Hey folks,
I was dicking around in Inkscape, trying to make the letter "z", inspired by the vulf font.
It ended up being a "2" but whatever.
The thing is, I've grown reasonably comfortable constructing stuff using stuff that was either directly geometrical or derived from a number of such simple object.
By division, union and stuff. But I don't at all know how to build things that still have a certain symmetry and harmony that are more complex.
As soon as I touch the nodes and try to change them, the balance and symmetry dies.
How you guys create complex shapes while not fucking them up?
>>305870
I basically hate freehanding, and either I just suck at it, or there is/are a trick(s).
>>305870
Are you talking about type or just random objects? I mean why do you want to do that, it's unclear...
>>305958
Really the question boils down to:
How do I (or really you guys) create complex shapes that cannot easily be derived from well defined objects like rectangles and ellipses.
>>305870
A) Everything can be constructed from basic shapes. Even the human body.
B) Especialy professional Logos/Icons should always be built with basic shapes, if it makes sense to do so. Those rare cases where it doesn't you'll learn by yourself with time.
C) Your noticed it yourself, your letter looks more like a number. Every new design/painting or whatever starts with a drawing/concept on paper. Make sure what you build actually reads as what you want to portray.
D) Pic. related. The Diagonal stroke should be built in a non-diagonal view, constructed from circles and then mirrored. Always mirror where it makes sense to avoid unnecessary errors.
Your other stroke can be made in a similar fashion, try it yourself.
>>306003
Woah, thanks dude.
I'm actually very glad to hear that almost all things can be reduced to just basic shapes.
Uno questioné: how do you get the edges of the big blue circles and the black circle to align?
>>306128
I guess it's mirrored and he was using this rectangle for measurements. Then he decided to show not the full image. And maybe rectangle has been moved after step one.
>>305977
Give an example of a complex shape. most can be derived from rectangles and ellipses tho.
>>306128
>>306200
I still don't understand, I feel like I'm missing out on a very powerful alignment option.
The cyan circle is perfectly center, which is easy, but the contact area (or ideally point) is only approximated by hand.
Which drives me mad, it's not perfect like the rest.
I tend to make constant copies of whatever I'm working with, layering objects together then using things like unions. If it doesn't turn out, I go back to a copy. If I find a shape is getting unwieldy I use more objects and stack/layer them.
The attached image is inkscape, layers, and node manipulation. There was actually *no* freehand graphics in it, I personally almost exclusively use path and basic shapes. I know this isn't what you're going for, but the same principle applies to just about everything I do, and mostly I'm looking at dealing with complexity.
Proper use of the snapping features is also a great key, and snapping directly to existing nodes is handy. Grids too... I can post more relevant stuff if that was at all helpful.
>>306743
Is it your work. If so, you have done it really well!
>>306743
Yeah, I recently found the snapping buttons.
But I haven't found a button than makes the edges of two circles snap.