Jump to content
  • 6

Game-like navigation through 3D models


Christiaan

Question

Edit (Mar 2023): 

This wish was originally for Vectorworks itself, and I would still love to have this kind of navigation built into Vectorworks, but where we could *really* do with it, for the sake of our own clients is VGX web views.

 

What I want is real-world navigation physics:

  • Awareness of solid objects, default mode should be that you can't walk through them. 
  • Ability to walk up stairs
  • Ability to walk through doors/gates. Or, even better, VGX would parse the model for doors/gates and animate opening them when you walk through them.
  • Ability to climb through windows, as item above
  • Ability to jump/climb over objects
  • Gravity, jump over an object and land on the surface below etc.
  • When you click on first-person mode it should set you down softly on the nearest horizontal surface with a smooth animation.
  • The viewing height should remain consistent relative to the surface you're on.
  • And perhaps with a stepping motion rather than a smooth camera effect (with the option of smooth motion), or an option for third-person navigation (i.e. you can see your character in front of you)

 

We should be navigating VGX models like this:

Original post:

I'd like to be able to walk through a model like you can modern 3D game, with awareness of physics, such as gravity.

Graphisoft have attempted this in ArchiCAD, although it looks a little ropey:

http://graphisoft.vo.llnwd.net/o1/AC10/ACClips/AC10_35.mp4

from:

http://www.graphisoft.com/products/archicad/ac10/demo/

Link to comment

Recommended Posts

  • 0

What's going on Christiaan.

When I read this post yesterday, I was number three and it already had a "5 star" rating, with no replies.

We are now up to 17 views, mine at this moment the only reply.

Then when I look all of your wishes on this list have 5 stars against them irrespective of replies or views.

What's going on Christiaan. Is this vote rigging ? A career in politics is calling ;~)

Alan

Link to comment
  • 0

Your wish list is essentially all found in CINEMA 4D as you might imagine, hence the direct export, but you would have to buy CINEMA 4D.  Some of CINEMA 4D technology has been incorporated into Vectorworks in the past.  As both C4D and Vectorworks are under the Nemetschek umbrella, lobbying Nemetschek to parse out that module for Vectorworks would be a simple solution.

Some of the wish list though (Gravity) is a headache even in C4D.  For Vectorworks it would come down to "bang for the buck" for implementation.  How many would use it considering that most Vectorworks users are still 2D oriented.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0
1 hour ago, VIRTUALENVIRONS said:

How many would use it considering that most Vectorworks users are still 2D oriented.

I do forget that people are actually running practices working in 2D.

 

But it's a chicken and egg thing. Do you improve 3D, making it easier for people to transition to a more efficient method. Or do you not improve it, ensuring that they never do.

 

 

Link to comment
  • 0

I think it is simply a question of time.  All young designers work with CAD and probably a majority in 3D, but they don't have the knowledge of a successful 60 year old architect who may still work on a board.  You can't teach experience.  Those 60 year old designers have found a way to navigate through modern technology, perhaps utilizing the skills of younger designers and that is a good thing.  But, someday they will retire leaving that knowledge with the 3D designers.

 

I thought that 20 years ago the 2D designer would he finished, but I was proven wrong.

 

Link to comment
  • 0

Hopefully i read the comments correctly about 2d designers. Dont know about others but if you are not using VW as a 3d tool you are missing out on a lot of productivity and chewing up time and money. Draw a wall in VW, it is 3d, use Design layers with the correct levels, use the survey site model, draw the roof using the roof tool and you have a 3d model that generates the elevations and plans and 3D views for the Client.

Why wouldn't you do this its the VW program.

and age is not an issue, learning new technology is not a problem keeps the brain going. Started drafting in 1971 and still going and still lots to learn about the VW program and TM

 

Someone will prob tell me i didn't read the question right.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
  • 0
On 3/27/2023 at 9:41 AM, Christiaan said:

I do forget that people are actually running practices working in 2D.

 

I was recently asked to teach VWX in 2D. I was flummoxed. I've been a user since MiniCAD v3 and tried to do more in 3D than that version was designed to accomplish. Why use a computer in 2D?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • 0

 

On 3/27/2023 at 11:19 PM, VIRTUALENVIRONS said:

Your wish list is essentially all found in CINEMA 4D as you might imagine, hence the direct export, but you would have to buy CINEMA 4D.  Some of CINEMA 4D technology has been incorporated into Vectorworks in the past.  As both C4D and Vectorworks are under the Nemetschek umbrella, lobbying Nemetschek to parse out that module for Vectorworks would be a simple solution.

Some of the wish list though (Gravity) is a headache even in C4D.  For Vectorworks it would come down to "bang for the buck" for implementation.  How many would use it considering that most Vectorworks users are still 2D oriented.

How many would be instantly more comfortable working and showing work in 3D if the 3D view navigation was more basically intuitive?*

 

People get walking and looking around. The walkaround tool doesn't indeed walk around. The view tools we have have all there own quirks that make them frustrating even when do have some comfort with them and could all use and overhaul.

 

Showing work is the most important part because we all don't want the embarrassment of trying to show a client a design to have the tools freak out on us. Like falling through the floor in Twinmotion while trying to talk kitchen cupboards. 

 

If walking around worked like really walking we'd let a larger range of clients free to explore digital twins of the design we are doing for them. 

 

I'd add the Wishlist for this we should have a 3rd Person view with an avatar of our choosing like in the video with a toggle switch to go between 1st person and over shoulder view. It should only be the avatar that can't walk through walls with the floating camera in 3rd person view ignoring walls or obstructions not visible to the avatar. 

 

* Aside- People who choose not the use the full value of the program they paid full dollars for shouldn't be dictating the extend of features.  

 

Edited by Matt Overton
  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • 0
9 hours ago, Matt Overton said:

Showing work is the most important part because we all don't want the embarrassment of trying to show a client a design to have the tools freak out on us. Like falling through the floor in Twinmotion while trying to talk kitchen cupboards. 

Apparently this is quite common problem to overcome when integrating gaming engines into CAD software. That and getting stuck. Which makes sense because I remember getting stuck back in the day when I used to play a bit of Call of Duty.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0

"Real time vs a good animation".   I will take the animation every time.  This question is not new.  It is 30 years old at least.  Features new to Vectorworks have usually been around for a long time.  VRML appeared in 1994. 

 

I have some experience in this area as I was contracted by Vectorworks in the mid 90's to write the first paper chapter for the Vectorworks manual on animation.

 

But, I did a little work for Vectorworks last year and before that I canvased almost every Architectural firm in my area and it was a considerable number.  Very few used 3D.  Those who did said they saw no value in more than static 3D images.  In their view animation was just a waste of time.

 

For them, it was true because their immediate competition worked at the same level.  Whatever your competition is using dictates what you need to use or a little more.

Link to comment
  • 0
31 minutes ago, VIRTUALENVIRONS said:

For them, it was true because their immediate competition worked at the same level.  Whatever your competition is using dictates what you need to use or a little more.


This is how you go out of business… reacting to your competition instead of delivering the services your client’s require.

 

In my market, the majority of architects use 3D either during conceptual development (visualization) or through the entire process (BIM).  Few allow their clients to navigate the models as part of a VR experience, mainly because the architects do not understand the technology enough to create a meaningful experience for the client.  These are the same folks who think sitting someone down to watch 5 minutes of poorly arranged animation is good too.

 

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how you present a project, as long as it is done well and results in the audience understanding it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • 0
On 3/29/2023 at 11:48 AM, AlanW said:

LOL Where is your sense of humour, If your Client is not relaxed enough to see the funny side of falling through the floor in TM then they are the wrong client to work with probably.

 

Many of our clients are, we cut our teeth on how to use TM to our advantage after getting the cheap promo copy with VW last year. 

The learnings out of that is we want to be able to streamline that process but yes we want to let it loose on the clients. Panospots are great BTW for no fuss walk thru you can "leave" with the client to explore. 

 

There is hopefully a continuing evolution of the product and that semi-real presentation is great for people who don't get plans you see them engage and get the plans so much faster than without it. It is not so much about keep pace but getting better engagement with the client. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • 0
18 hours ago, Christiaan said:

Apparently this is quite common problem to overcome when integrating gaming engines into CAD software. That and getting stuck. Which makes sense because I remember getting stuck back in the day when I used to play a bit of Call of Duty.

We need the Bunji - marathon / halo engine only time I got stuck in those was the puzzles. 

Link to comment
  • 0

Real time in CAD vs C4D vs gaming.  When you move a 3D model in a CAD system, the system has to calculate all the inherent math associated with each part.  Otherwise you could not pull information from it.  In C4D, that information is removed so it turns faster, but it still must retain some of its functions, but it is faster than Vectorworks. 

Gaming engines don't require this knowledge so again faster, but it is also how they texture map.  In Vectorworks and C4D, the textures need to be rendered in real time.  Gaming engines again are different.  In the better games, what appear to be textures are often full images pre painted, etc.

 

Polygon count.  The more polygons the slower the move.   When I take a Vectorworks model into C4D, I can usually cut its polygon count down by 50 percent and still retain the same look.  Gaming engines work the same way or better.

 

Walls, roof, symbols, etc.  As much of the modelling in Vectorworks is done by Vectorworks itself, attaching collision avoidance, setting gravity, etc. would also be problematic for core programmers, but the associated math would be an extra burden on movement.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by VIRTUALENVIRONS
Link to comment
  • 0
On 3/30/2023 at 11:28 PM, VIRTUALENVIRONS said:

Walls, roof, symbols, etc.  As much of the modelling in Vectorworks is done by Vectorworks itself, attaching collision avoidance, setting gravity, etc. would also be problematic for core programmers, but the associated math would be an extra burden on movement.  

 

Movement of camera in scene could be highly independent of building geometry. Vectorworks doesn't multitask in a way that lets us Welk and crew gum anyway.

 

We are talking situations when the building model is fairly static and indeed snapshotting it and isolating it from live changes would be an advantage not a problem.

Link to comment
  • 0

Hi Matt

I am sorry, but I can't agree.  I don't know if you have ever noticed that when you do an Extrude along a path, when you go to edit, your curve is a NURBS curve.  As I understand it, Vectorworks is now NURBS based.  So walls, roofs, etc. are much like the first windows.  It was an interface that sat over DOS.  The same as Extrude along a path.

So, programmers would have a difficult task to overcome that, if they could.  Collision avoidance, gravity etc, need a lot of information, that is not available In 2D planar objects.  I am pretty sure that walls, roofs etc. are hybrid planar objects.

Having said all this (having a glass of wine), they NURBS geometry would easily handle gaming attributes.

 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...