Johnny

Thanks for the nice comments all. And yeah, I'm going to just drop the whole iframe thing and use cutenews. The reason the iframe was there was because I had a manual news system at first, which you can see here: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ So I would only have to edit the news.html file instead of the whole front page. Thanks for all the input everyone. (Oh, and yes, pixel2life is the place to be. That's where I went anyway. Just do a search for slicing, and you'll find all that you need.)

Actually, I already knew all of that stuff, I just didn't know you could target an iframe. Thanks for the input though.

I'm sorry Mat, I see no reason whatsoever why this was closed?Mike, if you still need help, I'm available. You know how to reach me.

Oh snapple, was I not supposed to vote? I just figured I would since nobody else was.

My first ever real (100% Johnny-made) template. I just learned slicing last night. I'm proud. This might be what I'll be using for my new upcoming graphics site (which won't interfere with gfxtrap or my work here, I assure you). I went for the simplistic/minimalism look, and of course it's blue. http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ I still have to set up the navigation bar and the rest of the pages, and then I can work on bettering the news system. So, rate/comment/criticize. By the way, I was just wondering if anyone knew of an easy-to-use one (I'm going to look at CuteNews) that can generate news in a "light" format like it currently has. Let me know if you do. Also, I was thinking about, instead of adding seperate pages for each navigation link, to just change the iframe where the content box is for each one. I already know how to set up the different pages and such, I just don't know how to get the clicked nav buttons to change the source file for that iframe. Tell me if anyone knows how to do that. Thanks in advance.

Great stuff Buffalo, and thanks for the help.

I have mixed feelings about the idea. I don't really like the idea of members leaving for long periods of time, but it would certainly be helpful to those who have to take a long vacation every now and then. It's a toss up, I suppose. On a side note: OpaQue, the new changes are amazing, thanks a ton.

Luki -- The brushing looks rushed, and the background could be better. Overall, not bad, but not the greatest.Mike -- Don't really get what's happening in the background, and the animation seems to make the sig worse rather than better. I've never been a fan of "animation-just-because". Nice render usage though, and the text minus animation is good.Avalon -- I don't really like the spinny look (mostly because gamerenders is covered in them), and the text could be made to fit the sig better, but the render blending is okay and the background has nice brushing.My vote goes to Avalon.DJ Luki: 0S_M: 0Avalon: 3

I'm not sure if I'll enter this one, I'm not really great at splashes, but we'll see. Odd requirements this time though Mike.

I think there could have been a lot more entries, and I think the people that did enter could have done a lot better, but I guess I vote for avalon. The web look is neat.Avalon: 1S_M: 0Razor: 1Johnny: 0

NOS has been down for months. They keep saying they're going to bring it back up, but the expected "up-date" was supposed to around last august. So I wouldn't trust it too much. I'll try and get ahold of Nica again and see what's up. Truefusion pretty much covered it. As for me, there's a few main things I focus on: Theme BG depth Render blending Lighting Text And then I usually strive to add one more detail to make it more than just a cut-and-dry sig.

Notice from Johnny: Although helpful, this post is copied directly from: http://ww5.chip-india.com or http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ and probably more places. Please do not post material directly copied from other sources. No warning issued, but topic locked.

New sig. I think I might release the psd for this one sometime soon, because it wasn't all messy and chaotic this time. Keep an eye out.

I agree. And it seems like there's a glow on the text which is kind of odd. Other than that, nice siggy.

[1] Yeah, I admit, terrible blending on 2. [2] White border. Thanks. [3] Thanks. [4] Thanks. [5] With the wha? [6] Details, details. The wart is his eye. [7] White borders again. <3 [8] You know you love it.

Sorry in advance if this gives 56kers any troubles... 1. Fire version: 2. Smoke version: 3. 4. 5. Faded: 6. More contrast: 7. 8. 9. Normal: 10. Inverted BG: 11. Gamerenders fan sig (people can put it in their sig if they're a fan.): Rate/Comment/Criticize.

He said everything I was gonna say. If only he were this wise when he did his own sigs...

I fully agree. Maybe make the sig a bit bigger, because the render already takes up a bit too much room, but making the render smaller would make it even harder to make out. Not a bad siggy though.

Everything he said + take the stroke off the text. Then you have an awesome sig, IMO.

I swear I've seen that sig before...but whatever.6/10. Improve the tech border by making it a bit more detailed and intricate, and work on background depth/colors.

Suggestions?

Let's get this party train rolling again. Damann - Too much brightness and not enough depth. Work on that and you're good to go. 6/10.

Work on BG, colors, and fonts. Nice start though.

Mike's packs are A-OK.Now if I could just get a gamewallpapers account and cut out my own for the packs...they'd be even better...

I actually was half asleep...the malcolm one I did at like 2am.What's wrong with my grunge?