@BigDave said: @Toque
thanks!
Yep the alpha around is much bigger, also when I shrinked them I left the total size just decreased the size of the visual. So the alpha is even bigger compared to what is visible.
I do similar usability hacks for collisions, For example the collison of the hero and enemy are much smaller as the visible. Means they have to clearly overlap to damage the player.
But the player projectile has a bigger alpha around so its more likely to hit the enemy.
i didnt took the time to understand the wiki entry completly but I agree it looks a bit too small in comparision to the triangles even tough points should be on line. I double check that. thanks
. . . even tough points should be on line. I double check that.
They are all sat on the same baseline and have the same cap-height, but the point is . . . if you want them to look balanced / the same size . . . they shouldn't be sat on the same baseline or have the same cap-height !
Circles (and 'O's in typography) need to be bigger than the overall cap-height and sit below the baseline, otherwise they will look small.
PhilipCCEncounter Bay, South AustraliaMemberPosts: 1,390
@Socks
thanks! I did increase the circle size now, as it it is now bigger than the other objects it appears visually to be the correct size now.. Weird
@BigDave said: @Socks
thanks! I did increase the circle size now, as it it is now bigger than the other objects it appears visually to be the correct size now.. Weird
There are dozens of these little compensations you can use to correct for our wonky visual system, I'm sure you probably do them already without even noticing, like placing an object slightly above the centre of an area if you want it to appear centred, or making darker coloured objects fractionally larger than light coloured objects to have them appear the same size . . . . etc etc . . . go look at the hinges on the door of the room you are in right now, the bottom hinge is further away from the bottom of the door than the top hinge is from the top of the door . . . this actually makes the door structure a little weaker than it could be, but it looks right to our visual system.
The overshoot of an 'o' (or any circle) even applies to circular elements within a more complex shape, for example look at the way the 'bowl' of a lower case 'a' sits lower than the 'stem' . . . .
Another cool/interesting/nerdy fact along the same lines is how type designers 'ground' their letters so they appear to have weight and the ability to stand on their own.
For example, look at any capital letter O, S, the number 8, etc. They look like solid structures. Now turn them upside down and you'll instantly realize that the bottoms of these forms are wider than their tops - like a building!
When oriented right-side-up, they 'just look right'.
@Adrenaline said:
For example, look at any capital letter O, S, the number 8, etc. They look like solid structures. Now turn them upside down and you'll instantly realize that the bottoms of these forms are wider than their tops - like a building!
Comments
Yeah. Same. Great work.
And thats how it looks now.
My Apps
https://itunes.apple.com/de/artist/david-zobrist/id733552276
https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=David+Zobrist&hl=de
looks good!
✮ FREE templates at GSinvention ✮
✮ Available for hire! support@gsinvention.com ✮
The circle needs to be a little bigger.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(typography)
@Socks
i didnt took the time to understand the wiki entry completly but I agree it looks a bit too small in comparision to the triangles even tough points should be on line. I double check that. thanks
My Apps
https://itunes.apple.com/de/artist/david-zobrist/id733552276
https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=David+Zobrist&hl=de
They are all sat on the same baseline and have the same cap-height, but the point is . . . if you want them to look balanced / the same size . . . they shouldn't be sat on the same baseline or have the same cap-height !
Circles (and 'O's in typography) need to be bigger than the overall cap-height and sit below the baseline, otherwise they will look small.
Ha ha ha!
Give them a hidden advantage, good idea.
@Socks
thanks! I did increase the circle size now, as it it is now bigger than the other objects it appears visually to be the correct size now.. Weird
My Apps
https://itunes.apple.com/de/artist/david-zobrist/id733552276
https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=David+Zobrist&hl=de
There are dozens of these little compensations you can use to correct for our wonky visual system, I'm sure you probably do them already without even noticing, like placing an object slightly above the centre of an area if you want it to appear centred, or making darker coloured objects fractionally larger than light coloured objects to have them appear the same size . . . . etc etc . . . go look at the hinges on the door of the room you are in right now, the bottom hinge is further away from the bottom of the door than the top hinge is from the top of the door . . . this actually makes the door structure a little weaker than it could be, but it looks right to our visual system.
The overshoot of an 'o' (or any circle) even applies to circular elements within a more complex shape, for example look at the way the 'bowl' of a lower case 'a' sits lower than the 'stem' . . . .
Awesome post @Socks
Another cool/interesting/nerdy fact along the same lines is how type designers 'ground' their letters so they appear to have weight and the ability to stand on their own.
For example, look at any capital letter O, S, the number 8, etc. They look like solid structures. Now turn them upside down and you'll instantly realize that the bottoms of these forms are wider than their tops - like a building!
When oriented right-side-up, they 'just look right'.
Great example !