On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, karl ramberg <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing [email protected]http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
