Chess planning

[Baiswith]

So, a bit like @bunnyUFO , I’ve decided I want to deviate some from the ‘standard’ Staunton-style chess pieces and have a crack at making my own pieces - partly because this is my second time through, so I (should) have most of the concepts down already.
I found an existing chess set I quite like, and used it to inspire my own designs (mostly):

I fully expect the actual models to undergo a number of changes, both because of the relative lack of rotational symmetry, and because of the ‘low poly’ restriction, though I’m hoping textures may help there (the rose the queen is holding, for example, I’m already planning to texture rather than model in any detail).
I’m also planning to have a ‘standard’ base for each piece to sit on: this will be largest for the king (2.5cm diameter), smallest for the pawns (2cm diameter), and 2.25cm for all the other pieces; each piece shouldn’t extend beyond their base, with the exception of the castle, which will have a 0.75cm overhang for its wall section. Height-wise, the king should be 8cm in total, the queen 7.5cm, bishops 6cm, knights 5.5cm, castles 5cm, and pawns 4cm.

I’m also going to make this 3-player chess (for the lulz), with a hexagonal board of irregular quads instead of squares:

Making the external (shortest) quad edges 3cm means that while the pawns may end up looking a bit lost in the larger ‘squares’, there’s room for the king to hide in an external corner!

In the immortal words of Leeroy: “Let’s do this!”

[NP5]

It looks a fun project, well thought out in advance. It rather depends on your ability level though. If you are a true beginner, as many are doing this course it may be best just to learn from the course plain normal chess set, there to show you ways of doing things. Then move on to later lessons, coming back to this when you have more knowledge of how to get the results you want. If you were not doing the course would you even be making any chess set? The course is about the tools taught not the objects chosen to use as devices for teaching. If you are coming from a wider ability, non beginner ignore all I said. lol.

[Baiswith]

Heh, my (duck) bowling project snuck past you then?

I’d call myself a beginner, but not a ‘true’ beginner (I’m hesitant to call myself intermediate, but that could be imposter syndrome thanks to the level of ability I most often see showcased); my workflows are not the most efficient (I use menus a lot more than shortcuts - I’m having so much fun with Blender 2.9 having moved menus/commands around /sarcasm), and topology is something I’m just starting to understand (along with destructive/non-destructive modelling, applying modifiers or not, etc.), but I can usually achieve a ‘good enough’ result in my own time.

I’m mostly re-visiting the course to a) ease into the biggest changes to Blender, and b) as a structured practice/refresher for what I learned the first time (I am feature creep personified if left entirely without scope!). Alas, it seems the course quizzes are still as inane and badly worded as before

All that said, thank you for your kindly-worded caution; that you took the time to leave it is appreciated, even if (in my case) it wasn’t needed