Notgames Forum
December 09, 2024, 09:35:40 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: 3D tribulations  (Read 107418 times)
Kjell

Posts: 129


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2012, 01:35:04 PM »

This whole topic reminds me too much of QTVR.

The technology I linked to generates texture-mapped 3D environments from the point-cloud data that is collected by the device.

I downloaded and looked into ”The Hunter” (a hunting simulator). I cannot imagine that all that could have been ”hand-crafted”.

It's part procedural-generation, part smart editor / tools that let you "paint" the environment rapidly.
Logged
Pehr

Posts: 34



View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2012, 08:47:28 PM »

I guess I just never like the static image pseudo-virtual-reality thing. To me it will always feel like a weak, stopgap for true full-motion, explorable 3d spaces.

None the less you are looking at a 2D-projection of your perfect virtual 3D-world!
And it is a camera-imitating projection.  This faitfulness to the cinematic tradition from the last century is no necessity, when you are using a computer. You do not have to think about the camera as a physical object among the other objects on the stage.

See for instance the computer animated films by the ingenious artist Tamás Waliczky, www.waliczky.com  especially The Garden(1992), The Forest(1993), The Way(1994) and Landscape(1997) – each one of which utilizes a particular perspectival system. 

-Pehr
Logged
ghostwheel

Posts: 584



View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2012, 11:24:27 PM »

Quote
None the less you are looking at a 2D-projection of your perfect virtual 3D-world!
And it is a camera-imitating projection.  This faitfulness to the cinematic tradition from the last century is no necessity, when you are using a computer. You do not have to think about the camera as a physical object among the other objects on the stage.

I don't see what that has to do with my statement. I wasn't talking about cameras or cinema or imitating cinema.

Quote
See for instance the computer animated films by the ingenious artist Tamás Waliczky, www.waliczky.com  especially The Garden(1992), The Forest(1993), The Way(1994) and Landscape(1997) – each one of which utilizes a particular perspectival system.

Sorry, this stuff doesn't strike me as particularly ingenious. The forest one might be nice without the flight-sim platform.
Logged

Irony is for cowards.
Pehr

Posts: 34



View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2012, 10:59:23 AM »

I guess I just never like the static image pseudo-virtual-reality thing. To me it will always feel like a weak, stopgap for true full-motion, explorable 3d spaces.

None the less you are looking at a 2D-projection of your perfect virtual 3D-world! And it is a camera-imitating projection.


I don't see what that has to do with my statement. I wasn't talking about cameras or cinema or imitating cinema.

Sorry, my thought took a leap there.  Let me try to express it in other words, and also elaborate it a bit more.
It seemed to me, from what you said,  that you are against the use of static 2D images.  Then the following reflection suggested itself to me.

You (and anyone using standard software for the purpose) put a lot of effort into constructing a digital representation of a 3D world in order to be able to produce a series of 2D images to be displayed in rapid sequence, giving the player the illusion of a 3D space with moving objects.
So in the end the experience of a virtual three-dimensional world is based on static framed two-dimensional images, after all.  That is what I call ”the cinematic paradigm”.

Now, to think one step further, it seems that two virtual 3D worlds are involved here:
-   the one given by a digitally encoded description in the computer
-   the one constructed by your perceptual system, from the impression of a flow of 2D images.

They are of course not independent but the connection is far from strictly one-to-one.
The perceptual one, present in your mind, is the one you directly experience. 
The encoded one, present in the computer memory,  the one you hope to find pleasure in exploring.

From an aesthetic point of view I would say the perceptually created one is the most important. It is dynamic, holistically integrated, adaptive, sensible for influences from mood, attitude, preconceptions, memories etc.

Pehr

Logged
Michaël Samyn

Posts: 2042



View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2012, 11:08:12 AM »

I agree that the aesthetics of the 2D plane of the computer screen are important. But my best experiences in videogames have been those where I felt I was in a place, I was there, in this three-dimensional environment. When that happens, the videogame ceases to appear as cinematic, but becomes architectural perhaps. Videogames are only cinematic in a very technical sense. Even the camera in 3D is fake. Computer screens feel much more like windows to me, while cinema screens feel like moving pictures.
Logged
Michaël Samyn

Posts: 2042



View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2012, 11:16:33 AM »

Meanwhile, I found this:

http://player.vimeo.com/video/36414371

The space is scanned with lasers by ScanLAB

It's beautiful!
I love the artifacts and the transparency. It definitely gets away from the cleanliness of 3D space.
Logged
ghostwheel

Posts: 584



View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2012, 02:26:41 PM »

Quote
It seemed to me, from what you said,  that you are against the use of static 2D images.

Well, essentially, I am. I'm with Michael on this. The illusion is important.

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe" So what. I don't care that the image is paint on a canvas, I care what the image represents.
Logged

Irony is for cowards.
Kjell

Posts: 129


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2012, 03:08:02 PM »

I love the artifacts and the transparency. It definitely gets away from the cleanliness of 3D space.

Radiohead used raw point-cloud data for their House of Cards videoclip a while back. Part of the data can be downloaded here ..

http://code.google.com/creative/radiohead/

It's certainly possible to do a game using point-cloud visuals. You just need to generate a polygon / octree / primitives data-set to solve collisions with .. or go the other way around, generate point-clouds from a polygon source Smiley
Logged
axcho

Posts: 314



View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2012, 04:56:40 AM »

Meanwhile, I found this:

http://player.vimeo.com/video/36414371

The space is scanned with lasers by ScanLAB

It's beautiful!
I love the artifacts and the transparency. It definitely gets away from the cleanliness of 3D space.

Wow, I really like the electronic, Matrix-y grittiness of this virtual 3D space. The "vibrating" artifact that sometimes happens is pretty disturbing to me on a visceral level, but if that were a lot more infrequent I would really enjoy trying this approach.

Are there any point-cloud rendering engines or content-creation tools available that could be used for games?
Logged
Kjell

Posts: 129


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: February 11, 2012, 01:29:26 PM »

Are there any point-cloud rendering engines or content-creation tools available that could be used for games?

OpenGL & Direct3D have build-in support for point-clouds. Concerning content-creation, you usually want to use a scanner .. but you could generate the data from polygons / NURBS in most 3D tools as well ( by ray-casting your scene ).
Logged
Orihaus

Posts: 15


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: October 06, 2014, 09:08:43 AM »

I'm getting a lot out of using largely automated processes in modelling, it's slightly (And in some ways, significantly) less optimised, but doubling the modelling speed and freeing me up to make large changes at any point is very worth it. Plus, I never even have to think about UVs. Here's a breakdown if it's of any use:



- First the model is created parametrically with splines in Cinema 4D using largely standard processes. I personally prefer spline-based modelling as it allows extensive tweaking without worrying about having to redo large sections of the model.



- The model then has it's UVs and relevant texture maps baked out automatically inside Cinema 4D (Auto generated UVs are far, far less optimised then hand made UVs, however since I'm doing this project alone I can't factor in the time needed to make these) and is sent to Quixel Studio's excellent DDO, a procedural texture generator.



-The maps generated by DDO are then imported into Unreal Engine 4 and used as masks to blend between multiple world space aligned materials. More info on this process, http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2090428#post2090428.



-The model is then placed in the world, and assembled along with other meshes built with the same process, into the structure seen here.
Logged
God at play

Posts: 490



View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2014, 08:59:46 AM »

Thanks so much for sharing, this is really helpful
Logged

Mick P.

Posts: 69


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: July 19, 2015, 08:27:39 PM »

This thread strikes me as selfish. The obvious solution is to make a big commons of artifacts in different styles all meticulously cultivated. Call it a cyberspace if you want, but not a facelift for the WWW, just a catalog of all digital art that might have practical future applications.

No TurboSquid dumping grounds. A concerted and open effort to make tools and cohesive elements available to use. If you need a character, making a Frakenstein monster is always suboptimal. What you want to do is cast all of the characters together, in order to optimize onscreen chemistry. Scout for locations in the cyberspace before resorting to desperate measures. Reduce, reuse, recycle.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2015, 08:40:59 PM by Mick P. » Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!