Return of the Dark: Attempted Redemption Edition [Updates on Pg 7 & 8]

124

Posts

  • LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    The thickness of the lines changes to give your characters depth- not just to make them pop. The thicker the line the closer something appears to the viewer so... if you have one leg infront of another leg the outlines around them should not be the same width. That, however, is exactly what you did.

    More like this?
    tester3.png

    That attempt is better, but there are some flaws. Firstly, the lines are very thin on the left-hand side of the image and very thick on the right-hand side, with a steady gradiant between the two as we travel from left to right. It makes him look like a cardboard cut-out. Remember that he's a three-dimensional object with limbs and fat and stuff. Imagine he was really standing in front of you, and reach out to touch him. What does your hand reach first? His left shoulder. Reach out some more, and you get to his chest. Some more, his head and back. More still, and you're at his right arm. So the thickest lines are going to be on his left arm and chest, while the thinnest will be his right arm.

    Secondly, don't be afraid of adding line variations on a small scale too. There's no variation on his face or the folds on his clothes -- why? These areas are perfect spots to go nuts with line variation. You can use line thickness to show where a fold sticks out or makes a pocket, or to make a shadow under his nose or imply the curvature of his eyes. And, again, these details are three-dimensional, so they need to be shown to be receding into the background too.
    Thats a style thing
    No it's not. It's an I'm-still-crap-at-drawing thing. No more justifying your lack of skill on "style" or so help me I will bitchslap you through the internet.

    Lieberkuhn on
    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Lieberkuhn wrote: »
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    The thickness of the lines changes to give your characters depth- not just to make them pop. The thicker the line the closer something appears to the viewer so... if you have one leg infront of another leg the outlines around them should not be the same width. That, however, is exactly what you did.

    More like this?
    tester3.png

    That attempt is better, but there are some flaws. Firstly, the lines are very thin on the left-hand side of the image and very thick on the right-hand side, with a steady gradiant between the two as we travel from left to right. It makes him look like a cardboard cut-out. Remember that he's a three-dimensional object with limbs and fat and stuff. Imagine he was really standing in front of you, and reach out to touch him. What does your hand reach first? His left shoulder. Reach out some more, and you get to his chest. Some more, his head and back. More still, and you're at his right arm. So the thickest lines are going to be on his left arm and chest, while the thinnest will be his right arm.

    Secondly, don't be afraid of adding line variations on a small scale too. There's no variation on his face or the folds on his clothes -- why? These areas are perfect spots to go nuts with line variation. You can use line thickness to show where a fold sticks out or makes a pocket, or to make a shadow under his nose or imply the curvature of his eyes. And, again, these details are three-dimensional, so they need to be shown to be receding into the background too.
    Thats a style thing
    No it's not. It's an I'm-still-crap-at-drawing thing. No more justifying your lack of skill on "style" or so help me I will bitchslap you through the internet.

    >< I was told to draw them in my own style and I did. If they didn't have pants on they'd have ridiculously thin tubes for legs.

    I think theres no variation on the face because I did it in a thin line and forgot to add thicker lines to give me something substantial to trim down. So I didn;t notice that area.

    So you're saying that the difference between the lines should be less substantial, not just too thick and too thin?

    DarkWarrior on
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Is it me or does that color scheme make the character look a little feminine.

    How so? The red?

    DarkWarrior on
  • Nineteen HundredNineteen Hundred Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It's really closer to a pink.

    Nineteen Hundred on
    There was something important here. It's gone now.
  • MagicToasterMagicToaster JapanRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Now that I look at it a second time, it's not just the color scheme; the guy has a curvy body, kinda like a 14 year old girl.

    MagicToaster on
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Maybe its my monitor but its just a light red to me. But pinks very in right now ;)
    Now that I look at it a second time, it's not just the color scheme; the guy has a curvy body, kinda like a 14 year old girl.

    Whu?

    DarkWarrior on
  • chewiechewie Registered User
    edited April 2010
    ugh...

    Everything that has been said in this entire thread could be solved if he would just get some time with paper and pencil without looking directly at another comic to figure out how mouths are drawn.

    Line quality, proportions, character style, etc all get worked out when you just draw a lot instead of going right to the computer and trying to publish your webcomic with the first character you managed to frankenstein together from other comics.

    chewie on
  • LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    >< I was told to draw them in my own style and I did. If they didn't have pants on they'd have ridiculously thin tubes for legs.

    I think theres no variation on the face because I did it in a thin line and forgot to add thicker lines to give me something substantial to trim down. So I didn;t notice that area.

    So you're saying that the difference between the lines should be less substantial, not just too thick and too thin?
    Style results in exaggeration. Poor skills result in flaws. Do not confuse the two.

    With regards the lines, I'm saying the differences should be more dynamic. I don't think I worded it very well before, so let's use an example. His left boot is a good example of what I was talking about -- it's got thick lines on the right and thin lines on the left, with little regards to the actual shape of the boot.

    I've reinked it.

    boots.png

    Note how the line thickness varies according to where the boot sits in space, rather than where it sits relative to the rest of his body. There are also shadows and scuff marks which help describe the shape of the boot itself. Note how his trouser casts subtle shadows where it hangs over the boot, or how the label is very thin on the right, to contrast the thickness of the boot on that side, making it pop out.

    See also that the lines are messy -- this is partly because I was being quick, but mostly because I was comfortable with what I was doing. I've practised this, I know instinctively where shadows should go. I'm not great at it, but I more or less know what I'm doing, and it shows in my brush strokes. Your lines are stiff and overly perfect because you don't know where shadows go, and the art suffers for it.

    Lieberkuhn on
    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Lieberkuhn wrote: »
    >< I was told to draw them in my own style and I did. If they didn't have pants on they'd have ridiculously thin tubes for legs.

    I think theres no variation on the face because I did it in a thin line and forgot to add thicker lines to give me something substantial to trim down. So I didn;t notice that area.

    So you're saying that the difference between the lines should be less substantial, not just too thick and too thin?
    Style results in exaggeration. Poor skills result in flaws. Do not confuse the two.

    With regards the lines, I'm saying the differences should be more dynamic. I don't think I worded it very well before, so let's use an example. His left boot is a good example of what I was talking about -- it's got thick lines on the right and thin lines on the left, with little regards to the actual shape of the boot.

    I've reinked it.

    boots.png

    Note how the line thickness varies according to where the boot sits in space, rather than where it sits relative to the rest of his body. There are also shadows and scuff marks which help describe the shape of the boot itself. Note how his trouser casts subtle shadows where it hangs over the boot, or how the label is very thin on the right, to contrast the thickness of the boot on that side, making it pop out.

    See also that the lines are messy -- this is partly because I was being quick, but mostly because I was comfortable with what I was doing. I've practised this, I know instinctively where shadows should go. I'm not great at it, but I more or less know what I'm doing, and it shows in my brush strokes. Your lines are stiff and overly perfect because you don't know where shadows go, and the art suffers for it.

    Okay I think I follow what you're saying.

    DarkWarrior on
  • winter_combat_knightwinter_combat_knight Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Had a go with some quick shading/colouring.

    tester30.png[/]

    MUCH BETTER!

    Though i agree with Toast, it does look like a young girl.
    Not many blokes wear loose fitting sleeves and tight neck colars. Plus his pants are kinda gay and te pinkish shirt aint helping :)
    Besides looking a little girly, its a huge improvement in the drawing.
    You're pushing it further, and for that, *thumbs up*
    Keep it up, and with some life and fundamental studies, you'll start to see a style of your own develop. Just dont rush to it.

    Also, DONT SPOIL YOUR STUFF! Its your thread, you dont have to spoil anything.

    EDIT: BTW watch the direction of your feet.

    Sorry if ive repeated stuff, but this thread is TOOOO long to read through entirely.

    winter_combat_knight on
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    I dont know many girls who wear loost fitting sleeves and tight neck collars :P I'm not quite sure why his pants are gay. His feet, thats how I actually stand so as far as I can tell its functional but maybe you can see more in his positioning than I can.

    Im working through the How to Draw THe Marvel Way book right now then Im going to read the one on drawing heads and hands. So we will see how it goes.

    DarkWarrior on
  • NappuccinoNappuccino Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I think the thing that makes him look femine is the concave aspect to his chest. it gives the illusion that he has breasts (albiet small ones) and as such looks feminine.

    Nappuccino on
    Like to write? Want to get e-published? Give us a look-see at http://wednesdaynightwrites.com/
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    There's also the possibility you just can't really grow a bear like other guys.

    Not even BEAR vaginas can defeat me!
    cakemikz wrote: »
    And then I rub actual cake on myself.
    Loomdun wrote: »
    thats why you have chest helmets
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Its supposed to be muscle. Not Schwarzmuscle but muscle. A chest. Maybe if the abdomen went straight instead of inwards to make him less hippy.

    DarkWarrior on
  • chewiechewie Registered User
    edited April 2010
    The torso looks a bit long.

    I shortened it a bit and I think it works better.

    shortened.jpg

    chewie on
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    chewie wrote: »
    The torso looks a bit long.

    I shortened it a bit and I think it works better.

    tester30.pngshortened.jpg

    I like it, his waist is thicker.

    Added original for comparison.

    DarkWarrior on
  • chewiechewie Registered User
    edited April 2010
    I like it, his waist is thicker.

    I didnt touch the waist. I simply took a chunk out of his torso and reconnected the lines.

    But its amazing how the brain chooses to interpret information. Even in the most extreme cartoons, basic realistic body proportions are still usually the best.

    with the editing, the 'hourglass' of his waist/hips is gone, which may have contributed to his looking feminine.


    FYI, a book I always recommend for cartoonists is Preston Blair's Cartoon Animation. Its great for showing what traits make a character look less intelligent, more cute, more heroic, etc. Also great for conveying meaning through poses. Almost every artist I work with has it and often has copies of pages pinned to their cube wall.

    chewie on
  • LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Four words that can help you avoid that mistake in the future: waist-to-hip ratio. The difference in circumference between a man's waist and hips is small; they tend to be about the same width. In women, the difference is extreme -- ladies tend to have waists around 70%-85% the width of their hips.

    There are lots of little anatomical facts like this you need to know if you don't want your people to look "off". Another one I find helpful is the fact that your foot is the same length as your forearm, wrist to elbow. (Take off your shoe and compare if you don't believe me.)

    Lieberkuhn on
    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Lieberkuhn wrote: »
    Four words that can help you avoid that mistake in the future: waist-to-hip ratio. The difference in circumference between a man's waist and hips is small; they tend to be about the same width. In women, the difference is extreme -- ladies tend to have waists around 70%-85% the width of their hips.

    There are lots of little anatomical facts like this you need to know if you don't want your people to look "off". Another one I find helpful is the fact that your foot is the same length as your forearm, wrist to elbow. (Take off your shoe and compare if you don't believe me.)

    Weird...its true. And I pulled something trying it.

    DarkWarrior on
  • FletcherFletcher Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It's really closer to a pink.

    IT'S FADED SALMON!!

    it does kind of look like a baggy pink shirt

    i have to ask, why are his pants are tucked into his shoes?

    also DW, did you colour darker around the lips? it kind of looks like he is wearing lipstick or something

    at the moment i think the character is reading more as "I'm the tomboy girl with short hair that one of the main characters will eventually realise is hot, and start going out with" than "i'm the slightly crazier of the two main guys"

    Fletcher on
  • LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Lieberkuhn wrote: »
    Four words that can help you avoid that mistake in the future: waist-to-hip ratio. The difference in circumference between a man's waist and hips is small; they tend to be about the same width. In women, the difference is extreme -- ladies tend to have waists around 70%-85% the width of their hips.

    There are lots of little anatomical facts like this you need to know if you don't want your people to look "off". Another one I find helpful is the fact that your foot is the same length as your forearm, wrist to elbow. (Take off your shoe and compare if you don't believe me.)

    Weird...its true. And I pulled something trying it.
    I meant compare with your shoe. :p

    Lieberkuhn on
    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • MustangMustang Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Fletcher wrote:
    i have to ask, why are his pants are tucked into his shoes?

    I was going to ask the same thing. As far as outfits go.....the dude needs to go on one of those reality programs that derides the contestant for their horrible fashion sense and then makes them look like a poor-mans james bond by the end.

    Mustang on
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Fletcher wrote: »
    It's really closer to a pink.

    IT'S FADED SALMON!!

    it does kind of look like a baggy pink shirt

    i have to ask, why are his pants are tucked into his shoes?

    also DW, did you colour darker around the lips? it kind of looks like he is wearing lipstick or something

    at the moment i think the character is reading more as "I'm the tomboy girl with short hair that one of the main characters will eventually realise is hot, and start going out with" than "i'm the slightly crazier of the two main guys"

    They're boots! I tend to wear baggier cargo pants but I wanted him in boots so the most obvious solution seemed to be Goku them. I noticed the lip to, I coped the coloured layer, lowered the brightness then erased to get shadow but the way I've done it on the face highlights his lip and makes it look like lip-gloss or lipstick.
    Lieberkuhn wrote: »
    Lieberkuhn wrote: »
    Four words that can help you avoid that mistake in the future: waist-to-hip ratio. The difference in circumference between a man's waist and hips is small; they tend to be about the same width. In women, the difference is extreme -- ladies tend to have waists around 70%-85% the width of their hips.

    There are lots of little anatomical facts like this you need to know if you don't want your people to look "off". Another one I find helpful is the fact that your foot is the same length as your forearm, wrist to elbow. (Take off your shoe and compare if you don't believe me.)

    Weird...its true. And I pulled something trying it.
    I meant compare with your shoe. :p

    That's not gonna hold up in court.

    For that story from earlier, I've tried it again, see if I can get a handle on the humour.

    FRAME 1:
    *Blake places a flaming bag (of poop) outside Andy's bedroom door*
    FRAME 2:
    *Over Blake's shoulder view - can see Andy walking towards the house revealing he isn't in the bedroom*
    FRAME 3:
    *Shows fire having grown out of control and consumed the bedroom door*
    Blake: I may have gotten this wrong.

    FRAME 1:
    *Blake curls up on countertop, maybe pressed against a wall to avoid fire-appear to be thinking*
    FRAME 2:
    *"Months prior" *
    Andy: You spent the insurance money on 560 lotto tickets!?
    Blake: We don't need insurance, BEHOLD! *Holds up a piece of paper*
    FRAME 3:
    *Close up of sign with list of rules, says stuff like "No Fires"*
    Andy: No conception?
    Blake: I'm sure it'll hold up in court.
    Andy: I completely agree.

    FRAME 1:
    Andy: What the hell happened!? *house burns in background*
    *Blake looks down at the singed sign*
    FRAME 2:
    *Blake looks to the side, sees a pregnant woman*
    Woman: Hey B.
    FRAME 3:
    *Blake falls to his knees, arms in the air, holding the sign aloft* " DOUBLE BETRAYAL!" (Possibly "THIS SIGN DIDN'T WORK AT ALL!" - not too keen on that though)

    I think the 2nd comic is too wordy though.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Stupid Mr Whoopsie NameStupid Mr Whoopsie Name Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    chewie wrote: »
    ugh...

    Everything that has been said in this entire thread could be solved if he would just get some time with paper and pencil without looking directly at another comic to figure out how mouths are drawn.

    Line quality, proportions, character style, etc all get worked out when you just draw a lot instead of going right to the computer and trying to publish your webcomic with the first character you managed to frankenstein together from other comics.

    It's the young artist's fallacy, worrying about "style" before anything else =(

    Stupid Mr Whoopsie Name on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    chewie wrote: »
    ugh...

    Everything that has been said in this entire thread could be solved if he would just get some time with paper and pencil without looking directly at another comic to figure out how mouths are drawn.

    Line quality, proportions, character style, etc all get worked out when you just draw a lot instead of going right to the computer and trying to publish your webcomic with the first character you managed to frankenstein together from other comics.

    It's the young artist's fallacy, worrying about "style" before anything else =(

    I have some abilities, its just been a long time since I've drawn, I dont know why I used to do it all the time but I just kinda stopped and before I knew it, years had gone by.

    And when I was a kid I used to draw characters with two biceps and like 16 abs.

    I think I've moved up.

    DarkWarrior on
  • LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    The first one is a lot better.

    You've ruined the pregnancy joke by turning it into "no contraception", though -- if the joke is that Blake thinks bad things can be prevented with a magic list of rules, then pregnancy is what he'd put there, not contraception.

    Your alternate punchline for the third one is much better than "BETRAYAL!". That might just be me though.

    Lieberkuhn on
    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • chewiechewie Registered User
    edited April 2010
    chewie wrote: »
    ugh...

    Everything that has been said in this entire thread could be solved if he would just get some time with paper and pencil without looking directly at another comic to figure out how mouths are drawn.

    Line quality, proportions, character style, etc all get worked out when you just draw a lot instead of going right to the computer and trying to publish your webcomic with the first character you managed to frankenstein together from other comics.

    It's the young artist's fallacy, worrying about "style" before anything else =(

    It is sad. 20 people can tell him that his 'style' just so happens to look like a copy of the very comic that hosts the forum, but every time it is just a coincidence. 30 people can tell him that he needs to learn to draw, not copy, and he will ignore every piece of advice that isnt just a slight adjustment to his 'style'.

    And the wheel turns.

    chewie on
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Lieberkuhn wrote: »
    The first one is a lot better.

    You've ruined the pregnancy joke by turning it into "no contraception", though -- if the joke is that Blake thinks bad things can be prevented with a magic list of rules, then pregnancy is what he'd put there, not contraception.

    Your alternate punchline for the third one is much better than "BETRAYAL!". That might just be me though.

    Its conception, not contraception. But conception seems like a word he wouldn't really know. So pregnancy might work better.

    I had this image of him in my head, crying up to the heavens BETRAYAL like the paper itself had betrayed him. But hey, this one is passable :D I might finally be gettingit.

    EDIT: Im explaining the joke again.
    chewie wrote: »
    chewie wrote: »
    ugh...

    Everything that has been said in this entire thread could be solved if he would just get some time with paper and pencil without looking directly at another comic to figure out how mouths are drawn.

    Line quality, proportions, character style, etc all get worked out when you just draw a lot instead of going right to the computer and trying to publish your webcomic with the first character you managed to frankenstein together from other comics.

    It's the young artist's fallacy, worrying about "style" before anything else =(

    It is sad. 20 people can tell him that his 'style' just so happens to look like a copy of the very comic that hosts the forum, but every time it is just a coincidence. 30 people can tell him that he needs to learn to draw, not copy, and he will ignore every piece of advice that isnt just a slight adjustment to his 'style'.

    And the wheel turns.

    Im not going to get into an arguement, I pointed out that the PA style is basically the Hanna-Barbera style, I've seen characters in the comics that could've been lifted straight from HB cartoons. Its no doubt that from over the years I've been influenced by his extrapolations on that style but I didn't intentionally set out to design characters in that form. That said I have taken stuff on board and changed the design away from the one I liked to this one, which is ok, but in the end its a replacement for my original, and its not finished so much as practice. Im reading through a bunch of PDFs linked to in this forum and Ill take them in and then try again.

    Can I ask, are you saying the more recent one (The one you edited) is PA style as well?

    DarkWarrior on
  • MustangMustang Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    And when I was a kid I used to draw characters with two biceps and like 16 abs.

    Only two biceps? Man that's weak, my guy had like 6 biceps per arm.

    Mustang on
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Mustang wrote: »
    And when I was a kid I used to draw characters with two biceps and like 16 abs.

    Only two biceps? Man that's weak, my guy had like 6 biceps per arm.


    I'd have to go find it, I think it was two biceps, two triceps, giant shoulders, 16 abs all the way to the groun and god knows how many quadraceps.

    And a dual-bladed lightsabre.

    DarkWarrior on
  • chewiechewie Registered User
    edited April 2010
    never stopped Rob Liefeld!

    chewie on
  • MustangMustang Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    He's the argument to every well thought out statement.

    Mustang on
  • chewiechewie Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Him and Pauly Shore

    chewie on
  • LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Im not going to get into an arguement, I pointed out that the PA style is basically the Hanna-Barbera style, I've seen characters in the comics that could've been lifted straight from HB cartoons. Its no doubt that from over the years I've been influenced by his extrapolations on that style but I didn't intentionally set out to design characters in that form. That said I have taken stuff on board and changed the design away from the one I liked to this one, which is ok, but in the end its a replacement for my original, and its not finished so much as practice. Im reading through a bunch of PDFs linked to in this forum and Ill take them in and then try again.

    Can I ask, are you saying the more recent one (The one you edited) is PA style as well?

    *bitchslap*

    Damnit what did I tell you

    What did I tell you about making excuses about your style

    Next time I will bitchslap you in all caps

    Lieberkuhn on
    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Lieberkuhn wrote: »
    Im not going to get into an arguement, I pointed out that the PA style is basically the Hanna-Barbera style, I've seen characters in the comics that could've been lifted straight from HB cartoons. Its no doubt that from over the years I've been influenced by his extrapolations on that style but I didn't intentionally set out to design characters in that form. That said I have taken stuff on board and changed the design away from the one I liked to this one, which is ok, but in the end its a replacement for my original, and its not finished so much as practice. Im reading through a bunch of PDFs linked to in this forum and Ill take them in and then try again.

    Can I ask, are you saying the more recent one (The one you edited) is PA style as well?

    *bitchslap*

    Damnit what did I tell you

    What did I tell you about making excuses about your style

    Next time I will bitchslap you in all caps

    D:cry::(

    DarkWarrior on
  • chewiechewie Registered User
    edited April 2010
    here is a test. can you draw gabe in your style? or would that just be drawing gabe?

    You see guest comic drawing people's characters all the time, but you can still tell its a different style, even though they are drawing the exact same character.

    chewie on
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    It certainly wouldn't look as neat and his face would be more angled.

    DarkWarrior on
  • NappuccinoNappuccino Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    So the angle of his face = a defining factor of your style?

    Nappuccino on
    Like to write? Want to get e-published? Give us a look-see at http://wednesdaynightwrites.com/
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    There's also the possibility you just can't really grow a bear like other guys.

    Not even BEAR vaginas can defeat me!
    cakemikz wrote: »
    And then I rub actual cake on myself.
    Loomdun wrote: »
    thats why you have chest helmets
  • chewiechewie Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    So the angle of his face = a defining factor of your style?

    Don't forget lack of neatness.

    chewie on
  • FletcherFletcher Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    oh yeah, just in case you haven't gotten pressure sensitivity working in photoshop yet

    in CS4, the way I had to enable it was by clicking on "windows" in the top menu bar and opening the "brushes" tab

    then enabling "shape dynamics"

    and i'm pretty sure that setting will then be saved so you never need to worry about it again

    Fletcher on
  • JLM-AWPJLM-AWP Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I told myself that I wasn't going to post in this thread again. I was wrong.

    Fletcher, your avatar hypnotizes me for days.

    JLM-AWP on
Sign In or Register to comment.