Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[BGB]

On 1/18/2012 10:19 AM, Devon D Sparks wrote:

There's a trend in architecture schools to offload the form-finding "creative 
burden" to computers with the use of shape grammars. Though they're a driving force 
in many departments, some will admit behind closed doors that they're also a bit of a red 
herring, and that years in the spotlight have yet to bear fruit. My own observations are 
that, rather than easing the burden, shape grammars have shifted the focus of labor: 
students trade their Olfa knives for a keyboard and mouse, and spend hours debugging 
Rhino scripts instead of erasing lines. Because most grammars are agnostic to physical 
law, they also generate needlessly inefficient, material-laden architecture, which 
rightfully sends the building scientists into the streets screaming blasphemy.


agreed.

although in gaming, the engineering aspect isn't so big of a deal, it is 
difficult to get an automatically generated to be much beyond that of 
"fairly lame".


it is a little easier with natural terrain, since terrain lends itself 
to a number of strategies:

randomized mid-point subdivision;
other fractal-based strategies;
Perlin noise;
...

generating indoor spaces generally devolves to making a grid, and then 
algorithmically placing walls/items/... this is common in many 
"roguelike" games (Diablo / Diablo 2, Torchlight, ...).


my personal experience was that the results are "not particularly 
interesting".


I suspect that the scene is much less interesting from a first-person 
perspective than from an isometric one:

the layout itself is a major source of visual interest "as seen from above".

one does not see the layout first-person, only a bunch of similar 
looking walls with a vaguely confusing/maze-like feel (it is infact 
almost more visually interesting to see a pixelated rendition of what 
the generator spit out than to wander around in the generated 
environment itself).



generating "good" (and visually interesting) indoor spaces is seemingly 
a harder problem than that of generating natural-seeming terrain.


a lot depends on the type of game theme though:
if it is some sort of LOTR style fantasy setting, one can probably get 
by fairly well using primarily auto-generated terrain and the 
occasional/simplistic building.



even for first-person, a Diablo/... style world generator would probably 
still technically work, even despite the results being "not particularly 
interesting".



sadly, different area-generation strategies don't necessarily combine well.
doing terrain-generation or doing like Diablo is not all that difficult, 
but combining them is harder (except maybe if the terrain is also 
tile-based, which is possible).




I've found that I'm most productive in creative endeavors when my goals are specific, 
resources are constrained, tools are comprehensible and transparent, and my attention is 
focused. I particularly love the sense of immersion that comes when sketching a scene, 
writing an essay, repairing a small engine or designing a program  (I think it's what 
Csikszentmihalyi termed "flow"). I'd be lost if I had to design an entire 
virtual world, as its far beyond the limits of my imagination,  and dissatisfied if I 
off-loaded the work to a machine, because I'd always know it to be a knock-off of the 
real thing. Given a lifetime, I might be able to pull off a reasonable virtual vegetable 
garden.


yeah.

my imagination is spread fairly thin here:
trying to deal with all of the technical issues, in addition to all of 
the creative ones.


if one spreads their thinking over a large number of areas, one starts 
drawing a lot of blanks "just what the hell am I going to do here?...", 
whereas, if faced individually, such matters seem to be easier.


like, it is much easier to write ideas for the plot into text files when 
not worrying about, say, how this will be expressed in-game, and easier 
to think about making a particular piece of game-artwork when not 
worrying about how it relates to anything else (plot or story, how it 
will be used, ...).


so, "divide and conquer"...

then things relate in either synergy or disharmony, and one can decide 
what to keep and what to discard as a more incremental process (even if, 
granted, this is hardly a "beeline to completion" or "beeline to 
success"...).


if/when things will be "complete", or even necessarily what form they 
will take, is far from certain, but even as such "what direction things 
are going" is usually fairly obvious.


I am not about to simply drop everything and start over with a new 
concept, even if some people often suggest this... maybe because they 
think an FPS game with a plot revolving about giant alien space squids 
and bio-mecha and large-robot cyborgs engaging in ground-battles with 
time-loops/... in the mix is stupid, but whatever...


it is often cheaper to continue in the same general direction and make 
occasional "course corrections" than to try to change or abandon 
everything

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[David Barbour]

Thanks for this perspective.

With respect to building virtual worlds, I have long entertained the notion
of `augmented virtuality` - i.e. the converse of "augmenting reality with
virtual elements" is to "augment a virtual world with real elements".
Consider, for example, taking all the news articles available at
cnn.comand turning them algorithmically into flowers in a garden. Each
flower
could be unique in shape, based on a deterministic relationship to the
associated news article. Coloring might be based on classification of the
article.  Clusters might be based on links between them. Zoom in far
enough, you might even follow the links to see the articles. The garden
would continue to grow as new articles become available, or die as they are
removed from the site.

Using that technique, I don't believe I'd experience that sense of
disatisfaction - because the virtual world becomes a reflection of the real
one (albeit, one twisted liberally through a kaleidoscope) rather than a
cheap knock-off. In my hands remain algorithms but not so much artificial
control.

RE: "I'd never want a computer to create a new world to live in, but
instead be an aid to understanding the one right in front of me."

I grew up with my nose in fantasy books and adventure games. I can totally
imagine creating a new world to live in. But my interests also include
augmented reality and command and control - not just understanding the
world in front of us, but extending human reach to control it.

Regards,

Dave

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Devon D Sparks  wrote:

> There's a trend in architecture schools to offload the form-finding
> "creative burden" to computers with the use of shape grammars. Though
> they're a driving force in many departments, some will admit behind closed
> doors that they're also a bit of a red herring, and that years in the
> spotlight have yet to bear fruit. My own observations are that, rather than
> easing the burden, shape grammars have shifted the focus of labor: students
> trade their Olfa knives for a keyboard and mouse, and spend hours debugging
> Rhino scripts instead of erasing lines. Because most grammars are agnostic
> to physical law, they also generate needlessly inefficient, material-laden
> architecture, which rightfully sends the building scientists into the
> streets screaming blasphemy.
>
> I've found that I'm most productive in creative endeavors when my goals
> are specific, resources are constrained, tools are comprehensible and
> transparent, and my attention is focused. I particularly love the sense of
> immersion that comes when sketching a scene, writing an essay, repairing a
> small engine or designing a program  (I think it's what Csikszentmihalyi
> termed "flow"). I'd be lost if I had to design an entire virtual world, as
> its far beyond the limits of my imagination,  and dissatisfied if I
> off-loaded the work to a machine, because I'd always know it to be a
> knock-off of the real thing. Given a lifetime, I might be able to pull off
> a reasonable virtual vegetable garden.
>
> It's much more fun to go out into the real world, ask questions of it, and
> use tools like pencils, paint, objects or mathematics to help find
> meaningful answers. One example comes from learning to draw: I remember
> being fascinated by the ideas behind perspective drawing, and was humbled
> that such simple principles could have been hidden in plain sight for so
> long! After playing around with vanishing points, it seemed that there must
> be some very fundamental relationships between the points on the horizons
> and lines on the page. This gave way to an exploration of projective
> geometry, which I was fascinated to discover is an immensely powerful way
> of describing relationships -- from mechanical linkages to structural loads
> and conic sections. From here the lines on the page could be mapped to
> equations of lines, and from equations of lines to linear algebra. Finding
> these relationships in ordinary things was a great excitement, and though
> I've never used the knowledge to build a
>  ny large CAD tool, my small experiments on paper and in silico have given
> me a new perspective that I'll happily hold for the rest of my life. To
> that end, I'd never want a computer to create a new world to live in, but
> instead be an aid to understanding the one right in front of me.
>
> Finally, a few books worth mentioning:
>
> Cliff Reiters "Fractals, Visualization and J", which chronicles an
> exploration of many neat ideas: from chaotic attractors, to celluar
> automata, fractal terrain generation and projective transformations. It
> uses J as its teaching language, but the code reads like "executable
> mathematics", and could be put into another form without too much hassle.
> Reasonably priced print copies are hard to find, but Lulu.com sells the
> eBook for less than the price of some sandwiches.
>
> And though I'm always skeptical of attempts to mathematize art and design,
> three bo

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Devon D Sparks]

There's a trend in architecture schools to offload the form-finding "creative 
burden" to computers with the use of shape grammars. Though they're a driving 
force in many departments, some will admit behind closed doors that they're 
also a bit of a red herring, and that years in the spotlight have yet to bear 
fruit. My own observations are that, rather than easing the burden, shape 
grammars have shifted the focus of labor: students trade their Olfa knives for 
a keyboard and mouse, and spend hours debugging Rhino scripts instead of 
erasing lines. Because most grammars are agnostic to physical law, they also 
generate needlessly inefficient, material-laden architecture, which rightfully 
sends the building scientists into the streets screaming blasphemy.

I've found that I'm most productive in creative endeavors when my goals are 
specific, resources are constrained, tools are comprehensible and transparent, 
and my attention is focused. I particularly love the sense of immersion that 
comes when sketching a scene, writing an essay, repairing a small engine or 
designing a program  (I think it's what Csikszentmihalyi termed "flow"). I'd be 
lost if I had to design an entire virtual world, as its far beyond the limits 
of my imagination,  and dissatisfied if I off-loaded the work to a machine, 
because I'd always know it to be a knock-off of the real thing. Given a 
lifetime, I might be able to pull off a reasonable virtual vegetable garden.

It's much more fun to go out into the real world, ask questions of it, and use 
tools like pencils, paint, objects or mathematics to help find meaningful 
answers. One example comes from learning to draw: I remember being fascinated 
by the ideas behind perspective drawing, and was humbled that such simple 
principles could have been hidden in plain sight for so long! After playing 
around with vanishing points, it seemed that there must be some very 
fundamental relationships between the points on the horizons and lines on the 
page. This gave way to an exploration of projective geometry, which I was 
fascinated to discover is an immensely powerful way of describing relationships 
-- from mechanical linkages to structural loads and conic sections. From here 
the lines on the page could be mapped to equations of lines, and from equations 
of lines to linear algebra. Finding these relationships in ordinary things was 
a great excitement, and though I've never used the knowledge to build a
 ny large CAD tool, my small experiments on paper and in silico have given me a 
new perspective that I'll happily hold for the rest of my life. To that end, 
I'd never want a computer to create a new world to live in, but instead be an 
aid to understanding the one right in front of me.

Finally, a few books worth mentioning:

Cliff Reiters "Fractals, Visualization and J", which chronicles an exploration 
of many neat ideas: from chaotic attractors, to celluar automata, fractal 
terrain generation and projective transformations. It uses J as its teaching 
language, but the code reads like "executable mathematics", and could be put 
into another form without too much hassle. Reasonably priced print copies are 
hard to find, but Lulu.com sells the eBook for less than the price of some 
sandwiches.

And though I'm always skeptical of attempts to mathematize art and design, 
three books worth mentioning are:

Point and Line to Plane : Kandinsky
Notes on the Synthesis of Form : Christopher Alexander
On Growth and Form : Thompson
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[David Barbour]

Yikes! I've been lured too far off topic.

Putting aside whether graphics or maps are awe-inspiring, or breath taking,
or of another rare quality, the relevant issue is shifting the creativity
burden over to the computer while:
* supporting human direction at whatever level-of-detail the human is
concerned with
* achieving a quality such that the human doesn't feel the need to be
concerned with the lower levels of detail
* significantly enhancing productivity - i.e. actual quantity of
acceptable-quality elements

I personally believe that generative grammars (
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4012) hold the most promise for these
purposes - easy to extend and constrain and abstract. Flexible, like
mad-libbing a map. I suspect that grammars would also serve as a useful
`genome` for genetic programming models.

As note, though, existing technologies are already well proven - e.g. knobs
and dials and seeded fractals.

Feedback from users was suggested, but doesn't obviate need for a theory to
actually utilize this feedback.

It might be possible to use `simulated runs` to help select maps. For
example, run bots on a shooter map to judge fairness.

Does anyone else have suggestions for how we might pursue the goal of
`collaborative creativity`?

Regards,

Dave

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:47 PM, David Barbour  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
>
>>
>> Noted, but not relevant to my point.
>>
>
> Oh? You say that without any explanation? Perhaps you need some hand
> holding to follow my logic.
>
> 1) You make an argument about contexts being `awe inspiring to humanity as
> a whole`.
> 2) Given the human potential for psychopathy, autism, aspergers, and other
> psychological classifications, it is impossible to find anything
> awe-inspiring to all humans.
> 3) Therefore, your `humanity as a whole` reduces to a statistical argument
> about a group of humans.
> 4) I describe your argument as `an anthropocentric statistical metric`.
> 5) I point out that even such metrics are influenced (subject to) culture.
> 6) Therefore, my argument is relevant to your point.
>
> Indeed, I believe it completely undermines your point. `awe-inspiring` is
> simply not an objective property.
>
>
>>
>> I'd posit that everything is inherently related. I call this inherent
>> relationship context, or "is-ness" if you will.
>>
>
> How is such a position - which doesn't seem to make any distinctions -
> useful in this context? Actually, how is it useful for anything whatsoever?
>
>
>>
>> Sure. Over at http://hof.povray.org/
>>
>>
>> Sorry I was implying given a technologically-driven only context. (As
>> in... impossible without high technology) All of those works could be
>> theoretically done more or less with an analogue medium, no?
>>
>
> Speaking of the theoretically possible is always a fun and fantastic
> exercise. Theoretically, all the oxygen in your room could just happen to
> miss your lungs for the few minutes it takes to die. Theoretically, cosmic
> rays could flip bits into jpeg-encoded pornography on your computer.
> Theoretically, yes, those images could be generated on an analogue medium.
>
> But if we speak in practical terms - of what is `feasible` rather than
> what is `possible` - then, no, those images would not be created in an
> analog medium. They are the result of trial and error and tweaking that
> would be `infeasible` in human time frames without the technology. The
> precision of light and shadow would similarly be infeasible.
>
>
>>
>> long-lasting impacting meaning "the impact lasts for a long time" not as
>> in the sense that the activity itself is long-lasting.
>>
>
> Of the things I've found inspiring that had a long-lasting impact, none
> inspired `awe`.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Julian Leviston]

On 18/01/2012, at 6:47 PM, David Barbour wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Julian Leviston  wrote:
> 
> Noted, but not relevant to my point.
> 
> Oh? You say that without any explanation? Perhaps you need some hand holding 
> to follow my logic.
> 
> 1) You make an argument about contexts being `awe inspiring to humanity as a 
> whole`. 
> 2) Given the human potential for psychopathy, autism, aspergers, and other 
> psychological classifications, it is impossible to find anything 
> awe-inspiring to all humans. 
> 3) Therefore, your `humanity as a whole` reduces to a statistical argument 
> about a group of humans. 
> 4) I describe your argument as `an anthropocentric statistical metric`.
> 5) I point out that even such metrics are influenced (subject to) culture. 
> 6) Therefore, my argument is relevant to your point.
> 
> Indeed, I believe it completely undermines your point. `awe-inspiring` is 
> simply not an objective property.

No hand-holding required. Really? Lack of capacity in the beholder is your 
argument against the existence of the objectivity of the impact of certain 
parts of art that I'm here calling "objective art"? Would you also say that the 
inability of certain individuals to understand certain difficult parts of math 
renders those parts false? I think you might be getting caught up on individual 
words I'm using rather than their meaning in sum.

It might simply be that we'll have to agree to disagree. You don't seem 
interested in understanding what I have to say, which is just fine.

>  
> 
> I'd posit that everything is inherently related. I call this inherent 
> relationship context, or "is-ness" if you will.
> 
> How is such a position - which doesn't seem to make any distinctions - useful 
> in this context? Actually, how is it useful for anything whatsoever? 
>  

To those who this matters to, this is possibly the most useful thing there is. 
Hehe... I present one of the most fundamentally interesting and "obvious, yet 
missed" aspects about life (for me, no doubt), and you subtly deride me for it. 
:P


>> 
>> Sure. Over at http://hof.povray.org/
> 
> Sorry I was implying given a technologically-driven only context. (As in... 
> impossible without high technology) All of those works could be theoretically 
> done more or less with an analogue medium, no?
> 
> Speaking of the theoretically possible is always a fun and fantastic 
> exercise. Theoretically, all the oxygen in your room could just happen to 
> miss your lungs for the few minutes it takes to die. Theoretically, cosmic 
> rays could flip bits into jpeg-encoded pornography on your computer. 
> Theoretically, yes, those images could be generated on an analogue medium. 
> 

I've seen similar such works to (almost?) all of the images on that website 
generated in analogue media. My point here is that certain things can't be done 
in analogue media.

I'm feeling a bit like you don't like my word choice of "theoretically". I'm 
sorry that choosing that word has irritated you as much as it did or didn't 
irritate you.

> But if we speak in practical terms - of what is `feasible` rather than what 
> is `possible` - then, no, those images would not be created in an analog 
> medium. They are the result of trial and error and tweaking that would be 
> `infeasible` in human time frames without the technology. The precision of 
> light and shadow would similarly be infeasible. 

I disagree. Given enough time and photoshop or illustrator, people could build 
those images.

>  
> 
> long-lasting impacting meaning "the impact lasts for a long time" not as in 
> the sense that the activity itself is long-lasting.
> 
> Of the things I've found inspiring that had a long-lasting impact, none 
> inspired `awe`.
> 

I'll take your word on that.

> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[David Barbour]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:

>
> Noted, but not relevant to my point.
>

Oh? You say that without any explanation? Perhaps you need some hand
holding to follow my logic.

1) You make an argument about contexts being `awe inspiring to humanity as
a whole`.
2) Given the human potential for psychopathy, autism, aspergers, and other
psychological classifications, it is impossible to find anything
awe-inspiring to all humans.
3) Therefore, your `humanity as a whole` reduces to a statistical argument
about a group of humans.
4) I describe your argument as `an anthropocentric statistical metric`.
5) I point out that even such metrics are influenced (subject to) culture.
6) Therefore, my argument is relevant to your point.

Indeed, I believe it completely undermines your point. `awe-inspiring` is
simply not an objective property.


>
> I'd posit that everything is inherently related. I call this inherent
> relationship context, or "is-ness" if you will.
>

How is such a position - which doesn't seem to make any distinctions -
useful in this context? Actually, how is it useful for anything whatsoever?


>
> Sure. Over at http://hof.povray.org/
>
>
> Sorry I was implying given a technologically-driven only context. (As
> in... impossible without high technology) All of those works could be
> theoretically done more or less with an analogue medium, no?
>

Speaking of the theoretically possible is always a fun and fantastic
exercise. Theoretically, all the oxygen in your room could just happen to
miss your lungs for the few minutes it takes to die. Theoretically, cosmic
rays could flip bits into jpeg-encoded pornography on your computer.
Theoretically, yes, those images could be generated on an analogue medium.

But if we speak in practical terms - of what is `feasible` rather than what
is `possible` - then, no, those images would not be created in an analog
medium. They are the result of trial and error and tweaking that would be
`infeasible` in human time frames without the technology. The precision of
light and shadow would similarly be infeasible.


>
> long-lasting impacting meaning "the impact lasts for a long time" not as
> in the sense that the activity itself is long-lasting.
>

Of the things I've found inspiring that had a long-lasting impact, none
inspired `awe`.

Regards,

Dave
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Julian Leviston]

On 18/01/2012, at 4:46 PM, David Barbour wrote:

> I would note my topic line is `inspired 3D worlds`, not `inspiring 3D 
> worlds`. There is a rather vast difference in meaning. ;)

Oh, beautiful wordsmith, treat me one time of thy intellect distilled. :)

> 
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Julian Leviston  wrote:
> you may find on closer inspection that there can be things that are 
> intrinsically beautiful, or intrinsically awe-inspiring to humanity as a 
> whole.
> 
> Even an anthropocentric statistical metric will be subject to cultural 
> influence. I do grant that humans are likely to find `great heights` and `big 
> explosions` and `loud music` and other such things awe-inspiring on a very 
> primitive level, but I imagine that cultural exposure to them would suppress 
> the feeling in a statistically measurable way. 

Noted, but not relevant to my point.

> 
> it nonetheless matters in a general sense to aspire to such a high standard 
> of quality in everything
> 
> Do keep in mind the fallacy of the beard. There is a significant relationship 
> between quantity and quality, even if it isn't an obvious one. There are also 
> relationships between costs and quality - e.g. flat pay-per-text can 
> completely undermine various story or data distribution models. 

I'd posit that everything is inherently related. I call this inherent 
relationship context, or "is-ness" if you will.

> Given limited resources and limited control over our environment, it does not 
> always make sense to aspire to high standards of quality.
> 

Evidently.

> 
> Also, a question that springs to mind is... do you find any of the popularly 
> "impressive" movies or graphics of the current day awe-inspiring?
> 
> Sure. Over at http://hof.povray.org/

Sorry I was implying given a technologically-driven only context. (As in... 
impossible without high technology) All of those works could be theoretically 
done more or less with an analogue medium, no?

I was thinking more of things along the lines of the commodore 64 game 
Archon... which is a boardgame similar to chess with a twist (take a piece and 
you have to fight out for the square's possession in a real time arcade-type 
simulation fight).

Chess is a great example of something where the meaning isn't changed if played 
on a physical board versus an electronic one. I actually find real life chess 
more impressive in terms of the medium than I do the digital variety. The 
digital variety is often times more convenient (I can play it over the internet 
from my phone that is in my pocket for example), but the graphics aren't as 
good on the phone as they are in reality... ;-)

> 
>  
> I find them quite cool... impressive in a technical sense, but not in a 
> long-lasting impacting sense...
> 
> I do not believe awe-inspiring connotes long-lasting. Ever seen an 
> awe-inspiring thermite fire? judo throw? belch? live theatrical play?
> 

long-lasting impacting meaning "the impact lasts for a long time" not as in the 
sense that the activity itself is long-lasting. (ie getting punched in the face 
by an assailant while standing waiting for a train takes a moment, but it would 
impact you quite a lot if it broke your nose - this is what I mean by 
long-lasting impact).


> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
>  
> 
> On 18/01/2012, at 3:06 PM, David Barbour wrote:
> 
>> I understand `awe inspiring` to be subjective - hence, subject to changes in 
>> the observer, such as ephemeral mood or loss of a sensory organ. You seem to 
>> treat it as a heuristic or statistical property - i.e. it's awe inspiring 
>> because people have felt awe in the past and you expect people to feel awe 
>> in the future. 
>> 
>> I suppose I can understand either position. 
>> 
>> But it's silly to say that awe inspiring is just a property of the object - 
>> i.e. you say "without something being awe-inspiring, there's no possibility 
>> for awe to be inspired when the conditions are right." That's just too 
>> egocentric. People find all sorts of funny things awe-inspiring. Like 
>> football. Or grocery bags in the wind. 
>> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKg6OJ6zhhc)
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Julian Leviston  wrote:
>> No, I find it IS awe-inspiring all of the time.
>> 
>> I may not necessarily be full of awe or actually be inspired at any 
>> particular one time... however, this doesn't change the fact that certain 
>> things or people themselves are awe-inspiring all of the time to me. In 
>> other words, if I'm in a bad mood, this is in itself not necessarily any 
>> fault, consequence or relationship of or to the fact that Alan Kay is still 
>> an amazing person. Even in my bad mood, I recognise he is awe-inspiring.
>> 
>> Guess this depends what you mean by awe-inspiring (as I originally said). If 
>> you re-read the original context, he was talking about inherent breathtaking 
>> beauty being required or not. I think to make something inherently beautiful 
>>

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[BGB]

On 1/17/2012 9:50 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
There are different kinds of art, just like there are different 
qualities of everything.


I think you may find on closer inspection that there can be things 
that are intrinsically beautiful, or intrinsically awe-inspiring to 
humanity as a whole. I don't think that's silly, and I'm perfectly ok 
with the fact that you might think it's silly, but I feel the need to 
let you (all) know this.


I'm told, for example, that the Sistine Chapel is one such thing... or 
the great canyon. I know of a few things in Sydney where I live that 
seem to have a common effect on most people... (some of the churches, 
or architecture we have here, for example - even though we have such a 
young culture, the effect is still there).


It doesn't strike me as being that there is anything different in 
computer art or architecture than other art or architecture in this 
regard.


While I agree that computer game art doesn't *have* to be 
awe-inspiring (in an absolute, non-relative, non-subjective, objective 
sense) in order to be computer game art, or qualify as being "of a 
standard" which is enough to be acceptable to most people as being 
computer game art (ie qualifying for the title), I think it 
nonetheless matters in a general sense to aspire to such a high 
standard of quality in everything, irrespective of whether it's 
computer game art, or "ordinary" art, architecture of buildings, or 
architecture of information systems.


This is, after all, why we attempt anything at its root, isn't it? or 
is it simply to satisfy some form of mediocre whimsy? or to "get by" 
so to speak?


Contrast things that last with things that don't last. I personally 
don't hold that "good graphics" from a technical standpoint are 
inherently or necessarily awe-inspiring, because usually the context 
of technology yields little meaning compared to the context of 
culture, but "good graphics" from a technical standpoint are able, 
obviously, to transmit a message that *is* awe-inspiring (ie the media 
/ conduit / accessibility channel). In other words, the technology of 
quadrupling memory capacity and processor speed provides little impact 
on the kinds of meanings I can make from a social & cultural 
perspective. If I print my book on a different type of paper, it 
doesn't change the message of the book, but rather perhaps the 
accessibility of it. That is, except, perhaps for the cases such as 
the recently "new" Superman movie, where providing a "similar" visual 
and feel context to the previous movies provides more meaning to the 
message BECAUSE of current fashions of style in direction/production 
in movies. It actually adds to the world and meaning in this case - 
but this is a case of feedback, which IMHO is an exception to prove 
the rule.


This segues rather neatly to the question of content being contained 
within a context that simultaneously holds it and gives it meaning. 
The semantic content and context in contrast to those the "content" 
and "context" of the accessibility / conduit / media.


This brings the question "Where is the semantic value held?" to bear 
on the situation. If the point (ie meaning) of a game and therefore 
its visual design is not to impact the senses in some form of 
objective visual art, but rather to provide a conduit of accessibility 
to impact the mind in some form of objective mental art, then I would 
agree that visual art need not be very "impressive" or "awe inspiring" 
in order to achieve its aim.


Perhaps, however, the entire point of the game is simply to "make 
money" in which case none of my comments hold value. :)


Also, a question that springs to mind is... do you find any of the 
popularly "impressive" movies or graphics of the current day 
awe-inspiring? I find them quite cool... impressive in a technical 
sense, but not in a long-lasting impacting sense... obviously ( - to 
me, at least, and my friends - ) technology is inherently and 
constantly subject to fashion and incredibly time-sensitive, therefore 
there is little meaning contained in the special effects or 
technological advancements that are possible. I think we long ago 
passed the point where technology allowed us to build anything we can 
fantasise about... for example, I find inception, or the godfather, or 
even games like wizard of wor to be far more entertaining from the 
point of view of what they do to me in totality, than I do with 
something like transformers 2, for example.




interesting thoughts, albeit admittedly a bit outside my area...

I actually liked the Transformers movies (except: too much humans, not 
enough robot-on-robot battle), and admittedly sort of like Transformers 
in general (have watched through most of the shows, ...), and have taken 
some influence from the franchise (although, I also have many other 
things I liked / "borrowed ideas from": Ghost In The Shell, Macross, 
Zone Of The Enders, Gundam, ...).



in general, it was still better

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[David Barbour]

I would note my topic line is `inspired 3D worlds`, not `inspiring 3D
worlds`. There is a rather vast difference in meaning. ;)

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:

> you may find on closer inspection that there can be things that are
> intrinsically beautiful, or intrinsically awe-inspiring to humanity as a
> whole.
>

Even an anthropocentric statistical metric will be subject to cultural
influence. I do grant that humans are likely to find `great heights` and
`big explosions` and `loud music` and other such things awe-inspiring on a
very primitive level, but I imagine that cultural exposure to them would
suppress the feeling in a statistically measurable way.


> it nonetheless matters in a general sense to aspire to such a high
> standard of quality in everything
>

Do keep in mind the fallacy of the beard. There is a significant
relationship between quantity and quality, even if it isn't an obvious one.
There are also relationships between costs and quality - e.g. flat
pay-per-text can completely undermine various story or data distribution
models.

Given limited resources and limited control over our environment, it does
not always make sense to aspire to high standards of quality.


> Also, a question that springs to mind is... do you find any of the
> popularly "impressive" movies or graphics of the current day awe-inspiring?
>

Sure. Over at http://hof.povray.org/



I find them quite cool... impressive in a technical sense, but not in a
> long-lasting impacting sense...
>

I do not believe awe-inspiring connotes long-lasting. Ever seen an
awe-inspiring thermite fire? judo throw? belch? live theatrical play?

Regards,

Dave



>
> On 18/01/2012, at 3:06 PM, David Barbour wrote:
>
> I understand `awe inspiring` to be subjective - hence, subject to changes
> in the observer, such as ephemeral mood or loss of a sensory organ. You
> seem to treat it as a heuristic or statistical property - i.e. it's awe
> inspiring because people have felt awe in the past and you expect people to
> feel awe in the future.
>
> I suppose I can understand either position.
>
> But it's silly to say that awe inspiring is just a property of the object
> - i.e. you say "without something being awe-inspiring, there's no
> possibility for awe to be inspired when the conditions are right." That's
> just too egocentric. People find all sorts of funny things awe-inspiring.
> Like football. Or grocery bags in the wind. (
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKg6OJ6zhhc)
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
>
>> No, I find it IS awe-inspiring all of the time.
>>
>> I may not necessarily be full of awe or actually be inspired at any
>> particular one time... however, this doesn't change the fact that certain
>> things or people themselves are awe-inspiring all of the time to me. In
>> other words, if I'm in a bad mood, this is in itself not necessarily any
>> fault, consequence or relationship of or to the fact that Alan Kay is still
>> an amazing person. Even in my bad mood, I recognise he is awe-inspiring.
>>
>
>> Guess this depends what you mean by awe-inspiring (as I originally said).
>> If you re-read the original context, he was talking about inherent
>> breathtaking beauty being required or not. I think to make something
>> inherently beautiful or to construct it with detailed thought is actually
>> very worthwhile. Without something being awe-inspiring, there's no
>> possibility for awe to be inspired when the conditions are right. When
>> something is awe inspiring, it doesn't necessarily always follow that awe
>> will be inspired, though ;-)
>>
>> :P
>>
>> Julian
>>
>> On 18/01/2012, at 11:34 AM, David Barbour wrote:
>>
>>  You don't find it awe-inspiring "all the time". (If you do, you're
>> certainly dysfunctional.) But I readily believe you still find it inspiring
>> "some of the time" - and that is enough to be an enriching experience.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Julian Leviston]

There are different kinds of art, just like there are different qualities of 
everything.

I think you may find on closer inspection that there can be things that are 
intrinsically beautiful, or intrinsically awe-inspiring to humanity as a whole. 
I don't think that's silly, and I'm perfectly ok with the fact that you might 
think it's silly, but I feel the need to let you (all) know this.

I'm told, for example, that the Sistine Chapel is one such thing... or the 
great canyon. I know of a few things in Sydney where I live that seem to have a 
common effect on most people... (some of the churches, or architecture we have 
here, for example - even though we have such a young culture, the effect is 
still there).

It doesn't strike me as being that there is anything different in computer art 
or architecture than other art or architecture in this regard.

While I agree that computer game art doesn't *have* to be awe-inspiring (in an 
absolute, non-relative, non-subjective, objective sense) in order to be 
computer game art, or qualify as being "of a standard" which is enough to be 
acceptable to most people as being computer game art (ie qualifying for the 
title), I think it nonetheless matters in a general sense to aspire to such a 
high standard of quality in everything, irrespective of whether it's computer 
game art, or "ordinary" art, architecture of buildings, or architecture of 
information systems.

This is, after all, why we attempt anything at its root, isn't it? or is it 
simply to satisfy some form of mediocre whimsy? or to "get by" so to speak?

Contrast things that last with things that don't last. I personally don't hold 
that "good graphics" from a technical standpoint are inherently or necessarily 
awe-inspiring, because usually the context of technology yields little meaning 
compared to the context of culture, but "good graphics" from a technical 
standpoint are able, obviously, to transmit a message that *is* awe-inspiring 
(ie the media / conduit / accessibility channel). In other words, the 
technology of quadrupling memory capacity and processor speed provides little 
impact on the kinds of meanings I can make from a social & cultural 
perspective. If I print my book on a different type of paper, it doesn't change 
the message of the book, but rather perhaps the accessibility of it. That is, 
except, perhaps for the cases such as the recently "new" Superman movie, where 
providing a "similar" visual and feel context to the previous movies provides 
more meaning to the message BECAUSE of current fashions of style in 
direction/production in movies. It actually adds to the world and meaning in 
this case - but this is a case of feedback, which IMHO is an exception to prove 
the rule.

This segues rather neatly to the question of content being contained within a 
context that simultaneously holds it and gives it meaning. The semantic content 
and context in contrast to those the "content" and "context" of the 
accessibility / conduit / media.

This brings the question "Where is the semantic value held?" to bear on the 
situation. If the point (ie meaning) of a game and therefore its visual design 
is not to impact the senses in some form of objective visual art, but rather to 
provide a conduit of accessibility to impact the mind in some form of objective 
mental art, then I would agree that visual art need not be very "impressive" or 
"awe inspiring" in order to achieve its aim.

Perhaps, however, the entire point of the game is simply to "make money" in 
which case none of my comments hold value. :)

Also, a question that springs to mind is... do you find any of the popularly 
"impressive" movies or graphics of the current day awe-inspiring? I find them 
quite cool... impressive in a technical sense, but not in a long-lasting 
impacting sense... obviously ( - to me, at least, and my friends - ) technology 
is inherently and constantly subject to fashion and incredibly time-sensitive, 
therefore there is little meaning contained in the special effects or 
technological advancements that are possible. I think we long ago passed the 
point where technology allowed us to build anything we can fantasise about... 
for example, I find inception, or the godfather, or even games like wizard of 
wor to be far more entertaining from the point of view of what they do to me in 
totality, than I do with something like transformers 2, for example. 

This is a very interesting conversation, so I'd like to thank you, David, for 
your participation in it. :)

Julian


On 18/01/2012, at 3:06 PM, David Barbour wrote:

> I understand `awe inspiring` to be subjective - hence, subject to changes in 
> the observer, such as ephemeral mood or loss of a sensory organ. You seem to 
> treat it as a heuristic or statistical property - i.e. it's awe inspiring 
> because people have felt awe in the past and you expect people to feel awe in 
> the future. 
> 
> I suppose I can understand either position. 
> 
> But 

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[David Barbour]

I understand `awe inspiring` to be subjective - hence, subject to changes
in the observer, such as ephemeral mood or loss of a sensory organ. You
seem to treat it as a heuristic or statistical property - i.e. it's awe
inspiring because people have felt awe in the past and you expect people to
feel awe in the future.

I suppose I can understand either position.

But it's silly to say that awe inspiring is just a property of the object -
i.e. you say "without something being awe-inspiring, there's no possibility
for awe to be inspired when the conditions are right." That's just too
egocentric. People find all sorts of funny things awe-inspiring. Like
football. Or grocery bags in the wind. (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKg6OJ6zhhc)

Regards,

Dave

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:

> No, I find it IS awe-inspiring all of the time.
>
> I may not necessarily be full of awe or actually be inspired at any
> particular one time... however, this doesn't change the fact that certain
> things or people themselves are awe-inspiring all of the time to me. In
> other words, if I'm in a bad mood, this is in itself not necessarily any
> fault, consequence or relationship of or to the fact that Alan Kay is still
> an amazing person. Even in my bad mood, I recognise he is awe-inspiring.
>

> Guess this depends what you mean by awe-inspiring (as I originally said).
> If you re-read the original context, he was talking about inherent
> breathtaking beauty being required or not. I think to make something
> inherently beautiful or to construct it with detailed thought is actually
> very worthwhile. Without something being awe-inspiring, there's no
> possibility for awe to be inspired when the conditions are right. When
> something is awe inspiring, it doesn't necessarily always follow that awe
> will be inspired, though ;-)
>
> :P
>
> Julian
>
> On 18/01/2012, at 11:34 AM, David Barbour wrote:
>
> You don't find it awe-inspiring "all the time". (If you do, you're
> certainly dysfunctional.) But I readily believe you still find it inspiring
> "some of the time" - and that is enough to be an enriching experience.
>
>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Julian Leviston]

No, I find it IS awe-inspiring all of the time.

I may not necessarily be full of awe or actually be inspired at any particular 
one time... however, this doesn't change the fact that certain things or people 
themselves are awe-inspiring all of the time to me. In other words, if I'm in a 
bad mood, this is in itself not necessarily any fault, consequence or 
relationship of or to the fact that Alan Kay is still an amazing person. Even 
in my bad mood, I recognise he is awe-inspiring.

Guess this depends what you mean by awe-inspiring (as I originally said). If 
you re-read the original context, he was talking about inherent breathtaking 
beauty being required or not. I think to make something inherently beautiful or 
to construct it with detailed thought is actually very worthwhile. Without 
something being awe-inspiring, there's no possibility for awe to be inspired 
when the conditions are right. When something is awe inspiring, it doesn't 
necessarily always follow that awe will be inspired, though ;-)

:P

Julian

On 18/01/2012, at 11:34 AM, David Barbour wrote:

> You don't find it awe-inspiring "all the time". (If you do, you're certainly 
> dysfunctional.) But I readily believe you still find it inspiring "some of 
> the time" - and that is enough to be an enriching experience. 
> 

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[BGB]

On 1/17/2012 5:10 PM, David Barbour wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM, BGB > wrote:


game art doesn't need to be particularly "awe inspiring", so much
as "basically works and is not total crap".


It can't be awe inspiring all the time, anyway. Humans would quickly 
become jaded to that sort of stimulation.




partly agreed (although, maybe not "jaded", but more like what is "awe 
inspiring" one year becomes mundane/mandatory the next).



actually, it is also an issue with many "classic" map generation 
technologies:
people become used to them, and used to seeing more impressive things 
being generated by hand (often with uninteresting aspects increasingly 
subtly offloaded to tools).


once something "better" takes hold, it is harder to keep interest in the 
older/simpler/more-mundane technologies.



so, now many people take for granted technologies which were novelties 
10 years ago (real-time rigid-body physics / ragdoll / ..., the ability 
to have light-sources move around in real-time, ability to have dynamic 
shadows, ...), and possibly unimaginable 15 or 20 years ago.


if a person went directly from being exposed to games like, say, 
"Wolfenstein 3D" and "Sonic The Hedgehog", ... to seeing games like 
Portal 2 and Rage, what would their response be?


but, to those who have lived though it, it seems like "nothing 
particularly noteworthy".


15 years ago, the "big new things" were having 3D modeled characters, 
colored lighting, and maybe translucent geometry. 20 years ago, it was 
having any sort of real-time 3D at all (well, that and FMV).



The quality of a game map depends on many properties other than visual 
appeal. A program that creates maps for a first-person shooter should 
probably have concepts such as defensible positions, ambush positions, 
snipe positions and visual occlusion, reachable areas, path-generation 
for AIs.




yeah. path-finding data can be built after the fact, just it tends to be 
fairly expensive to rebuild.




One might express `constraints` such as:
* a spawn zone should not be accessible from a snipe position.
* a capture-the-flag map should ensure that every path from the enemy 
flag to the base moves past at least one good snipe position and one 
good ambush position.
* there should be some `fairness` in quality and quantity of 
defensible-position resources for the different teams.
* the map needs to occlude enough that we never have more than K 
lights/triangles/objects/etc. in view at any given instant.




yep.

actually, the bigger issue regarding performance isn't really how many 
lights/polygons/... are visible, but more like the total screen-space 
taken by everything which needs to be drawn.


a single large polygon with a whole bunch of light sources right next to 
it, could be a much nastier problem than a much larger number of 
light-sources and a large number of tiny polygons.


it is stuff right up near the camera which seems to actually eat up the 
vast majority of rendering time, whereas the same complexity model some 
distance away may be much cheaper (although LOD and similar may help, 
although interestingly, LOD helps much more with reducing the 
computational costs of animating character models than it does with 
renderer performance per-se).



also, using fragment shaders can be fairly expensive (kind of a problem 
in my case, as most of my lighting involves the use of fragment shaders).


currently, there are multiple such shaders in my case (for per-pixel 
phong lighting):

one which uses the OpenGL lighting model (not used much);
one which uses a Quake-style lighting model (for attenuation), but is 
otherwise like the above;
one which uses a Quake-style lighting model (like the above), but adds 
support for normal and specular map textures (renderer avoids using this 
one where possible... as it is expensive);
one which uses a Doom3 style lighting model (box + falloff + projection 
textures) in addition to normal and specular maps (not currently used, 
considered possible reintroduction as a "special effect feature").


the issue is mostly that when one has a shader pulling from around 6 
textures (the falloff texture needs to be accessed twice), the shader is 
a bit expensive.


note that the normal is actually a bump+normal map (bump in alpha), and 
the specular map is a specular+exponent map (specular color, with 
exponent-scale in alpha). in all cases, these are combined with the 
normal material properties (ambient/diffuse/specular/emission/...).



for related reasons:
adding a normal or specular map to a texture can make it nicer looking, 
but adding a normal map also makes it slower (and a possible performance 
feature would be to essentially disable the use of normal and specular 
maps).


there also seems to be a relation between texture size and performance 
as well (smaller resolution == faster).


it is also a non-linear tradeoff:
a large increase in texture resolution or use of 

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[David Barbour]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:

> I guess this depends what you mean by awe-inspiring.
>
> David this sentence somewhat disturbs me, though. I grew up in Tasmania -
> a little island at the bottom of Australia... with some of the most
> picturesque (and as you say here awe-inspiring) countryside in Australia. I
> can tell you for sure that humans don't become Jaded to it. It changes us,
> and vivifies us.
>

You don't find it awe-inspiring "all the time". (If you do, you're
certainly dysfunctional.) But I readily believe you still find it inspiring
"some of the time" - and that is enough to be an enriching experience.

As far as "it changes us" - I don't deny that. What is `becoming jaded` if
not one more change in us?


> I feel the same way about my balcony that overlooks the valley where I
> live, and also about the beautiful user interfaces that I use daily...
> these things impact me in a wonderful way, reminding me of the things and
> people I love. It doesn't make me jaded! Quite the opposite.
>

It is difficult to recognize you've become `jaded` until you've tried
something different, or lost what you had, or return to it after
acclimating to another environment. We measure our experiences in relative
terms, not absolute terms.

Regards,

Dave


> On 18/01/2012, at 11:10 AM, David Barbour wrote:
>
> It can't be awe inspiring all the time, anyway. Humans would quickly
> become jaded to that sort of stimulation.
>
>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Kurt Stephens]

On 1/17/12 6:10 PM, David Barbour wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM, BGB  > wrote:
> 
> game art doesn't need to be particularly "awe inspiring", so much as
> "basically works and is not total crap".
> 
> 
> It can't be awe inspiring all the time, anyway. Humans would quickly
> become jaded to that sort of stimulation. 
> 

A solution may be to croud-source it.  Use the metrics of how users
interact in the world to generate "this is interesting" constraints.

If the user turns down the music, it might not be interesting.
If the user doesn't explore a part of the map, it might not be
interesting (or accessible).

Humans are good at correlating interesting webpages, search engines are
good at mining metrics from what humans do naturally: seeking novelty.

Let users generate content as a bi-product of playing the game.  This is
what Spore does.

-- KAS
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Julian Leviston]

I guess this depends what you mean by awe-inspiring.

David this sentence somewhat disturbs me, though. I grew up in Tasmania - a 
little island at the bottom of Australia... with some of the most picturesque 
(and as you say here awe-inspiring) countryside in Australia. I can tell you 
for sure that humans don't become Jaded to it. It changes us, and vivifies us. 
I feel the same way about my balcony that overlooks the valley where I live, 
and also about the beautiful user interfaces that I use daily... these things 
impact me in a wonderful way, reminding me of the things and people I love. It 
doesn't make me jaded! Quite the opposite.

Just my two cents.

On 18/01/2012, at 11:10 AM, David Barbour wrote:

> It can't be awe inspiring all the time, anyway. Humans would quickly become 
> jaded to that sort of stimulation. 
> 

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[David Barbour]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM, BGB  wrote:

> game art doesn't need to be particularly "awe inspiring", so much as
> "basically works and is not total crap".
>

It can't be awe inspiring all the time, anyway. Humans would quickly become
jaded to that sort of stimulation.

The quality of a game map depends on many properties other than visual
appeal. A program that creates maps for a first-person shooter should
probably have concepts such as defensible positions, ambush positions,
snipe positions and visual occlusion, reachable areas, path-generation for
AIs.

One might express `constraints` such as:
* a spawn zone should not be accessible from a snipe position.
* a capture-the-flag map should ensure that every path from the enemy flag
to the base moves past at least one good snipe position and one good ambush
position.
* there should be some `fairness` in quality and quantity of
defensible-position resources for the different teams.
* the map needs to occlude enough that we never have more than K
lights/triangles/objects/etc. in view at any given instant.

But, in my practical understanding, these issues are not so distinct from
visual appeal. It's all subject to the same search, recognition, and
refinement aspects I described initially.


> the issue is mostly that my engine pulls off worse framerates on current
> hardware using the stock Doom3 maps than the Doom3 engine does


Doom 3 engine is hardly an obsolete technology (even used in Brink in
2011), and its developers have a lot of expertise. There are certainly
metrics by which a new engine could compete for performance - eliminating
load-zones, dynamic and runtime-extensible environments, moving water, etc.
- but I'd be surprised if you beat the Doom 3 engines at Doom 3's own maps!

Anyhow, you go into a lot of interesting specifics about your engine which
seem a bit off-topic for this subject line. I might e-mail you to discuss
them externally.

Regards,

Dave
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[BGB]

On 1/17/2012 10:58 AM, karl ramberg wrote:



On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Loup Vaillant > wrote:


David Barbour wrote:



On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, karl ramberg
mailto:karlramb...@gmail.com>
>>
wrote:

   I don't think you can do this project without a
understanding of
   art. It's a fine gridded mesh that make us pick between
practically
   similar artifacts with ease and that make the engineer
baffled. From
   a engineering standpoint there is not much difference between a
   random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock.
You can
   get far with surprisingly little resources if done correctly.

   Karl


I think, even with an understanding of art and several art history
classes in university, it is difficult to tell the difference
between a
random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock.

Regards,

Dave


If I recall correctly, there is a method: zoom in.  Pollock's
paintings
are remarkable in that they tend to display the same amount of entropy
no matter how much you zoom in (well, up to 100, actually).  Like a
fractal.

(Warning: this is a distant memory, so don't count me as a reliable
source.)

Loup.


My point here  was not to argue about a specific artist or genere but 
that the domain of art is very
different from that of engineer. What makes some music lifeless and 
some the most awe-inspiring

you heard in your whole life ?



game art doesn't need to be particularly "awe inspiring", so much as 
"basically works and is not total crap".


for example, if the game map is just:
spawn near the start;
kill a few guys standing in the way;
hit the exit.

pretty much no one will be impressed.

in much a similar way, music need not be the "best thing possible", but 
if it generally sounds terrible or is just a repeating drum loop, this 
isn't so good either.



the issue, though, is that the level of effort needed to reach 
"mediocre" is often itself still a good deal of effort, as maybe one is 
comparing themselves against a mountain of other people, many trying to 
do the minimal they can get away with, and many others actually trying 
to make something decent.


it is more so a problem when ones' effort is already spread fairly thin:
between all of the coding, graphics and sound creation, 3D modeling and 
map creation, ...


it can all add up fairly quickly (even if one cuts many corners in many 
places).


what all I have thus far "technically sort of works", but still falls a 
bit short of what was the norm in commercial games in the late-90s / 
early-2000s era.


it is also going on a much longer development time-frame as well. many 
commercial games get from concept to release in 6 months to 1 year, 
rather than requiring years, but then again, most companies don't have 
to build everything "from the ground up" (they have their own base of 
general art assets, will often license the engine from someone else, 
...), as well as having a team of people on the project (vs being a 
single-handed effort), ...



a lot of this is still true of the 3D engine as well, for example my 
Scripting VM is still sort of lame (I am using a interpreter, rather 
than a JIT, ...), my renderer architecture kind of sucks and doesn't 
perform as well as could be hoped (ideally, things would be more modular 
and cleanly written, ...), ...


note: mostly I am using an interpreter as JITs are a lot more effort to 
develop and maintain IME, and the interpreter is "fast enough"... the 
interpreter is mostly using "indirect threaded code" (as this is a 
little faster and more flexible than directly dispatching bytecode via a 
"switch()", although the code is a little bigger given each opcode 
handler needs its own function).



likewise, after the Doom3 source code came out, I was left to realize 
just how drastically the engines differed internally (I had sort of 
assumed that Carmack was doing similar stuff with the internals).


the issue is mostly that my engine pulls off worse framerates on current 
hardware using the stock Doom3 maps than the Doom3 engine does (and 
leads to uncertainty regarding if scenes can be sufficiently 
large/complex while performing adequately).



for example:
my engine uses a mostly object-based scene-graph, where "objects" are 
roughly split into static objects ("brushes", "patches", "meshes", ...) 
and dynamic objects (3D models for characters and entities, 
"brush-models", ...);
it then does basic (dynamic) visibility culling (frustum and occlusion 
checks) and makes use of a dynamically-built BSP-tree;
most of the rendering is done (fairly directly) via a thin layer of 
wrappers over OpenGL (the "shader system");
many rendering operations are implemented via "querie

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[karl ramberg]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:46 PM, David Barbour  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Loup Vaillant  wrote:
>
>> I actually have hope that we eventually get to the point where we
>> can actually understand what makes good art with mathematical
>> precision (if we choose to).
>>
>> Of course, I agree that this question is far from solved.  It probably
>> won't be before we fully understand the human brain.
>
>
> I expect we will reach the point where computers can create good art
> before we understand what makes good art. We will do so by *teaching* the
> computer and leveraging feedback mechanisms (such as popularity and critic
> ratings). There is already a lot of progress in this direction (cf.
> http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm)
>
> Our computers will have the same problem we do: "I can't say what good art
> is, but I can heuristically recognize it when I see it."
>

True.
I often stop to look at spray can artists on the street mass producing
 quite nice pictures in a couple of minutes.
It's not 'good art' but i looks kind of like it and people buy it.

I like looking a the procedurally generated worlds I see on the various
sites.

Karl

>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[karl ramberg]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Loup Vaillant  wrote:

> Le 1/17/2012 6:58 PM, karl ramberg a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Loup Vaillant > > wrote:
>>
>>David Barbour wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, karl ramberg
>>mailto:karlramb...@gmail.com>
>>**>__>
>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>I don't think you can do this project without a understanding
>> of
>>art. It's a fine gridded mesh that make us pick between
>>practically
>>similar artifacts with ease and that make the engineer
>>baffled. From
>>a engineering standpoint there is not much difference between a
>>random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock.
>>You can
>>get far with surprisingly little resources if done correctly.
>>
>>Karl
>>
>>
>>I think, even with an understanding of art and several art history
>>classes in university, it is difficult to tell the difference
>>between a
>>random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>
>>If I recall correctly, there is a method: zoom in.  Pollock's paintings
>>are remarkable in that they tend to display the same amount of entropy
>>no matter how much you zoom in (well, up to 100, actually).  Like a
>>fractal.
>>
>>(Warning: this is a distant memory, so don't count me as a reliable
>>source.)
>>
>>Loup.
>>
>>
>> My point here  was not to argue about a specific artist or genere but
>> that the domain of art is very
>> different from that of engineer. What makes some music lifeless and some
>> the most awe-inspiring
>> you heard in your whole life ?
>>
>> Karl
>>
>
> Oh, sorry, I do hear you.  I singled out this example for 2 reasons :
>
>  - Showing off (I just couldn't resist).
>

:-)


>  - I actually have hope that we eventually get to the point where we
>   can actually understand what makes good art with mathematical
>   precision (if we choose to).
>

I think we one day can get the essence out of what make art so entangling
and
full of life.
But I also fear that moment a little because one source of arts greatness
lies in
it a sense of uniqueness and that uniqueness will perhaps collapse under a
inflation of
readymade art produced at the snap of your fingers.



> Of course, I agree that this question is far from solved.  It probably
> won't be before we fully understand the human brain.


A brain simulator running a brain instance that is panic ridden in fear of
a power out.

Karl


>
> Loup.
>
> __**_
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/**listinfo/fonc
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[David Barbour]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Loup Vaillant  wrote:

> I actually have hope that we eventually get to the point where we
> can actually understand what makes good art with mathematical
> precision (if we choose to).
>
> Of course, I agree that this question is far from solved.  It probably
> won't be before we fully understand the human brain.


I expect we will reach the point where computers can create good art before
we understand what makes good art. We will do so by *teaching* the computer
and leveraging feedback mechanisms (such as popularity and critic ratings).
There is already a lot of progress in this direction (cf.
http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm)

Our computers will have the same problem we do: "I can't say what good art
is, but I can heuristically recognize it when I see it."

Regards,

Dave
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[David Barbour]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:58 AM, karl ramberg  wrote:

> My point here  was not to argue about a specific artist or genere but that
> the domain of art is very different from that of engineer. What makes some
> music lifeless and some the most awe-inspiring you heard in your whole life
> ?
>

What makes some engineering `elegant` and some (http://thedailywtf.com) the
ugliest you heard of in your whole life? I don't believe the distinction is
as clear as you assume it to be.

I do acknowledge there is a certain `staging` involved - i.e. we can
distinguish the beauty of the tools and materials from the beauty we can
readily create with them. Hint: languages are more analogous to materials
than tools (
http://schneide.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/the-fallacy-of-the-right-tool/)

I've long been interested in creating a `storyteller` system - a tool that
can take sketches of a story and plot as constraints and help fill the gaps
and dialog with interesting subplots and appropriate foreshadowing, and
help find plotholes or inconsistencies or potential traps (i.e. painting
yourself into a corner) before it happens. Potential uses of such systems
are game creation, especially for live gaming where we want player actions
to influence the story - i.e. a new generation of rich interactive MMORPGs.

It's interesting to note that the same essential problems apply to creating
a good IDE for software development... it's just easier to recognize `holes
or inconsistencies` in code than it is in a story plot.

Regards,

Dave
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Loup Vaillant]

Le 1/17/2012 6:58 PM, karl ramberg a écrit :



On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Loup Vaillant mailto:l...@loup-vaillant.fr>> wrote:

David Barbour wrote:



On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, karl ramberg
mailto:karlramb...@gmail.com>
>__>
wrote:

I don't think you can do this project without a understanding of
art. It's a fine gridded mesh that make us pick between
practically
similar artifacts with ease and that make the engineer
baffled. From
a engineering standpoint there is not much difference between a
random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock.
You can
get far with surprisingly little resources if done correctly.

Karl


I think, even with an understanding of art and several art history
classes in university, it is difficult to tell the difference
between a
random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock.

Regards,

Dave


If I recall correctly, there is a method: zoom in.  Pollock's paintings
are remarkable in that they tend to display the same amount of entropy
no matter how much you zoom in (well, up to 100, actually).  Like a
fractal.

(Warning: this is a distant memory, so don't count me as a reliable
source.)

Loup.


My point here  was not to argue about a specific artist or genere but
that the domain of art is very
different from that of engineer. What makes some music lifeless and some
the most awe-inspiring
you heard in your whole life ?

Karl


Oh, sorry, I do hear you.  I singled out this example for 2 reasons :

 - Showing off (I just couldn't resist).
 - I actually have hope that we eventually get to the point where we
   can actually understand what makes good art with mathematical
   precision (if we choose to).

Of course, I agree that this question is far from solved.  It probably
won't be before we fully understand the human brain.

Loup.
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Casey Ransberger]

Check out Ken Musgrave. He makes whole planets with fractals. It's cool. 
Twisting knobs is a lot less work than manual 3D modeling and such.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1558608486

On Jan 16, 2012, at 7:31 PM, BGB  wrote:

> On 1/16/2012 6:47 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>> 
>> Top post. Heightmapping can go a really long way. Probably not news though:)
>> 
> 
> I am still not certain, since a lot of this has a lot more to do with my own 
> project than with general issues in computing.
> 
> 
> I had messed with a few technologies already.
> 
> height-maps (long ago, not much used since then, generally randomized).
> 
> the issue was mostly one of being "not terribly interesting", but it makes 
> sense if one wants terrain (and is "fairly cheap" in terms of memory use and 
> performance impact).
> 
> a more advanced variety would be to combine a height-map with a tile-map, 
> where the terrain generator would also vary the texture-map to give a little 
> more interest. I have considered this as a possibility.
> 
> also tried randomly generated voxel terrain (similar to Minecraft, using 
> perlin noise). issues were of being difficult to integrate well with my 
> existing technology, and being very expensive in terms of both rendering and 
> memory usage (particularly for storing intermediate meshes). one may need to 
> devote about 500MB-1GB of RAM to the problem to have a moderately sized world 
> with (with similar specifics to those in Minecraft).
> 
> I suspect that, apart from making something like Minecraft, the technology is 
> a bit too expensive and limited to really be all that "generally useful" at 
> this point in time and on current hardware (I suspect, however, it will 
> probably be much more relevant on future HW).
> 
> 
> I also tried randomly generated grid-based areas (basically, stuff is built 
> from pre-made parts and randomly-chosen parts are put on a grid). I had also 
> tried combining this with maze-generation algorithms. the results were 
> "functional" but also "nothing to get excited about". the big drawback was 
> that I couldn't really think of any way to make the results of such a grid 
> based generator "particularly interesting" (this is I think more so with a 
> first-person viewpoint: such a structure is far less visually interesting 
> from the inside than with a top-down or isometric view).
> 
> it could work if one were sufficiently desperate, but I doubt it would be 
> able to hold interest of players for all that long absent "something else of 
> redeeming value".
> 
> 
> the "main maps" in my case mostly use a Quake/Doom3/... style maps, composed 
> mostly of entities (defined in terms of collections of key/value pairs 
> representing a given object), "brushes" (convex polyhedra), "patches" (Bezier 
> Surfaces), and "meshes" (mostly unstructured polygonal meshes).
> 
> these would generally be created manually, by placing every object and piece 
> of geometry visible in the world, but this is fairly effort-intensive, and 
> simply running head first into it tends to quickly drain my motivation 
> (resulting in me producing worlds which look like "big boxes with some random 
> crap in them").
> 
> sadly, random generation not on a grid of some sort is a much more complex 
> problem (nor random generation directly in terms of unstructured or 
> loosely-structured geometry).
> 
> fractals exist and work well on things like rocks or trees or terrain, but I 
> haven't found a good way to apply them to "general" map generation problem 
> (such as generating an interesting place to run around in and battle enemies, 
> and get to the exit).
> 
> the "problem domain" is potentially best suited to some sort of maze 
> algorithm, but in my own tests, this fairly quickly stopped being all that 
> interesting. the "upper end" I think for this sort of thing was likely the 
> .Hack series games (which had a lot of apparently randomly generated 
> dungeons).
> 
> 
> it is sad that I can't seem to pull off maps even half as interesting as 
> those (generally created by hand) in commercial games from well over a decade 
> ago. I can have a 3D engine which is technically much more advanced (or, at 
> least, runs considerably slower on much faster hardware with moderately more 
> features), but apart from reusing maps made by other people for other games, 
> I can't make it even a small amount nearly as "interesting" or "inspiring".
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 8:45 AM, David Barbour  wrote:
>> 
>>> Consider offloading some of your creativity burden onto your computer. The 
>>> idea is:
>>> 
>>>   It's easier to recognize and refine something interesting than to create 
>>> it.
>>> 
>>> So turn it into a search, recognition, and refinement problem, and automate 
>>> creation. There are various techniques, which certainly can be combined:
>>> 
>>> * constraint programming
>>> * generative grammar programming
>>> * genetic programming
>>> * seeded fractals
>>> 
>>> You might be su

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Val Krylov]

If you're interested in methods for creating Quake/Doom3-style content take a 
look at Farbrausch/.theprodukkt works. Especially:


.kkrieger - Quake-style 3D-shooter in 96kb. Was made using procedural content 
creation with modern enough visual features (for year 2004).


fr-041: debris - demo, made later using the same technology.

Werkkzeug - demo/game/texture creation tool. Binaries for Werkkzeug 1.201 are 
freely downloadable.


I have old "kkrieger-content_creation_in_96kB.avi" video from those days, 
online versions must be somewhere.


Also, a talk about "debris" is available at 
http://www.demoscene.tv/prod.php?id_prod=13597


// Valery Krylov

On 2012-01-17 07:31, BGB wrote:

   On 1/16/2012 6:47 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:

Top post. Heightmapping can go a really long way. Probably not news
though:)



I am still not certain, since a lot of this has a lot more to do with my
own project than with general issues in computing.


I had messed with a few technologies already.

height-maps (long ago, not much used since then, generally randomized).

the issue was mostly one of being "not terribly interesting", but it
makes sense if one wants terrain (and is "fairly cheap" in terms of
memory use and performance impact).

a more advanced variety would be to combine a height-map with a
tile-map, where the terrain generator would also vary the texture-map to
give a little more interest. I have considered this as a possibility.

also tried randomly generated voxel terrain (similar to Minecraft, using
perlin noise). issues were of being difficult to integrate well with my
existing technology, and being very expensive in terms of both rendering
and memory usage (particularly for storing intermediate meshes). one may
need to devote about 500MB-1GB of RAM to the problem to have a
moderately sized world with (with similar specifics to those in Minecraft).

I suspect that, apart from making something like Minecraft, the
technology is a bit too expensive and limited to really be all that
"generally useful" at this point in time and on current hardware (I
suspect, however, it will probably be much more relevant on future HW).


I also tried randomly generated grid-based areas (basically, stuff is
built from pre-made parts and randomly-chosen parts are put on a grid).
I had also tried combining this with maze-generation algorithms. the
results were "functional" but also "nothing to get excited about". the
big drawback was that I couldn't really think of any way to make the
results of such a grid based generator "particularly interesting" (this
is I think more so with a first-person viewpoint: such a structure is
far less visually interesting from the inside than with a top-down or
isometric view).

it could work if one were sufficiently desperate, but I doubt it would
be able to hold interest of players for all that long absent "something
else of redeeming value".


the "main maps" in my case mostly use a Quake/Doom3/... style maps,
composed mostly of entities (defined in terms of collections of
key/value pairs representing a given object), "brushes" (convex
polyhedra), "patches" (Bezier Surfaces), and "meshes" (mostly
unstructured polygonal meshes).

these would generally be created manually, by placing every object and
piece of geometry visible in the world, but this is fairly
effort-intensive, and simply running head first into it tends to quickly
drain my motivation (resulting in me producing worlds which look like
"big boxes with some random crap in them").

sadly, random generation not on a grid of some sort is a much more
complex problem (nor random generation directly in terms of unstructured
or loosely-structured geometry).

fractals exist and work well on things like rocks or trees or terrain,
but I haven't found a good way to apply them to "general" map generation
problem (such as generating an interesting place to run around in and
battle enemies, and get to the exit).

the "problem domain" is potentially best suited to some sort of maze
algorithm, but in my own tests, this fairly quickly stopped being all
that interesting. the "upper end" I think for this sort of thing was
likely the .Hack series games (which had a lot of apparently randomly
generated dungeons).


it is sad that I can't seem to pull off maps even half as interesting as
those (generally created by hand) in commercial games from well over a
decade ago. I can have a 3D engine which is technically much more
advanced (or, at least, runs considerably slower on much faster hardware
with moderately more features), but apart from reusing maps made by
other people for other games, I can't make it even a small amount nearly
as "interesting" or "inspiring".

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Neu Xue]

Prototype track for a racing game; follow the link & click the [3D|>] button 
(requires Google Earth installed in your browser).
http://g.co/maps/vj5ak


> From: David Barbour 
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing  
>Sent: Monday, 16 January 2012, 16:45
>Subject: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds
>Consider offloading some of your creativity burden onto your computer. The 
>idea is:
>  It's easier to recognize and refine something interesting than to create it.
8<
>On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, BGB  wrote:
>I am generally personally stuck on the issue of how to make "interesting" 3D 
>worlds for a game-style project
8<
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[karl ramberg]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Loup Vaillant  wrote:

> David Barbour wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, karl ramberg > **> wrote:
>>
>>I don't think you can do this project without a understanding of
>>art. It's a fine gridded mesh that make us pick between practically
>>similar artifacts with ease and that make the engineer baffled. From
>>a engineering standpoint there is not much difference between a
>>random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock. You can
>>get far with surprisingly little resources if done correctly.
>>
>>Karl
>>
>>
>> I think, even with an understanding of art and several art history
>> classes in university, it is difficult to tell the difference between a
>> random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> If I recall correctly, there is a method: zoom in.  Pollock's paintings
> are remarkable in that they tend to display the same amount of entropy
> no matter how much you zoom in (well, up to 100, actually).  Like a
> fractal.
>
> (Warning: this is a distant memory, so don't count me as a reliable
> source.)
>
> Loup.
>
>
My point here  was not to argue about a specific artist or genere but that
the domain of art is very
different from that of engineer. What makes some music lifeless and some
the most awe-inspiring
you heard in your whole life ?

Karl

> __**_
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/**listinfo/fonc
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Loup Vaillant]

David Barbour wrote:



On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, karl ramberg mailto:karlramb...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I don't think you can do this project without a understanding of
art. It's a fine gridded mesh that make us pick between practically
similar artifacts with ease and that make the engineer baffled. From
a engineering standpoint there is not much difference between a
random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock. You can
get far with surprisingly little resources if done correctly.

Karl


I think, even with an understanding of art and several art history
classes in university, it is difficult to tell the difference between a
random splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock.

Regards,

Dave


If I recall correctly, there is a method: zoom in.  Pollock's paintings
are remarkable in that they tend to display the same amount of entropy
no matter how much you zoom in (well, up to 100, actually).  Like a
fractal.

(Warning: this is a distant memory, so don't count me as a reliable
source.)

Loup.
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[David Barbour]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, karl ramberg wrote:

> I don't think you can do this project without a understanding of art. It's
> a fine gridded mesh that make us pick between practically similar artifacts
> with ease and that make the engineer baffled. From a engineering standpoint
> there is not much difference between a random splash of paint and a
> painting by Jackson Pollock. You can get far with surprisingly little
> resources if done correctly.
>
> Karl
>

I think, even with an understanding of art and several art history classes
in university, it is difficult to tell the difference between a random
splash of paint and a painting by Jackson Pollock.

Regards,

Dave


>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Jan 16, 2012, at 8:45 AM, David Barbour  wrote:
>>
>>   Consider offloading some of your creativity burden onto your computer.
>> The idea is:
>>
>>It's easier to recognize and refine something interesting than to
>> create it.
>>
>>  So turn it into a search, recognition, and refinement problem, and
>> automate creation. There are various techniques, which certainly can be
>> combined:
>>
>>  * constraint programming
>> * generative grammar programming
>>  * genetic programming
>>  * seeded fractals
>>
>>  You might be surprised about how much of a world can be easily written
>> with code rather than mapping. A map can be simplified by marking regions
>> up with code and using libraries of procedures. Code can sometimes be
>> simplified by having it read a simple map or image.
>>
>>  Remember, the basic role of programming is to automate that which bores
>> you.
>>
>>  Regards,
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, BGB  wrote:
>>
>>> I am generally personally stuck on the issue of how to make
>>> "interesting" 3D worlds for a game-style project while lacking in both
>>> personal creativity and either artistic skill or a team of artists to do it
>>> (creating decent-looking 3D worlds generally requires a fair amount of
>>> effort, and is in-fact I suspect somewhat bigger than the effort required
>>> to make a "passable" 3D model of an object in a 3D modeling app, since at
>>> least generally the model is smaller and well-defined).
>>>
>>> it seems some that creativity (or what little of it exists) is stifled
>>> by it requiring a large amount of effort (all at once) for the activity
>>> needed to express said creativity (vs things which are either easy to do
>>> all at once, or can be easily decomposed into lots of incremental
>>> activities spread over a large period of time).
>>>
>>> trying to build a non-trivial scene (something which would be "passable"
>>> in a modern 3D game) at the level of dragging around and
>>> placing/resizing/... cubes and/or messing with individual polygon-faces in
>>> a mapper-tool is sort of a motivation killer (one can wish for some sort of
>>> "higher level" way to express the scene).
>>>
>>> meanwhile, writing code, despite (in the grand scale) requiring far more
>>> time and effort, seems to be a lot more enjoyable (but, one can't really
>>> build a world in code, as this is more the mapper-tool's domain).
>>>
>>
>>___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> fonc mailing listfonc@vpri.orghttp://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[karl ramberg]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:31 AM, BGB  wrote:

>  On 1/16/2012 6:47 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>
> Top post. Heightmapping can go a really long way. Probably not news
> though:)
>
>
> I am still not certain, since a lot of this has a lot more to do with my
> own project than with general issues in computing.
>
>
> I had messed with a few technologies already.
>
> height-maps (long ago, not much used since then, generally randomized).
>
> the issue was mostly one of being "not terribly interesting", but it makes
> sense if one wants terrain (and is "fairly cheap" in terms of memory use
> and performance impact).
>
> a more advanced variety would be to combine a height-map with a tile-map,
> where the terrain generator would also vary the texture-map to give a
> little more interest. I have considered this as a possibility.
>
> also tried randomly generated voxel terrain (similar to Minecraft, using
> perlin noise). issues were of being difficult to integrate well with my
> existing technology, and being very expensive in terms of both rendering
> and memory usage (particularly for storing intermediate meshes). one may
> need to devote about 500MB-1GB of RAM to the problem to have a moderately
> sized world with (with similar specifics to those in Minecraft).
>
> I suspect that, apart from making something like Minecraft, the technology
> is a bit too expensive and limited to really be all that "generally useful"
> at this point in time and on current hardware (I suspect, however, it will
> probably be much more relevant on future HW).
>
>
> I also tried randomly generated grid-based areas (basically, stuff is
> built from pre-made parts and randomly-chosen parts are put on a grid). I
> had also tried combining this with maze-generation algorithms. the results
> were "functional" but also "nothing to get excited about". the big drawback
> was that I couldn't really think of any way to make the results of such a
> grid based generator "particularly interesting" (this is I think more so
> with a first-person viewpoint: such a structure is far less visually
> interesting from the inside than with a top-down or isometric view).
>
> it could work if one were sufficiently desperate, but I doubt it would be
> able to hold interest of players for all that long absent "something else
> of redeeming value".
>
>
> the "main maps" in my case mostly use a Quake/Doom3/... style maps,
> composed mostly of entities (defined in terms of collections of key/value
> pairs representing a given object), "brushes" (convex polyhedra), "patches"
> (Bezier Surfaces), and "meshes" (mostly unstructured polygonal meshes).
>
> these would generally be created manually, by placing every object and
> piece of geometry visible in the world, but this is fairly
> effort-intensive, and simply running head first into it tends to quickly
> drain my motivation (resulting in me producing worlds which look like "big
> boxes with some random crap in them").
>
> sadly, random generation not on a grid of some sort is a much more complex
> problem (nor random generation directly in terms of unstructured or
> loosely-structured geometry).
>
> fractals exist and work well on things like rocks or trees or terrain, but
> I haven't found a good way to apply them to "general" map generation
> problem (such as generating an interesting place to run around in and
> battle enemies, and get to the exit).
>
> the "problem domain" is potentially best suited to some sort of maze
> algorithm, but in my own tests, this fairly quickly stopped being all that
> interesting. the "upper end" I think for this sort of thing was likely the
> .Hack series games (which had a lot of apparently randomly generated
> dungeons).
>
>
> it is sad that I can't seem to pull off maps even half as interesting as
> those (generally created by hand) in commercial games from well over a
> decade ago. I can have a 3D engine which is technically much more advanced
> (or, at least, runs considerably slower on much faster hardware with
> moderately more features), but apart from reusing maps made by other people
> for other games, I can't make it even a small amount nearly as
> "interesting" or "inspiring".
>


I don't think you can do this project without a understanding of art. It's
a fine gridded mesh that make us pick between practically similar artifacts
with ease and that make the engineer baffled. From a engineering standpoint
there is not much difference between a random splash of paint and a
painting by Jackson Pollock. You can get far with surprisingly little
resources if done correctly.

Karl

>
>
>
>
>  On Jan 16, 2012, at 8:45 AM, David Barbour  wrote:
>
>   Consider offloading some of your creativity burden onto your computer.
> The idea is:
>
>It's easier to recognize and refine something interesting than to
> create it.
>
>  So turn it into a search, recognition, and refinement problem, and
> automate creation. There are various techniques, which certainly can be
> combined:

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[BGB]

On 1/16/2012 10:26 PM, Neu Xue wrote:

There are commercial "big boxes with some random crap in them" game worlds now 
and
have been since the 8-bit era.
The games that stood out by immersing us despite the limitations of technology 
were usually
the ones which were lovingly crafted.


very possibly.
"time and effort makes a good product"

quick and dirty makes a poor product, despite the availability of more 
advanced technologies.


like, many old games did fairly well even with few pixels to work with, 
and even a fairly high-resolution texture can still look terrible. say, 
a 512x512 canvas doesn't mean some quick-and-dirty passes with an 
airbrush and paint-can tool and throwing some emboss at it will look good.


with some time and practice though, it gets a little easier to start 
making artwork that looks more passable.



otherwise:
I was left idly imagining the possibility of using a good old scripting 
language (probably BGBScript in my case) to assist in building worlds. 
say, higher level API commands can be added to the mapper, so I can 
issue commands like "build a room here with these textures and 
dimensions" or "generate some terrain over there" as API calls or similar.


loops or functions could also generate things like stairs and similar, ...

then, it can partly be a process of writing scripts, invoking them in 
the mapper, and optionally saving out the results if it looks about like 
what was being hoping for (maybe followed by some amount of manual "fine 
tuning"...).


similarly, the commands would probably be usable from the console as 
well (as-is, BGBScript code can already be entered interactively at the 
console), in addition to the existing GUI-based mapping interface.


probably the underlying world structure would remain being built out of 
entities, convex polyhedrons ("brushes"), Bezier patches, and polygon 
meshes. (unlike some other ideas, this wouldn't drastically change how 
my engine works, or even require redesigning/recreating my tools...).



sorry if all this is a bother to anyone, being solidly not really about 
programming per-se...





From: BGB
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2012, 3:31
Subject: Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

8<

these would generally be created manually, by placing every object
and piece of geometry visible in the world, but this is fairly
effort-intensive, and simply running head first into it tends to
quickly drain my motivation (resulting in me producing worlds which
look like "big boxes with some random crap in them").

8<

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc



___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Graham Hughes]

Dwarf Fortress does a complete, fairly realistic, 3D world with history. It is 
surprisingly CPU intensive, but is (potentially) much finer grained than 
Minecraft; or perhaps it's that the world is so large. Worth looking into, but 
do note that Tarn Adams, lead developer, is probably crazy to have gone to all 
this effort.

-- 
Graham Hughes
http://www.sigwinch.org/Graham

On Jan 16, 2012, at 20:26, BGB  wrote:

> On 1/16/2012 8:36 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
>> 
>> I like minecraft's take on this.
>> 
>> Julian
>> 
> 
> in which particular way?...
> 
> 
> well, Minecraft is a fairly interesting game, and allows a lot of room for 
> people building stuff, ...
> 
> the downside is:
> how well does the technology work for considerably different gameplay styles? 
> (not based on mining and building)
> what about world voxel density?
> ...
> 
> for example, making voxels 1/2 the size would lead (very likely) to an 8x 
> memory-requirement increase, and 1/4 (250cm) could require 64x the memory.
> 
> a similarly sized world-space with a 1.5 inch (~ 3.75cm) voxel size would 
> require around 18963x as much memory.
> 
> 
> some people have tried "fundamentally different" ways of dealing with voxels 
> (namely "Sparse Voxel Octtrees" and ray-casting), but these in turn have 
> different tradeoffs (on current HW there are significant problems regarding 
> resolution and performance). I suspect it "may be a few years" before this 
> strategy really becomes practical.
> 
> a big issue though is that it probably still wont make creating of compelling 
> worlds all that much easier (so, probably a lot more random-generation and 
> similar, with its inherent pros and cons).
> 
> I guess it may ultimately be a bit of a "wait and see" thing.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> On 17/01/2012, at 2:31 PM, BGB wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1/16/2012 6:47 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
 
 Top post. Heightmapping can go a really long way. Probably not news 
 though:)
 
>>> 
>>> I am still not certain, since a lot of this has a lot more to do with my 
>>> own project than with general issues in computing.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I had messed with a few technologies already.
>>> 
>>> height-maps (long ago, not much used since then, generally randomized).
>>> 
>>> the issue was mostly one of being "not terribly interesting", but it makes 
>>> sense if one wants terrain (and is "fairly cheap" in terms of memory use 
>>> and performance impact).
>>> 
>>> a more advanced variety would be to combine a height-map with a tile-map, 
>>> where the terrain generator would also vary the texture-map to give a 
>>> little more interest. I have considered this as a possibility.
>>> 
>>> also tried randomly generated voxel terrain (similar to Minecraft, using 
>>> perlin noise). issues were of being difficult to integrate well with my 
>>> existing technology, and being very expensive in terms of both rendering 
>>> and memory usage (particularly for storing intermediate   
>>> meshes). one may need to devote about 500MB-1GB of RAM to the problem to 
>>> have a moderately sized world with (with similar specifics to those in 
>>> Minecraft).
>>> 
>>> I suspect that, apart from making something like Minecraft, the technology 
>>> is a bit too expensive and limited to really be all that "generally useful" 
>>> at this point in time and on current hardware (I suspect, however, it will 
>>> probably be much more relevant on future HW).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I also tried randomly generated grid-based areas (basically, stuff is built 
>>> from pre-made parts and randomly-chosen parts are put on a grid). I had 
>>> also tried combining this with maze-generation algorithms. the results were 
>>> "functional" but also "nothing to get excited about". the big drawback was 
>>> that I couldn't really think of any way to make the results of such a grid 
>>> based generator "particularly interesting" (this is I think more so with a 
>>> first-person viewpoint: such a structure is far less visually interesting 
>>> from the inside than with a top-down or isometric view).
>>> 
>>> it could work if one were sufficiently desperate, but I doubt it would be 
>>> able to hold interest of players for all that long absent "something else 
>>> of redeeming value".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> the "main maps" in my case mostly use a Quake/Doom3/... style maps, 
>>> composed mostly of entities (defined in terms of collections of key/value 
>>> pairs representing a given object), "brushes" (convex polyhedra), "patches" 
>>> (Bezier Surfaces), and "meshes" (mostly unstructured polygonal meshes).
>>> 
>>> these would generally be created manually, by placing every object and 
>>> piece of geometry visible in the world, but this is fairly 
>>> effort-intensive, and simply running head first into it tends to quickly 
>>> drain my motivation (resulting in me producing worlds which look like "big 
>>> boxes with some random crap in them").
>>> 
>>> sadly, random generation not on a grid of some sort is a much more c

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[David Barbour]

You seem to be ignoring the search, recognition, and refinement aspects.
You need some way to tell the computer what is interesting so you can
refine those portions (reducing variation, tweaking constraints or
parameters or other code, selecting `preferred` samples on a grid as a
human fitness function for genetic algorithms, etc.) while continuing to
search on the other aspects. Think of this as a collaborative effort
between computer and human, where you're reducing the burden of
hand-crafting the world but not taking yourself out of the picture
entirely.

The wonderful, interesting vistas created by POV-Ray are not created by
randomly seeding a world, but are also not created by hand-crafting the
maps. Why should you expect different for creating deep, inspired 3D worlds?

Regards,

Dave

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:31 PM, BGB  wrote:

> the "problem domain" is potentially best suited to some sort of maze
> algorithm, but in my own tests, this fairly quickly stopped being all that
> interesting. the "upper end" I think for this sort of thing was likely the
> .Hack series games (which had a lot of apparently randomly generated
> dungeons).
>

> it is sad that I can't seem to pull off maps even half as interesting as
> those (generally created by hand) in commercial games from well over a
> decade ago. I can have a 3D engine which is technically much more advanced
> (or, at least, runs considerably slower on much faster hardware with
> moderately more features), but apart from reusing maps made by other people
> for other games, I can't make it even a small amount nearly as
> "interesting" or "inspiring".
>
>
>  On Jan 16, 2012, at 8:45 AM, David Barbour  wrote:
>
>   Consider offloading some of your creativity burden onto your computer.
> The idea is:
>
>It's easier to recognize and refine something interesting than to
> create it.
>
>  So turn it into a search, recognition, and refinement problem, and
> automate creation. There are various techniques, which certainly can be
> combined:
>
>  * constraint programming
> * generative grammar programming
>  * genetic programming
>  * seeded fractals
>
>  You might be surprised about how much of a world can be easily written
> with code rather than mapping. A map can be simplified by marking regions
> up with code and using libraries of procedures. Code can sometimes be
> simplified by having it read a simple map or image.
>
>  Remember, the basic role of programming is to automate that which bores
> you.
>
>  Regards,
>
>  Dave
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, BGB  wrote:
>
>> I am generally personally stuck on the issue of how to make "interesting"
>> 3D worlds for a game-style project while lacking in both personal
>> creativity and either artistic skill or a team of artists to do it
>> (creating decent-looking 3D worlds generally requires a fair amount of
>> effort, and is in-fact I suspect somewhat bigger than the effort required
>> to make a "passable" 3D model of an object in a 3D modeling app, since at
>> least generally the model is smaller and well-defined).
>>
>> it seems some that creativity (or what little of it exists) is stifled by
>> it requiring a large amount of effort (all at once) for the activity needed
>> to express said creativity (vs things which are either easy to do all at
>> once, or can be easily decomposed into lots of incremental activities
>> spread over a large period of time).
>>
>> trying to build a non-trivial scene (something which would be "passable"
>> in a modern 3D game) at the level of dragging around and
>> placing/resizing/... cubes and/or messing with individual polygon-faces in
>> a mapper-tool is sort of a motivation killer (one can wish for some sort of
>> "higher level" way to express the scene).
>>
>> meanwhile, writing code, despite (in the grand scale) requiring far more
>> time and effort, seems to be a lot more enjoyable (but, one can't really
>> build a world in code, as this is more the mapper-tool's domain).
>>
>
>___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing listfonc@vpri.orghttp://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Neu Xue]

There are commercial "big boxes with some random crap in them" game worlds now 
and
have been since the 8-bit era.
The games that stood out by immersing us despite the limitations of technology 
were usually
the ones which were lovingly crafted.

>
> From: BGB 
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing  
>Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2012, 3:31
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds
8<
>these would generally be created manually, by placing every object
> and piece of geometry visible in the world, but this is fairly
> effort-intensive, and simply running head first into it tends to
> quickly drain my motivation (resulting in me producing worlds which
> look like "big boxes with some random crap in them").
8<

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Julian Leviston]

The original topic was about getting the computer to create 3d worlds. That was 
what I was referring to when I said I like minecraft's taken on it. They use a 
seed to generate the world.

Julian

On 17/01/2012, at 3:26 PM, BGB wrote:

> On 1/16/2012 8:36 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
>> 
>> I like minecraft's take on this.
>> 
>> Julian
>> 
> 
> in which particular way?...
> 
> 
> well, Minecraft is a fairly interesting game, and allows a lot of room for 
> people building stuff, ...
> 
> the downside is:
> how well does the technology work for considerably different gameplay styles? 
> (not based on mining and building)
> what about world voxel density?
> ...
> 
> for example, making voxels 1/2 the size would lead (very likely) to an 8x 
> memory-requirement increase, and 1/4 (250cm) could require 64x the memory.
> 
> a similarly sized world-space with a 1.5 inch (~ 3.75cm) voxel size would 
> require around 18963x as much memory.
> 
> 
> some people have tried "fundamentally different" ways of dealing with voxels 
> (namely "Sparse Voxel Octtrees" and ray-casting), but these in turn have 
> different tradeoffs (on current HW there are significant problems regarding 
> resolution and performance). I suspect it "may be a few years" before this 
> strategy really becomes practical.
> 
> a big issue though is that it probably still wont make creating of compelling 
> worlds all that much easier (so, probably a lot more random-generation and 
> similar, with its inherent pros and cons).
> 
> I guess it may ultimately be a bit of a "wait and see" thing.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> On 17/01/2012, at 2:31 PM, BGB wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1/16/2012 6:47 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
 
 Top post. Heightmapping can go a really long way. Probably not news 
 though:)
 
>>> 
>>> I am still not certain, since a lot of this has a lot more to do with my 
>>> own project than with general issues in computing.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I had messed with a few technologies already.
>>> 
>>> height-maps (long ago, not much used since then, generally randomized).
>>> 
>>> the issue was mostly one of being "not terribly interesting", but it makes 
>>> sense if one wants terrain (and is "fairly cheap" in terms of memory use 
>>> and performance impact).
>>> 
>>> a more advanced variety would be to combine a height-map with a tile-map, 
>>> where the terrain generator would also vary the texture-map to give a 
>>> little more interest. I have considered this as a possibility.
>>> 
>>> also tried randomly generated voxel terrain (similar to Minecraft, using 
>>> perlin noise). issues were of being difficult to integrate well with my 
>>> existing technology, and being very expensive in terms of both rendering 
>>> and memory usage (particularly for storing intermediate meshes). one may 
>>> need to devote about 500MB-1GB of RAM to the problem to have a moderately 
>>> sized world with (with similar specifics to those in Minecraft).
>>> 
>>> I suspect that, apart from making something like Minecraft, the technology 
>>> is a bit too expensive and limited to really be all that "generally useful" 
>>> at this point in time and on current hardware (I suspect, however, it will 
>>> probably be much more relevant on future HW).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I also tried randomly generated grid-based areas (basically, stuff is built 
>>> from pre-made parts and randomly-chosen parts are put on a grid). I had 
>>> also tried combining this with maze-generation algorithms. the results were 
>>> "functional" but also "nothing to get excited about". the big drawback was 
>>> that I couldn't really think of any way to make the results of such a grid 
>>> based generator "particularly interesting" (this is I think more so with a 
>>> first-person viewpoint: such a structure is far less visually interesting 
>>> from the inside than with a top-down or isometric view).
>>> 
>>> it could work if one were sufficiently desperate, but I doubt it would be 
>>> able to hold interest of players for all that long absent "something else 
>>> of redeeming value".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> the "main maps" in my case mostly use a Quake/Doom3/... style maps, 
>>> composed mostly of entities (defined in terms of collections of key/value 
>>> pairs representing a given object), "brushes" (convex polyhedra), "patches" 
>>> (Bezier Surfaces), and "meshes" (mostly unstructured polygonal meshes).
>>> 
>>> these would generally be created manually, by placing every object and 
>>> piece of geometry visible in the world, but this is fairly 
>>> effort-intensive, and simply running head first into it tends to quickly 
>>> drain my motivation (resulting in me producing worlds which look like "big 
>>> boxes with some random crap in them").
>>> 
>>> sadly, random generation not on a grid of some sort is a much more complex 
>>> problem (nor random generation directly in terms of unstructured or 
>>> loosely-structured geometry).
>>> 
>>> fractals exist and work well on things like rocks or trees or terrain, but 

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[BGB]

On 1/16/2012 8:36 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:

I like minecraft's take on this.

Julian



in which particular way?...


well, Minecraft is a fairly interesting game, and allows a lot of room 
for people building stuff, ...


the downside is:
how well does the technology work for considerably different gameplay 
styles? (not based on mining and building)

what about world voxel density?
...

for example, making voxels 1/2 the size would lead (very likely) to an 
8x memory-requirement increase, and 1/4 (250cm) could require 64x the 
memory.


a similarly sized world-space with a 1.5 inch (~ 3.75cm) voxel size 
would require around 18963x as much memory.



some people have tried "fundamentally different" ways of dealing with 
voxels (namely "Sparse Voxel Octtrees" and ray-casting), but these in 
turn have different tradeoffs (on current HW there are significant 
problems regarding resolution and performance). I suspect it "may be a 
few years" before this strategy really becomes practical.


a big issue though is that it probably still wont make creating of 
compelling worlds all that much easier (so, probably a lot more 
random-generation and similar, with its inherent pros and cons).


I guess it may ultimately be a bit of a "wait and see" thing.





On 17/01/2012, at 2:31 PM, BGB wrote:


On 1/16/2012 6:47 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
Top post. Heightmapping can go a really long way. Probably not news 
though:)




I am still not certain, since a lot of this has a lot more to do with 
my own project than with general issues in computing.



I had messed with a few technologies already.

height-maps (long ago, not much used since then, generally randomized).

the issue was mostly one of being "not terribly interesting", but it 
makes sense if one wants terrain (and is "fairly cheap" in terms of 
memory use and performance impact).


a more advanced variety would be to combine a height-map with a 
tile-map, where the terrain generator would also vary the texture-map 
to give a little more interest. I have considered this as a possibility.


also tried randomly generated voxel terrain (similar to Minecraft, 
using perlin noise). issues were of being difficult to integrate well 
with my existing technology, and being very expensive in terms of 
both rendering and memory usage (particularly for storing 
intermediate meshes). one may need to devote about 500MB-1GB of RAM 
to the problem to have a moderately sized world with (with similar 
specifics to those in Minecraft).


I suspect that, apart from making something like Minecraft, the 
technology is a bit too expensive and limited to really be all that 
"generally useful" at this point in time and on current hardware (I 
suspect, however, it will probably be much more relevant on future HW).



I also tried randomly generated grid-based areas (basically, stuff is 
built from pre-made parts and randomly-chosen parts are put on a 
grid). I had also tried combining this with maze-generation 
algorithms. the results were "functional" but also "nothing to get 
excited about". the big drawback was that I couldn't really think of 
any way to make the results of such a grid based generator 
"particularly interesting" (this is I think more so with a 
first-person viewpoint: such a structure is far less visually 
interesting from the inside than with a top-down or isometric view).


it could work if one were sufficiently desperate, but I doubt it 
would be able to hold interest of players for all that long absent 
"something else of redeeming value".



the "main maps" in my case mostly use a Quake/Doom3/... style maps, 
composed mostly of entities (defined in terms of collections of 
key/value pairs representing a given object), "brushes" (convex 
polyhedra), "patches" (Bezier Surfaces), and "meshes" (mostly 
unstructured polygonal meshes).


these would generally be created manually, by placing every object 
and piece of geometry visible in the world, but this is fairly 
effort-intensive, and simply running head first into it tends to 
quickly drain my motivation (resulting in me producing worlds which 
look like "big boxes with some random crap in them").


sadly, random generation not on a grid of some sort is a much more 
complex problem (nor random generation directly in terms of 
unstructured or loosely-structured geometry).


fractals exist and work well on things like rocks or trees or 
terrain, but I haven't found a good way to apply them to "general" 
map generation problem (such as generating an interesting place to 
run around in and battle enemies, and get to the exit).


the "problem domain" is potentially best suited to some sort of maze 
algorithm, but in my own tests, this fairly quickly stopped being all 
that interesting. the "upper end" I think for this sort of thing was 
likely the .Hack series games (which had a lot of apparently randomly 
generated dungeons).



it is sad that I can't seem to pull off maps even half as interesting 
as those (ge

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Julian Leviston]

I like minecraft's take on this.

Julian


On 17/01/2012, at 2:31 PM, BGB wrote:

> On 1/16/2012 6:47 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>> 
>> Top post. Heightmapping can go a really long way. Probably not news though:)
>> 
> 
> I am still not certain, since a lot of this has a lot more to do with my own 
> project than with general issues in computing.
> 
> 
> I had messed with a few technologies already.
> 
> height-maps (long ago, not much used since then, generally randomized).
> 
> the issue was mostly one of being "not terribly interesting", but it makes 
> sense if one wants terrain (and is "fairly cheap" in terms of memory use and 
> performance impact).
> 
> a more advanced variety would be to combine a height-map with a tile-map, 
> where the terrain generator would also vary the texture-map to give a little 
> more interest. I have considered this as a possibility.
> 
> also tried randomly generated voxel terrain (similar to Minecraft, using 
> perlin noise). issues were of being difficult to integrate well with my 
> existing technology, and being very expensive in terms of both rendering and 
> memory usage (particularly for storing intermediate meshes). one may need to 
> devote about 500MB-1GB of RAM to the problem to have a moderately sized world 
> with (with similar specifics to those in Minecraft).
> 
> I suspect that, apart from making something like Minecraft, the technology is 
> a bit too expensive and limited to really be all that "generally useful" at 
> this point in time and on current hardware (I suspect, however, it will 
> probably be much more relevant on future HW).
> 
> 
> I also tried randomly generated grid-based areas (basically, stuff is built 
> from pre-made parts and randomly-chosen parts are put on a grid). I had also 
> tried combining this with maze-generation algorithms. the results were 
> "functional" but also "nothing to get excited about". the big drawback was 
> that I couldn't really think of any way to make the results of such a grid 
> based generator "particularly interesting" (this is I think more so with a 
> first-person viewpoint: such a structure is far less visually interesting 
> from the inside than with a top-down or isometric view).
> 
> it could work if one were sufficiently desperate, but I doubt it would be 
> able to hold interest of players for all that long absent "something else of 
> redeeming value".
> 
> 
> the "main maps" in my case mostly use a Quake/Doom3/... style maps, composed 
> mostly of entities (defined in terms of collections of key/value pairs 
> representing a given object), "brushes" (convex polyhedra), "patches" (Bezier 
> Surfaces), and "meshes" (mostly unstructured polygonal meshes).
> 
> these would generally be created manually, by placing every object and piece 
> of geometry visible in the world, but this is fairly effort-intensive, and 
> simply running head first into it tends to quickly drain my motivation 
> (resulting in me producing worlds which look like "big boxes with some random 
> crap in them").
> 
> sadly, random generation not on a grid of some sort is a much more complex 
> problem (nor random generation directly in terms of unstructured or 
> loosely-structured geometry).
> 
> fractals exist and work well on things like rocks or trees or terrain, but I 
> haven't found a good way to apply them to "general" map generation problem 
> (such as generating an interesting place to run around in and battle enemies, 
> and get to the exit).
> 
> the "problem domain" is potentially best suited to some sort of maze 
> algorithm, but in my own tests, this fairly quickly stopped being all that 
> interesting. the "upper end" I think for this sort of thing was likely the 
> .Hack series games (which had a lot of apparently randomly generated 
> dungeons).
> 
> 
> it is sad that I can't seem to pull off maps even half as interesting as 
> those (generally created by hand) in commercial games from well over a decade 
> ago. I can have a 3D engine which is technically much more advanced (or, at 
> least, runs considerably slower on much faster hardware with moderately more 
> features), but apart from reusing maps made by other people for other games, 
> I can't make it even a small amount nearly as "interesting" or "inspiring".
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 8:45 AM, David Barbour  wrote:
>> 
>>> Consider offloading some of your creativity burden onto your computer. The 
>>> idea is:
>>> 
>>>   It's easier to recognize and refine something interesting than to create 
>>> it.
>>> 
>>> So turn it into a search, recognition, and refinement problem, and automate 
>>> creation. There are various techniques, which certainly can be combined:
>>> 
>>> * constraint programming
>>> * generative grammar programming
>>> * genetic programming
>>> * seeded fractals
>>> 
>>> You might be surprised about how much of a world can be easily written with 
>>> code rather than mapping. A map can be simplified by marking regions up 
>>> wi

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[BGB]

On 1/16/2012 6:47 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
Top post. Heightmapping can go a really long way. Probably not news 
though:)




I am still not certain, since a lot of this has a lot more to do with my 
own project than with general issues in computing.



I had messed with a few technologies already.

height-maps (long ago, not much used since then, generally randomized).

the issue was mostly one of being "not terribly interesting", but it 
makes sense if one wants terrain (and is "fairly cheap" in terms of 
memory use and performance impact).


a more advanced variety would be to combine a height-map with a 
tile-map, where the terrain generator would also vary the texture-map to 
give a little more interest. I have considered this as a possibility.


also tried randomly generated voxel terrain (similar to Minecraft, using 
perlin noise). issues were of being difficult to integrate well with my 
existing technology, and being very expensive in terms of both rendering 
and memory usage (particularly for storing intermediate meshes). one may 
need to devote about 500MB-1GB of RAM to the problem to have a 
moderately sized world with (with similar specifics to those in Minecraft).


I suspect that, apart from making something like Minecraft, the 
technology is a bit too expensive and limited to really be all that 
"generally useful" at this point in time and on current hardware (I 
suspect, however, it will probably be much more relevant on future HW).



I also tried randomly generated grid-based areas (basically, stuff is 
built from pre-made parts and randomly-chosen parts are put on a grid). 
I had also tried combining this with maze-generation algorithms. the 
results were "functional" but also "nothing to get excited about". the 
big drawback was that I couldn't really think of any way to make the 
results of such a grid based generator "particularly interesting" (this 
is I think more so with a first-person viewpoint: such a structure is 
far less visually interesting from the inside than with a top-down or 
isometric view).


it could work if one were sufficiently desperate, but I doubt it would 
be able to hold interest of players for all that long absent "something 
else of redeeming value".



the "main maps" in my case mostly use a Quake/Doom3/... style maps, 
composed mostly of entities (defined in terms of collections of 
key/value pairs representing a given object), "brushes" (convex 
polyhedra), "patches" (Bezier Surfaces), and "meshes" (mostly 
unstructured polygonal meshes).


these would generally be created manually, by placing every object and 
piece of geometry visible in the world, but this is fairly 
effort-intensive, and simply running head first into it tends to quickly 
drain my motivation (resulting in me producing worlds which look like 
"big boxes with some random crap in them").


sadly, random generation not on a grid of some sort is a much more 
complex problem (nor random generation directly in terms of unstructured 
or loosely-structured geometry).


fractals exist and work well on things like rocks or trees or terrain, 
but I haven't found a good way to apply them to "general" map generation 
problem (such as generating an interesting place to run around in and 
battle enemies, and get to the exit).


the "problem domain" is potentially best suited to some sort of maze 
algorithm, but in my own tests, this fairly quickly stopped being all 
that interesting. the "upper end" I think for this sort of thing was 
likely the .Hack series games (which had a lot of apparently randomly 
generated dungeons).



it is sad that I can't seem to pull off maps even half as interesting as 
those (generally created by hand) in commercial games from well over a 
decade ago. I can have a 3D engine which is technically much more 
advanced (or, at least, runs considerably slower on much faster hardware 
with moderately more features), but apart from reusing maps made by 
other people for other games, I can't make it even a small amount nearly 
as "interesting" or "inspiring".




On Jan 16, 2012, at 8:45 AM, David Barbour > wrote:


Consider offloading some of your creativity burden onto your 
computer. The idea is:


  It's easier to recognize and refine something interesting than to 
create it.


So turn it into a search, recognition, and refinement problem, and 
automate creation. There are various techniques, which certainly can 
be combined:


* constraint programming
* generative grammar programming
* genetic programming
* seeded fractals

You might be surprised about how much of a world can be easily 
written with code rather than mapping. A map can be simplified by 
marking regions up with code and using libraries of procedures. Code 
can sometimes be simplified by having it read a simple map or image.


Remember, the basic role of programming is to automate that which 
bores you.


Regards,

Dave


On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, BGB 

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

[Casey Ransberger]

Top post. Heightmapping can go a really long way. Probably not news though:)

On Jan 16, 2012, at 8:45 AM, David Barbour  wrote:

> Consider offloading some of your creativity burden onto your computer. The 
> idea is:
> 
>   It's easier to recognize and refine something interesting than to create it.
> 
> So turn it into a search, recognition, and refinement problem, and automate 
> creation. There are various techniques, which certainly can be combined:
> 
> * constraint programming
> * generative grammar programming
> * genetic programming
> * seeded fractals
> 
> You might be surprised about how much of a world can be easily written with 
> code rather than mapping. A map can be simplified by marking regions up with 
> code and using libraries of procedures. Code can sometimes be simplified by 
> having it read a simple map or image.
> 
> Remember, the basic role of programming is to automate that which bores you.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, BGB  wrote:
> I am generally personally stuck on the issue of how to make "interesting" 3D 
> worlds for a game-style project while lacking in both personal creativity and 
> either artistic skill or a team of artists to do it (creating decent-looking 
> 3D worlds generally requires a fair amount of effort, and is in-fact I 
> suspect somewhat bigger than the effort required to make a "passable" 3D 
> model of an object in a 3D modeling app, since at least generally the model 
> is smaller and well-defined).
> 
> it seems some that creativity (or what little of it exists) is stifled by it 
> requiring a large amount of effort (all at once) for the activity needed to 
> express said creativity (vs things which are either easy to do all at once, 
> or can be easily decomposed into lots of incremental activities spread over a 
> large period of time).
> 
> trying to build a non-trivial scene (something which would be "passable" in a 
> modern 3D game) at the level of dragging around and placing/resizing/... 
> cubes and/or messing with individual polygon-faces in a mapper-tool is sort 
> of a motivation killer (one can wish for some sort of "higher level" way to 
> express the scene).
> 
> meanwhile, writing code, despite (in the grand scale) requiring far more time 
> and effort, seems to be a lot more enjoyable (but, one can't really build a 
> world in code, as this is more the mapper-tool's domain).
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc