I co-authored this paper. It's a new technique to generate 3D graphics as source code instead of a point cloud.
Under the hood, it generates 3D objects with separate, sophisticated internal assembly, producing an editable "kit of parts" (instead of monolithic blobs).
E.g. imagine you generated a 3D washing machine via this approach. It's not merely going to be just "geometry" that looks like a washing machine. We actually know that there is a `Door`, `Drum`, `Control_panel` etc. Which things belong to which assemblies. What moves and where its pivot is. And eventually what those components are supposed to do.
Most current 3D GenAI cannot do this since it generates "monolithic blobs" that look good, but are unusable in downstream workflows (e.g. game engines). I.e. if you generate a 3D bicycle using traditional approaches, it's basically a blob. When you need the wheels to turn, a human (or another AI) must spend time cutting the blob into parts, naming them, placing pivots and rigging joints. I.e. you need post-generation segmentation workflows of some sort.
The paper breaks down the whole technique, and there's a showcase (+ github repo) you can play around with: https://nova3d.xyz/
Have you explored optimizing the assets to be game-ready? This kind of decomposition works if you have a single object on screen, and it's super artist + programmer friendly. But the generated assets have ~50 mesh parts, which means importing just a couple of these into a scene and you've blown your entire draw call budget for a shippable game. It's the brick wall every gamedev realizes after trying to make a scene out of easy-to-work-with primitives. You just can't hit a playable frame rate like this unless your entire game consists of just a few objects.
Have you experimented with atlasing, mesh fusion, baking animations, standardizing PSO's to a scene budget, etc? Because if this can't be automated, I've found it really limits the utility of such freeform generation techniques in practice.
This looks super interesting. I'm trying out the hosted app using "bring your own key", I've added an OpenAI key but it doesn't seem to let me generate a 3d model. It's still saying I need credits. Is this expected?
Not because AI can't do it; it totally can. LLMs have been able to run the full artist + code pipeline at least since the beginning of the year. I've built several physics-synced network simulation stacks without reading a single line of code. Agents playtest my games overnight and I wake up to a list of technical issues fixed, and FPS boosted. If you know how to ask the shaders will look great.
The problem is that making a game actually worth playing (something that Nintendo would allow to be released) isn't something that was ever possible to do as a pasttime, AI or not. You have to be in front of the computer all day guiding it. Worse, AI does not have any notion of experiencing or evaluating fun, so you can't automate this. That would be a killer research problem to tackle, though!
If we're talking about making something that passes a sniff test, you could make a metaverse right now. It just wouldn't beat the bottom of the Steam barrel in terms of what players prefer.
I agree. AI does not solve "product market fit". It mostly solves engineering. Currently AI is great as a tool, but not really a co-creator with taste.
I co-authored this paper. It's a new technique to generate 3D graphics as source code instead of a point cloud.
Under the hood, it generates 3D objects with separate, sophisticated internal assembly, producing an editable "kit of parts" (instead of monolithic blobs).
E.g. imagine you generated a 3D washing machine via this approach. It's not merely going to be just "geometry" that looks like a washing machine. We actually know that there is a `Door`, `Drum`, `Control_panel` etc. Which things belong to which assemblies. What moves and where its pivot is. And eventually what those components are supposed to do.
Most current 3D GenAI cannot do this since it generates "monolithic blobs" that look good, but are unusable in downstream workflows (e.g. game engines). I.e. if you generate a 3D bicycle using traditional approaches, it's basically a blob. When you need the wheels to turn, a human (or another AI) must spend time cutting the blob into parts, naming them, placing pivots and rigging joints. I.e. you need post-generation segmentation workflows of some sort.
The paper breaks down the whole technique, and there's a showcase (+ github repo) you can play around with: https://nova3d.xyz/
Cool. Do the individual parts still use point clouds? Or are they meshes or CSG?
Have you explored optimizing the assets to be game-ready? This kind of decomposition works if you have a single object on screen, and it's super artist + programmer friendly. But the generated assets have ~50 mesh parts, which means importing just a couple of these into a scene and you've blown your entire draw call budget for a shippable game. It's the brick wall every gamedev realizes after trying to make a scene out of easy-to-work-with primitives. You just can't hit a playable frame rate like this unless your entire game consists of just a few objects.
Have you experimented with atlasing, mesh fusion, baking animations, standardizing PSO's to a scene budget, etc? Because if this can't be automated, I've found it really limits the utility of such freeform generation techniques in practice.
This looks super interesting. I'm trying out the hosted app using "bring your own key", I've added an OpenAI key but it doesn't seem to let me generate a 3d model. It's still saying I need credits. Is this expected?
I see what you're doing. If you use the blender plugin, you'll get BYOK: https://github.com/RareSense/Nova3D/releases/tag/blender-plu...
With the app, I haven't added BYOK yet. I guess I should have before I posted on HN!
Hang on right there!
How far are we from speaking a GameCube-era game into existence as a pastime?
GameCube-era game (with full synchronous multiplayer play): 1-2 quarters. Early "self-generating" Metaverse: ~ 3-6 quarters. The Matrix: ~5-7 years
I am doubtful about the timeline.
Not because AI can't do it; it totally can. LLMs have been able to run the full artist + code pipeline at least since the beginning of the year. I've built several physics-synced network simulation stacks without reading a single line of code. Agents playtest my games overnight and I wake up to a list of technical issues fixed, and FPS boosted. If you know how to ask the shaders will look great.
The problem is that making a game actually worth playing (something that Nintendo would allow to be released) isn't something that was ever possible to do as a pasttime, AI or not. You have to be in front of the computer all day guiding it. Worse, AI does not have any notion of experiencing or evaluating fun, so you can't automate this. That would be a killer research problem to tackle, though!
If we're talking about making something that passes a sniff test, you could make a metaverse right now. It just wouldn't beat the bottom of the Steam barrel in terms of what players prefer.
I agree. AI does not solve "product market fit". It mostly solves engineering. Currently AI is great as a tool, but not really a co-creator with taste.