gaming - Public Works Group Blog

February 28, 2012

Are Gaming Engines the New CAD?

Over the past few years, I've spent considerable time online exploring many different virtual worlds or 3D immersive spaces. Some of these like World of Warcraft are designed to only offer a gaming experience while others like Second Life look like a game, but do not offer gaming as a primary function. My main reason for first visiting these environments was to explore their potential for supporting my work as a civil engineer. Even my decision to try out World of Warcraft was based on this – I only joined and started playing so I could attend a science conference held there in Spring of 2008. Of course, in my journey into 3D, I found there was so much more than what I could have imagined. While my focus had been on the use of these spaces to create or learn, I eventually realized these are actual places where people hang out and spend time with each other. Through the years, I've come to enjoy and appreciate the "metaverse" as a place to meet incredible people, attend classes or other events, or just spend some time having fun. But I've also continued to explore the possibility of using these spaces for my work. And even though I don't yet have any conclusions, I wanted to post some thoughts on how the technology is evolving to better fit into the delivery of AEC services.

Background

After my first few visits to Second Life, I began learning to build and create 3D content using their software. Coming from a primarily 2D CAD background with only some experience in 3D, I didn't at first pick up on the 3D modeling foundation built into the Second Life tools. However, for building and creating in Second Life, this really wasn't a problem – the creators of the software made the tool so user-friendly that you really didn't need to know anything at all about 3D modeling or CAD to create something. But one frustrating issue for people who do use CAD was the inability to easily import into Second Life something that was drawn in a CAD program. We also could not export something we built in Second Life to CAD. And this seemed to be the main reason most people I showed Second Life to didn't think it would be useful in our work.

Although Second Life still does not allow import/export of CAD drawings, the software was eventually changed to allow the use of 3D models. This development of alternative methods for creating objects in Second Life led me to work more diligently on developing my 3D modeling skills. As I started using programs like Blender, I was better able to see the similarities between the foundation of building in Second Life and 3D modeling. And my building experience in Second Life helped me to better understand and pick up 3D modeling skills.

Current State

Over the last few years, software has been developed by other companies to allow people to create virtual spaces. Most are not exactly like Second Life, but they are similar. Many offer the ability to import 3D models, but most don't offer the same flexibility found in Second Life to easily create objects entirely within the software. The only other software I have found with the same ease of use for building objects entirely within the software is Open Simulator (OpenSim) – a spin-off of Second Life. Other programs, like Unity3D, rely heavily on the import of 3D models. Based on my use of these programs, I've listed below a few of my observations in using these packages to create a representation of an AEC project:

Many AEC projects require the ground to be shown. If a contour file for the project is available, this information can be used by changing it into the proper format. The user can then apply these contours to the ground in both Second Life/OpenSim and Unity3D. (You can learn the most about doing this in Second Life/OpenSim by visiting Darb Dabney's blog: http://blog.3dg.is/.) In Second Life/OpenSim there is also an option to create ground from an object rather than the default ground or terrain.

Landscaping is also an important part of most AEC projects. In Second Life/OpenSim landscaping is created the same way everything other than the ground is created – by using objects. In Unity3D, generating landscaping is very easy because there are specific tools for creating trees and plants.

Design components present more of a challenge than the ground and landscaping. While tools like Second Life/OpenSim and Unity3D allow for the import of 3D models, neither work seamlessly with standard AEC CAD tools. So to create a road project, I could make a 3D model of it in a modeling program and import it. But I have not yet found a way to make sure the import retains the proper dimensions – in Second Life and in Unity3D, I've had to mess with the scale and then worry if the object is the correct size. I could try to work within the programs and create objects directly in the environment. This works well in Second Life/OpenSim but only for linear alignments – horizontal and vertical. And if I create only within the software, I am limited to the use of basic shapes. More complex shapes can only be accurately created using a 3D modeling program and imported in.

And this brings me to the issue of texturing or applying the "pictures" or graphics to the objects. Texturing an object finalizes its appearance and helps make objects appear more real so it is very important. In Second Life/OpenSim each object created has a plywood texture or look as a default. In Unity3D, the object is white by default. What I've found is there's a lot of flexibility in texturing objects within Second Life/OpenSim, but not so much in Unity3D. For example, if I wanted to create a cube with six different textures on each face, this is easily done in Second Life/OpenSim by creating a basic cube object, clicking each face, and choosing the corresponding image to apply. But to do this in Unity3D, I have to create additional objects on which to apply the texture then attach each object to the corresponding face of my cube. Another method of doing this in Unity3D is to create an image file that when applied to the 3D object will wrap the correct texture around the object so that the proper image ends up on each face. While the wrapped image sounds fairly easy, the problem is that each time I want to change the image on one face, I have to create a new image to wrap around the cube. Unity3D is applying one image to the cube as a standard 3D modeling program would while Second Life/OpenSim offers the ability to apply different images to different parts of a model.

If you want others to visit your virtual project site, it's probably easiest to do so using Unity3D because it's easily accessed through a browser. Second Life/OpenSim require the download and installation of a viewer software program and registration to allow the user to log in. Both formats allow for both single user access and multiple user access. (Unity3D can be accessed by multiple users through an application like Jibe.)

Both programs allow for the ability to program objects, but the programming language and interface within Unity3D is more common and flexible.

Neither program seems to have an easy export out to CAD.

So based on the above points, a designer would choose between Second Life/OpenSim and Unity3D based on the project needs. If the final product would need to retain the flexibility to be changed, it's best to probably stick with something like Second Life/OpenSim. But if once completed, the project will probably not be changed, it's best to keep it in Unity3D. Fortunately at least two companies (Arch Virtual/Tipodean Technologies and Rezzable) are offering methods to either convert a project built in OpenSim to Unity3D or the ability to view a project built in OpenSim through a Unity3D viewer. So if a user wanted the flexibility of creation offered by OpenSim but the ease of access of Unity3D and didn't anitipate needing to change much after it was completed, they could build the project in OpenSim and convert to Unity3D or view through a Unity3D "window." The need for programming flexibility might also play a part in the decision, particularly if someone wanted to model traffic through a project site.

The Future

One of the big complaints about Second Life is that they don't understand their users. I sometimes wonder if it's because they set out to create a type of modeling or CAD tool and ended up unintentionally creating a place. And because they still view themselves as a software company creating tools, they have a diffcult time understanding how to manage and deal with this other aspect of their creation including the fact that most users want to use it as a place. (On a side note, I also work for a city so understand well the community management side of this and have been fascinated to watch how the company handles the same exact issues we face every day in our cities.) I am also not sure they are planning on shifting focus away from this "software first" attitude. They have made acquisitions and statements that lead me to believe they are further developing features and tools that could possibly enhance their existing offering. And because right now their creation tools offer the most flexibility, I am hoping they are moving in this direction even though I do also wish they would embrace the social side of their creation.

As for Unity3D, I think we will see the users develop the path through which this software can be implemented for AEC users. Perhaps with plug-ins and other developments with 3D modeling, this software might one day be better suited for renderings of AEC projects. Right now, one of the best examples of this type of use has been created by Jon Brouchoud working with his wife, Kandy, and Chris Collins. They have created a virtual representation of the downtown area of Dubuque, Iowa. Their project is also promoted on Kickstarter where people can donate to development of additional features. You can learn more about this project by clicking the widget below:

Most of you working in the AEC industry might wonder where our traditional CAD companies are in all of this. Unfortunately, the real innovation in 3D visualizations for the average user is not coming from Autodesk or Bentley. While Autodesk has amazing products that cover many of the aspects of the discussion above, they have not created a seamless path between them. And their programs seem to have a much steeper learning curve than those discussed above – not one person I have talked to who uses Civil3D has said it was a quick or easy program to learn. And there's just not been a strong showing by Bentley in the 3D arena.

The other side of all this is the cost. Anyone can use the Second Life/OpenSim/Unity3D tools for free while CAD programs from Autodesk and Bentley cost way too much for the average person to purchase and maintain a subscription. Perhaps if Autodesk one day better integrates all their tools, designs the tools with an easier user interface or improves the learning curve, and the price becomes more reasonable for the average user, they would most likely have an edge – particularly because many firms already have their CAD software. But based on the movement by these other companies, I wonder if one day in the future we'll be developing plans primarily using 3D modeling tools like Blender/Hexagon/ZBrush and gaming engines or tools like Unity3D and Second Life/OpenSim.

August 20, 2011August 20, 2011

Glogging My Virtual Experiences

If you've been reading this blog since its early days, you know I'm a big supporter of the use of virtual worlds and 3D immersive spaces. Although I realize these technologies are not yet mainstream or even well accepted or understood, my experience with them has been tremendously positive. They have quite simply changed my life and career forever. Through using virtual worlds, I've learned skills with computer programs and found information about places and ideas I would have never picked up anywhere else. I've also developed better presentation and delivery skills through interactions in these environments. And most importantly, I've met people I never would have met without entering these spaces. It's been an incredible journey that isn't over yet.

Because of my involvement in all this, I became aware of and decided to participate in 3D Game Lab – a summer class focusing on learning how to use gaming techniques and frameworks to supplement or enhance learning. And this experience has led me to even more information and skills and techniques to help me further develop my career. The class finishes up this weekend. But as with virtual worlds, this experience is not over yet either. All of us who participated can choose to continue on creating our own classes using their software. And after September 1st, we can invite up to 60 people or students to participate in our class. My plan is to start with building a class that will teach drainage, and it will be offered online for free. After the beta period, they are opening up the software for anyone to use to build classes – right now it appears that if classes will be offered for free, the use of the software will be free. I'm hoping to be able to continue creating classes for citizens and for other professionals. When I get closer to launching, I will blog more about the experience.

In the meantime, I'm embedding below a visual summary of my virtual experiences – creating this was one of the assignments in our 3D Game Lab class. And it helped me find out about and learn how to use the Glogster site where anyone can create an educational poster. I can see a lot of uses for people in public works who need to create posters for their department.

August 4, 2011

The Gamification of Public Works

Most people my age have been schooled with the "sit and listen" method. But today's teachers are breaking out of that mold by tailoring lesson plans for different learning styles using gaming ideas and platforms. So to better understand this shift in education, I am taking a summer class offered through Boise State that focuses on this new teaching approach. The course is built on 3D GameLab, "an online, quest-based platform" that can be used to develop training courses. My purpose in taking the class is to develop education-based skills and to understand how best to leverage a game-based approach to learning. And my goal is to use these skills and this knowledge to develop training resources for professionals in public works and for citizens.

So why are educators embracing gaming as a teaching method, and why do I believe this can be leveraged for professional training? Game developers have figured out some critical elements of human nature. They are leveraging the fact that we can be motivated with the right environment and incentives to complete a set of assigned tasks. And this motivation can be so great that for some it borders on addiction. Imagine how many employers would be interested in learning this secret, particularly because the exchange of money is in the reverse – players are not expecting money to play and instead give up their money to game.

I've embedded a video at the end of this post that explores the effect games have had on our lives. Some of the insights shared in this talk discuss the ability of games to drive or elicit emotion in a player. This is accomplished through the game environment, the framework of the game, the story within the game, and the tasks assigned. Done well, all these elements combine to grab the player, pull him into the game, and drive his emotion. And because the purpose is to keep the player coming back, those emotions are not designed to be negative. Instead they are set up to create the most epic, incredible emotions that can be felt.

To successfully gamify training in our field, we need to capture these components along with elements from our industry and apply them to our courses. The environment and tasks that make up our workplace are probably the easiest to translate into this method. However finding our story and weaving it throughout the training session and into each task is more challenging. The same approach and challenges exist for developing civic courses for citizens. And in each, a successful course will be dependent on the ability to bring the player into the game, encourage them to accept and become a part of the story, and develop the confidence, skills, and engagement necessary to achieve epic wins in the game and in "real life." And have them return for more.

(The symbol at the beginning of the post is one of many that can be generated at the BrainHex website. Anyone can visit the site and take a quick test to see what gameplay behaviour they exhibit.)

March 23, 2010March 23, 2010

A Critical Lesson from the Gaming World

The momentum for using games in a workplace environment seems to be building. The topic is showing up in conference programs, blogs, forums, and now in a TEDTalk. People are realizing what the game industry figured out long ago – it’s possible to create something that consistently encourages and trains people to perform specific tasks for hours upon hours. And they are asking, how can we transfer this to the work environment? Others, like Jane McGonigal in her TEDTalk, are asking, how can we leverage this to make our world a better place? (You can watch her video embedded at the bottom of this post.)

A Teenager’s View
This is a particularly interesting topic for me because of a few reasons. First, everyone in my family is a heavy to moderate gamer, and second, I see many ways gaming could be used to train and educate government staff, elected officials, and citizens and enhance workplace performance. So we watched Ms. McGonigal’s TedTalk as a family (I know – a total geekfest). Afterwards we discussed her comments. I was particularly interested in my 16-year-old son’s thoughts. He fits the demographic of which she spoke.

His belief was that a game designed to educate or “do good” would not be as attractive as “regular games.” He thought no one would play a game that made the education or public service component too obvious. My husband and I agreed that for it to work well, the game would have to do a good job balancing game elements found in popular games with the underlying purpose. He did echo McGonigal’s comment that he didn’t feel he could do much to change the real world, and that is why he thought most people would not play a game to purposely make the world a better place.

The Critical Lesson
But from our discussion also came one more significant reason we feel people play games. And it’s a reason I have not yet heard mentioned. We feel it is because the game is impartial in its distribution of rewards. And this we feel is a vital if unrecognized component.

Many of us have at least one experience in life where we gave it our all, tried very hard, and accomplished something outstanding that everyone agreed met the requirements for a specific reward – maybe it was an “A” on a paper, or a school award, or a placement on a board or committee. But we never got that reward. And why is that? Usually it was because a teacher didn’t like us, or we weren’t the most popular person in the group, or we didn’t fit into the right crowd. Whatever it is, we have learned that rewards in the real world are not impartially or fairly handed out.

But the computer is always impartial and fair – if an Orc in Orgrimmar gives you a quest with the promise of earning a new shiny sword, he gives you that sword when you complete the assignment. He doesn’t decide not to give it to you cause he heard you hang out with Night Elves or you don’t belong to the right guild.

So perhaps this is another critical lesson from the gaming world, you can motivate people to invest time and money and effort if you are fair and impartial in the distribution of the promised rewards.