29

The angles on top of the roof are looking weird. It should portray an abstract house. Can anyone tell me how I can fix this problem? It should be geometrically correct.

logo looking like a stylized house
Click for full resolution

  • I think that the tops of the outside 2 lines should be shorter and follow the perspective of the shape you are trying to create. – nocturns2 Nov 10 '20 at 16:39
  • 2
    In addition to the answers I'd like to see the cogwheels simplified. Lose the inner ring, maybe use less teeth and maybe use only 2 but bigger wheels. You will loose a lot of details in smaller sizes of your logo, simpler forms will make it more recognizable. – Lapskaus Nov 11 '20 at 11:40
  • 1
    Can you identify whether those lines are supposed to be walls and a roof or studs and rafters? If you're trying to portray different surfaces then shading would be help quite a bit. If you don't want shading then you'll need to be consistent with either walls or studs as they would have different angles. – MonkeyZeus Nov 11 '20 at 14:28
  • As you can see, you should explore more variations before you declare your logo done. There is still many questiond to ask such as what your logo looks like as a bookmark icon, very small monochrome print etc... – joojaa Nov 11 '20 at 16:38
  • Hi Chomker23, glad you're getting useful answers. You really don't have to add 'thanks' to your question. You can accept the best answer, and upvote all useful answers to show your appreciation. – PieBie Nov 15 '20 at 13:47
43

An opinion:

My eyes (see NOTE1) want to find some perspective lines - no matter this image isn't a perspective drawing of a 3D shape. In the next image the cyan line is considered to be fixed (=not possible to change without redrawing the green parts) and the magenta lines are drawn so that they cross in the vanishing point. The point is selected so that approximately as much should be sliced off at both ends of the green parts. I do not claim no better choice exists.

enter image description here

NOTE1: actually a genetically inherited compulsive habit to try to see known patterns. It has been an essential survival skill and it still is in situations where time is short and only very sparse or cluttered information is available.

ADD: There's a comment which suggests tighter perspective. He is right. It can be made more compact. The green shapes must have different widths and the most distant bar must be drawn closer the mid bar because also distances converge:

enter image description here

  • I would probably make the perspective more extreme... Also making perspective for the front face probably makes it read better 😃 – joojaa Nov 11 '20 at 7:12
  • OK. I inserted 2nd version – user287001 Nov 11 '20 at 10:35
  • Maybe even fade the chevrons as they go further back. – Andrew Morton Nov 13 '20 at 12:53
28

Quite frankly, the main problem is that the angles are weird. Specifically, you have a bit of an Escherian inconsistency in what the green stripes actually represent.

Let's start from the basic idea of what shape you're implying:

Contours only

That already has in principle the issue of being a parallel projection whereas our eyes might expect a perspective... but I don't think this is a big deal at all here, it's just how a house looks when seen from very far.

Next, you add some stripes – evidently you do this on the side wall...

lines on side

...and continuing onto the roof

lines on s+r

But that already is incompatible with the angles you have in your drawing, specifically these stripes all terminate at the roof ridge and therefore should all have inline-cut ends, like so:

polygon form of side/roof lines

(At this point, a “growing towards the back” illusion does seem to creep in, but IMO still not problematic.)

But in your actual figure, this is not how it looks: the green line furthest to the front right away follows the roof, suggesting that the stripe is actually situated thus:

what if first line is actually fassade

...which is however at odds with the otherwise structure and distribution.

Of course, if none of the stripes are on the facade, then they should strictly speaking be invisible on the left side. But you can handle that quite well by tracing that one stripe only as a thin line there:

unambiguous

  • 1
    +1, I was like, why is no one seeing this! (what you've commented on) – Lamar Latrell Nov 12 '20 at 5:23
  • This is sort what I pointed out in my answer. – Scott Nov 12 '20 at 16:22
  • +1 for M.C. Escher; yes, that is my explanation also - some kind of tribar with the front right vertical. – Bobby J Nov 13 '20 at 13:17
  • "facade"? ..... – Azor Ahai -him- Nov 13 '20 at 22:57
22

Other's have covered all the various angles on the right....

Whether or not you want perspective is your choice. It's a visual decision and it will alter the impression of the mark. So that's your call. But, even without perspective uniformity in the angles is important. Make certain all angles are the same....

enter image description here

You'll also want to ensure all the stripes are the same width.
(The widths in these image may vary slightly)

Merely ensuring all the angels and widths match helps the overall perception feel more deliberate and uniform.


However.... I feel the #1 factor leading to a "weird" sense is the left side end cap compared to the right side end cap for that same stripe.

enter image description here

The right side end cap is angled, the left side end cap is NOT. So, you've essentially got a "front" face shape at two separate viewing angles. Sort of a mobius effect to a degree. On the left, it's a flat front face. On the right it's a side face. This creates an unsettled perception... perceiving something wrong, but not quite certain what....

Simply angling that left side will instantly make things seem less "weird" - even if all the other angles are left as they are....

enter image description here


It may be better to adjust the first right end cap rather/along with the left end cap.. but with that, there would be further adjustments needed for the two stripes along the right side. At least in terms of spacing. Or the right stripe would need a split base, half and half.

Even the subtle change of splitting the right end cap, so it's half horizontal and half angled, without that sharp point on it, helps a great deal....

enter image description here

Simply flattening the right side does NOT work as well...

enter image description here

There is a great deal of exploration which may be needed to find a solid, viable solution which conveys the brand message you wish to convey. I've merely posted what I see as the issues directly, without trying to work out a specific solution overall.

I would encourage you to explore options with the end caps.

  • 2
    I'm not sure if it might not be better to make the bottom right match the bottom left instead of the other way round. The symmetry, internal angles and constant line width of the front house outline would work better as a face, face-on, than as an arch. (+1 though - you've spotted a big effect I was going to mention) – Chris H Nov 11 '20 at 11:21
  • 1
    @ChrisH I don't disagree. It may be better to adjust the first right end cap.. but with that, there would be further adjustments needed for the two stripes behind it. At least in terms of spacing, or the right stripe would need a split base, half and half. For this question, that was a great deal of exploration to find a viable solution. So, I merely posted what the issue was directly without trying to work out a specific solution overall. – Scott Nov 11 '20 at 15:23
  • Absolutely - I think the best way is combining your answer (with/without my opinion) and a perspective-based one or even just fixing the parallel projection – Chris H Nov 11 '20 at 15:59
  • Nicely put, but I'd also suggest that the gears should similarly be displayed at a slight angle, i.e. they should be slightly elliptical. – Mark Morgan Lloyd Nov 11 '20 at 17:53
  • I would disagree @MarkMorganLloyd But, honestly, I'd have to see it. Off the top of my head I feel angling the gears is going to create a overwhelming since of angle and that may create a rather drastic change in the perception. My overall point in this answer is that even the slightest, subtle change is going to alter perception. – Scott Nov 11 '20 at 18:21
14

If I look isolated at the top of the house the angles of the lines seem to be geometrically correct:

That doesn't mean they are optically correct. The two upper lines look like they are too long. You might need to cheat a little bit and make them shorter.

If I compare the angle of the top of the house with the angle in the bottom it's obvious that they don't match:

The house appears as some kind of parallel projection, so it looks odd that the lines aren't parallel. This should be adressed.

If you want it to look like a perspective with a vanishing point I think the difference must be much more visible and the three lines shouldn't be equally spaced.

Here is a quick and dirty remake I made in Photoshop where I shortened the upper lines and changed the angle on the lower lines to match the angle on the upper lines:

  • I'd say it still 'gets bigger to the back'. i'd shrink even more, even to the extent of over-perspective, short lens. That the roof pitch & perspective are close but… ouch… I think means you have to over-push it. The fact that the first shape is in two planes at once doesn't help at all. It looks like the famous wicket optical illusion - i.stack.imgur.com/zHOcC.jpg – Tetsujin Nov 10 '20 at 17:44
  • 2
    @Tetsujin, I agree that the design could be more sophisticated with some perspective (although I kinda like the "clumsiness" of parallel projections). I'm not saying this is how it should be designed. Just tried to fix some obvious mistakes to make it "geometrically correct" as the OP wants. – Wolff Nov 10 '20 at 17:51
  • 1
    psst... the left side end cap :) – Scott Nov 10 '20 at 18:11
  • 1
    @Scott, I should have stayed out of this 😀 – Wolff Nov 10 '20 at 18:26
9

Lampshade it.

LOGO looks like LOGO

Every combination of a 45˚ roof pitch with a 60˚ isometric projection looks weird. A combination of 45˚ pitch with 45˚ isometric looks coherent, but doesn't look unambiguously like a building.

But a using a 60˚ pitch with a 60˚ isometric allows the gable line and the ridge line to be combined in a way that looks like a deliberate artistic choice.

Acknowledging that the juxtaposition of gable line and roof line is awkward, and forcing the viewer to accept it like this, is a form of "lampshading". This would be ugly in a real estate sales brochure or architectural rendering, but it can work in a LOGO.

Your drawing was in general not quite abstract enough for a good LOGO. Let the lines work more as expressive lines and less than as a picture of something. And as another commenter suggests, your cogwheels should be simpler.

A slight rearrangement of the cogwheels yields a shape that better fits the new building face proportions.

6

You're confusing the visual processing system. The eye sees one line that almost continues but not quite. So it is unable to decide whether the image is some sort of parallel projection or some goofy mistake.

Since the image is abstract nothing says your perspective angle has to be so close to roof continuation. It may in fact be steeper either by adjusting vanishing point or roof angle. Or it may be the same.

You don't need to do a parallel projection. It can be perspective. But if it is it should be more apparently perspective. Make the lines diverge and converge more clearly. Just doing it a little can also be seen as a mistake. Be bold, own your details.

Also consider ditching the black cogwheels they bring almost nothing to your logo. They make it harder to read. They make it impossible to scale your logo down... Again if you want the cogwheel, make it more prominent, and the color division clearer. Be bold, make your details stand out.

So the trick here is to draw the same thing with a few variations. It takes few minutes after all. And see what works and what not. This way you will learn what works and not.

PS: three cogwheels together is very rare, its useless as a gear. Now there is one use for this config but its rare indeed

  • Three cogs are entirely common where the intention is to transmit a substantial amount of torque with the first and final rotating in the same direction, e.g. along a swinging arm of some sort. Variants are used in things like mechanical watch winders, and of course there is always upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/… which if sketched by somebody unfamiliar with the art would no doubt look similarly problematic. – Mark Morgan Lloyd Nov 11 '20 at 18:01
  • @MarkMorganLloyd i know where they are used i am a mechanical engineer after all. Its just a comment that three cogs is only used in special circumstances where space is at premium as there are usually better ways to do it. Its just that if you ask a layman to draw a multistage gear they draw it as that. Its certainly used in stuff like speed vices or places with little headspace with torque requirements that are not so concerned with losses of energy. I even worked as a gear inspector for a few months. – joojaa Nov 11 '20 at 18:08
  • The first paragraph here really nails the problem, imo. The front-facing diagonal and the roof diagonal are close enough to the same angle that the fact that they're not is really distracting. Go for a more abstract representation that keeps the line consistent (basically just copying the front-face's right half, with slight extensions), or go for a stronger perspective that gives a more obvious difference in the angle of those two lines. – Xanthir Nov 11 '20 at 18:21
5

In addition to the answers refering perspective issues, I suggest you to be careful with the white spans, the perception of your draw can be improved following the Gestalt principles:

Figure-Ground principle

Closure principle

Try to close as much as possible the draw, in order to keep white color inside the house (Also roof and exterior right wall) as part of the draw. It can help to avoid misconceptions with the white space surrounding the house.

0

There are switches of viewpoint in the right-hand part of the image, even if isometrics rule out perspective.

The upper (here blue) slope, serves as both the gable side front and the roof top. That also spoils the angle at the front apex.

The lower blue upright serves for both front and side wall until it reaches the ground, where the angle forces it to be part ofenter image description here the side.

As if to prove that the map is not the territory, or a two-dimensional image hits the mind as a combination of at least three different 3-D concepts, a la Möbius, if not Escher.

Ceci n'est pas un cabanon.

-3

Here ya go... you're welcome :)

Corrected Logo

  • Hi TheRealPuddin, the focus of this site is on education rather than free work. There are already a lot of sites out there where you can offer your services as a designer, free or paid. Instead, this network tries to be a platform where professionals and amateurs can learn from each other through Q&A. Would you mind explaining what you have done, and why you think it makes the logo better than before. You can edit your answer at any time. – PieBie Nov 13 '20 at 14:24
  • With all due respect, there are only some aspects of design that can be learnt. It shouldn't be difficult for anyone to see what I have done differently with the logo to make it (in my opinion) a more asthetically pleasing version. Ultimately, it's up to your client to decide whether they like it or not, not whether it meets specific design rules or works 'scientifically'. Quite often something just looks right, even if it breaks normal and/or accepted conventions. I really don't believe 'explaining' what I have done changes whether the original poster prefers it or not. – TheRealPuddin Nov 14 '20 at 18:01
  • I'll be frank with you then. We really do not like free work on this site, as it tends to just attract more requests for free work, ultimately bringing down the quality of the site as a whole. There are dozens of sites and forums where people can get free work or free help, our aim is to be a tad more qualitative. – PieBie Nov 15 '20 at 13:38
  • Also, I'd like you to look at the three top rated answers on this question, and tell me "you can't explain" or "this can't be learned". It is not a question of whether the OP likes it, it's a question on whether they (and everyone coming across this post in the future) understands it, and understands why this is better (if it even is). But sure, be lazy, don't edit, and get downvoted to oblivion. That's your choice. – PieBie Nov 15 '20 at 13:43

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.