The sign was in the original pic.TheGremp said:6/10
the sign doesn't seem like it belongs in the pic
I'm just using this one to see how badly it's rated...
9.1/10. Lol, re-rate. I didn't say I'd do it soon. I'll do it most likely sometime early next month..bored said:999999999999999999999.98/10
Tut pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!!! You said you were going to tut an earlier style before anyway. What happened? D:
You only got like half of it, and some of that is wrong. What's wrong with making a tut for a simple sig? It will only take about an hour to write, get pics and put it all together.TheGremp said:9/10
flygons sig- dude it doesn't even need a tut, it's a background with brushes and a bit of smudging possibly, a copied layer that overlays the render, and probably some effects like Hue or Overlay or something, and 2 layers of text stacked on eachother to look 3D. It's a nice looking sig but it certainly doesnt need a tut
Fly's right. That tut you followed could be called pointless because it's a simple sig.Flygon said:You only got like half of it, and some of that is wrong. What's wrong with making a tut for a simple sig? It will only take about an hour to write, get pics and put it all together.TheGremp said:9/10
flygons sig- dude it doesn't even need a tut, it's a background with brushes and a bit of smudging possibly, a copied layer that overlays the render, and probably some effects like Hue or Overlay or something, and 2 layers of text stacked on eachother to look 3D. It's a nice looking sig but it certainly doesnt need a tut
7/10.