next »

[homeDrone]

I've seen some amazing work on this forum, and I had a question, so I thought I'd ask.

I gather the regular ratio for isometric graphics is 2:1. 2 pixels horizontal to 1 vertical.  X-com though, is 2 pixels , 2 pixels, then 1, that 5:3?  This tilts the board a bit more so that you can see into corners a little easier.

I've been experimenting with an isometric look for a new game I've been working on, and I think the extra vision gained from the X-com ratio would benefit my game. But, I find it really hard to draw with that ratio.

Can anyone give me tips on tools or ways to set up photoshop that might help me? Are there other common ratios that might be easier to work with?  Or even, do these ratios have names that I can search online for?

[Thorst]

While I cannot take credit for any of that amazing work, I recommend starting with geometric shapes and then refining them into the shapes you want.  First, draw spheres and boxes, for which it should be easy to get the perspective right.  Then, use that crude drawing as a reference as you create another version with a little more detail.  Keep creating more detailed versions, either next to the previous iterations or in layers right above them.

[DrDerekDoctors]

In no way at all is X-Com 2:2:1. It's 2:1 all the way. Standard non-American isometric.

[increpare]

I recommend starting with geometric shapes

As opposed to ungeometric shapes? 

(couldn't resist)

[homeDrone]

I'd used a screenshot to get what I thought was the X-com ratio. I'd isolated what I felt was one tile, got the height and width and then messed around with slopes until I got one that worked. And it was 2 over, 1 up, 2over, 1 up 1, over, 1 up.   But after reading DrDerekDoctors's post, I went back to look. He's right, that's not how X-com did it, but it's not 2:1 either. There are places where it jumps 2 up. It's not a standard 2:1 unless my knowledge of what the standard is is wrong. It's obvious if you put a 2:1 iso picture over top and change the opacity. the lines that should be parallel arn't. I put my 5:3 next to it and it's not a perfect match, but very close.

Thorst: that probably is the best way to go I guess. Nothing beats practice and experience. Just have to do it the long way I guess (^_-);

[muku]

Perhaps you used a squashed screenshot? It's surprisingly hard to find non-stretched screenshots of UFO online, but I found one of X-COM here which seems okay besides being upscaled by two. X-COM, if I recall correctly, used the same engine as UFO, so I would be very surprised if they differed in this aspect.



If you load this into any graphics editor and zoom in, you should see that the tiles indeed use a simple 2:1 ratio. (Look at the walls of the ship.)

[Thorst]

increpare: I didn't see any blobs in my geometry book.  But, you're making me feel stupid, so I tried to do the math on this ratio thing.

A 320x200 resolution is an 8:5 ratio, but the screen is a 4:3 or 8:6 ratio.  So, each pixel is one fifth taller than it is wide.  So, a line that has too horizontal pixels for each vertical pixel is 2:1.2.  (Edit:) which, as mentioned, is 5:3, so it's easily replicable with square pixels if you want that perspective.

[homeDrone]

Oh! my screenshots were distorted. That's frustrating.

Anyway, thanks again for everyone's help sorting that out.

[Thorst]

Your screenshots were adjusted to preserve the original perspective, in which a line with two horizontal pixels for each vertical pixel is only two thirds wider than it is tall.