Abandon widespread* texture use, return to polygons+vertex colors+in-engine cutscenes (and similar data-saving techniques like soundfonts).
my examples (2D: created with Godot, 3D: created with Blender)
Animated eye
This was using a feature that likely isn’t viable (for common use) due to performance.
And for something not-by-me, see Spyro’s vertex color skyboxes.
* general normal maps are ok, but I didn’t have much luck beyond using generated noise for metal. I even tried some stuff with watercolor, maybe with better shaders it could work but untextured is easier.
Or another example, any material you can just apply without alteration (for instance, make something look like wood) is alright too. Maybe UV mapping is not too bad, but extra per-model work is not ideal.
I wouldn’t call it ‘work’ yet, more practice than anything (lost some steam being unsatisfied with idea prompts though) and refining a workflow (palette, materials, import script, Blender default file). I’m unsure on actual ideas (that are viable for me), too.
Yeah I get it. Exercises and such, but they look p decent. You know how to use the tools.
I also have been doing exercises, but mostly coding stuff. I don’t know how to use blender and just started familiarizing myself with Godot today.
Oh and I hope you don’t mind me popping up here. I got curious and searched your username and badgers and this appeared.
And yeah… Inspiration isn’t always easy to come across, but I’m sure it’ll eventually find you. Good luck!
I’m not new with it, but I am banging rocks together when it comes to using Blender. Not good with shortcuts and often have issues with modifiers. (I preferred what I casually started with a decade ago, Maya, though it is/was bloated both in terms of size and cost)
If there was other FOSS low/medium-poly software that works well for VC (+material(placeholders)) I would be interesting in trying it. But I’m guessing Blender is as good as it gets.
Godot, fine with that but not too keen on GDscript.
I got curious and searched your username and badgers and this appeared
I was confused at first, but figured that’s what you did (search only hit because of the alt-text as well).
I also have been doing exercises, but mostly coding stuff
I am interested in coding stuff too (a specific niche language), though I struggle with project viability even more there too and have put it on the backburner.
You might be banging rocks together, but the sparks are definitely starting to appear. With a bit more practice you should easily become more “fluent”.
I tried Maya a few times back in the day but never put any serious time into it, or any 3d modeling tool.
I haven’t even bumped into the limitations and problems of GDscript, but I’m sure they will show up eventually.
And umm… about project viability, idk, I haven’t released any kind of software, but there’s a story I always try to keep in mind. It’s a bit long and you don’t have to read it ofc, but it had a big impact on the way I understand projects now so i’ll share. But honestly, no need to read.
After the glider was invented in the mid 1800s, lots of people were trying to figure out how to make powered heavier than air air crafts. Building something that flew propelled by a motor. Many people were putting a lot of money and time into their prototypes, often risking their lives by trying them out. In the late 1900s Orville and Wilbur Wright were two nobodies with no high school degree running a small bike repair shop. Their shop started doing ok so they put some money into their own flight research just for fun.
They built a little wind tunnel on the back of their shop and did a huge amount of experiments with different kinds of small scale prototypes of different shapes, weights and materials. This way they could discard and test stuff hundreds of times faster than their rivals, who had to build full sized air crafts and not die in them…
This quick trial and error feedback loop allowed them to get an intuitive understanding of what worked. Basically, they didn’t win because they planned more or attempted perfection. They won because they had the advantage of being able to fail several times faster than others due to having low stakes on each attempt. That’s what allowed them to learn faster and be able to design something that did what they wanted.
if you got this far, I appreciate you reading my silly ideas and stories. Would love to hear your thoughts if you’d like to share them. If not, that’s fine too. Either way, good chat.
Look at how some of my examples are 2D, motion style is not really core to my point. Many variants of fixed-camera, top-down, sidescroller, even static/semi-static art are possible.
I mean I guess if you make a cool skybox like that you’ll want players to be able to look at it somewhat freely. Is it specific to flying/camera speed or any 3rd-person game? 1st-person? Can settings help, or is this something that would not work with faster-paced games?
I do see that less motion seems to help, one person said higher FOV+big display with distance (among other non-digital things)… though I don’t think I’ve ever had motion sickness from a game (though I think I do have some issue related to inner ear) so I can’t be sure.
I know personally if I’m able to make anything, it’ll probably be on the smoother/simpler side. For example, I made a simple character controller and adding view bob never entered my mind. Probably no filters either.
Abandon widespread* texture use, return to polygons+vertex colors+in-engine cutscenes (and similar data-saving techniques like soundfonts).
my examples (2D: created with Godot, 3D: created with Blender)
Animated eye
This was using a feature that likely isn’t viable (for common use) due to performance.
And for something not-by-me, see Spyro’s vertex color skyboxes.
* general normal maps are ok, but I didn’t have much luck beyond using generated noise for metal. I even tried some stuff with watercolor, maybe with better shaders it could work but untextured is easier.
Or another example, any material you can just apply without alteration (for instance, make something look like wood) is alright too. Maybe UV mapping is not too bad, but extra per-model work is not ideal.
Woah, you weren’t kidding about those badgers, huh? They look awesome. Love your work!
I wouldn’t call it ‘work’ yet, more practice than anything (lost some steam being unsatisfied with idea prompts though) and refining a workflow (palette, materials, import script, Blender default file). I’m unsure on actual ideas (that are viable for me), too.
Yeah I get it. Exercises and such, but they look p decent. You know how to use the tools. I also have been doing exercises, but mostly coding stuff. I don’t know how to use blender and just started familiarizing myself with Godot today.
Oh and I hope you don’t mind me popping up here. I got curious and searched your username and badgers and this appeared.
And yeah… Inspiration isn’t always easy to come across, but I’m sure it’ll eventually find you. Good luck!
I’m not new with it, but I am banging rocks together when it comes to using Blender. Not good with shortcuts and often have issues with modifiers. (I preferred what I casually started with a decade ago, Maya, though it is/was bloated both in terms of size and cost)
If there was other FOSS low/medium-poly software that works well for VC (+material(placeholders)) I would be interesting in trying it. But I’m guessing Blender is as good as it gets.
Godot, fine with that but not too keen on GDscript.
I was confused at first, but figured that’s what you did (search only hit because of the alt-text as well).
I am interested in coding stuff too (a specific niche language), though I struggle with project viability even more there too and have put it on the backburner.
You might be banging rocks together, but the sparks are definitely starting to appear. With a bit more practice you should easily become more “fluent”. I tried Maya a few times back in the day but never put any serious time into it, or any 3d modeling tool. I haven’t even bumped into the limitations and problems of GDscript, but I’m sure they will show up eventually.
And umm… about project viability, idk, I haven’t released any kind of software, but there’s a story I always try to keep in mind. It’s a bit long and you don’t have to read it ofc, but it had a big impact on the way I understand projects now so i’ll share. But honestly, no need to read.
After the glider was invented in the mid 1800s, lots of people were trying to figure out how to make powered heavier than air air crafts. Building something that flew propelled by a motor. Many people were putting a lot of money and time into their prototypes, often risking their lives by trying them out. In the late 1900s Orville and Wilbur Wright were two nobodies with no high school degree running a small bike repair shop. Their shop started doing ok so they put some money into their own flight research just for fun.
They built a little wind tunnel on the back of their shop and did a huge amount of experiments with different kinds of small scale prototypes of different shapes, weights and materials. This way they could discard and test stuff hundreds of times faster than their rivals, who had to build full sized air crafts and not die in them…
This quick trial and error feedback loop allowed them to get an intuitive understanding of what worked. Basically, they didn’t win because they planned more or attempted perfection. They won because they had the advantage of being able to fail several times faster than others due to having low stakes on each attempt. That’s what allowed them to learn faster and be able to design something that did what they wanted.
if you got this far, I appreciate you reading my silly ideas and stories. Would love to hear your thoughts if you’d like to share them. If not, that’s fine too. Either way, good chat.
Good night. :)
I sent you a message, not sure you got it (instance issues?).
I didn’t get it! I made another user with my same username on the now dead kbin.social a while ago. Maybe you sent it there?
I’m Pudutr0n@feddit.cl (the 0 a zero and feddit.cl is a lemmy instance). Does that help? if not, I can share other contact info, if you like.
Nope, sent it here. Guess it just doesn’t work for whatever reason, despite both instance being Lemmy. (also, Kbin was my previous instance, too).
Unfortunately I’m not that social so I don’t really have any other options.
I love Spyro to bits but that game/camera style makes me motion sick something fierce. Can we get a compromise?
Look at how some of my examples are 2D, motion style is not really core to my point. Many variants of fixed-camera, top-down, sidescroller, even static/semi-static art are possible.
I mean I guess if you make a cool skybox like that you’ll want players to be able to look at it somewhat freely. Is it specific to flying/camera speed or any 3rd-person game? 1st-person? Can settings help, or is this something that would not work with faster-paced games?
I do see that less motion seems to help, one person said higher FOV+big display with distance (among other non-digital things)… though I don’t think I’ve ever had motion sickness from a game (though I think I do have some issue related to inner ear) so I can’t be sure.
I know personally if I’m able to make anything, it’ll probably be on the smoother/simpler side. For example, I made a simple character controller and adding view bob never entered my mind. Probably no filters either.