: Is this logo redesign a step in the right direction or is it better to stick with the original? NOTE: This is a continuation from a previous question: Critique Request: CAD drafting contractor

@Sherry646

Rubik's Cube and a bunch of arrows doesn't really mean much.

I'd keep the original grid, remove the text / line / slogan, and render CompuCAD in Helvetica face down along the lines of the grid using a 3D tool like say LightWave 3D with a wide angle lens.

That way you'd get perfect a perspective and don't have to worry about any of the stuff in Ryan's answer. You also get to keep some of the original brand recognition.

I don't have LightWave 3D where I am right now, but here's a sucky 10 second mousepad sketch to illustrate my point:



If done properly I can imagine it would look quite nice. It's neutral and doesn't try to be something it's not. CAD drafters are paid to transfer other peoples designs -- not to come up with designs themselves -- and I believe their logo should reflect that.

Vote Up Vote Down

@Moriarity648

Original logo is really bad. I am glad you are doing a redesign. Aside from the other issues addressed above I am not seeing a concept. What is the overall theme? What and how does this company want to be portrayed by their clients? Do you have an aspirational statement or key words you are working from. I am hoping this is a first draft and you have hundreds more to do.

What I am seeing in the logo is nice enough layout with nice enough type but the arrows are distracting and a bit common. The font choice isn't a good contrast with the grid you've set up. There are some big typographical issues such as the space between the C&A the A&D and the size of the D is really strange. I would print this and see what it looks like at 1 inch and 11x17. Then print out some famous logos and loo at them side by side and see how it compares. Again though if you don't have a strong concept (I kept the grid to keep the client happy) is not a concept then it's going to be difficult to nail down a logo.

Vote Up Vote Down

@Pierce403

Isn't it nice to work on something that can almost only be improved?!
The initial logo looks dated (type and perspective grid effect) and overlaying both doesn't help the legibility. Unless your client is famous for his image, I think it's a good thing he's getting it fixed.

Personally I prefer your 1st design with the cube because it maintains a link with the idea of the grid in the original logo. You will want to print it at a small size to make sure that grid comes out clearly.

I see a bit of the problem with the font; it looks a bit trendy to me. Also the very geometric shapes of the CAD makes the kerning look off and I think you're going to struggle to fix it. Unless you're designing a logo for an event, I would stick to something a bit more intemporal. Not to say you can't pick something that is current, just make sure it will last at least another 5 years minimally. I think you might also need a bit of work on the symbol/type ratio but overall, I think it's a definite improvement. Is there a reason why the tagline is gone?

Vote Up Vote Down

@Sims5801359

The first one looks good, the second one doesn't. The first one however needs to have the perspective fixed, the bottom and top are not correct making it look "wonky." I'd go with the top angle and change the bottom side to match. I also think the D in the font you're using looks bad so would change the entire font.

You might also want to make the type a bit bolder so its easier to reproduce on different backgrounds.

Edit

For the second one I'm saying your perspective is all wrong. If you're going to do Birds-Eye Perspective, then do it right. If you want to make it ortho then that works too. But right now its neither and therefore unpleasing to the eye. This was fairly quick sketch but shows what I mean:



Those should all diverge at the same point and even being rough, its not even close.

Here's a quick image example courtesy a Google Search finding mrcotton.wordpress.com/

Vote Up Vote Down