Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Marcuso

Member
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

114 Neutral

About Marcuso

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1.   Hi GameDev,   I'm just about finishing up a Learn By Example series for Pyblish, the test-driven content creation framework, and would like to share it with you.   - http://forums.pyblish.com/t/learning-pyblish-by-example   It covers the fundamentals of publishing, why it's important and how to make the best of it, along with some technical tips and tricks about it's API. For those new to Pyblish, it also has installation instructions - especially for Windows - along with some background on what publishing is and where it comes from.   Enjoy and let me know what you think!   See also   - Previous GameDev post
  2. Hi Hodgman, thanks for your reply.     This is much the same in commercial work and we're including this in our target audience. I'm confident that even smaller team would benefit from the concept of publishing as it facilitates for much more powerful things down the line; such as automation but, perhaps most importantly, an understanding of a greater amount of information.     Thanks for sharing that, it sounds quite a bit more tedious than the ones I've been exposed to and strengthens my motivation for providing something to resolve that. I've collected some images of the existing solutions we've found here to illustrate how it may look:   https://github.com/abstractfactory/publish/wiki/ui-ux#references     Yes, there seems to be two ways of going at the problem; either pre- or post-export from content creation software. Post-validations could potentially only perform shallow tests if the files tested are binary, as is often the case. What typically happens is pre-validations in which the software used in creating the content is used in each test; from there, more explicit tests can be made, such as testing for uniquely named objects or dimensions of various pieces of geometry.   I'd like to support both. I think they both have great potential and that the main reason we're stuck with black-box testing within each DCC is due to a limited set of options we've got when it comes to publishing. This is what we'd like to change.     Thanks, I haven't considered that, but I can see why you would suggest it. Perhaps further down the line when the benefits of publishing are clearer to me; at the moment, its a bit too taken for granted and my vision is set further ahead with what you can actually do when publishing is done.     Thanks for mentioning that, I'll keep that in mind!   Thanks again for a great reply!
  3.   Hi Lorenzo, thanks for your reply and for being so honest.   I can understand your doubts about the project, but as we just got started, I wouldn't define it as vaporware just yet. Most projects are announced once built, but I believe that the goals of this particular project are very hard to reach in a way that pleases the potentially large userbase and that the only real way of getting there is by doing it together with the userbase itself.   This is of course how many if not most vaporware projects start, so again, I can see where you're coming from, but, as an example of its benefit, licensing is a current topic of debate in which one user, representing his organisation, mentioned that one particular license is more suited than the one we had originally planned. Now, imagine if we were to instead build the product and only present it once its in a workable state; we would then most likely be unable to alter the license and thus eliminate a potential portion of the userbase.   But perhaps most importantly; I don't have all the answers myself and it is my hope that we, as a community, build something that will eventually be described as novel and compelling so as to attract users such as yourself. You may not be the target audience for this announcement and if you can think of a better suited place I would very much like to hear about it!   Thanks again for your input.   Best, Marcus
  4. I take it this sort of tool isn't particularly common/useful for those visiting this particular forum. Does anyone know of a more appropriate forum I should be posting on? Thanks in advance.
  5. Hey Lorenzo, thanks for your comment.   Yes, that sounds like the general idea here as well. Publish would be launched from within a creation tool and then validate content prior to exporting it onto disk. The focus of Publish here lies in the validation process.   The reporting to infrastructure is meant to be handled separately, either by listening on events triggered by Publish, or via callback on the actual publishing mechanism. The same goes for actually organising the output; Publish will make no attempt at storing it consistently together with content throughout an organisation, but rather store it relative the current working directory. The signal/callback would then provide the path to where the files have been published, so that other processes could manage notifications and organisation.   Pluggability is key here, Publish is meant to facilitate being plugged into any existing habits or conventions, without providing an exhaustive list of features that are unlikely to hit all targets anyway. Quality assurance for content is what we're going for thus far, and I think this could safely be handled separately.
  6. Hi,   This is my first post here, but I've been a long time lurker. I'm typically in Feature Film and Commercials, but am currently involved in a new open source initiative involving the act of "publishing", or quality assurance for content, for productions including Games and we're currently looking for interested contributors.   I'm interested in hearing your view on how this type of tool could be useful to you; as neither of us currently have much experience in Games, your views would be a real ice-breaker. In film, the process is typically this:   1. Artist works on content 2. Artist publishes content 3. Another artist picks up published content   Step 2 is essentially a "funnel" through which all content is passed; this is where things such as QA takes place, so as to ensure that common data conforms to a common set of standards defined by your organisation, typically per project. E.g. all models must have a UV-set, or the normals of models must face in the convex direction, or a certain frame-range of an animation must match a range as registered in a shot-database and so forth.   We're currently in a Requirements Gathering stage, have a look here for the current state of development.   https://github.com/abstractfactory/publish/wiki   Information on how you can get started can be found here:   https://github.com/abstractfactory/publish/wiki/Contributing   And some more details on publishing as a concept can be found here:   https://github.com/abstractfactory/publish/wiki/what-is-publishing   Thanks for reading, and feel free to post any questions here or email me directly at marcus@abstractfactory.io   Best, Marcus
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!