juste un peu de rigueur et de logique qui manquent :3
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 0
Nombre de réponse(s) : 14
29/03/2020
Caio S.
Caio S.
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 0
Nombre de réponse(s) : 14
29/03/2020
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 3
Nombre de réponse(s) : 2508
04/04/2020
Itâs much better now! :D
There are a few minor perspective errors, but itâs a significant improvement compared to your first version!
For the ladybug, just pay attention to the symmetry (Iâm thinking about the top view when I say this). Itâs flatter on one side than the other, which is a shame because everything else works really well.
In the meantime, I approve, itâs very good, well done! đ
C'est beaucoup mieux :D
Il y a des petites erreurs de perspective, mais y a un réel mieux comparé à ta premiÚre version !
Pour la coccinelle, fais juste attention à la symétrie (je pense à la vue de dessus en disant ça), elle est plus plate d'un cÎté que de l'autre, ce qui est dommage parce que tout le reste fonctionne trÚs bien.
En attendant, je valide, c'est trĂšs bien, bravo ! đ
Want to learn drawing?
See our coursesInteractions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 0
Nombre de réponse(s) : 14
04/04/2020
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 0
Nombre de réponse(s) : 8
29/03/2020
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 3
Nombre de réponse(s) : 2508
04/04/2020
The main issue with your work is the proportions. Youâve stretched the ladybug, making it much more elongated, almost like a cockroach, and youâve compressed the car, making it almost cubic.
The ladybug is not only longer but also much flatter than it should be. You made this mistake in all of your views. I would still suggest that you revisit this.
For the car, youâve compressed it: the hood is shorter than the cabin.
Also, pay attention to the 3/4 view; the axis of the front wheels is completely skewed. You should move the view closer to us and lower the one in the back. Given how youâve drawn the rest of the car, the ground seems more or less horizontal. Therefore, your wheels, which are resting on it, should also be almost on a horizontal line, which is not the case here.
You donât necessarily need to use grayscale in your drawings. It looks nice, and youâve managed the grayscale levels quite well, but it also prevents me from clearly seeing whether youâve understood how different things are connected. For example, the headlights. There are also some misunderstandings regarding the kind of bumper (the bar that runs in front of the wheels), which is clearly in front of the right front wheel but disappears into nothingness towards the left wheel.
So, I would like to see a revised and corrected version of the 3/4 view of the car (without grayscale, if possible :3).
But overall, there are good foundations; itâs mainly a lack of observation that I see here. Take your time and refer closely to your model :3.
Alors ce qui pĂȘche de ton cĂŽtĂ© ce sont les proportions. Tu m'as Ă©tirĂ© la coccinelle, qui se retrouve beaucoup plus oblongue, un peu Ă la maniĂšre d'un cafard, et tu m'as compactĂ© la voiture qui devient presque cubique.
Pour la coccinelle, elle est non seulement plus longue, mais aussi beaucoup plus plate qu'elle ne devrait. Mais tu as commis l'erreur sur toutes tes vues. Je serais quand mĂȘme d'avis, que tu rĂ©Ă©tudies ça.
Pour la voiture, tu l'as compactée : capot plus court que l'habitacle.
Attention aussi sur la vue de 3/4 l'axe des roues avant est complĂštement en biais. Il faudrait remonter la vue vers nous et baisser franchement celle qui est derriĂšre. Tel que tu as dessinĂ© le reste de la voiture, le sol semble plus ou moins horizontal. Donc tes roues posĂ©es dessus devrait quasiment ĂȘtre sur une ligne horizontale aussi, ce qui n'est pas du tout le cas ici.
Ne mets pas forcĂ©ment de valeur de gris sur tes dessins. C'est joli et tu as plutĂŽt bien gĂ©rĂ© les niveaux de gris, mais ça m'empĂȘche aussi de voir clairement si tu as compris comment Ă©taient attachĂ© ensemble diffĂ©rentes choses. Comme les phares par exemple. Idem il y a des incomprĂ©hension sur l'espĂšce de parechoc (la barre qui passe devant les roues), qui est bien devant la roue avant droite, mais disparait dans le nĂ©ant vers la roue gauche.
Donc j'aimerais bien voir une version revue et corrigé de la vue 3/4 de la voiture (sans valeur de gris si possible :3)
Mais autrement il y a de bonnes bases, c'est surtout du manque d'observation que je constate ici ^^ Prends ton temps et réfÚre-toi bien à ton modÚle :3
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 0
Nombre de réponse(s) : 3
30/03/2020
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 3
Nombre de réponse(s) : 2508
04/04/2020
Hereâs a simple and clear first attempt. I think itâs good ^^ (just, thereâs a small inconsistency in the bottom drawing: where is the smallest cylinder located? We should normally be able to see it).
You can try to add more detail if you want in your next designs ;p
Premier essai simple et clair. Pour moi c'est bon ^^ (juste, tu as une petite incohĂ©rence sur le dessin du bas : oĂč se trouve le plus petit cylindre ? On devrait le voir normalement)
Tu peux essayer de détailler davantage si tu le souhaites sur tes prochains modÚles ;p
Try our courses for free
See our coursesInteractions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 6
Nombre de réponse(s) : 110
30/03/2020
Anyway, hereâs the car: https://i.imgur.com/M5kb4j8.jpg
M'enfin, la voiture : https://i.imgur.com/M5kb4j8.jpg
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 3
Nombre de réponse(s) : 2508
04/04/2020
Yes, curves and ellipses are quite difficult to manage in perspective. Either practice helps you develop âan eye for it,â as they say, or in the case of ellipses, you try to build them starting from a square (because circles are inscribed in squares ^^). There must be a video on the subject on Dessindigoâs YouTube channel. I wonder if thereâs also an article on the subject on the blog (I vaguely remember having covered it, but I might be wrong).
In any case, I approve! âïž
Oui les courbes et les ellipses sont quelque chose de trĂšs difficile Ă gĂ©rer en perspective. Soit c'est l'habitude qui permet au fur et Ă mesure d'avoir "le compas dans l'oeil" comme on dit. Soit dans le cas des ellipses, on essaie de construire Ă partir d'un carrĂ© (car les cercles sont inscrit dans des carrĂ©s ^^). Il doit y avoir une vidĂ©o sur le sujet sur la chaine Youtube de Dessindigo. Je me demande s'il y a pas un article Ă ce sujet aussi sur le blog (j'ai le vague souvenir d'avoir traitĂ© le sujet, mais je me trompe peut-ĂȘtre).
En tout cas je valide ! âïž
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 6
Nombre de réponse(s) : 110
04/04/2020
Yes, I saw that regarding the circles constructed from squares. If I understand correctly, you need to draw your square in the desired perspective, and then take the midpoint of each side of the square, as well as the intersection of the squareâs diagonals. The center of the circle will be this intersection point, and the circumference of the circle should pass through each midpoint of the squareâs sides, right? However, for a sphere in perspective⊠even if you try to inscribe it in a cube, itâs really difficult! :p
Oui j'ai vu ça pour les cercles construits Ă partir des carrĂ©s. Si j'ai bien saisi le truc, il faut faire son carrĂ© dans la perspective qu'on veut, et prendre le milieu de chaque cĂŽtĂ© du carrĂ© ainsi que l'intersection des bissectrices du carrĂ©. Le centre du cercle sera ce point d'intersection, et le pĂ©rimĂštre du cercle devra passer par chaque milieu de cĂŽtĂ© du carrĂ©, c'est bien ça ? Par contre pour une sphĂšre en perspective... mĂȘme en essayant de l'inscrire dans un cube, c'est super galĂšre ! :p
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 3
Nombre de réponse(s) : 2508
04/05/2020
Sorry for the very late reply; I didn't receive the notification about your response.
A sphere in perspective remains a sphere no matter what. So there's no need to include it in a cube, except perhaps to give you an idea of the size you want it to be.
As for the ellipses, you've understood the principle correctly. It just takes a lot of practice to be able to draw ellipses that don't look too much like potatoes.
Excuse-moi pour la réponse hyper tardive, je n'ai pas eu la notification de ta réponse ^^'
Une sphÚre en perspective reste une sphÚre quoi qu'il arrive :D Donc pas besoin de l'inclure dans un cube, à part pour te donner éventuellement une idée de la taille que tu voudrais qu'elle prenne.
Pour les ellipses oui tu as bien saisi le principe ;p Et c'est beaucoup d'entrainement ensuite pour réussir à faire des ellipses qui ne ressemblent pas trop à des patates ^^
Interactions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 6
Nombre de réponse(s) : 110
04/05/2020
Want to learn drawing?
See our coursesInteractions
Nombre de sujet(s) : 3
Nombre de réponse(s) : 2508
07/05/2020