/3/ - 3DCG

I've only tried the poor-man's VR, but based off that alone I think VR has incredible potential.
It also has potential to flop horribly. It needs apps, movies, videos, games, really just more things to do.
I'll probably just end up making my own shit later because of the lack of content, but I think the potential is definitely there.

>>540282
playing video games has never been more work with it tbqh.

>>540273
It's just a fad, like automobiles and the internet.

>>540273
is there even any professional vr software yet?

google's tilt brush, oculus' media, and harmonix's easel look like toys.
oculus' quill seems focused on shitty sketches
no idea about unreal vr editor, is it any good?

Definately a future for it. 3d sculpting? no, too much work right now.

It is a truly new medium it's going to take time to figure out what works and what doesn't.

Level dressing might be a fun thing to do in the Unreal VR editor. Everything else i imagine is still better to do on a Monitor.
But i think it will get better fast, not as a replacement for traditional work, but some things will work out fine in VR, others less so.

How are the dev tools / functions?

everything VR related is shit in 2016, but just the reason that this exists and that it will be improved

>>540273

VR is not the type of technology that would give 3D artist a big edge compared to using a monitor. It is, however, indispensible for developing content for VR as things like scale are felt really well.

>>540282
>I'll probably just end up making my own shit later because of the lack of content
sell it and make more

>>540273
It has potential, I think it's a bit much to expect anything serious from an in-store demo.

For example, a proper cad-cam software that appears like a virtual monitor but with a 3d model you can pull out of the screen and interact with would be fucking incredible.

people thought 3d stereo movies like Avatar would be the future, but now 4 years later there are all time lows in stereo films. VR films are even more work, and even more failure potential.

>>540719

Whenever a big CG-SFX movie comes out these days, there's usually a 3D version. I gotta say, when i decide to go to the theater to watch something instead of torrenting it at home, i always pick the 3D version. Might as well get my money's worth with an extra gimmick...

>>540273
Just because its pseudo 3d doesnt mean its any different than a monitor. All apis are still 2d thus have to render 3d to 2d. Only difference is theres 2 monitors to render to.

>>541524
ok?

Humans can't perceive full 3D anyway. No shit it's only a 2D display.

>>541527
>humans can't perceive full 3D
Uh, okay. Then nothing can, by that logic.

>>541524
>iamverysmart

>>541531
Do you even know the basics about human vison?
We have two eyes, did you know that?

>>541537
Right - take it up with the guy I replied to; most animals (not insects, etc.) have to eyes, so by his logic nothing can see in 3D.

>>541524
nobody likes you. Stop acting like this and you might have some irl friends or at least people that can tolerate being in the same room as you.

>>541543
>nothing can see in 3D.
No, that's exactly right.

Use your brain, you moron. Think about it.
Everything we see is "pseudo 3d."
Or are you meaning to tell me you're able to see all sides of a cube at once?

>>541612
Not the guy you replied to but it's called "depth" you dumb cunt.

>pseudo 3d

>>541620
You still aren't thinking about this the right way, but that's alright, I've accepted that some people are just fucking retards.
We can't see the entire object, so we can't see in 3D. It doesn't matter that we can see depth or not, because we cannot ever fully see around an entire object, so we cannot see in full 3D.

Again, are you telling me that you can see the entirety of a cube all at once?

The only reason why I used the term "pseudo 3d" is because the other fuckwad used it. It's not a term.

>>541622

Where is it implied that 3d means to see all sides of an object?
Its impossible to see all sides of an cube unless your perception is able to bend space, or you have more than one physical perspective which is impossible.

3D = length, height, depth
Doesn't matter that the brain constructs the depth perception from 2 2D images.
The end result is depth perception, ergo a human sees 3 Dimensions.

You are the fucking retard here.

>>541682
you can see 3d with one eye

Whats wrong with you guys. 3d means you can focus on objects that far or close to you. You cant do that with one image. You need 2 images to be placed in a goggles to make illusion or real objects

>>541683
true, but i guess the brain needs a stereo image to calculate depth, or to be precise calculate position in space.

the problem with sculpting in VR currently is precision, you have to zoom in so the model is fuck-huge if you want to work on it (2-3x more than you would if you were doing sculpting IRL)

also you will get tired of keeping your hands up for that long, I guarantee it

>>541758
Don't skip Arm Day, then

>>541772
the road to someone or someones developing a vr app that rivals zbrush is long and hard anon. It didnt happen with 3d stereo.

is this whole 'human can't see 3d' just here to trigger my ass?

>>541864
Probably.

Everyone knows you have to have eyes in the fourth spatial dimension in order to see 3d properly.

>>540273
Why can't VR die any quicker? Where's the potential in a device that serves only ONE novelty?

You have limited interactivity with a visual immersion. So what? Not everyone is a FPS fanboy clamoring to do virtual tours of their local drugstores or catching Pokemon at a park they will never actually go to.

VR is made for fat nerds and anorexic geeks who want to consume in the self-pity of being somewhere else that doesn't remind them of the reality they make for themselves on a daily basis. It's basically a fart-box

>>541864
I think it's a little kid that literally doesn't understand that the human brain literally calculates depth / the distance between objects (via triangulation) which you don't get from looking at a flat screen, but DO get from looking at the VR headsets.

https://nathanclarkecommunication.wikispaces.com/Depth+perception?responseToken=0c55c3c800a3ed7960c40884abb08a231

>>542364
> literally doesn't understand that the human brain literally calculates depth

>literally a misuse of the word literally twice, literally in one sentence. literally.

kys retard

>>541524
pseudo 3d? its VIRTUAL 3d what the hell are you talking about. Of course its not a REAL ENVIRONMENT wtf do you think this is

>>543552
our TWO eyes function as 3d because that way we get the dimensionality of seeing from panorama. Two different projections into each eye is a functional representation of how 3d works irl.

>>543553
thats not how it works. You can see 3d with one eye. kys.

>>542351
>Where's the potential in a device that serves only ONE novelty?

Architectural visualisation. VR and AR have tremendous potential in the field of construction and design. The ability to experience a design long before anything has been built irl can speed up design processes and save a shitload of money.

Don't be so narrow minded. VR might take a while before it finds it's place in the consumer market, but it's gonna be amazing for commercial use.

>>541524
Do you even know what a projection matrix is? It's all an abstraction bruh.

>>541758
Illustrators draw with their arms, not their wrists.

Also headset fatigue will wear people out far before arm fatigue.

>>543557
You cant interpret depth. Try sinking a basket covering one eye. Its 100 times harder..did u graduate hs or??

>>543654
I cant wait for the disorentation when u take off the vr mask after 13 hour gaming sesh

I've been experimenting with rendering 3d, but I'm having this weird debate with myself...
When you render an image the convergence plane is locked, but when our eyes look around, it changes a lot.
So the 'popping out' and 'sinking' is fake? Or rather, not how our eyes work...
I'm going to render an animated demo after i wake up to animate the convergence to simulate looking around and see what the effect is like.
I'm thinking when it will look the most real is when we have eye tracking to know what convergence is appropriate.

>>542367
That is literally the correct use of "literally"

>inb4 I was just pretending to be retarded

>>544079
Can't really expect much from someone who is literally retarded, can you.