Conclude

Bibliography

Unity Test

Present 2

Program

Junaio.dev

3D Game Engines

Budget

Extenuate

Universal 100

Today I saw my first evidence of the infiltration of the high street by AR.   

To celebrate a century of publishing films, Universal Pictures are re-releasing one hundred films from their back catalogue.  As part of this marketing campaign, they have re-packaged the DVDs and are selling these for £5 each. 

Far more interesting from the point of view of my MA, they are also including an AR marker with each new release.  In fact, the new covers of each DVD now act as a fiduciary marker and each triggers a short CGI animation that appears to play on ‘top’ of the case.  To supplement this they also activate an audio clip related to the film – usually a key quotation or sound effect.  The Jurassic Park DVD, for example, plays a highly satisfying Tyrannosaurus’ roar.   

Universal 100 AR DVD sleeve

I noticed these at a local HMV music store and later witnessed similar displays at supermarkets.  Much to my surprise, there was a large poster advertising “Augmented Reality”.  I was slightly taken aback by this as up until now my connection with AR had been through academic reading or else through digital sources.     

I duly rushed into the store and, after reading the instructions, I began surreptitiously downloading the AR content.  On reflection, I find it interesting that I was slightly uncomfortable with this and was worried about seeming to ‘steal’ the content.   In the event, I need not have worried as I am certain that the staff and/or other customers had little idea what I was actually doing and largely ignored me.

At first, the actual AR itself was difficult to access.  For example, the application seemed to take an age to download (as a result of lack of an internet connection and the need to access iTunes).  The AR also took quite a while to appear and altogether this process lasted 30-45 seconds. 

Once working, however, the quality of the playback was quite satisfactory.  The models included clear textures and I feel that they do relate well to the films being portrayed.  Whilst the polygon count was clearly low, the animations did play very smoothly.   The low lighting also made the images flicker – which often necessitated a reload. 

In truth, however, I was far less interested in the actual quality of the CGI than in Universal’s decision to include this in their campaign.  They obviously feel that the technology possesses a strong novelty value and appeal.  Furthermore, the distributors must also have felt confident enough in the proliferation of smartphones to invest in this marketing strategy.   It is reassuring to see AR further enter the mainstream and it can only be to my advantage that it increasingly does so.

James May

2D vs AR

Fiduciary Tests

Arabian Apps

Aeolian Island GPS (or 'what I did on my holidays')

Roma Responses

Google Goggles

Market Share

Markerless

Quick Response and Fiduciary Markers

GPS / Gravimetric

80%

At present I am maintaining my full time teaching position at Stafford College and have been able to ‘concertina’ my teaching hours into four (rather full) days.  On days that I do not attend university lectures I conduct interviews at the college.  In effect this means that I am working for at least twelve hours per day when marking/preparation of lessons if taken into account.  This has evolved into a routine in which I begin work at 5am and finish at 10-11pm.    

Unsurprisingly, it has become apparent that this is not sustainable for any great length of time – regardless of the amount of coffee I drink or cigarettes I smoke.    I’m aware that my research and development have suffered and, with this in mind, I have decided to reduce my teaching hours and now aim to work to an 80% contract.  This will leave Friday as a ‘free’ day and allow time for additional studies (and sleep).    I have discussed this with my line manager and I have received confirmation that this will be possible.  Unfortunately, from the perspective if the current MA Creative Futures module, however, this will have to take effect from September.  Nevertheless, it has at least offered the possibility of future respite. 

In a more negative vein, it will also mean that I will have less available funds for potential investment in my projects.  This will necessitate careful analysis and planning of the software, equipment and marketing I will need.  There is also now have a new urgency concerning the acquisition of funding and potential investors.  The paradox of creating a portfolio to present to potential clients without some (or all) or the required software is something I will need to address prior to my drop in earnings.

OFSTED

The government has kindly informed my place of employment of a government (OFSTED) inspection to take the place during the week commencing 16th April 2012.   This is an unexpected and unwelcome turn of events.

I personally had certainly not predicted this additional workload, not least as the college had been inspected only two years previously.  Having endured an OFSTED inspection previously, I anticipate being called upon to create and collect a considerable volume of paperwork.   

In addition, during the actual inspection, I have also been asked to attend meetings with the OFSTED inspectors.  Inevitably, I will have to prepare paperwork for these too. 

It is unlikely (inconceivable?) that this situation will not impact on my research and MA Creative Futures studies.  I feel that the best line of defence may be to try and manipulate my teaching workload to incorporate topics relevant to the MA.  For example, I have already written an Arch Viz design brief for my Level 3 BTEC students.  I acknowledge that this is not necessarily a solution (and arguably ethically questionable) but needs must!      

IOR

Creating glass and other reflective/transparent (or semi-transparent) objects are areas of CGI I have found consistently difficult to master.  As the client’s design includes several windows, including a glass ‘tower’, I am a little concerned about this aspect of the project.  To address this, I have undertaken tutorials and a short project to help my understanding of this area. 

I purchased an Escape Studios online tutorial.  This includes eleven hours of video tutorials and access to an online tutor.  I focussed on the ‘Lighting with Mental Ray’ videos and applied the results to the accompanying downloadable models.  The results were impressive and I feel that gained some additional information that will serve me well in later projects.  In particular, the need to maintain a constant and accurate scale was of use.  I had previously assumed that, as 3D models can in theory be scaled to infinity, this was not of significance.  

However it appears that the photometric lighting (and the exposure control) used in Mental Ray does not scale automatically – calling for a rigid system of measurements.

 Next, I decided to apply the techniques to my own work.  Personally, I feel that this is important and I try to do so after all of the tutorials I complete.  I believe that this is the only manner in which I can truly test my understanding and it naturally helps to build confidence in the techniques used.      

As one of the Foundation Degree modules that I am currently leading is an Arch Viz, I decided to use the AutoCad files I had to hand.   The model created was a recreation of the Kaufman Desert House.  I had several plans and reference photographs to hand. 

IOR and caustics tests, 3ds Max & Mental Ray

In creating my design, my primary concern was obviously the glass windows and the swimming pool.  I added few details to the design and only a few environmental models.  These help to create a sense of scale and I would obviously aim to add far more (including furniture) if I were to revisit the model.

Mental Ray

For this mini-project, I used Autodesk 3ds Max with the Mental Ray renderer.  I have found that this creates satisfactory results with an acceptable trade-off in processor requirements.  In addition, I had also earlier been assured that this combination the de facto industry standard but research has indicated that this may not be the case.  There is an argument that VRay is in fact the render of choice for Arch Viz artists.

To be honest, even after following the tutorials, I am still feel that I am struggling to gain an element of control over IOR.  Assuming that realism is the goal, I consider that my experimentation has been a failure thus far.  The so called “Uncanny Valley” has raised its ugly head and the test renders look ‘hyper-real’ without actually being convincing.   This may be a result of inaccurate scaling and I will undertake more tests in order to solve this problem.

IOR

Perhaps the most confusing aspect has been the use of Indices of Refraction (IOR) within CGI.  Essentially, IOR (as I understand it) indicates the angle light at which light refracts through or across an object.  For transparent materials this means passing through an object.   Within CGI, the value of IOR is indentified by a value and this, in turn, is applied to a shader or material.   There are several online IOR libraries available that aim to give an indication of the real world IOR values of materials. 

Relevance
Ironically (as I discovered after completing the tutorials) it has become apparent that current AR does not often enable real-time lighting effects or shadows.   This in effect means that IOR and reflections will not be relevant to my immediate AR experiments.

The apps I have seen rely upon an illusionistic approach, more akin to early game consoles such as the Playstation and original Xbox.  I assume that this is a result of the current technology rather than a design choice.  Even more powerful systems, including desktop PCs, rarely permit ‘real time’ rendering.  Systems that do,  are typically specialised and require specific software for the task (Powell, 2006).   

As a result, in the short term, I feel that I would be wise to explore alternative solutions such as Ambient Occlusion and/or light mapping.  These are far less processor intensive and allow the ‘baking’ of textures to models.   Fortunately I have used both of these techniques in previous projects and so these should be relatively easily implemented, although the results will inevitably be more stylised than realistic.

Immersion

Amendment

Following a further meeting with the client, I have been informed that the design for the extension has been amended a second time.  This appears to be a more comprehensive change and I am pleased to see that the architect has already drawn new plans showing the proposed changes. 

At first glance, the most significant changes appear to be the lengthening of the rear balcony and alterations to the interior layout.  The central axis has also been shifted slightly to the east.  This appears to clarify the more problematic areas, including the points at which the roofing intersects.  

Although this will necessitate a re-design of my existing 3D model, I am pleased (something of an understatement) as I will now be able to attend to details and to move forward with more confidence. I have been given assurances that this will not change again in the immediate future!

A deadline of the 13 May, intended to coincide with the conclusion of the Creativity and Enterprise module, has now been agreed for the final designs.

Although it is clearly beneficial that this process is now completed, the uncertainty surrounding the design has been of some concern.  For example, it has limited my output as I have been reluctant to proceed without full confirmation.   

On reflection, I should have clarified this with the client/architect at the initial stages.  That I did not so is perhaps a result of my being out of touch with the realities of working for a client and of my initial euphoria.   

Somewhat belatedly, I have revisited an example Personal Service Agreement (PSA) relating to Arch Viz.    Crucially, this contains a ‘product schedule’   defining an appropriate timescale and structure for a proposed project.   Although too late to implement in this project, I intend using a variation of this in future work as I would imagine that statements such as “further changes after 7 days may be billed at an additional cost to CLIENT” will have the desired effect (Smith, 2006, pg 3).  

Museum Guides / Practical AR

Finance / Funding

Free Unity iOS (and Android)

Unity Tech is currently offering both the IOS and Android licences of the Unity 3 game engine as a free download.   This is a time sensitive offer, available until the 8^th of April.  This is welcome news as the smartphone licences had previously retailed at $400 each. 


Unity 3D is the game engine I am most familiar with.  I have previously used alternatives such as the Epic’s Unreal UDK but have migrated towards Unity over the past two years.  The primary reason for this had been the adoption of the engine in my teaching role, in turn a result of the (then) relative versatility of the engine.  For example, Unity allows work to be exported to a wide variety of platforms such as the Playstation, Xbox, PC and web.  This also includes both Apple and Android devices.    

I presume that this move by Unit Tech is a response to competition from similar licences such as Epic’s Unreal and the Crytech’s CrygEngine.  Both of these are now free for download for educational use.   Time permitting, I will explore these in the following weeks to ascertain their viability as AR development tools. 

For now, I will simply download the free Unity software and  install it ready for later experimentation.

AR String

String was amongst the first marker based applications I encountered.   As a user, I found the initial results entertaining and was satisfied with the ease with which AR content can be displayed and/or manipulated.  Indeed, this was the application I choose to characterize AR in my introductory MA Creative Futures presentation.   The application runs speedily and with few glitches.  The String Labs website proclaims it to be the “fastest commercially available AR technology on IOS right now” (String, 2012).

I have since taken the opportunity to explore the application further and to investigate its potential as software for development.  From my perspective, as a potential developer, the software offers several advantages.  For example, it is compatible with the Unity game engine (negating some of the need to learn a software language) and allows 3D models or animations to be uploaded.   It has already been adopted by several high profile companies such as Boeing and Paramount.

Example String AR

Taking this into consideration, I initially felt that String would offer a clear and established route to developing an AR application.  However, the business model, and subsequent costs, proposed by String Labs represent a potential barrier to my utilising the technology. 

According to the String Labs website, there are five different licensing options, each with varying degrees of functionality:

Breakdown of Licence Costing and Features

Demonstration
Demonstration is simply a preview of the technology and designed to show its potential. 

Developer
 A basic Developer licence costs a reasonable £79 (as with all String Labs pricing, this excludes VAT).  This allows the tracking of multiple markers and has all the functionality of the more costly licences.  Unfortunately, it is not possible to release an app created with this licence to the Apple iTunes store and it appears only to be intended as an aid with which to learn the software.    

Indie

The Indie licence enables an iTunes store release.  However, it retails at £399 per application per year.   Disappointingly, it also allows only a single marker to be recognised by the software.   It is also branded with a String^TM Splash Screen that appears for two seconds prior to launching the program.  A customisable “reticle” is also overlaid when a marker is not viewed.

This licence appears quite an expensive option for such limited functionality.  The maximum of a single marker would clearly limit my output and restrict the nature of the work I could undertake.  It would arguably be acceptable for the Creativity and Enterprise design brief but actually of little use thereafter.   

Pro
The Pro licence is far a more expansive and permits the tracking of unlimited markers.  This also allows the software to work in tandem with Unity’s Touch Hook – enabling far more interaction.   The String^TM Splash Screen is still evident but no reticle is displayed.   

Unsurprisingly, this comes at a cost and the Pro licence effectively doubles the cost of the Indie licence to £799 per application per year.   Despite this, this is perhaps the most relevant licence for my future needs.  It would at least allow at least one fully functional application to be delivered and this in turn could potentially lead to further investment.  Clearly, however, the cost of the licence would have to factored into the pricing of any app I developed and I have several doubts concerning its value. 

Campaign
The Campaign Licence is £5599 per application per year.  As expected this is a fully functional realise, enabling complete developer control over the program.  The Splash screen is completely removed and is replaced with a customisable white (blank) screen.  I am very surprised that this licence remains a ‘per app per year’ product and I feel must be viewed as of use only to larger businesses or corporations with an established brand to project.  In fairness, the String Lab (2012) website portays it as the licence “for when you’re ready to go big”  – although I would suggest you would already need to be big to buy this licence. 

Meta Museums

Brand & Brandson

Texture Collection

 I have found it useful to collect photographs necessary for texture map work whilst working ‘on-site’.   Additionally, however, I have also begun to use online texture map collections.   Previously I considered using these collections only when absolutely necessary and have preferred to create my own shaders in the appropriate 2D/3D software.  This may have been due to a feeling of somehow ‘cheating’ by using stock imagery.  However, I have been increasingly impressed by the breadth of resources now available.  Clearly, these can also be a valuable time saver and I do now intend using these as part of this project.   

At present I have found two sites worthy of mention:

Cgtextures.com
This site holds a wealth of (65,000 according to the home page).  A significant number of these are free textures and cover a wide range of potential materials.  Several building and architectural themes are included in the collections.   Importantly, the images are also royalty free and available for commercial use with 3D graphics.

cgtextures.com homepage

The site also has several introductory tutorials regarding photography and using image editing for texture map creation.  The former are especially useful as I have little knowledge of ‘real’ photography (ie. not CGI camera based).  

Textures accessible via the site are either free or else available for purchase.   After initially experimenting with the free textures, I elected to join the website and downloaded a few of the ‘premium’ (ie. paid) maps.   

Although the premium images were of a high quality, I found that many of these maps are actually tiled variations of others freely available via the site.  Tiling a texture (.jpg) is a simple process of using the Offset filter in Adobe Photoshop.  In future, therefore, I intend using a combination of the two, paying for maps only when absolutely necessary.

Cgskies.com
As its name implies, this is a specialised site and contains largely only texture maps suitable for skylights or skyboxes.  On further investigation these appear to be of a good quality, are suitably large (15000 x 3800 pixels) and several are in the HDR format.  As with most of the other sites, there are a few free examples available but most of the images need to be paid for.  Prices do not seem too steep and the average costing appears to be about £12-15.  In the short term, this site will also negate the necessity of learning how to photograph HDRI images (this saving some time). 

cgskies.com homepage

   

Roma

The forthcoming week I will be leading a trip to Rome as part of my role as tutor for the A Level and BTEC National Diploma courses at Stafford College.  I have been fortunate enough this year to actually choose the destination – although the cost of this has been a significant volume of preparation and planning.   I decided that Rome was a logical choice as I have spent considerable time there (attending language courses and working) and have previously visited several sites and museums. 

Worryingly, I have not spoken Italian ‘in anger’ for some time and so I have been desperately attempting to revise my knowledge.   This has involved attending evening courses to refresh my skills.  To date this has been a somewhat painful experience but I’m optimistic that it will return in time!

 More relevant to this blog, I aim to take advantage of the trip to collate research for use in the MA Creative Futures.       

Photographs and Sketches

The trip should present ample opportunity to collect imagery for use within my later projects.  I imagine that the majority of this research will be in the form of photographs or video, although I do hope to sketch if responsibilities/time permits.  The research that I do acquire should provide inspiration and a platform on which to build.  Given my longer term aims, I will focus on collecting information from the Coliseum, the Pantheon and Hadrian’s Villa.  I am most interested in obtaining useful images exploring the Roman use of exterior and interior space. 

AR App Reviews (and some doubts)

Secondly, and perhaps more pertinent to this module, I also aim to experiment with Augmented Reality applications using my own Apple iPhone 3GS.  I will be interested to see how these compliment my visit and evaluate their application ‘in the field’.

Surprisingly, I must admit to having developed some doubts concerning the use of AR technology for this purpose.   I am especially concerned that it will detract from the actual experience of interacting with the real and act as a barrier to personal engagement.  I am becoming increasingly wary of the simulation appearing “better than the real” (Shields, 2003 cited in Lister et al 2009) – however absurd this may seem when discussing a mainstay of western culture such as Rome.            

Similarly, I am anxious that an AR guide will perpetuate the harmful practice of defining ‘important’ sites at the expense of those to be deemed somehow inferior (De Botton, 2003).    Working in travel, I witnessed the ubiquitous use of Lonely Planet/Rough Guide books to channel tourists to popular areas. 

Clearly, the interaction and information available via an AR application has the potential to circumvent this issue.  However, without a broad base of content, I fear that the interactive nature of AR may actually amplify the problem. 

With these issues in mind, I plan assessing the responses of the students and staff both during and after the visit.  And as my time will be limited, I have decided to review only two apps:

The first application I intend to study is Viewlity Rome.  This is a GPS driven application which provides directions to key sites.  It overlays the camera view with  icons and menus to provide links to web sites such as Google Maps to provide .  

Viewlity Roma

In addition, I have decided to evaluate Visual Rome.  This app, as its name implies, is designed to give a visual tour of the city.  Interestingly, the app claims that it is able to show “full 3D reconstructions of key areas, so you can see how Rome was 2000 years ago” (iTunes).  This sounds very promising and I am genuinely excited to see how this works in practice.

Existing Museum Displays and User Response

Finally, during the trip I will research and evaluate the current use of ‘interactive’ displays available in museums and at archaeological sites.  Previous visits have shown that the majority of displays in Rome remain traditional, largely passive experiences.  However, the re-invention of museums, and the opening of previously private exhibits, give some hope that they will have been improvements (Valance cited in Damala, 2009).  I’ll also be interested in contrasting newer museums such as the MAXXI with the well known, established venues.

   

  

Blocking Out

Having now liaised with the client on several occasions, I have become increasingly familiar with the proposed alterations to the building.   

In essence the key elements of the design are:

·         A connecting structure and walkway, incorporating a glass roofed   

·         A second floor above the existing garage, including a surrounding balcony and railings

·         A redesign of the interior of the existing garage area

With this in mind I have created 3D models showing an approximation of the existing structure.   I assume that this will be required in each of the three Arch Viz elements I propose (with inevitable additions/alterations as required).  In truth, I also want to begin actually making something.

Initially, I scanned the architectural plans (handdrawn!) and converted these to a digital format.  These were then converted to Splines and used as a foundation for elevating the design in Autodesk 3ds Max.  This is a process I have followed in several previous projects that allows a 'quick and dirty' outline of the project to be created.  From the perspective of creating an Arch Viz, I find this drafting of the model very useful, particularity when assessing lighting solutions. 

Architects Initial Plans

Blocking out of model

Close of blocking out stage

However, in this instance blocking out has proven to be a far more difficult task than I had anticipated.  I worked largely from the pencil sketches, showing approximate measurements, and the cardboard physical model with which I had been provided.  Unfortunately, on closer inspection, it became evident that these did not actually correspond one to another.  

Model of building provided by client

This in turn led to a brief discussion in which the client helpfully revealed that the plans represented “approximations” of the design and that I was to “take my best guess”. 

I therefore began modelling a compromise design (in the full knowledge this will later necessitate a redesign). 

Unsurprisingly, this too proved problematic.  For example, I found that sections in which the new roofing where to meet the original building would entail a restructuring of the established roofing or else a curtailing of the new design.  This was completely omitted from the plans and was incomprehensible when examining the card model.  Similarly, details of rooms above the current garage were vague and required several calls to the client.  It became clear that he was looking for a level of guidance beyond the remit of 'visualisation'. 

It was agreed that these details would be finalised between the client and the architect but that I would persevere with the loose draft in the meantime.  This situation is undoubtedly a consequence of working with both the architect and the client.  I'm aware that this is not the usual circumstance and I will not expect this in future projects.

Test render with GPS related lighting.

Having completed a model, I next introduced a single skylight/skylight and adjusted the GPS to allow a 'realistic' lighting simulation.  The nearest software presets allow lighting relative to Manchester - close enough for my purposes at this stage.  Finally, I added simple texture maps to the model.  These were drafts constructed largely taken from the photographs of the original site with which I had been provided.  These proved to very useful and gave a clear indication of colour, materials and potential lighting conditions.  I chose to ignore the surrounding fauna at this stage but did collect a few Xfrog (http://xfrog.com/) downloads for future use.

Present

As part of the design brief initial pitch, I presented my initial concept to the MA Creative Futures student group and lecturers. 

I began with an introduction to the concepts of both Architectural Illustration and of Architectural Visualisation.   These were followed by a (very) brief outline of pictorial 3D space, illusion and immersion.  Towards the close of the presentation I detailed the actual Arch Viz project I have accepted, giving a few details and displaying a (rough) 3D sketch of my work to date.

Having now worked as a teacher/lecturer for several years, I was not particularly nervous about speaking to a group.   In fact, my chief concern was that I would fall into ‘teaching mode’ and run the risk of patronising the audience.   In this respect I feel that I was only partly successful.  Reflecting on the content of my presentation, it is clear that I still felt the need to ‘educate’ the audience.   Nevertheless, I judge the presentation to have represented a clear, justified pitch.

In addition to delivering a Powerpoint, I also supplied an Apple iPhone to the audience.  I used this to show an example of AR to the audience and for this I used the simple ‘AR String’ application.  I felt that this would help reinforce the concept of AR in the mind of the audience. 

Demonstrating the iPhone app was arguably the most successful part of the entire presentation.  The responses to the demonstrations were very positive and it was clear that others in the group could see potential in the new media.  I was especially interested to hear proposals for different uses of the application.

The enthusiastic appraisals of the software correspond with my earlier experiences of introducing people to AR.  Almost all of these initial responses have been encouraging and I have gained confidence in its wider acceptability.   In many respects this is doubtless to a result of the novelty and mystery of the technology.  However, I also feel that it is the use of a technology people are already familiar with is a factor.