[HN Gopher] My Room in 3D
___________________________________________________________________
My Room in 3D
Author : dkthehuman
Score : 644 points
Date : 2021-09-11 22:25 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (my-room-in-3d.vercel.app)
(TXT) w3m dump (my-room-in-3d.vercel.app)
| codetrotter wrote:
| Are those PHP elephants on the bookshelf? :D
| frabjoused wrote:
| More fascinating is his website. https://bruno-simon.com/
| Yenrabbit wrote:
| His course looks fantastic!
| sgt wrote:
| Does this export to VRML? I am joking of course, but it would be
| cool to have an easy way for people to start building 3d models
| using an open web technology without coding. Any ideas?
| johnvega wrote:
| Not as elaborate also created in three.js
|
| https://3d.delavega.us
| ctrlp wrote:
| Your TV is as big as your couch.
| sva_ wrote:
| I like your Monstera plant.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| This reminds me of trying to make a game and realizing that game
| dev is mostly not about programming. The most impressive part of
| this scene is how beautiful the assets are and how well the
| lighting has been configured.
|
| If I worked with three.Js you'd get some spheres and a cube!
| Lamad123 wrote:
| So the dog and Octopus have beds but the sapiens doesn't!
| [deleted]
| agys wrote:
| That's a lot of keyboards!
| 1f60c wrote:
| Pretty cool! But where do you sleep?
| goldwind1111 wrote:
| Really admirable, that is for sure. I am excited.
| tmilard wrote:
| Same with photos ... ( Refresh page twice)
|
| 1) Graffities : https://free-visit.net/fr/demo01
|
| 2) My kitchen : https://free-visit.net/fr/demo01/demo02
| canada_dry wrote:
| I'd like to know more about free-visit.net's "magical" 3D
| editor... sounds interesting, but the links are coming up 404.
| tmilard wrote:
| Here you go ! https://youtu.be/vOUHobV-G9I
| canada_dry wrote:
| Nice teaser. Where's the software?!
| tmilard wrote:
| Not yet public. I sell service around the software : I
| build the places in 3D myself.
| atum47 wrote:
| Looks really good. I was thinking about doing something similar
| for my house, but using my 3d engine and a first person camera,
| so people could walk around. What is the polycount for this
| scene? Looks really smooth
| stjo wrote:
| Although libraries like threejs (or softwares like blender) give
| you so many tools and knobs to play around, I cannot for the life
| of me make a scene look so great. The lighting, the composition,
| the textures, the even level of detail...
|
| I would recommend everyone try it out for themselves to see what
| I'm talking about. No matter how much you try, there is always
| something too dark or light. Always something that looks like
| made from minecraft blocks and something too detailed for those 2
| objects to be from the same universe. Animations are either too
| stiff or move like jelly blobs.
|
| How is this so perfect?! I just can't comprehend how do 3d
| artist's brains work.
| xupybd wrote:
| I suggest watching the Youtube playlist below. It's insane how
| much work went into this. He paid attention to every detail.
| Jasper_ wrote:
| First off, it's art. You need to stop thinking like a
| programmer and think more like an artist. That means thinking
| about colors and lighting, tones and hues and highlights and
| shadows. If you're unfamiliar with these things, that's fine,
| you can find plenty of training material and courses online. It
| takes time, because it's a skill that requires training and
| practice and self-discovery.
|
| Second, lighting is a careful balance, but in general, the
| simpler the rig, the better. Pull an IBL HDR map from
| somewhere, use a single directional light, and let the bounce
| lighting do the main work here. Outdoors looks gorgeous and
| that's a single directional light, and a ton of bounce. And
| that's the same thing providing the light in this room scene as
| well.
|
| Third, learn the tricks and technologies. Learn about
| lightmapping, about shadow mapping, about the different shader
| tricks, about why real-time transparency is hard. Yes,
| libraries like Three.JS can abstract over some of this, but
| some fundamentals in the tech can help you focus on the things
| that will work, and the things that don't. Simon Schreibt has
| some excellent guides and tutorials that are artist-focused
| about tech art.
|
| The lightning here isn't realtime: just a bunch of baked
| lightmaps fading in and out. Not even SH probes!
| hyferg wrote:
| It can be both art and programming! Here's a paper showing
| how programmers work with artists to develop the classic TF2
| half lambert [0]. This shader also makes use of an efficient
| method for representing diffuse environmental contributions
| using low order contributions on a spherical harmonic basis
| which is similar to techniques from quantum mechanics [1].
|
| [0] https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/apps/valve/2007/NPAR07_Il
| lus...
|
| [1] https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ravir/papers/envmap/envmap.pdf
| Jasper_ wrote:
| You read the paper wrong. They use a 6-face ambient cube
| _instead_ of the SH9 term. I guess the SH9 term was
| somewhat expensive in 2007, but it 's now pretty standard
| for representing ambient diffuse light, and has much better
| results than the ambient cube. For more on that, see this
| slide deck: https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/apps/valve/2006
| /SIGGRAPH06_C...
|
| But yes, understanding some physical basis for lighting is
| helpful even for non-photo-realistic rendering.
| goldwind1111 wrote:
| damn, I haven't played Team Fortress in so long lol. This
| is a cool thread, I'm going to have to Bookmark this so I
| can always come back to it for foundational inspiration and
| as a reference key for doing artwork.
| peignoir wrote:
| I agree it takes time! But would be amazing if the author(s)
| could make a tutorial / step by step on how they did it. I
| would def pay for that info / tutorial
| pgeorgi wrote:
| When you look at the laptop on the desk, the editing
| process of the scene is shown there. Nice touch :-)
| karimf wrote:
| Here's a course by the creator of the post:
| https://threejs-journey.xyz/
| nine_k wrote:
| Just a nit: the lighting outside is not a single directional
| source, unless you're in the Moon.
|
| There is sun, which is slightly yellowish (or orange to red
| at sunset), and there is sky light which is obviously bluish.
| Sun is directional, sky light is not. Sun is a light source
| far away, but sky is a light source _all around_ the scene.
|
| The rest, well, can be done with a lot of bouncing,
| refraction, diffusion subsurface scattering, etc.
| bnegreve wrote:
| > There is sun, which is slightly yellowish
|
| The sun light is white during the day, otherwise, anything
| white would appear yellow.
| gmueckl wrote:
| No, the white color of the sunlight is an illusion. It
| actually is yellowish, but our vision adjusts for that.
| We basically have a kind of adaptive white balance. The
| spectral intensity is mostly that of blackbody radiation,
| which peaks in the yellow part of the spectrum for our
| sun.
| pineaux wrote:
| I dont think this is true. direct sunlight can be many
| shades of white. It differs in the morning and the
| evening and it is mostly yellow. The yellowness of the
| sunshine is a direct result of raleigh scattering and
| other atmospheric effects.the blue part of the spectrum
| that comes from the sun is scattered by the sky, making
| the sky blue. Taking away the blue makes the nonscattered
| sunlight yellowish. On photos of the moon, you see the
| true color of sunlight. Which is a pure white.
| gmueckl wrote:
| The fundamental yellowness of sunlight is not Rayleigh
| scattering, but the sun's natural black body spectrum.
| See my reply to the sibling comment.
| nine_k wrote:
| There is another catch. Sun's surface is about 6000K. A
| light with such color temperature would be considered
| bluish by most people if they looked directly at a lamp
| with such a spectrum. Rayleigh scattering lowers it to
| 5600-5800K at noon time, but still most humans would call
| a moderately bright lamp of this color "bluish".
|
| The eye has a built-in white balance correction, and it
| moves the white point towards longer waves as the
| brightness lowers. This is why a single 5600K lamp in a
| room makes bluish light, while 10 of the same lamps make
| it lit by bright white. Same, a single 2500K lamp in a
| room makes a calming sort-of-white light. but 10 such
| lamps make a unmistakably yellow light.
|
| The sunlight outside at a cloudless summer noon is _very_
| bright (one usually even wants to wear sunglasses), so
| the sun looks white or yellowish, especially in contrast
| to the blue sky.
| bnegreve wrote:
| Of course there are different shades of white, what I am
| saying is that the color of the sun during the day is
| what people most would classify as "white" and not as
| "yellow" if it the color was printed on a sheet of paper.
|
| If the sun color was actually yellow, people wouldn't be
| able to tell the difference between a white object and
| yellow object under the sun light (they would both appear
| yellow). And clearly they are.
|
| On the other hand a white object doesn't get any "whiter"
| under another kind of light than it appears under direct
| sun light, this again is because the sun light is white,
| and not yellow.
|
| Of course there is some subjectivity here, but it is a
| misconception to call the sun light yellow. For example,
| this "bright sun" RGB [1] color, is clearly not the color
| of direct sun light. Hopefully, you will agree with this.
|
| [1] https://www.colorcombos.com/colors/FCD440
| nine_k wrote:
| Sunlight is wide-band (see "black body spectrum"). This
| is why a white object (that reflects all light equally)
| and a yellow object (which mostly reflects reds and
| greens) are discernible under such light, even under
| sunset light which is visibly yellow or orange. The
| sunset orange light still contains many other colors.
|
| A yellow object and a white object would be not
| discernible under a very narrow-band yellow light, or a
| mix of two narrow-band red and green lights of right
| proportions. This is how LEDs and lasers emit light, but
| totally unlike hot objects (like Sun) or fluorescent
| lamps (like "natural light" LED lamps) emit light.
| dandellion wrote:
| The sun is actually white. The yellow tint is due to
| Rayleigh Scattering in the atmosphere. When the sun is
| high in the sky there's less scattering and it appears
| whiter, when it's low there's more scattering and appears
| yellow/orange. Here's a better explanation:
| https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47694/why-is-
| the...
| gmueckl wrote:
| This is just wrong. The surgace of the sun is around
| 5700K and rhe emitted light follows the back body
| spectrum for that temperature. And that has a massive
| yellow peak. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eff
| ectiveTemperature_30... for the data. This is measured
| outside the Earth's atmosphere. Rayleigh scattering does
| come into play, but it is way less important.
|
| As I said, human vision has a kind of adaptive white
| balance that cancels out peaks like this to some extent.
| It also does that for artificial light sources with
| uneven spectra (neon light, blueish white LED lights...).
| [Side note: this is also the reason why cameras have
| adjustable white balance. A picture taken by a neutral
| sensor under some artificial lights is perfectly correct,
| but looks color tinted and wrong to the human eye
| afterwards, because the eye under the same conditions has
| a shifted white point.]
|
| Why is this important? If you set up a light source in a
| renderer, you often get a pretty naive equal energy white
| as a default, which is simply not what you need for
| sunlight, even at noon under a clear sky.
| bjelkeman-again wrote:
| You see how the brain does white balancing quite clearly
| when working with LED lights optimised for salad, for
| example. The light has very little green in it and looks
| nearly pink. After a few minutes it looks less pink and
| nearly normal (depending on the lamps). Then go outside
| in daylight and everything suddenly look green, which
| takes a minute to go back to normal. The brain adds the
| green it perceives to be missing, and removes it again
| when it isn't needed.
| nine_k wrote:
| An even easier example is the typical home light which is
| very peach-tinted (at 2500K), as seen from outside/ But
| inside the light feels entirely normal white after a very
| short time.
| Jasper_ wrote:
| The blue light of the sky is technically the result of
| Rayleigh scattering of the sun through the atmosphere,
| which can be emulated (and often is these days! [0]), but
| fair; it's often cheaper and easier for an artist to model
| them separately. I was going for a classic physics
| demonstration to point out how simple sources can often
| result in beauty.
|
| [0] The classic is Naty Hoffman's 2002 work on atmospheric
| scattering http://developer.amd.com/wordpress/media/2012/10
| /GDC_02_Hoff... , but it has been developed over the years,
| e.g. Sebastian Hillaire's work on both Frostbite https://me
| dia.contentapi.ea.com/content/dam/eacom/frostbite/... and
| Unreal Engine
| https://blog.selfshadow.com/publications/s2020-shading-
| cours...
| nine_k wrote:
| While technically true, this is not how most 3D animation
| software models light -- even if it (roughly) models
| Rayleigh scattering in solids, like opal or ground glass.
|
| In all realistic rendering software, skylight and sun (or
| other celestial bodies, like Moon) are modeled as
| separate sources of light, with different light
| characteristics.
| Agentlien wrote:
| I do agree with this. I just want to add that the "thinking
| like an artist" doesn't have to be as intimidating as it may
| sound.
|
| I don't really do any visual art outside of graphics
| programing, I don't see myself as an artist, I'm very much
| not a visual thinker, and my deuteranomaly does make some
| aspects of my work harder at times.
|
| Besides all that I've found I can do a good job and get some
| really nice looking results just by focusing on an
| understanding of the underlying equations and common tricks
| like mentioned above.
| janci wrote:
| I've had the exact same problem when I was designing (trying
| to) websites. It's the same but 2D and simpler. I was feeling
| the result is fine but quite not right. Compared to "real"
| website made by professional, my design was clearly inferior
| but I could not fanthom why exactly.
|
| Only later I discovered it was the font size few pts smaller,
| the padding 1 pixel larger, the color little bit less
| contrasting, the 1px additional light border on top of dark
| border, the shadow a bit more blurry and million subtle things
| you can get right and balanced only with experience.
| 127 wrote:
| He recorded the entire process on Twitch. You're seeing the end
| result: the forest. When you're seeing how each tree is built
| one step a time it all seems a lot less magical.
|
| It's just a lot of work. A lot more people (on average seem to)
| think it is.
| djmips wrote:
| repost from elsewhere in comments. A lot of that seems to be
| captured here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm7fdd8TD7Y&li
| st=PL5nApUt6Z8...
| dylan604 wrote:
| Did you leave out a "than a lot more", or are you saying too
| many people think it is more work than it is?
| 127 wrote:
| In my experience people inexperienced with the process
| think 3D requires about 10x less work than it actually
| does.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| It takes x^3 more work!
| dylan604 wrote:
| That's common to all things. Can't you just make changes
| to the app? Can't you just port the app to X? Can't you
| just build me this bookshelf? Can't you just fix the
| dishwasher?
|
| Can't you just... means they have no fucking clue.
| abnercoimbre wrote:
| Yes I'd love some clarification, I kind of lost the true
| meaning of that last sentence.
| errantspark wrote:
| Don't be daunted, it just takes time. You'll get faster at it
| with practice, but the first step is simply brute force, or at
| least it was for me. Take a picture of something simple,
| recreate it in 3D with exacting detail. When something doesn't
| match you drill down, find the optical phenomenon that you
| weren't modeling correctly, and fix it.
|
| That's it. There's no shortcut to being good at this stuff, you
| just have to learn how the real world works and make sure that
| when you're simulating it in the computer you're using
| physically correct numbers for everything. Relentlessly
| comparing what you're doing to photographs is the only way to
| truly master the skill. It's a lot easier to take a step back
| and do stylized realism once you can nail the real thing.
|
| That being said this is fantastically executed. I'm especially
| loving the ability to mix the baked GI live, it's a great
| effect for static scenes like this.
|
| P.S. Ok I probably lied when I said there are no shortcuts.
| Here are a few:
|
| - use a physically based (preferably unbiased) renderer
|
| - use only energy conserving materials
|
| - use light-probes to light your scene
| a1371 wrote:
| What are energy conserving materials?
| errantspark wrote:
| https://google.github.io/filament/Filament.html#materialsys
| t...
|
| This document is a good primer on a lot of the concepts
| that go into PBR. I have a few more open source/free
| resources on PBR and unbiased rendering as well and I will
| update this post if I can dig em up.
| wyager wrote:
| They don't reflect more light than the amount of light that
| falls on them.
| gmueckl wrote:
| The things that you list as shortcuts aren't actually
| shortcuts, but the best tools for their respective jobs.
|
| To put it differently: this is what renderers were aspiring
| to from the start, but couldn't quite reach initially in real
| world applications because if a severe lack of computing
| power. So, for the better part of three decades, computer
| graphics relied on ugly shortcuts that required laborious
| workarounds from skilled artists. With the right tools you
| just don't need a lot of them anymore.
| overgard wrote:
| Lighting is the main thing. Especially global
| illumination/ambient occlusion. Do a google search for "ambient
| occlusion" and you'll see a lot of scenes that are literally
| plain white but look amazing. Throw in some soft shadows and
| area light sources and things start to look really nice even
| with very plain materials.
|
| If you look at this scene, I'm fairly certain all the lighting
| is prebaked in something like blender/maya etc.
|
| There's also a lot of other little environment art things you
| can do. For instance, small bevels on sharp edges help things
| look more natural (look around your house and you'll notice
| even sharp corners aren't as sharp as you think). Adding
| roughness and specular lighting to materials helps a bit too,
| even things like wood or asphalt have some amount of
| reflectiveness at certain angles.
| gmueckl wrote:
| The lighting is completely prebaked in this scene. The shadow
| of the chair isn't animating. You can see the shadow of the
| armrest remain atatic on the table.
|
| If you can, go for global illumination over abient occlusion
| if you want a realistic look. Ambient occlusion is a pretty
| rough approximation of diffuse light from the surroundings. A
| proper global illumination rendering captures the same effect
| more accurately. You get a lot of subtle hues in the lighting
| which instantly make even flat single color surfaces more
| interesting and real.
|
| You can also go over board with your materials, adding
| texture maps for roughness and normals, which vary how the
| surface reacts to the light. There are plenty of free
| materials out there that demonstrate what I mean. But good
| texturing is a topic all of its own, with its own tools and
| processes. If you start to add textures, my advice would be
| to keep them really, really subtle. The amount of variation
| you really need is a lot less than you would probably think.
| m12k wrote:
| If you use a tool with global illumination, so it's not up to
| you to fake how the light bounces, but it's calculated for you,
| then you're much less likely to get the problem you describe.
| If the tech you want to play around with doesn't support GI,
| then at least you can use one that does to create a reference
| that you can follow along with on your target platform.
| chadcmulligan wrote:
| Here's the source to look at https://github.com/brunosimon/my-
| room-in-3d
| iampims wrote:
| I found it a bit easier to start with voxels:
|
| https://ephtracy.github.io/
| jiggawatts wrote:
| The #1 best "Blender tip" (that also applies to computer
| graphics in general), is that by default it is _horribly_
| incorrect with its treatment of colour spaces and especially
| gamma /tonemapping.
|
| Rather than me clumsily explaining with text how to get this
| right and have your artwork "pop" with very little effort,
| watch this video titled "The Secret Ingredient to
| Photorealism": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9AT7H4GGrA
|
| Combine that with physically correct materials and rendering,
| and you could literally "sketch" a handful of grey boxes with a
| single area light and have it nearly _pop out of the screen_
| with uncanny realism!
|
| The #2 tip is that chances are that you're probably working
| with a cheap LCD monitor. Even for $600-$1000 you can get a
| very decent monitor with DCI-P3 or AdodeRGB wide gamut support
| and more accurate colour. That helps to produce content that is
| consistent and correct. That, or invest in a calibrator and set
| up your operating system colour management with the ICC profile
| of your panel. Without this, images you grab from Chrome or
| Firefox will shift in hue and/or brightness when you import
| them into image editing software. Test your browser with this
| site: https://cameratico.com/tools/web-browser-color-
| management-te...
|
| The #3 tip is that you can make _much_ better colour choices
| working in a perceptual space. The colour pickers in most
| software use trivial RGB 0..255 ranges mapped to a rectangle.
| This is garbage, criminally lazy, clownshoes programming. Yet,
| everybody does it, resulting in these "curtains of colour"
| controls:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=colors+picker+control&tbm=is...
|
| You shouldn't be seeing those vertical streaks! The transitions
| should be _smooth_ and even. An excellent space to use for
| picking colours or creating gradients is Oklab:
| https://bottosson.github.io/posts/oklab/
|
| Notice how beautiful it looks compared to the other spaces,
| which are horribly uneven looking?
|
| Even _just these tips_ can make someone like me, a non-artist,
| produce beautiful images, web pages, or 3D models.
|
| Art isn't magic, it's a technical skill and you can learn it!
| bjornornorn wrote:
| For color picking, I have just released two new color spaces
| based on Oklab, trying to improve on HSV and HSL. You can try
| them and compare with other options here:
| https://bottosson.github.io/misc/colorpicker/
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Looks great!
|
| If I could request some features:
|
| The layout might be better 4-wide (or dynamically
| reflowing) instead of 3-wide so that typical PC monitors
| can view all of the controls at once.
|
| Also, I'd love the ability to use Oklab to pick ranges of
| equal distributions (dark to light), or typical symmetric
| colour pairings (opposites, or 'n' divisions of a circle,
| or whatever...)
|
| In the past, I used an app that allowed me to do that with
| the Munsell colour system, and I found that it worked
| great. The only annoyance with that was that it was fixed
| to 10% increments, and had limited symmetry types.
|
| However, despite that, I could pick a colour that was
| perceptually 2x as saturated (or bright), and then use it
| for a control that was 1/2 as big as an adjacent one. It
| made things like almost eerily balanced. I felt like it was
| the cheat code to artistic web layouts!
| amelius wrote:
| It's not perfect. Look at the shadow cast by the chair. The
| chair is moving, the shadow is not.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > I cannot for the life of me make a scene look so great
|
| You mean that not just anyone can be a 3D artist and make a
| Pixar movie? Say it ain't so!! /s
|
| However, it is kind of insulting that someone would think they
| could just walk up to a block of stone with a hammer and chisel
| and think they will create the David. Now imagine it is the
| fisher price version of that hammer and chisel.
|
| Threejs and Blender might be capable for certain things and
| calling it fisher price is not fair either, but there are
| definite limitations.
|
| >How is this so perfect?! I just can't comprehend how do 3d
| artist's brains work.
|
| Honestly, this looks closer to game engine rendering than
| something from a photo realistic engine.
| atoav wrote:
| As a VFX freelancer: the tools are actually making this a lot
| simpler nowadays. 15 years ago it wasn't uncommon that instead
| of having physical correct(-looking) renderers one would have
| to fake even the light bounces by hand to make things look
| decent.
|
| The issue with 3D tools is that in order to make real use of
| them you have to basically be a good photographer, you have to
| be extremely provicient with both natural and artifical
| lighting, you have to be very observant of the physical
| properties of materials, you have to model accurately and to
| scale etc. These are things any software can help you with, but
| just like the greatest piano won't make you a great pianist, a
| great 3d software won't make you produce great images.
|
| Like any art form VFX and CGI depends on people who are willing
| to work on their results and learn from each other till they
| are perfect.
| qwertox wrote:
| I noticed that there was the build process displayed on the
| laptop, then even a video of him, which made me think that he
| might have streamed the process. Indeed he did, here is the
| playlist:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm7fdd8TD7Y&list=PL5nApUt6Z8...
| piceas wrote:
| In 20 parts x 2-3 hours each. I like that he starts with
| nothing.
| xupybd wrote:
| I wish there were a way to pin this to the top of the
| discussion. It really adds a lot to this to have a link to
| the creation process.
| f0e4c2f7 wrote:
| Recently Unreal Engine 5 released a beta version with a new
| lighting feature called "lumen." It makes lighting an order of
| magnitude easier if you can export your scene or create in
| Unreal.
|
| For example: https://youtu.be/oT2DDu9vRJk
| mrspeaker wrote:
| A lot of it is the baked lighting (he mentions it takes about 7
| hours to bake the lighting if he wants to change the scene!
| https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1144467679?t=00h18m03s).
|
| I love doing 3D stuff for fun - but like you, everything looks
| like minecraft blocks from different worlds. Certainly not
| real.
|
| But if you open Blender and put a couple of cubes in a scene
| and render it using Cycles (in the Scene tab change the Render
| Engine dropdown from the default Eevee) then the cubes looks
| way better: https://imgur.com/a/q9xvZeI
|
| The ambient occlusion, and proper light bouncing and
| reflections make even the boring-est cubes look pretty good!
| exikyut wrote:
| Try poking
| https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/167940/is-
| filmic....
|
| Was recommended https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9AT7H4GGrA a
| little while back, it basically goes 'round in circles a bunch
| of times describing exactly what you're talking about, then
| recommends Filmic Blender. I kind of hit my TL;DR point at
| ~12min.
|
| I have no idea if this information is relevant or insightful.
| Hopefully at some point I'll be able to play around with this
| stuff one day. (This machine hits 100degC if I try and play
| *video*... HP thermal design FTW. Not even going to try
| launching blender, no need to prove it'll melt everything lol)
| lifeformed wrote:
| Don't use pure black. Make sure the ambient color is a dark
| blue or purple or something.
| shahar2k wrote:
| as a 3d artist, every time I work on a new piece, there's a
| long painful time where I KNOW it could look good, and it looks
| like crap. and things will continue to look like crap, as I
| flounder around adding shapes here, forms there whatever...
| until something clicks, it's like being lost in the woods until
| the moment you see some glimmer of a direction to start going
| in.
|
| honestly making art is almost always like that, and what makes
| it easier is not necessarily what makes you better artist, a
| lot of people find "shortcuts" what you'd call a style, put
| certain lighting in, certain forms, and that makes it really
| easy to skip the middle part and just work with your
| established artistic vocabulary but it's not what will push you
| to create better art...
|
| I'm not sure what I said was helpful but I have completely gone
| through that process you mentioned over and over.
| exikyut wrote:
| Yes, this description does capture the fundamentals of the
| process IMO.
|
| Particularly the part about not being satisfied until you
| exactly execute what you had in mind, as opposed to funneling
| everything through layered techniques that lose fidelity.
|
| The problem with this is that it involves reacquiring
| orientation over and over. Each time that is done
| successfully, it becomes easier to hold onto more details at
| the same time, and execute with more finesse, but it requires
| the interest in the subject to come from a very fundamental
| place in order to keep getting back on the horse with a
| centered mindset that retains focus on the bigger picture,
| and doesn't get distracted with shortcuts like you mentioned.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I recognize a fuckton of PHP elephants and an Ikea couch (or a
| 100% lookalike).
| raspasov wrote:
| PHP elephants FTW!!! :)
| _squared_ wrote:
| If you're looking to learn how to make this kind of scene, I
| highly recommend Bruno's Three.js Journey course.
|
| Disclaimer: I had the pleasure of having Bruno as an IRL teacher
| for some time ;)
| Bulbasaur2015 wrote:
| very cool
| busymom0 wrote:
| Live stream of the entire process:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm7fdd8TD7Y&list=PL5nApUt6Z8...
| Agentlien wrote:
| Ilove this, and it reminds me of making a Half-Life level of my
| own room around 20 years ago. So much work to get the little
| details right, but it felt so strangely satisfying to see an
| eerie digital simulacrum of it take shape.
| ceer wrote:
| If you're curious about the process, you can watch all the steps
| on Bruno's Twitch: https://twitch.tv/bruno_simon_dev
| mariocesar wrote:
| Part1 is here -> https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1110939896
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| Apart from Blender, what tools/libraries should I learn to use to
| do this?
| a1371 wrote:
| Well, blender itself is a whole world. But you can export to
| threejs and those are the only two tools you'll need at the
| very least.
| brundolf wrote:
| I'd add that for a diorama like this you could probably get
| by using Sketchfab instead of Three.js. When the focus is on
| the art it makes it much easier to get assets imported,
| lighting set up and working right, camera controls, etc.
| isoskeles wrote:
| You mainly need to know some javascript library for importing
| the models that were exported from Blender. Three.js is, afaik,
| the most popular. I've used it myself because it was the first
| thing I found.
|
| If you want to use TypeScript, and you have time on your hands,
| maybe look at Babylon.js and compare it to Three.js.
| folli wrote:
| What's your opinion on Three.js versus Babylon.js? What's the
| advantage of one over the other?
| kalkut wrote:
| I spent two years with threejs then the last 2 years with
| Babylon.js
|
| Three.js has a huge community, learning 3D programming by
| learning three.js from the community is very feasible, lots
| of nice exemples around.
|
| Babylon.js is maintained by a team of Microsoft employees.
| It is a cohesive piece of software with tons of integrated
| utilities (controls, GUI, good debugging tools, an
| excellent jsfiddle equivalent called playground etc). It is
| the perfect balance between a rendering and a game engine.
| Also it has a well engineered Typescript codebase that in
| my humble experience has been more stable than Three. The
| docs are great, the community is nice and super active,
| contributing is easy but you have much less online exemples
| than with Three.
|
| So my advice for a 3D novice would be to play with Three.js
| and see where it goes. If you are in it for art and making
| things look good, the amount of examples with Three will
| also help a lot.
|
| Now if you value engineering, and you already have even a
| very modest experience with 3D programming I really
| recommend Babylon.js
|
| Also you will see Aframe, react-fiber or react-babylon
| thrown around: don't bother if you don't already know Three
| or Babylon. You will outgrow them and still have to learn
| Three/Babylon "the correct way". I think that most people
| decent with Three or Babylon can make their own specific
| abstraction with less overhead anyway.
| onion2k wrote:
| react-three-fibre is just a method for writing three.js
| code in a declarative way. It doesn't impede anything
| about three.js, so you can't really outgrow it and fall
| back to plain three.js.
| isoskeles wrote:
| I don't have a strong opinion because I've never used
| Babylon.
|
| However, I'll echo the sibling comment here. I used
| Three.js and had some problems exporting it into my
| TypeScript project (using the DefinitelyTyped repo for type
| definitions). It eventually worked with a dumb js file that
| I copied over from Three and edited myself to make the
| export work in my project. This was in mid-2019.
|
| Anyway, after getting that all working and moving on, I
| realized I should have at least tried Babylon because the
| code looked far more suitable for a TypeScript project. I
| never got around to porting over because it wasn't crucial
| for my project, and Three was already working.
|
| Based on that experience and the fact that I prefer ts, if
| I work on another project with 3D rendering in the browser,
| I'll try Babylon.
| tmilard wrote:
| Really you should. I use babylonJs in my 3D export. (
| https://free-visit.net). It's very easy to program. I was
| amazed at the power of this 3D API : with a few lines you
| do incredible stuffs.
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| It should have had a 2nd camera in the compscreen rendering the
| room as the room in the lifestream..
| tiff_seattle wrote:
| I have that same chair. I can never get it to stay in the highest
| position though. Do you have that problem?
| fortran77 wrote:
| It could be that you're putting more weight on the chair piston
| than he is....
| zuhayeer wrote:
| His portfolio home page is incredible too: https://bruno-
| simon.com/
|
| It's the website shown on the monitor in the room.
| Zababa wrote:
| Thanks for sharing that, the website is really cool!
| DantesKite wrote:
| Man that portfolio website is amazing.
|
| Makes me want to check out each of his individual projects.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Wow, I've missed the times when websites were made to impress
| people.
| a_c wrote:
| It actually works on both mobile and desktop. Mind definitely
| blown
| sva_ wrote:
| It didn't work at all for me in latest Firefox, even with
| uBlock disabled. But it worked on a Chomium-based browser.
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| Worked great for me on Firefox 92 with Enhanced Tracking
| Protection and uBlock Origin.
| arendtio wrote:
| Arch Linux with Firefox 92.0 and uBlock activated works
| sometimes.
|
| However, it seems somewhat brittle and sometimes the
| initial loading doesn't complete. I am not 100% certain,
| but it seems to help to switch to another tab while the
| page is loading. Feels a bit like a race condition while
| loading the engine which doesn't occur when the tab runs
| with a lower priority.
|
| After pressing the Start button, everything works fine.
| slim wrote:
| It works in firefox mobile. Ublock enabled
| teitoklien wrote:
| Im on firefox latest , with ublock enabled
|
| Worked like a charm for me. Im on linux
| laumars wrote:
| Didn't work for me on iOS either.
| tn1 wrote:
| I sometimes use SweetHome3D to visualize spaces. It's a little
| more accessible being point-and-click CAD, and it takes arbitrary
| objects in OBJ format (and others). You won't be able to get
| quite to this level but it can render surprisingly well
|
| http://www.sweethome3d.com/
| epilys wrote:
| I recently had to move, and I designed my new place in
| sweethome3d before the move in order to know where the
| furniture would go immediately when I arrive. The result was
| quite good and you can see it here exported to html/js (though
| it's a 15MB download) https://nessuent.xyz/schlemann/
| busymom0 wrote:
| Is there a way to zoom in? The keyboard shortcuts don't work on
| the site.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| Very cool! Could use a loading animation
| fnord77 wrote:
| zoom in on the coffee mug
| romwell wrote:
| Back in 2004, I made My Room in 3D using the not-quite-new
| hotness that was VRML.
|
| Can't find it anymore, but I'm glad we're going full circle with
| this trend :)
|
| And I just got my Lightfield Lume Pad today for stuff like this.
| esjeon wrote:
| It's certainly a good time to become a 3D graphics developer, or
| at least be proficient at it. WebGL simply works. The internet is
| fast enough to ship a lot of assets. Even phones can render tons
| of graphical elements. Mix in WASM and it's pretty much golden.
| The world-wide-web is the true VR.
| PostThisTooFast wrote:
| It does seem very cool, but WebGL is continually derided here
| and elsewhere. Why?
| sgt wrote:
| I tried WebGL about a year ago, and it wasn't ready yet. It
| spun up CPU quite a bit, and was a different experience in
| terms of performance across browsers. Has this changed in the
| last year?
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| What do you mean you 'tried' WebGL? It's just OpenGL in the
| browser. As mentioned, it just works just like
| OpenGL/Vulkan/DirectX just works.
|
| Now, various WebGL frameworks (Three.js, Babylon.js, etc...)
| are more performant or easier to use or whatever. Or you can
| compile native 3D platforms to wasm. Which did you try?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-12 23:02 UTC)