Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dawmail333

  1. 9/10: Only thing wrong is the border. TPBM: Could you please rate this and my current one? P.S. d3 is going to be a shortcut for my name.
  2. It did, I'll say 9.5/10, it seems to have chopped edges. Could someone rate this, as well as my current?
  3. 9.5/10: You gave it a fair bit of work, it looks great, and only the textureless mountains weren't PDN. If it was stock, I'd give you less.
  4. Wow. Looks like some intergalactic poker chip. Seriously, it's nice. 9/10. EDIT: Whoops, someone beat me to the punch. Janozua, I can't see it. Seriously.
  5. It was dead but wouldn't lie down. Bye bye stupid Ice-nine. [40] Dr. Strangelove's Mutually-assured destruction system [45] Ender's Game's Molecular Disruption Device [20] Skynet's Judgment Day system from Terminator [50] Soran's Star Imploder from Star Trek: Generations [50] Death Star from Star Wars A star imploding would be much more interesting then some stupid nuke launcher thingy. EDIT: Accidentally dropped the Death Star! :shock: It broke! :wink:
  6. In that case, I'll rate your current one. 9.5/10 if it's 100% PDN, 7/10 if it isn't.
  7. Drew: slick, stylish and simple. A slight variation in the background there works well. 8.5/10 TPBM, rate both jake2k's and mine please, I've already rated his.
  8. I find the transparencies look strange, it needs a background that blends well, there seem to be left over spots of colour around the letters that shouldn't be there, and a personal bias: I really think that people's sigs/avatars shouldn't have the '300th post' type of thing in there. Making a new signature for your 300th post? Great! When showing it off here, say it! But why do you have to stick it in your signature? It just seems like pointless boasting (and clutter in my mind). So, I'll give it a 5/10 for originality.
  9. Nice blending, great anti-aliasing, but it's not very original per se. 7/10 P.S. Before you rate my sig, make sure you cache refresh (ctrl + F5 in IE and Firefox), so you get the LATEST version of my sig. Someone earlier rated my old one.
  10. That's lovely and scenic, there is NOTHING I can find wrong with it, I'll give it a 10/10 considering. Is that dome like thing meant to be water or a moon? Or is it something else or just something you haven't decided? Any way you go, it's cool.
  11. 9/10: I love it, really creative & great use of black & white. Only problem: it's black & white.
  12. I've already rated yours, but I changed the text on mine.
  13. Excellent & unique, but will look horrible to anyone using IE6 or earlier (God forbid). 9/10, I can't pick what I find wrong with it, but there seems to be something.
  14. Just changed it. And Rainsy, you don't have a signature...
  15. 7.5/10: +Looks interesting +Looks to be your own work -Not finished -Gloss seems funny when reacting with the blue bit Look forward to seeing it when finished!
  16. Freakily awesome. 8.5/10: +Unique +Fresh idea -Border bits look funny (PM me if you want more info on that) I'd be happy to see a tut about how you made some of those effects, if you'd be happy to make it. EDIT: Post 75
  17. I am REALLY starting to get annoyed about people who just post commentary about what other people have said and still miss the point of the whole topic: Please, if you are going to post commentary, please at least rate. That goes especially to you Champjev. @Champjev It's supposed to be two masks (which I recently made) on a black, fading background, and a bit of text. Simple & easy, and it certainly doesn't seem 'crammed' to my eye like yours does. Anyway you're supposed to take the constructive critism in this forum. When I said notice I said "it looks like..." not "you shouldn't have...". Please just take the critism you asked for when you came here, and be prepared to rate, not just argue with people every step of the way. I can practice what I preach: look below.@Jake2K Interesting, animated but you can tell where it's dithered as a gif, and almost none of it seems to be your work. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. 6/10 though for uniqueness.
  18. Well presented sig, everything fits well & compliments each other, but still very simple. 7/10
  19. @MAX POWER That's not the point. :? I think that's going a bit far... And lastly, you missed the complete point of this topic: 'Rate the sig of the poster above you' @IceFusion If that's completely PDN, I'll eat my hat. 4/10 if it isn't, 7/10 if it is. Still pretty cool, but there are too many individual pixels showing. And is that a roof I can see?
  20. @Champjev I'm not saying this because I have an anti-render bias, but your sig really doesn't work for me. I mean, it looks like you put 50 Cent up on a platform, put a Mandlebrot fractal next to him, and put a random lightsource in the background. I mean, what is it really meant to be? @Lerp55 That's quite an interesting signature. It's got a consistent feel, and appeals to me anyway.
  21. Nothing really noticable that I can see. Nothing really to make it even stand out. When scanning through the page, I wouldn't even notice it. I can't say what's wrong in particular, but at least for me, it doesn't work. Still not rating yet, and I wouldn't rate this one anyway. Will start rating again soon though. New sig from me! (Those are the masks now in my Pictorium.)
  22. Experiment #2: Full sized wide-screen (1440x900) wallpapers if you are interested. Tell me if you want a tutorial on it. Experiment #1: The Mask: This technique gave me not one, but 3 pictures! They're showcased here: Mask of Flame: Mask of Darkness: Mask of Shadows: (WTH I know...) That's all from me.
  23. Thanks, now I just have to work out how to make the bullethole more realistic (as in less pixelated).
  24. Could someone give a shattered glass tutorial, like someone put a bullet through a glass window or something? Much appreciated.
  • Create New...