Generative Systems
category: general [glöplog]
http://www.looksgood.de/log/2007/07/13/diploma-generative-systeme/
What recent demos have provided good examples of this?
Quote:
- A compendium of visual possibilities of generative techniques -
“Generative Systeme” is a compendium book (at the moment only in German) of imaging generative techniques with two goals: first readers can have easily an overview over the whole topic of generative techniques and second learn with practical examples how to use these techniques to profit later from them.
Our Definition of “Generative Systems” is: they are systems, letting you create complex visualizations which aren’t possible to create by the normal approach (edit objects manually).
Because of the quickly development of the computer industry more and more possibilities are offered, “Generative Systems” are going to be very important and popular in future. You can see this in the last few years by the increased appearance of software tools, which have their main focus on generating things, like Processing, VVVV and many others.
Quote:
Our Definition of “Generative Systems” is: they are systems, letting you create complex visualizations which aren’t possible to create by the normal approach (edit objects manually).
What recent demos have provided good examples of this?
Let me know when there is an english version of the book.
indeed, i would totally buy an english version if there was one.
Is this the same as procedural methods? Then
like almost every 64k intro you know.
Quote:
What recent demos have provided good examples of this?
like almost every 64k intro you know.
imbusy: Not really, 64k's use it mostly for size reduction, but this book is talking about procedural methods to generate things that are difficult to do by hand.
However, it is used in demos. Debris would be a good example I think (just imagine modelling the movements of all those cubes by hand :-)
However, it is used in demos. Debris would be a good example I think (just imagine modelling the movements of all those cubes by hand :-)
there are some dynamic demos
Now that I think of it a bit more, most demo effects could be considered generative systems. Take for example the good old fashioned fire effect, how more generative can you get?
I agree with imbusy that almost every 64kb intro does it. Even if it is just to generate some static textures and models, there are images in the book that reminds me the concept we all know. Or is the concept not that of procedural generated content but something more?
Whatever, interesting book.
Whatever, interesting book.
Quote:
aren’t possible to create by the normal approach (edit objects manually)
doing things procedurally in 64k still has the manual aspect tho. you could model a house with werkkzeug, but it's still manual intervention (iow, your choices, not the machine's), eventhough eventually it's totally made thru formulas to poop it on your screen GENERATED... . i assume this course focusses more on the _fully generative_ aspect of art and the underlying randomness that isnt fully random otherwise it'll look dutch color scheme all the way! :)
oh next to that.. one could model such a house in 3dsmax with full manual control so that renders out the possibility that it's impossible (wow, nice words! :P)
Yes the fire effect seems to be an example. Particle systems as well. In the domain of modelling, I guess we could say a procedural city is something that is not achievable "by hand" ..
It's not because we generate things procedurally that we fit their definition of a generative system. As a definition I think it's poor.
Yet, it's a good description of something I look for from times to times, a demo that is showing constructs that show a scale / complexity / details that no sane human hand would have been able to achieve.
Maali, I think their definition (part of the weakness of it, and also why they have to talk about things "impossible to achieve by hand") allows for some manual interaction with the generation process.
Coming back to the example of procedural cities in 64k.. Never having coded one I'm not sure what's the "state of the art" here, I imagine I would like to define the outskirts and overall extent of the city (for camera placement and direction) and would love to have the window-textures be totally generated as well as the streets and buildings.
It's not because we generate things procedurally that we fit their definition of a generative system. As a definition I think it's poor.
Yet, it's a good description of something I look for from times to times, a demo that is showing constructs that show a scale / complexity / details that no sane human hand would have been able to achieve.
Maali, I think their definition (part of the weakness of it, and also why they have to talk about things "impossible to achieve by hand") allows for some manual interaction with the generation process.
Coming back to the example of procedural cities in 64k.. Never having coded one I'm not sure what's the "state of the art" here, I imagine I would like to define the outskirts and overall extent of the city (for camera placement and direction) and would love to have the window-textures be totally generated as well as the streets and buildings.
(If I was to myself quote old demos, I would mention "deepness in the sky" as a good match)
There's some confusion between procedural and generative stuff I think. Take a city scene in a 64k (or debris perhaps) as an example:
First you make some buildings. Instead of storing the 3d model and the textures, you give the system the steps needed to create it (ie. make a box, subdivide, extrude bits etc.) This is a procedure, so it's procedural creation.
Now, you need to puts hundreds or thousands of these models into a city, you don't want to store all of that data so you write an algorythm that creates a city layout and fills it with buildings and helicopters. The algorythm generates the city, so this part is the generative bit.
Really, there's a lot of crossover between the two things, and they tend to complement eachother well.
First you make some buildings. Instead of storing the 3d model and the textures, you give the system the steps needed to create it (ie. make a box, subdivide, extrude bits etc.) This is a procedure, so it's procedural creation.
Now, you need to puts hundreds or thousands of these models into a city, you don't want to store all of that data so you write an algorythm that creates a city layout and fills it with buildings and helicopters. The algorythm generates the city, so this part is the generative bit.
Really, there's a lot of crossover between the two things, and they tend to complement eachother well.
knos: the city in media error is largely generated (using houdini). :)
This article (about generative work in Houdini) is rather nice: http://www.highend3d.com/articles/references/Ecosystem-simulation-in-Houdini-28.html
Quote:
First you make some buildings.
You generate a building.
Quote:
Now, you need to puts hundreds or thousands of these models into a city, you don't want to store all of that data so you write an algorythm that creates a city layout and fills it with buildings and helicopters.
So you write a procedure to do that.
My conclusion: both mean the same thing.
imbusy: as I said theres some crossover, the meanings are very similar too. Perhaps you could say that procedural implies a fixed pattern, generative implies a rough description. Plus that huge grey area between the two :)
The difference can also be that the building it self can be manually modelled, and then a procedure can be used to alter and place these buildings into a pattern.
gloom: that houdini article is wicked. im so learning that thing next block of free time i get. :)
smash: Can I make the soundtrack for the demo that ends up using that knowledge? :)
gloom: yea! so im thinking.. with this thing i could generate whole fields of ribbons! it'd be unstoppable! ;)
Be careful or you'll start making Traction demos ;)
gloom, how about making the soundtrack generative.
Skrebbel: What on earth for? :) Such music is pretty much always crap. Besides; graphics, objects, effects and post-processing can almost always be "randomized", but if the music needs to have structure and control.
Preacher: You know what they say, "there is only a thin line between lines and ribbons" -- oh yeah! :)
Smash: I'm serious about the music offer btw.
Preacher: You know what they say, "there is only a thin line between lines and ribbons" -- oh yeah! :)
Smash: I'm serious about the music offer btw.