Should 3D artists be afraid of these ''tools'' ?
polycounter lvl 9
I know plenty of software developpers and programmers have tried bringing up alot of plugins and add-on tools to facilite their works but this seems..big?
WATCH THE VIDEO!
http://vimeo.com/113461164
To think it does the whole retopology like that in clean manners..
EDIT: Should have changed thte title for technical artist instead of 3D
Replies
The cash register didn't replace the cashier it made their job more efficient.
Blond do you have nightmares about the AI coming to get you?
I'm a technical artist and I already don't do any rigging. Anything that makes it easier and quicker to make content is always a good thing.
There is always going to be a need for talented artists. The art and graphics in games can always be improved. And being able to make stuff quicker means either a shorter development, or more content in the game.
As for making technical artists redundant. Tools are never perfect, and artists are always asking for more features. And people are always going to antecedently break things during development.
same here. rarely do rigging. But there's still so much work... project setup, tools programming, pipeline dev, shaders, export/import, bug fixing, training, VFX, console optimization, etc.
And each new tool you add to the pipeline brings its own set of problems. E.g. the more tools, the more artists get annoyed by interoperability, and the fact that they cannot do things the "artistic" (i.e. manual) way. People rather sculpt cloth than using tools like Marvelous Designer. Takes twice as long, but it's twice the fun
Not one of those "3D artists HATE it!" kind of ads that you see doctor treatments try to do when advertisers say "DOCTORS HATE HIM!" as if something was to make another person obsolete.
3D artists won't go obsolete just because of a tool. Welders don't lose their jobs just because of robotic welding arms either.
yep. if anything I think it's like in programming. Instead of starting writing from scratch, you start by using a framework and build your code on that.
In 3D you'll do the same. You pick outputs generated by e.g. Substance, Marvelous Designer, a rigging tool, a photometry or scanning tool, a reusable asset/shader/texture library and then integrate it and refine it. E.g. grabbing textures from libraries is already very common and nobody is afraid of texture artists becoming unemployed
And for gen4 titles such approaches are needed. There's no way to cut down costs per asset if quality requirements are going up. You have to automate to save time. Alternative: you hype and market this crap out of your project and make everyone buy that overpriced collector's edition...now that seems a bit more risky
Well that analogy is just absurdly wrong.Welders haven't lost their jobs totally yet, but that's because the tools aren't there yet, but don't mistake it they will do.
The reason why we shouldn't be scared of digital tools making out lives easier is unlike products in the real world, the scope of a game can grow infintley, and it is a creative process, and while i am actually pretty certain we will be able to program creativity in AI, i think it is something that will remain as valued more when created by a human.
[ame]
I could spend hours or even days going through the full process of developing a current generation spec asset. And maybe I would go through this mundane process if the asset were for my own portfolio, or for a game project that demanded that sort of finesse. However, 90% of the time I will now turn to software such as the Quixel suite to speed up my workflow significantly. Does using this workflow make an artist less adequate at doing their job? I suggest definitely not, given that the artist as a thorough understanding of how to implement classic techniques if called upon.
Think back to say, the year 2000 when the game Counter-Strike was in its infancy. Can you imagine back then how straightforward and quick a full level could be created by a 3D artist? As an experienced 3D artist, I bet I could create a map of that caliber from start to finish in less than a week. And what did an artist's software consist of back then? Probably a single 3D application, Photoshop, and a game engine. To recreate one of those levels to today's standards would likely take a single 3D artist several months while potentially using many more software applications. 3D art has become significantly more time consuming and complicated to produce.
I'm certainly not afraid of those kinds of tools, and if it is quality software at a reasonable price then I would likely purchase it if it will speed up my workflow.
If anything, we need more of these tools, so long as the 3D artist will still be contributing their skill and creative input.
Take for example Mixamo, while we quickly got some "good enough" realistic characters out of it, we suffered to integrate it into our pipeline, because of bad data coming out of it and lack of control over it, so we needed adjustments and an animation pipeline anyways.
The boundaries will be pushed quicker, and the automatic tools will always be behind, because they require standards, that are defined by the boundary pushers.
I dont really see the problem, because in the end, it wont matter if we are afraid or not, if a robot does your job better then then you, it will replace you, period. so you better adapt. just like the video muzz pointed out, its inevitable,
what matters is how we react and what we do about these changes.
Also if there are any riggers out there that would like some help/tips/news/feedback then there is this thread.
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138217
eveything replaced by technology so far has been objective valued stuff. when you making food, there is a objective goal. make the most with the least recources and time. same with chess. win.
and the same goes for retopology and rigging. there is a objective best soloution to topology, considering the technical limitations of the game.
but what about subjective stuff? what is the objective goal of art? how do you create the "best" 3d model or 2d painting? in my opinion you cant really. and since we cant really quantify whats good in art in a objective way, i dont see how we could make bots do that either.
i welcome everything that lower the amount of uncreative work i have to do, ie the objective stuff with one best solution. then i will have more time to spend on the creative, subjective stuff. thats on of the advantages for 2d or 3d for me. 2d has a way lower technical stuff vs creative stuff ratio than 3d. lowering that ratio for 3d is only good in my opinion.
Isn't that exactly what i said?
That is probably the only point not led by ego I've read in the thread,
The idea that tools will replace 3D artists is far off, True, But that is ALL of us.
Like someone said 'The cash register didn't replace the cashier it made their job more efficient.'
True, however the combination of that efficiency, plus automated registers, self service scanners and online shopping has drastically decreased the number of cashiers a business needs and their utility,
Meaning even though there are less of them, each of them now does a job that isn't valued because it can be automated.
Any job that relies on technology can be made redundant by the development of the tech, especially when labour time and expense is worth the RnD to develop the tech.
And creativity doesn't need to be AI (though will be inevitably)
If you can automate variations fast enough, the way we seed variations of noise in ZBrush, Trees in Maya and landscapes in terragen,
When you can do that with citys,
Create an entire variation, click select points u want to keep then click to create a new instant variation.
Save, click create textures... weather... post...
The utility of creativity also falls.
you should chill out. im not always out to get you.
i think if that is going to happen, most art will look similluar. and then to be creative, you have to breake those molds.
for me, art is almost by defenition from a certian viewpoint. either the troubled soul of an artist who want to voice out that suffering, or someone who sees things they want to react against. its really hard imagine that AI will be so sophisticated that it can imitate that.
Thanks for the headsup.
It just would have been nice to have you acknowledge what i said, as it just came across that you were trying to argue, which seemed weird as you were agreeing with me
Until then, cutting corners across the planes of mundanity is all well and fair to me.
Hate to sound like a jerk, but I've been in this business for a long time now, and I've never really seen any automatic tool that has managed to actually deliver on the promises...
enduring redundant and mundane steps is not only my strength, it's my calling. My technical understanding of deteriorating software is my only means of leveraging my value over actual talented artists, without it, i will be outed as the fraud i am and be reduced to work at 7-11 again. i'm too old to work at 7-11!
besides all that, if this is real, i am AMAZED!
"what do you mean it's going to take a couple of weeks, I saw a video where someone did it in 30 seconds."
Seriously though, neat stuff. It will be interesting to see where asset generation goes in the next 5 years
ie 75 years old woman with cling film on her face( or is it PVA)