L'Ancien Regime

Advanced Member
  • Content count

    1,486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

465 Reputable

About L'Ancien Regime

  • Rank
    Journeymen

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.facebook.com/ancienregimearts

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. I think the problem for Christian games is like the problem with Christian literature, or Christian comic books. The problem is that invariably the authors are obsessed with their didactic inentions and not in making a well written entertaining work of art. All too often the work produced is heavy handed, tedious and predictable. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible for Christians to produce great works of art. Far from it. What is required is that the artist be skilled enough, subtle minded enough and possess attributes like a real sense of humor or a real talent for his craft. For example Evelyn Waugh, particularly his novel Brideshead Revisited, or Tolkein and his Hobbit and Lord of the Rings or CS Lewis and his Narnia stories. All immensely entertaining and hugely popular works, but also profoundly Christian works. No one would walk into a bookstore and say; "this is Roman Catholic propaganda" when seeing them yet there it is. They are profoundly steeped in the morality, and the theology of Christianity. So why are they successful works of art despite (or because of) being Christian? Because at no time did the authors censor themselves or talk down to their audience or avoid the unpleasant aspects of the world. In particular Evelyn Waugh was an unpleasant man full of cynicism and combatitiveness. For him humor was a weapon weilded against sin, its purpose to ridicule vice and evil. He wielded it with devastating effect in many of his often scandalous novels. In Vile Bodies, his first hilarous novel, the Prime Minister of Great Britain is depicted as an opium addict who lusts for little boys! This in the 1920's. But then Evelyn was a member of high British society and probably had inside information. Being a Christian does not mean bein a milque toast. It's fine to be pugilistic and fight back. Of course at the same time he had an immense aesthetic love for the beauty of this world and the beauty of Christendom that balanced his wickedly funny ridicule of vice. But back to games; are there any Christian games? Yes there are. Total War is a great game for Christians, particularly Medieval Total War. Become the King or Queen of Spain and drive out Islam, build churches, then great cathedrals, pay to produce priests and send them off to convert the masses so you can civilize territories, go on Crusades to liberate the Holy Land. I even take it one step further by playing according to the moral principles in regard to war as outlined by St. Thomas Aquinas, and did it with success. I think even Total War has ignored the greatest Christian crisis of all; the terrible murderous Guerre de Trente Ans, where half the population of what is now Germany was eradicated in an demented atmosphere of religious frenzy. As I said one must not offer art (or games which are also art) that is castrated or vitiated of life. One must place Christianity in the real world which is often challenging and complex and perplexing but not without its successes. There are many other Christian games one could create but that would require a deep knowledge of history and philosophy and literature and art. Note that Waugh, Tolkein and Lewis cited above were all profoundly learned men with great subtlety of mind. And you'd better have a strong visual sense, a huge sense of humor and total mastery of your craft. Stupidity, being a bore, or clumsiness will not be excused just because you were theologically righteous, though if you're that stupid and clumsy then probably your theology will be a mess too. Now Andrew created 3D Coat with the ultimate self stated view of one day creating a Pilgrim's Progress. Andrew has been and continues to be much ridiculed and even the object of hatred for his Christian views. I have never partaken of this and never will. I like Andrew and if you know a man through his works then 3D Coat has allowed me to know Andrew to be an excellent person. But I would say that of all the Christian works to make a game from, Pilgrim's Progress would be perhaps one of the worst. It's humorless and overtly didactic and to the modern mind a lot like listening to a sermon by a droning old man that puts you to sleep faster than a sleeping pill. Now Dante's Inferno on the other hand... But to the point; how to make a "Christian game"? I think part of the problem lies in game mechanics. I've stopped playing games even though I love Total War and I love Arma 3 and I enjoyed S.T.A.L.K.E.R a lot. But there's a problem or problems with games that has turned me away and it lies fundamentally in the mechanics of the games and their AI. Most games do not utilize multiple cores. They call for one fast core really. Now Arma has a mod that utilizes a "headless server" and that has vastly improved the effectiveness of the AI. But even at that there's the problem of your interaction with the artificial world of the games. How do you interact in the games? Well you run around explore the terrain and then when you meet other players or the game's AI bots you kill them. You shoot them, smash them stab the, blow them up, run them over, you murder them. That is to say you behave like a pschopath, and that is very unChristian. And it's very disappointing too. I want to meet artificial characters that can pass the Turing Test. I want to talk to them learn from them, be influenced by them and influence them through speech. Take Assassin's Creed. The trailers are amazing and you should be in places that are amazing but they're not. It's a boring game of murder again. I don't care if you can jump off rooftops and have a dozen knives up your sleeve and in your boots. Or take Dishonored 2. I was amazed by its trailer and the story line depicted promised great things. But it's all bait and switch. The story sucks and all you do is...kill people. People with grotesquely cartoonish personalities so it's OK to just slit their throats and be a psychopath with them. Until we have better AI or AL combined with AI characters that you can interact with in a more subtle and human non criminal manner then I despair of the game medium as not only a Christian form or art but even as a sane human form of art whatsoever.
  2. Awesome modeling, awesome texturing. Bravo.
  3. WOW I love this, particularly the first one with that ring emitter. Great work.
  4. This just popped up now on my Twitter feed http://www.cgmeetup.net/home/building-the-sun-in-houdni/ First part of a 90 minutes tutorial about how to simulate a realistic Sun in Houdini software. It covers topics like : vex coding, vector calculus, VDB volumes, particle simulation , magnetic field and much more. I hope you’ll enjoy watching this as much as i enjoyed doing it. Second part coming soon Also well worth noting; he uses SUBLIME TEXT EDITOR (version 2 or 3) which is available for unlimited trial usage and contains VEX text editing. https://www.sublimetext.com/ https://www.sublimetext.com/3 There's full install and also portable downloads for each version be it Linux, OSX or Windows https://vishangshah.com/2015/01/26/point-cloud-in-houdini/
  5. I wrote an email to the creator of these excellent Aztec pueblo models and got this letter back; Hi Ancien Regime Aztec model was made in late 90's using now defunct software, Presenter Pro. I currently use Cinema 4d by Maxon... D.R.H.
  6. It was very kind of Digman to figure this one out which didn't take him long, being an expert on 3D Coat. I did have problems though making it work until I took the big side slab piece, duplicated it and took one of the duplicates and painted it in Photoshop or Gimp rather than just trying to resize it in the Sculpt window with the scale tool in Sketch. Seems the tool is counting pixels to voxels and doesn't really see the scaling down...needs to actually have less pixels in the drawing. He also showed me another trick to use on this model. Since it's a bunch of non contiguous parts you can turn each part into it's own individual object in the Voxel Tree. 1. Turn the entire piece into a Surface object instead of a Voxel Object. 2. Go to Geometry menu and hit the Objecti-ify selection. Now you have a bunch of separate pieces you can work on individually And thank you to the OP for bringing our attention to this much neglected tool. As soon as I saw his ground plan (what are you making with that anyway?) I thought of all the architectural ground plans I'd seen of various architectural sites, particularly of historical ruins from antiquity. This would be an awesome way to rapidly produce the basic structure of some great temple or church or even an entire architectural site, like some Aztec pueblos. I had no idea that the Sketch tool could be used to produce such intricate 3d models in such a rapid effortless manner. https://www.google.ca/search?q=archaeological+sites&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-287Oy6_TAhVD-2MKHV6EAHUQ_AUIBygC&biw=1536&bih=886#tbm=isch&q=archaeological+sites+plans http://www.dennisrhollowayarchitect.com/PreContact.html
  7. Very nice. I can feel myself sitting in a shitty motel room just looking at that thing.
  8. So I tried all sorts of approaches and I found that the lower resolutions gave solid shapes but they were crude, while the higher resolutions were seriously messed up, hollowed out.
  9. I've never worked with this tool before, never thought much of it from the samples of work I saw. But this is really interesting stuff. Did you draw the floor plan in an exterior program like Photoshop or did you draw this within 3d Coat? I'm liking this. Thanks.. So I increased the smoothing setting. Let's see if I can produce this at almost 29 million voxels....right now it's "Not Responding". Most I've ever done is 15 million voxels. I'll give it an hour.
  10. This is the tutorial Paul is talking about And "B inside A" is one of the options in the new Boolean tool in Houdini.
  11. thanks for the vid...good stuff
  12. IT'S FINALLY READY FOR RELEASE!! It's coming out on Orbolt in the next few days. http://www.cgchannel.com/2017/04/alexey-vanzula-unveils-fusion-for-houdini/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cgchannel%2FnHpU+(CG+Channel+-+Entertainment+Production+Art) Ukraine-based tools developer Alexey Vanzhula has released several demo videos of Fusion, an interesting new interactive Boolean modelling toolset for Houdini. The software is designed to enable users to create complex Boolean assemblies non-destructively, seeing the results of any changes made to the model hierarchy updated in real time. Like Modo’s MeshFusion in Houdini Vanzhula describes the toolset as being “like MeshFusion in Modo”, in reference to Modo’s own popular real-time Boolean modelling plugin, since incorporated into the core software. As far as we can see, there isn’t any written documentation for Fusion online yet, but the video above shows it in use to create a complete – and quite complex – hard-surface model of a tractor. A separate timelapse video shows the creation of a gamepad, from start to finish. Vanzhula plans to release the toolset as a Houdini Digital Asset (HDA), which should make it possible to use it in DCC applications compatible with Houdini Engine, as shown in this Maya demo. Pricing and availability Vanzhula hasn’t announced pricing or system requirements for Fusion yet, but says that he plans to release the toolset via the Orbolt online store “in a few days” .
  13. Why can't I just buy the Mac OS and run that?
  14. http://daringfireball.net/2017/04/the_mac_pro_lives Let’s not beat around the bush. I have great news to share: Apple is currently hard at work on a “completely rethought” Mac Pro, with a modular design that can accommodate high-end CPUs and big honking hot-running GPUs, and which should make it easier for Apple to update with new components on a regular basis. They’re also working on Apple-branded pro displays to go with them. I also have not-so-great news: These next-gen Mac Pros and pro displays “will not ship this year”. (I hope that means “next year”, but all Apple said was “not this year”.) In the meantime, Apple is today releasing meager speed-bump updates to the existing Mac Pros. The $2999 model goes from 4 Xeon CPU cores to 6, and from dual AMD G300 GPUs to dual G500 GPUs. The $3999 model goes from 6 CPU cores to 8, and from dual D500 GPUs to dual D800 D700 GPUs. Nothing else is changing, including the ports. No USB-C, no Thunderbolt 3 (and so no support for the LG UltraFine 5K display). But more good news, too: Apple has “great” new iMacs in the pipeline, slated for release “this year”, including configurations specifically targeted at large segments of the pro market. Let’s say you’re Apple. You’re faced with the following problem. Three years ago you launched a radical new lineup of Mac Pros. For multiple reasons, you haven’t shipped an update to those machines since. At some point you came to the conclusion that the 2013 Mac Pro concept was fundamentally flawed. It was tightly integrated internally, which allowed for some very nice features: it was small and beautiful (a pro machine that demanded placement on your desk, not under your desk) and it could run whisper quietly. But that tight integration made it hard to update regularly. The idea that expansion could be handled almost entirely by external Thunderbolt peripherals sounded good on paper, but hasn’t panned out in practice. And the GPU design was a bad prediction. Apple bet on a dual-GPU design (multiple smaller GPUs, with “pro”-level performance coming from parallel processing) but the industry has gone largely in the other direction (machines with one big GPU). And so you decided to completely redesign the Mac Pro. But that new design isn’t going to ship this year. You’re committed to your pro users, but a sizable chunk of them are growing ever more restless. They suspect — in some cases strongly — that you don’t care about them anymore. They see the stalled Mac Pro lineup as a sign that Apple no longer cares about them, and they worry deeply that the Mac Pro isn’t merely waiting for a major update but instead is waiting to be decommissioned. What do you do? There are really only two options at this point. The first would be to suck it up and wait until the next-generation Mac Pros are ready to be announced, and suffer in silence while more and more people point to the current Mac Pro’s stagnation as proof that Apple is abandoning the Mac Pro market. The second would be to bite the bullet and tell the world what your plans are, even though it’s your decades-long tradition — a fundamental part of the company’s culture — to let actual shipping products, not promises of future products, tell your story. Apple chose the latter. We’re inside a nondescript single-story office building on Apple’s extended old campus, across De Anza Boulevard from One Infinite Loop. This is Apple’s Product Realization Lab for Mac hardware, better known, internally, as “the machine lab”. This is where they make and refine prototypes for new Mac hardware. We don’t get to see anything cool. There is no moment where they lift a black cloth and show us prototypes of future hardware. The setting feels chosen simply to set the tone that innovative Mac hardware design — across the entire Mac lineup — is not a thing of the past. There are only nine people at the table. Phil Schiller, Craig Federighi, and John Ternus (vice president, hardware engineering — in charge of Mac hardware) are there to speak for Apple. Bill Evans from Apple PR is there to set the ground rules and run the clock. (We had 90 minutes.) The other five are writers who were invited for what was billed as “a small roundtable discussion about the Mac”: Matthew Panzarino, Lance Ulanoff, Ina Fried, John Paczkowski, and yours truly. The discussion is on the record. Here’s how Schiller broke the news on Mac Pro. It’s worth quoting him at length: With regards to the Mac Pro, we are in the process of what we call “completely rethinking the Mac Pro”. We’re working on it. We have a team working hard on it right now, and we want to architect it so that we can keep it fresh with regular improvements, and we’re committed to making it our highest-end, high-throughput desktop system, designed for our demanding pro customers. As part of doing a new Mac Pro — it is, by definition, a modular system — we will be doing a pro display as well. Now you won’t see any of those products this year; we’re in the process of that. We think it’s really important to create something great for our pro customers who want a Mac Pro modular system, and that’ll take longer than this year to do. In the interim, we know there are a number of customers who continue to buy our [current Mac Pros]. To be clear, our current Mac Pro has met the needs of some of our customers, and we know clearly not all of our customers. None of this is black and white, it’s a wide variety of customers. Some… it’s the kind of system they wanted; others, it was not. In the meantime, we’re going to update the configs to make it faster and better for their dollar. This is not a new model, not a new design, we’re just going to update the configs. We’re doing that this week. We can give you the specifics on that. The CPUs, we’re moving them down the line. The GPUs, down the line, to get more performance per dollar for customers who DO need to continue to buy them on the interim until we get to a newly architected system. In an ideal world, yes, these next-gen Mac Pros (and new displays) would be shipping soon. In fact, if we’re going to say ideal, they’d already be shipping. But make no mistake, this is very good news for anyone who cares about the Mac Pro. Those of us with an ear to the ground knew that there were no major changes to the Mac Pro shipping soon. That meant one of two things: next-gen Mac Pros were a ways off, or Apple was abandoning the Mac Pro market. Given that, this is very good news for serious Mac users. Even for serious Mac users who don’t buy Mac Pro hardware, this is good news because it’s a sign of Apple’s commitment to pro Mac software. There is no reason for Apple to commit itself to a new modular Mac Pro unless they’re also committed to what makes the Mac the Mac in software. Some stats and facts Apple shared with us during the discussion: Apple’s research shows that 15 percent of all Mac users use at least one “pro” app frequently. These are apps for things like music creation, video editing, graphic design, and software development. Basically, apps that are performance intensive. An additional 15 percent of Mac users use pro apps less frequently but at least a few times per month. That 30 percent of the overall Mac user base is what Apple considers the “pro” market. Overall, the split between notebooks and desktops in Mac sales is roughly 80/20. (Personally, I’m a little surprised desktops account for even 20 percent of sales. I would have guessed 85/15, and wouldn’t have been surprised to hear 90/10.) Even among pro users, notebooks are by far the most popular Macs. In second place are iMacs. The Mac Pro is third. Apple declined to describe the Mac Pro’s share of all Mac sales any more specifically than “a single-digit percent”, but my gut feeling is that the single digit is a lot closer to 1 than it is to 9. So: only 30 percent of Mac users are in what Apple considers the pro market. Most of those use MacBook Pros (or other MacBooks). Most of those who use desktops use iMacs. None of this is a surprise, really — and this is exactly why so many users who depend on the Mac Pro have been deeply concerned about its future. For Apple to care about the Mac Pro, it requires Apple to care about a small number of users. Regarding iMacs, Schiller also said that new iMacs are in the works, slated for release some time this year (no specifics other than “this year”), including “configurations of iMac specifically with the pro customer in mind and acknowledging that our most popular desktop with pros is an iMac.” Craig Federighi then jumped in, and said: That is a pretty incredible evolution that we’ve seen over the last decade. The original iMac, you never would’ve thought as remotely touching pro uses. And now you look at today’s 5K iMac, top configs, it’s incredibly powerful, and a huge fraction of what would’ve traditionally — whether it’s audio editing, video editing, graphics, arts and so forth — that would’ve previously absolutely required the Mac Pros of old, are being well-addressed by iMac. But there’s still even further we can take iMac as a high performance, pro system, and we think that form factor can address even more of the pro market. What struck me about this is that Apple was framing a discussion in which the big news — the whole point, really — was their pre-announcing a “completely rethought” next-generation Mac Pro by emphasizing that most of their pro users use MacBooks and most of the rest use iMacs — and that they have big plans in store for the pro segment of both of those product lines. It’s exactly what I would have expected Apple to say if they were breaking the news that the Mac Pro was going away: We’re dropping the Mac Pro because its time has come and gone — all but a small percentage of our pro users have their needs met by MacBook Pros and high-end iMacs. So it might seem curious for Apple to frame the need for an all-new Mac Pro by emphasizing just how many of their pro users don’t need a Mac Pro. But if you think about it in the context of the current Mac Pro, it makes sense. Those whose needs aren’t met by MacBook Pros or iMacs are people who need extreme performance. The current Mac Pro — even putting aside the age of its components — only met the needs of some of those users. For the rest — for those who need the fastest Intel CPUs on the market, the biggest and most powerful GPUs, etc. — the current Mac Pro isn’t a good fit. There were several questions from a few of us trying to peg down when Apple realized it needed to start over and design a new Mac Pro. Apple, unsurprisingly, wouldn’t budge. But they were forthcoming about the fact that the current Mac Pro isn’t meeting the needs of all the users who need a Mac Pro. Federighi: I think we designed ourselves into a bit of a thermal corner, if you will. We designed a system with the kind of GPUs that at the time we thought we needed, and that we thought we could well serve with a two GPU architecture. That that was the thermal limit we needed, or the thermal capacity we needed. But workloads didn’t materialize to fit that as broadly as we hoped. Being able to put larger single GPUs required a different system architecture and more thermal capacity than that system was designed to accommodate. So it became fairly difficult to adjust. At the same time, so many of our customers were moving to iMac that we saw a path to address many, many more of those that were finding themselves limited by a Mac Pro through next generation iMac. And really put a lot of our energy behind that. Schiller: As we’ve said, we made something bold that we thought would be great for the majority of our Mac Pro users. And what we discovered was that it was great for some and not others. Enough so that we need to take another path. One of the good things, hopefully, with Apple through the years has been a willingness to say when something isn’t quite what we wanted it to be, didn’t live up to expectations, to not be afraid to admit it and look for the next answer. The word “mistake” was not uttered, but this is about as close as we’re going to get to Apple admitting they miscalculated with the current Mac Pro’s concept. One word that was uttered, however, was “sorry”. Here’s Schiller, after being asked whether they already had an external design in mind for the next-gen Mac Pros: We’re not going to get into exactly what stage we’re in, just that we told the team to take the time to do something really great. To do something that can be supported for a long time with customers with updates and upgrades throughout the years. We’ll take the time it takes to do that. The current Mac Pro, as we’ve said a few times, was constrained thermally and it restricted our ability to upgrade it. And for that, we’re sorry to disappoint customers who wanted that, and we’ve asked the team to go and re-architect and design something great for the future that those Mac Pro customers who want more expandability, more upgradability in the future. It’ll meet more of those needs. My takeaway is that the Mac’s future is bright. Mac sales were up in 2016, once again outpacing the PC industry as a whole, and the new MacBook Pros are a hit, with sales up “about 20 percent” year over year. The Mac is a $25 billion business for Apple annually, and according to the company there are 100 million people in the active Mac user base worldwide. Yes, those numbers are all peanuts compared to the iPhone, but everything is peanuts compared to the iPhone. Ternus put it plainly: “Some of our most talented folks are working on [the Mac]. I mean, quite frankly, a lot of this company, if not most of this company, runs on Macs. This is a company full of pro Mac users.” I asked whether Apple is aware of just how many serious Mac users have begun to doubt the company’s commitment to the Mac in general, and the needs of pro Mac users in particular. Schiller said: It’s a reasonable question, and this is why we’re here today, specifically, to address that question above all else. We’re committed to the Mac, we’ve got great talent on the Mac, both hardware and software, we’ve got great products planned for the future, and as far as our horizon line can see, the Mac is a core component of the things Apple delivers, including to our pro customers. I think it was simply untenable for Apple to continue to remain silent on the Mac Pro front. No matter how disappointing you consider today’s speed bump updates to the lineup, they’re certainly better than no updates at all. But there was no way Apple could release today’s speed bumps without acknowledging that in and of themselves, these updates do not suggest that Apple is committed to the Mac Pro. In fact, if they had released these speed bumps without any comment about the future of the Mac Pro, people would have reasonably concluded that Apple had lost its goddamned mind. Ultimately, actions speak louder than words. But I very much like the words I heard yesterday. A few other miscellaneous tidbits from the discussion: Near the end, John Paczkowski had the presence of mind to ask about the Mac Mini, which hadn’t been mentioned at all until that point. Schiller: “On that I’ll say the Mac Mini is an important product in our lineup and we weren’t bringing it up because it’s more of a mix of consumer with some pro use. … The Mac Mini remains a product in our lineup, but nothing more to say about it today.” Schiller, on Apple’s own pro apps: “I just want to reiterate our strong commitment there, as well. Both with Final Cut Pro X and Logic Pro X, there are teams on those software products that are completely dedicated to delivering great pro software to our customers. No foot off the gas there.” Federighi: “I think if you use Xcode downloads as a metric, it’s possible software developers are actually our largest pro audience. It’s growing very quickly, it’s been fantastic.” Asked whether coming-in-the-future next-gen Mac Pros would be assembled in the U.S. as the current ones are, Schiller said “We’re not ready to talk about that yet. Further down the line, we’d be happy to.” For examples of the type of software that the current Mac Pro isn’t well-suited for, Federighi mentioned VR: “Those can be in VR, those can be in certain kinds of high end cinema production tasks where most of the software out there that’s been written to target those doesn’t know how to balance itself well across multiple GPUs, but can scale across a single large GPU.” I asked about scripting and automation — whether Apple still sees scripting and automation as an important part of the pro market. Federighi: “We think scriptability and automation of the system remain super important.”