>muh fundies >muh loomis are the ones who spout this bitter

so how come you still can't draw? :^D

>>3042734
>with 3D posers and infinite references on the internet, you can pretty much draw anything you want with minimal effort.

Yeah, but it will also look like a 3D poser minimal effort drawing.

>>3042738
This

>>3042744
desu if you can make a drawing based on a loomis construction look good then you can do the same with a poser model.

Also I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using a 3d model as your base. It's just a different solution to the same problem, a different way to construct, basically.

I still direct people to Loomis because that will help them understand the problem space that they're supposed to attack. Some beginners don't even understand that the problem space exists. It's like how in school they first teach you how to solve mathematical problems on paper before they hand you the calculator.

>>3042734
>encouraging people to improve their drawing skills = dragging everyone down with them
Fundies aren't hard, they just take years to internalize. You only have to put in a little bit of effort each day.

Most importantly, if you can't actually draw, how are you going to impress normies irl?

>>3042734
Nigger have you opened a loomis book other than Fun with a pencil in your life?
Anyone who unironically says Loomis isn't a good teacher can be disregarded instantly.

>>3042755
I agree with the calculator thing, but a 3D model is not a different solution to the same problem. Knowledge of space both practical and theoretical is something that underlays every problem with perspective, it can't be replaced by using a 3D model.

>>3042791
>Knowledge of space both practical and theoretical is something that underlays every problem with perspective

This sentence is a whole load of mumbo jumbo.

Is this one of those reverse helpful advice to kill off the competition to seem that it's actually good advice when it isn't threads I've been let on about? Nobody here is actually stupid enough to rely on tracing, right?

>>3042755
Yeah but your argument is you don't need to be good at anything because "muh fundies" and "muh Loomis" are outdated and just use a 3D pose program instead. So obviously the hypothetical person who listens to that advice can not make a loomis construction look good, thus he can't make a 3D model look good either.

>>3042734
Yeah, and there's also no need to learn how to program when you can just copy all your code from Stackexchange.

>>3042800
That wasn't my fucking argument, idiot.

My argument was, learn Loomis first.