Talk:3D modeling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
 

Term Hyperrealism[edit]

In the Compared to 2D methods section of the article the terms photorealistic and hyperrealistic are used interchangeably. After following the link provided to the hyperrealism article, I learned these terms are not synonyms. I think the use of the word hyperrealistic in place of photorealistic is a inappropriate in this context and should probably be changed. Also the link to the hyperreality page seems irrelevant since the article deals almost entirely with the philosophical concept of hyperreality and says very little about photorealistic computer models. I think a better link would be to hyperrealism (painting) but, although I am not an expert on this topic, I think the vague and philosophically loaded term hyperrealistic should be removed from the article altogether. MedicineMan555 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Background[edit]

This page is the result of a discussion and a quick fix after the resolution on the Talk:3D computer graphics page. The history for the pages are on the 3d graphic design page. If it's possible for an admin to move the history back to the 3D computer graphics page, that would avoid further confusion. Oicumayberight 07:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Completed a merge originally proposed on April 16 by adding information from the 3d model and model_(computer_games) articles to this one.--David C 08:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading the post merge from 3D model. I unmerged the article. This article was to present the process more than the product. I know "modeling" can describe the product as well, however, it's used more often to describe the process. The product is more related to the 3D computer graphics article, so I added mention and distinction of it there. I'm reverting this article to an article exclusively about process to keep it from being choppy and unfocused.
I know much work was put into the merge. If anything new was mentioned about 3D models, it can be retrieved from the history and put in the original articles. Having the articles separate will leave more room to expand on both articles. Oicumayberight 09:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Adding back in the proposal as I do not feel it has been adequately discussed. Maybe in the future separate articles shall become necessary, but at present the only thing that distinguishes the latter as a product is one paragraph at the very end of the article. In other words, a stub. Also, if the 3d computer graphics article is mainly concerned with the product, then why does it list the process as the main article under modeling?--David C 10:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to this article (3D modeling) that should be mainly concerned with process. The 3D computer graphics article is the umbrella topic to cover everything related to product and process. In hindsight, it would have been better to merge the 3D model article with the 3D computer graphics article than the 3D modeling article. I'm adding it as an alternate proposal.
You are correct in saying that it wasn't adequately discussed. I know I should have spoke up before the merge. Sometimes, it's hard to say how well something will work until you see it. Oicumayberight 11:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe sufficient time has passed on the merge issue, and I shall use the consensus of Alanbly (see 3d computer graphics history page) and myself as a majority vote to revert to the merged page. I will try to incorporate any information from the latest page into the revert.--David C 01:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

English Please[edit]

Yes, this "modeling" is heavily Americanised. Please, would someone convert this to "modelling"? it's more acceptable internationally as well. Even CNN uses international English... Just suggesting.

Also, should Wikipedia's English be divided into American and British English, just like Wikipedia Chinese' Simplified and Traditional Chinese, which is interchangeable with a little link on top of each page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleedingshoes (talkcontribs)

Modeling is too ambiguous in english. I don't see a problem with being specific here. This article (and most wikipedia articles) need to be specific. I don't think it's specific enough. It merges the skill "3D modeling" with the "3D model" product which isn't always acquired by modeling, sometimes acquired by scan. Oicumayberight 19:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
"Modeling" has evolved over the last decades, maybe due the fact that >90% of the software development originated in the US. I'm german and I say: Let's stick to the US term here. --Bernd vdB (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How is modelling used today in games?[edit]

It's a question I would like answered which i think should also be mentioned in the article: Are the models designed in a 3d modelling program, saved, and then imported into the game at run-time and manipulated from there or are they designed in the program and then translated into the source using coordinates or something? 212.120.248.128 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any single answer to your question. Every single system uses a different method. In general, any "pretty" scenes are just saved as video, and any "ugly" scenes are rendered real time by feeding coordinates into the GPU. Most of the information you'd like to see added is actually done (in most cases) by a Game engine, the game designers never touch the source code, they just build the characters and go. This is also not the place for such specifics, what your talking about is a very tiny part of the science and art of 3D modeling. Hope that helps, let me know if you need more information. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Almost all models used in games, visual effects, feature animation, etc. are designed in a standalone 3D modeling program like Maya, saved out, and imported into whatever application they need to be brought into (game engine, renderer, whatever). Game developers will write their own level/map-designing tools because there are so many integrated triggers and scripted, coded actions and restrictions on what the game engine can deal with, but the actual geometry creation (e.g. creating the mesh for a character, laser gun, space rabbit, whatever) will be done with an offline 3D modeler. Kjl (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


NURBS modeling[edit]

Article says they are suitable for organic modeling. That seems totally backwards to me; I thought the only people still using NURBS are using them for static, mechanical props for the nice UV coordinates for texturing, and that subdivs have completely superceded nurbs for everything else, especially organic modeling. Kjl (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

It is my opinion that the Virtual model article does not add enough to this subject to be a separate article, it is also somewhat SPAM-ish (though I cleaned most of that out). Seems mostly like a posting area for model retailers. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's more a problem for the "virtual model" article than for this one. So let's take out the merge warning here, virtual model does not provide that much additional info anyway. --Bernd vdB (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

As references are needed, I added a printed book to the references list. I noted it's been removed and I can't understand why (sorry I'm new to Wiki). What was wrong with it? Gaius3 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Ops, just checked the reason, now I understand the concept of "revert reference". I will add more content. Thanks Gaius3 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Digimation references[edit]

Does anyone else feel that these look like some sort of advertisement (combined with the content of the article on digimation)? 201.250.119.119 (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

3D Modeling is not just for gamers[edit]

I'm surprised to see this subject being solely taken over by gamers. More and more artists and manufacturers are using 3D to model, prototype and manufacture using 3D modelling. Any chance we can split this into two camps? Surely you can't neglect the field of architecture which differs just a bit from the gaming world of 3D modeling. Any ideas? Superfinicky —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC). --Superfinicky (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Superfinicky is correct that this article is written from a limited perspective. An opening tag "This article is about computer modeling within an artistic medium. For scientific usage, see Computer simulation." illustrates the limited perspective demonstrated by this article. There is much more to 3D modeling than just the use by artists with a jump to computer simulation.
In the section on "Models" this article links to Software Architectural Models, which in turn does not link to BIM (Building Information Modeling or Building Information Management). This section also barely mentions the use of 3D models in the "earth sciences" community. This does not explore the depth of 3D models used in many science and engineering communities. Some of these 3D models are much more details and realistic than those created by 3D artists, including those created for movie special effects. Some of these models can be seen at the web site for Real Earth Models <http://www.realearthmodels.com>.
This article may need to be rewritten as an overview of 3D modeling with a number of new articles for the various facets of this deep topic, even if those additional articles are just stubbed in for now.

--Rahyman (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

what? no metaballs?[edit]

why there isn't any mention of metaballs modeling? --TiagoTiago (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hungarian breakthrough[edit]

The Leonar3Do (since 2003!!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo_1UIovqKc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPiB_Ad7IC4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWRBUcMbzkw&feature=relatede=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.75.100 (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

3D model market[edit]

Hi folks, I joined Wikipedia as an editor recently because I've been a 3D modeler for 20 years and I thought I could do some good on this topic and others like it. One of the tricky problems here is lack of citations in the 3D model market section; what is there is CAD-related only, when there are several non-CAD 3D marketplaces out there and CDT seems like a marginal technology. A lot could be added here, especially with regard to usage rights and copyrights. However, the only citable source in this case is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which is vague and open to interpretation. I'd like to hear from more experienced editors before I stick my foot in my mouth. {{helpme}} Dmbousquet (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What I suggest is that you draft up a proposed addition/change to that section, post it here, and see if anyone has any comments about the specific draft addition. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, here goes.

3d model market - A large market for 3D models exists, both free and paid. Many online marketplaces allow individual artists to upload their original 3D models for others to download, either for free or for a set payment. Usage of downloaded models is offered on a royalty-free basis, but is limited to forms that do not give access to the original 3D model file. Allowed uses include generation of renderings or animation, inclusion as a visual element in a video game, or production of a physical prototype. The artist that downloads such content does not own the 3D model itself, and cannot sell or distribute the model or a modified form of it. Usage rights for 3D models of copyrighted items are generally based on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and Fair Use doctrine, similar to the way such usage is handled by stock photography sites.

In writing this, I realized I can't even get into the finer points of usage rights as there is no Wiki article on Editorial License, which is a type of license stock photography sites have started offering to allow Fair Use of photos of copyrighted items (such as a Ferrari, for example). The 3D industry has recently adopted this too. I think my first new article might be called "Editorial License" :) Also, I could start a new article listing all the major sites that offer free and paid 3D models. Digimation and Evolver, listed in this article, are minor players that somehow got themselves exclusively listed here.

Dmbousquet (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest to add CGTrader platform next to other online 3D marketplace. This platform contributes a lot to the artist community, because it enables them to sell and receive royalties directly from customers. It is more a social platform where 3D artists can build their portfolio and sell 3D models. Marius Kalytis (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a link to the model VW Bug[edit]

Hi, I'm looking a link to the 1972 3D model VW Bug created by Ivan Sutherland. I need it for the page List of common 3D test models and I thought that somebody here might know where to find it. If you know of other models that you think should be in the list, feel free to add them to! I am also looking for images to the models Dragon, Armadillo and Happy Buddha. There is also an image of a 3D test scene in the gallery on the page (it's also in the article global illumination) which I don't know the name of, where it's from or where it can be found. It would be good if someone here could help me find that out to. —Kri (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nature modelling[edit]

Appearantly, there is specific 3D modelling technique that uses video and automatically designs the model. It's being used for difficult models such as trees (trees differ greatly depending on species and the general appearance wanted -ie number of branches, ...- ) See http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~cl249/ Perhaps mention in article, and/or list the 3D modelling software at the List of 3D modelling software page. 91.182.205.137 (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Text not belonging to section (or at all?)[edit]

Inserted obvious missing text, found at Scaling_(geometry), before text that was inserted at 05:39, 29 January 2012, see diff.

User_talk:Patrick#Notification_about_your_insert_at_3D_modeling

UnTrueOrUnSimplified (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that some text in the section "Notable concepts and abbreviations" belongs to the next section ("Using homogeneous coordinates") - or that a whole edit should be reverted.

The edit was performed by 117.193.78.68 on 07:39, 29 January 2012 (diff).

The edit started with inconsistent markup (ath>) then the sentence "Such a scaling changes the diameter of an object by a factor..." which comes unexpectedly. It's linked thematically to the next section, so either I assume it should either be moved there or the edit should be removed altogether.

Jolastar (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 3D modeling software[edit]

3D modeling software article has little contents and overlaps a lot with 3D modeling article. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I could see the case of folding 3D modeling software into the 3D modeling page as a subsection, but not the other way around. BcRIPster (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, the sectioning is quite arbitrary and rather out of date. Contents can adapt easily. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I put some more meat into it by incorporating the List of 3D modeling Software by inclusion and so the 3D modeling software article has what the user probably wanted in the first place, plus the See Also paras that would be valuable than the simple link to the page.
Now,3D modeling software could easily be expanded with synopsis sections saying a little comparison para about each in the list. // FrankB 16:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I don't see the logic of this particular move. 3D modeling is of the concept, whereas 3D modeling software encompasses the programs needed to create 3D models. Now, I would support a move of 3D modeling software into this one.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)