Post 24 - Milestone Three

We arranged to meet at the university for a prep meeting at 11:30. Jon arrived on time, but
Chris was unable to meet us until 12:40. We discussed the presentation, who would talk over each section and looked at some final changes which Chris had made. We created the files, burnt them to several CD and set off to present our milestone three.

The presentation went quite well. I feel that we all contributed towards its delivery and demonstrated the product with all of its features. We answered any questions and took on board any feedback we received. The majority of the client panel approved of its format and were pleased with the outcome. It was mentioned that "it was ok that it was an activity, rather than a fully fleshed out game" and that it was apparent that it was a product, which could have more elements added to it. I was pleased with the feedback and discussed with the group the individual submissions process.



Here is a link to milestone three presentation:

http://prezi.com/btvxlyz9g2yl/group-07-collaborative-practice-milestone-03/

 

Post 23 - Week 11 Meeting

We arranged to meet up on Monday the 6th of December. All three team members participated in the meeting and was primarily organised to run through the final presentation that I had been tasked with making. We edited some of it, added the legal and ethical slide and then moved on to discussing the game. The final version of the game has now been optimised even more and Jon has now added an additional 'arm tool' so that the activity is less violent. It was working really well, but Chris was tasked with looking into exporting the game as an exe file (stand alone application) and to tweak the textures. In this blog are a couple of pictures of the game on Monday.

 

During the meeting, it was agreed that more information on our product's market and its place within it needed to be confirmed and included into the presentation. At this stage, its place lies within the downloadable content (game) and I looked into XBox Live Arcade (game could be downloaded from the Portland Quarry and Stone Trust) and the notion of it being in a 'kiosk' form in or near the PQST headquarters / museum. The kiosk could also be made to be portable so that it could be placed in towns, or in the Portland Quarry.

When the presentation is finalised, I agreed to send the team a link to it, but at the end of the meeting it was almost 100% complete. 

Post 22 - Week 10 Meeting

On Wednesday the 1st of December, the group arranged to have a meeting with the client about our product. At this stage, Chris and Jon have been looking on both the lag issues and the 'cannon ball' method of knocking the building down. Luckily, with our collaborative efforts, the game now runs at an acceptable speed. Chris looked into the problems and altered the object properties to make them more efficient. I streamlined the building by taking out unnecessary detail and objects inside the building, and Jon experimented with the firing mechanism. The result is a working game, which has a first person firing mechanism. This was then altered into a 'tank' or 'cannon' style system. We had a meeting with Brian Larkman, who gave us a couple of suggestions about how to improve it. These included changing or adding another 'knocking mechanism' such as a finger, thus reducing the element of aggressive destruction and focusing on the educational element. Unfortunately, Jon was unable to attend due to the heavy snow, so me and Chris sat down and wrote out what we needed to do. The list includes:

-Texture the Cannon and cannon ball

-Improve building textures by making them look more like Portland stone and increase coverage.

-Create an additional knocking mechanism (such as a finger)

-Look into an 'undo command during game'

-Attempt to make the game into an executable format (thus eliminating the need to run Blender)

-Look into marketing research, such as the product's place and use.

Jon was later filled in and suggested that we have the game completed by the weekend.

Post 21 - Milestone Two plus meeting

We arranged to meet up at 10:30 on Wednesday. Me and Jon were there, but Chris arrived at 13:30. Despite attempting to contact him, he could not be reached. He showed us the UV mapped version of the building, which did show some improvements, although in my opinion was still a little dark. This is something which we noted down. We went through the presentation (made by me) and discussed who would discuss which parts, as well as how to showcase the working prototype.

We presented our presentation and awaited for the client's feedback. It was suggested that we needed to look at the context of the game and how the user would access it. An idea which we thought of was that as it can be made into an executable file, it could be downloaded from the Portland Quarry and Stone Trust website, to allow for an activity to be played with and manipulated. 

Other suggestions were mentioned such as creating a rendered animation of the building falling down. If we cannot solve the game engine problem, then we will consider this, but as the project title is 'Tumbling Tower Activity' we would much prefer to try to get it working. Suggestions of changing the game so that pieces could be picked up, buildings could be rebuilt and even changing it into a 'first person shooting style' of interaction were interesting but in the time we have and the game engine issues taking most of it, we are most likely going to build on what we have started, whilst attempting to look carefully at the context and how people would get a hold of this.

Milestone Two Presentation - http://prezi.com/p2uw5fgg1sl3/group-07-collaborative-practice-milestone-02/

Post 20 - Lag issue update

Chris has been looking into third party applications, which helps in the processing of frame rates. The one he has used in known as 'Fraps' This has somehow enabled Chris to record the game at a slightly faster frame-rate. It is still slow when it is played, but a good effort at improving the current problem and something to explore. If this can be used to run the game to an acceptable speed, this would solve our problems.

Also, after a remote team meeting, we decided that Chris would resume his role as texture developer as he will look into UV mapping. Jon's initial work on texturing the building can be seen in the image below. It is rather dark and it was left at the textures needing to be lighter. However, as Chris has now taken over as texture developer, Jon is the support for texture as well as cameras and movement.

Post 19 - Final Build - Major Lag Issues

The images provided in this post are of the final building, built in Blender. Every item in the scene has been coded with the appropriate logic and psychics, as well as the mouse triggers. As mentioned previously, this has been based on the Leeds Town Hall, as parts of it have been built using Portland stone. This was an epic build, but I was pleased with the outcome.
 
However to my horror, when the game is activated, the frame rate is about 4fps, as supposed to the 50-60fps that it should be. To confirm this issue, the model was uploaded onto a file sharing website, so that Jon and Chris could confirm this. This issue was confirmed and so the group began to look into both the nature of the problem and any possible solutions. 

We all worked on this problem. We sent emails to people for advice, plus looked into forums, databases and manuals for information on this problem. All group members were in constant communication about any information we found or possible areas that we could tweak. We as yet have found both an official cause and a solution. The only conclusion we came up with is that there is simply too much in the game and with each component having a physics and logic script, the game simply cannot process the data to a usable speed.

This is the major problem with the final product as it is a game and requires the ability to interact with it. So as it runs at 4-6 frames per second, it is currently a game which cannot be played. As a lot of work has gone into this, we will continue to look into the problem and seek advice, then respond constructively. I feel that although this issue is a major problem, it has demonstrated a good working structure, and shows that we were all working collaboratively towards a common goal. I am aware that this is how we should be working throughout the process, but this was a personal highlight as this process actively showed it in motion.

Worst case scenario, if it is a matter there being 'too many models in the scene', we could reduce the amount of items in the scene, or recreate the final model in a much more simpler version. However, both these options are drastic and would result in a product that would not be using the game engine's full potential. However, if this is what it comes to, I would rather provide a game/product which works than a good looking product that does not.

As Chris has continued to look into the lag problem, and solutions for getting it to run, Jon has now been tasked with looking into texturing it.

Post 18 - Prototype

As Blender is a rather new software application to me, I wanted to make sure that I was able to:

A) Use it to achieve the project's desired outcome.

B) Experiment with the physics, as well as the process of importing items.

This resulted in me creating a working prototype. The prototype is comprised of 56 pieces which were a series of columns and stone slabs for both the bottom and top of the pillars. Physics and logic was then applied and once working, was then exported as an exe. file (executable, meaning that it was able to be played outside of blender). This was a good start as it ran, was working and gave me confidence to begin the main build.

This was then passed onto the other group members for their feedback. They were pleased with the outcome as it was a working demo.

Post 17 - Week Eight meetings

I attempted a arrange for the group to meet up on the Wednesday of week eight and discuss the project's progression. Neither one of the other party members were available, so had to be postponed until Thursday.

On Thursday, after the Research Practice module, me and Jon had a meeting in order to discuss what tasks needed to be done and to delegate them. Unfortunately, Chris was again unavailable to participate. However, we were in communication with Chris and filled him on any decisions and tasks decided on. After a brief discussion with Nick Cope, who kindly showed me and Jon an example of what can be achieved in the game engine 'Blender', we decided on a realistic pipeline of tasks. These are as follows:

-Attain building models which were already made by all three of the group members (as seen in task one), as well as create additional ones. This would be done using Autodesk's 3Ds Max as it was an application which the whole group have some experience of. 

-Export these items in their individual state and import them into the game / 3d rendering software, Blender. How items are imported into Blender can effect where the central gravitational position is located. It was discovered it would therefore be best to process the items individually.  

-Apply code to each component and construct the building. As the process of creating the building would use the ability to clone items, it makes sense to create the code for an item and then duplicate it, thus duplicating the code and not requiring to apply physics to each and every piece. Also, careful consideration would need to be made for building as when the game engine is started, the physics and logic would kick in.

-Create Portland stone / building textures. A very important part of the process and one which would allow the project to fall within the boundaries of the client brief. 

-Apply additional items. This would include looking into the potential for a free moving camera (so the building could be knocked down from other angles), and slight tweaking of any environment items such as lighting. Also, creating the option to restart the game is an important consideration. 

-Quality Assurance and Evaluation. Although this would take place throughout the build, it is important to establish that the product is in working order and to debug it.

After this breakdown was established, it was decided that I would create the building (modelled after the Leeds Town Hall) and also apply the logic and physics to the individual assets that would need to be imported (as discussed previously, it makes sense form me to import and code the assets as it saves time on creating the psychics code).

This would then be past onto Chris, who would texture the product.

Once texturing was in place, Jon would be in charge of applying a free moving camera, a reset button and assume the 'final testing' role so that any minor issues with any stage of the build could be noted. Chris was informed of the outcome of this meeting and was assigned the role of texturing.

Post 16 - Milestone One

We presented our presentation for milestone one - progress presentation. This went ok and I feel that the presentation was more clear and showed what we had done been up to. But there was a lot of confusion with regards to the augmented considerations. We did not explain this technology clearly, made some assumptions about what the client already new (points which I feel I have learned now taken on board). In a previous meeting, we were advised to focus on the modelling and as a result of keeping our options open / modelling, the presentation was met with concern. It is very important to now concentrate on picking one project, or outcome. The general consensus of the group was to go with the 'tumbling tower' idea, over the augmented idea. But what also is important is that in the next two weeks, we experiment with what we have already produced and not only create a working prototype, but get it as complete as possible, in time for milestone two. This is in week 9. As the group have many hand in dates looming, the project has been put on hold and will be reconvened after thee hand ins.

After the presentation, the animating and game engine software Blender was mentioned by Nick Cope, since Chris has used this before.

Post 15 - Prezi Presentation

I have just finished the presentation for the week seven progress report. I have used the open source software Prezi as it has so far proved to be very fitting and easy to use. A link to the presentation can be found at the bottom of the page. We scheduled a meeting for Monday afternoon, which lasted about two hours. This was to show both Jon and Chris the presentation and discuss as a group who would tackle each section. It was decided that I would begin and end the presentation, Chris would talk about our progress between week five and seven, and Jon would talk about the modelling and content that we had started on. This would include a section on both the game idea as well as the augmented idea, but focus on the modelling and flexibility of the pieces. It was also suggested that we purchase some simple building blocks and stick 'markers' on them to demonstrate how the augmented project would work. We have also included a very short video of how the tumbling tower idea would look and the reasoning behind way each piece would be segmented. We left the meeting with a good understanding of what was expected of one another. I pointed out that if there were any alterations to make, or problems, to let me know in order to amend the presentation.

Here is an image which was mocked up after it was initially made, showing that have also considered augmented reality and some of the implications, such as the angle the web cam would need to be at, and where the markers would be placed. When this image is up on the presentation is when we will get out the blocks as a demonstration to the client/s 

Presentation link: http://prezi.com/d4j2vu9hx-me/collaborative-practice-week-seven/

Post 14 - Building Construction

In order to give the 'client' a good idea of what we have been up to and to avoid any confusion, we set ourselves the task of creating a couple of buildings. As time was upon us and I had began the first step of creating the a building, I suggested to the group that we should all contribute to making the same building, rather than make three. This idea was agreed upon, so I built my section of the building and passed it onto Jon, who then constructed an additional layer. This was then passed onto Chris, who then added the roof with a tower and began to experiment with uv mapping, which is a form of texturing. Image one is my contribution, image two is when Jon added his additional level and image three is after Chris added his roof, tower and began to texture.

My building contribution

Jon's extra level addition (with extra pillars)

Chris's roof and tower addition (with textures)

I feel as though this demonstrates a good collaborative exercise and shows that we can collectively produce something for the development of the final product. Although the texturing is not representative of Portland stone at this stage, it does show the capabilities of the team should give the client an idea into our progress up to the present. The next task is to create the presentation for the week seven progress report, which I shall do in the next 24 hours.

These building and asset images can be found by following this link:

Picasa web link: http://picasaweb.google.com/RobertDyke1985/CollaborativePractice#

Post 13 - Model Additions

After the group's meeting, I set out to split up my arch model into smaller pieces. Here is the result.


 I also then went away and looked back at some of the photos I took of the Civic Hall. I concentrated on creating a couple of wall variants and was influenced by the civic hall design. Here are the finished prototypes.

Post 12 - Second meeting with Nick Cope

During the week six collaborative practice session, we had a meeting with Nick Cope. We discussed both options of the 'tumbling tower' idea as well as the 'augmented activity' idea in a little more detail. We showed him the building assets we had created and after discussion with him, it was decided that the assets needed to be disseminated and cut up into smaller pieces. The reason for this is so that if it were put into a tumbling activity, the pieces would fall a little more naturally and when considering augmented reality, the blocks would have to be a similar size to the blocks which the markers would be put on. We had a meeting after the session to discuss what each member of the group would do. It was decided that we would all split our own models up and create a couple more building blocks, for variation. The idea would be that once we had created our updated pieces, we would supply one another with them and create a simple structure each. I was tasked with creating the Progress Report presentation for week seven.

Post 11 - Arch Model

Here is an image of an arch plus a couple of variants as my contribution to the project for week 6. I have also been sent and seen Chris's 'Rooftop' triangle shape which also looks very good.

Post 10 - Software research

Here is some information about a couple of the suggested game engine and software packages for both augmented reality and behaviour / game physics.

This is a link to a Virtools PDF, giving an overview of what the software has to offer.

I was particularly interesting in the following extract:

"Developers drag and drop behaviours in an intuitive Graphical User Interface to
create complex applications with the high-quality graphics and interactivity found in
top-selling games. For high-end developers, the Software Development Kit (SDK)
and the Virtools Scripting Language (VSL) available with Virtools 4 lets them create
custom behaviours"

Virtools 4. 'Comprehensive Life Platform for Creating Highly Interactive 3D Applications'

This sounds like it would help if the product was to be put into a game engine in order to make it into a tumbling tower artifact.

Here was also another interesting PDF on Virtools entitled: '3DVIA Virtools for Xbox 360'

This looks really good and would help if the product went down the game root, as it shows that you can create a simple game, then export so that it can be played on an XBox 360 console. I think that this makes it very appealing. This sounds as if we could make a game suitable for XBox Live Arcade; again, sounds very exciting.

From this, I then found a YouTube video entitled: 'Virtools Nextgen Solutions'. This demonstrates what could be achieved from using the XBox Export function. It seems to be a promotional video, with some high end rendering. Although this seems very complex compared to our tumbling tower idea, the notion that you can create a virtual world, then simply code it for an XBox 360 interface is very appealing. If not for this project, then certainly as a kind of virtual, interactive portfolio of work.

This information has been sent to the other team mates via Facebook.

PDF Virtools web link: http://www.virtools.com/solutions/products/pdfs/suite_4/ds_virtools40_eng.pdf

PDF Virtools XBox 360 link: http://www.3ds.com/fileadmin/PRODUCTS/3DVIA/3DVIAVirtools/Resources/datasheets/ds_XBOX_3DVIA_EE_LR.pdf

YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxDxmF7Mj5c

Post 09 - Meeting with Nick Cope

The group took part in a meeting with Nick Cope and discussed the idea of incorporating an 'augmented reality' end product. We discussed the possibilities and the various details, such as the use of markers and pre-exisitng sequences of code. The software applications Virtools  and ARTools were shown to the group as a demonstration of what could be achieved.


This idea is a very interesting one and the meeting with Nick was some what reassuring. There was mention of using Virtools to either make augmented reality, or even the previous game idea. We later on discussed what we should continue doing. We acknowledged that it was important to continue with research into these software packages as well as their capabilities. We also delegated a couple of shapes each to mock up using 3Ds max. Jon was tasked with a making a pillar, Chris with a triangular shape and I with an arch. We will work on these and come up with a model, plus a variant, in order to get a couple of designs from each shape.

Post 08 - Feedback

We have received out group feedback and as we had suspected, it was not good. We got a grade D. The positive points were that we had used Prezi software as first mentioned in the research practice module, and the inclusion of some renders of 3D concept shapes. However, the group lacked energy and enthusiasm, the concept was unclear and the timescale lacked sufficient detail. The feedback also mentioned that we need to think of the output for these models, namely a virtual one and to be more ambitious. We left the session with some ideas as to how to improve our presentation for next time.

Me and Jon had a meeting with Brian Larkman after the session (unfortunately Chris was ill and unable to attend) We discussed the possibility of incorporating an augmented reality output. The idea would be that we would still create architectural shapes in 3Ds Max but then get a series of real world building blocks (such as early learning center) and and markers to each piece. Then, by using several software applications and a web camera, the system would pick up these makers and display our models over the pieces. This would mean that the issues of stone not being a sufficient medium wouldn't matter as they would be virtual. On screen they would be our models, in similar shapes to that of the real world pieces, allowing for physical interaction. 

However, the main concerns I have are as follows:

-None of the group know anything about creating an augmented reality

-After some initial research, it appears that it takes several programs, experience of coding / scripting as well as knowledge of at least one game engine technology.

-The pieces that would have markers on them would be built and stacked, but the web camera would need to see the marker in order to project our model onto it, so there are issues of markers.

We both decided that it sounds like an interesting idea and that we should be ambitious, so Brain Larkman suggested to schedule a meeting with Nick Cope, who has some experience and interest in this field. If it does seem unrealistic, we may fall back to the 'Tumbling Activity' idea.

You Tube Link for initial research: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU6PcBS1pWw

Post 07 - Post Week Four Pitch

Wednesday the 20th of October was the Product Pitch. The group gave the pitch for the '3D Activity and Design Project'. Despite preparing for the pitch, the group suffered from what can be best described as 'the jitters', which had an adverse effect on the pitch. The product was received with negative feedback and essentially rejected. The fundamental issue, which became apparent was the end product result and the feasibility of creating it out of stone (despite the product being a design piece). The product is a design and does not a physical product. Possible alternative paths for the product were discussed, such as creating an interactive 'tumbling tower' activity. This would mean that the building pieces would still need to be created, but then some how imported into a game engine. Then, pre-constructing a structure, or set of structures and making it so that any piece of the building could be moved, making it tumble. It resembles a sort of 'Jenga'TM Activity, but in a 3D space. 

This would mean that the majority of the research we have conducted will still be valid (anything regarding buildings and shapes) and is not a total loss. Adding back the game element allows for some investigating into this area, such as which game engine to use and how to create the new proposal. 

As mentioned in an earlier blog, the product proposal was emailed to Richard Stevens as we wanted to gain clarification as to whether it would be ok to make a product, which resulted in a plan. The reply was that it was ok for it to be a plan. Had we of been told that a plan was not a suitable product, I feel that we could of used the time more productively. Never the less, we are going to use the feedback we received during the pitch and create a 'Tumbling Tower' activity, inspired by Brian Larkman with his 'Jenga like' input.

We had a brief meeting after the pitch and decided that this would be a wise move. The next stage will be to wait for the feedback from the X-Stream website and go from their. A working title for the new product is the '3D Tumbling Activity'.

Post 06 - Presentation discussion

Over the weekend (15th-16th October), we all made our presentations. After some issues with sending them via email (files too big), Jon sent me his Prezi file via my online storage space Mediafire.com. for me to see. Chris also sent me a link to his. They were both good and had plenty of visual information in them. We had a brief facebook discussion on what each other were going to say such as keys points that needed to be mentioned during the various slides. The work was essentially done, with a couple of minor tweaks needed. I completed my introductory Prezi file Saturday night and sent a link out to both Jon and Chris.

Prezi Link: http://prezi.com/p6zqjjeoorog/collaborative-practice-wk-4-product-pitch/

Post 05 - Pitch preperation

Since the last post, we have had several discussions and meetings, taking place between the 13th and 14th of October. We discussed our initial tasks and looked at what information we had gathered. I showed my photographs of the buildings, as well as the museum activities. Jon had looked at other buildings in the UK and examples of Portland Stone sculptures. Jon had looked into some of the considerations and issues we may come up against.

From looking and using the presentation software PreziTM, I suggested that we all sign up and learn it, so we can use it for our presentation. We decided that we would tackle the presentation in sections. 

I will introduce the product, the rationale behind it, purpose and appeal. Chris would focus of the initial research routes, as well as similar products in the market. Jon will tackle concept pieces with a lean towards early considerations and issues. We worked out that they need to be about 2 and a half - 3 minutes long. This will allow plenty of time to delivery our presentation and to answer any questions.

We left happy with this decision and set out to work on each of our presentations. The next time everyone will be able to meet up is Wednesday morning (Pitch day) so we have arranged to meet up a couple of hours before hand to prepare. In the evening, we all looked at Prezi, and agreed on a common theme, which would be dark blue.

Post 04 - City in Images

After a visit to the various museums and art galleries (11.10.10), I was inspired by the building activity I saw earlier that day. It was agreed in the last meeting we had that I would also take images of the two main buildings in town, which have used Portland stone. I went to both the Town Hall and Civic Hall in Leeds city centre. I took a variety of images, looking particularly at the distinctive geometric architectural shapes, such as triangles, columns and the most apparent details. The reason for this is so that we as a group can analyse the separate shapes which make up these buildings with a view to construct shapes and concept designs for our product pitch. On top of this, I went to The Light Shopping centre as this is a much more contemporary structure, which has also used Portland stone in its construction. However, The Light has used it as cladding (decoration) in a small quantity, mixed with red brick. Plus, where there is what appears to be detail, it is a mere imitation and based loosely on building such as the Civic and Town Hall. This exercise was very valuable and I believe it will provide a great deal of information to work from.

So up to now, it has been established that not only are there similar products to what we propose to design, but also that they are in every case in the same context and are aimed to educate and inform. It is our objective to aim for a similar outcome, to be inspired by these products, but with a twist as they will be designed to be made out of Portland stone and set in the Tout Quarry. To tie it in with the 2012 Olympics, this activity can be placed either a short distance from the Weymouth Harbour,or in the Tout Quarry, along with other activities and sculptures. The advantage this product could have is that it is essentially a sculpture, which can be altered and changed.

More images of the Light , the Civic and Town Hall can be found here:

Civic Hall - http://picasaweb.google.com/RobertDyke1985/CivicHallMilleniumSquare

Town Hall - http://picasaweb.google.com/RobertDyke1985/TownHallLeeds

The Light - http://picasaweb.google.com/RobertDyke1985/TheLightLeeds#

Post 03 - Henry Moore & City Museum Visit

Since the last update, I have visited the Kirkstall Abbey Visitor’s Centre, as well as the Henry Moore Institute and the Leeds City Museum. I have also taken photographs of the Civic and Town Hall, in Leeds.

Kirkstall Abbey was unfortunately closed when I went, but I had more luck in the city. At the time was a shame as I have been before and know they have an educational activity, which allows visitors to try and reconstruct an arch from replica blocks, made from wood (similar concept to our design product). This may be updated with images if I am able to arrange another visit.

Henry Moore / Art Gallery

This gave me an insight into how various sculptures and pieces of art are displayed and their typical surroundings. However, although the visit was an interesting one, the art was either behind glass cases, or accompanied with many ‘do not touch’ signs. The idea behind our product is that it would be effectively an activity, which could be played with and used to create your own structures. It could be suggested that the structure and shapes people would create from these building blocks could be considered as interactive art. Therefore, I believe that the Henry Moore Institute and Art Gallery visit was useful in showing us how conventional art and sculptures are displayed. Due to the nature of the artefacts in the art gallery, I was unable to take ant photos. Also, the vast space some of the sculptures were taking up suggested to me that our product (hypothetically if commissioned and made out of Portland stone) would be most suitable as an activity, or display in the Tout Quarry (vast surroundings); maintaining the concept of keeping it close to its origins.

Leeds City Museum

On the top floor they have a display, which ideally showcases a similar product to the one we are proposing to design. The top floor is dedicated to ancient history, including building structures. Many of Leeds building, which uses Portland Stone, are constructed using Greek / Roman and Egyptian influences, as are many other structures throughout the UK. Included in this section was a scale model of a Roman structure, made out of cork. Next to this was an activity based on building your own temple. The information next to the activity showed a diagram, suggesting that you may reconstruct an ancient building, or make one of your own.

I believe that this is source of research is of great importance, as it shows a similar product, being used in a similar context. Its purpose is to educate, inform, as well as offering a hands on activity. It seems to appeal to a wide demographic, from children to adults. The wall, where this activity is, is covered in information about the local buildings, which continues the learning process and may be something to consider when creating our design product.

In addition to this activity, they also have a similar one about building a Roman Fort. However, the pieces were made out of rubber and there were fewer pieces. Plus there was a blueprint on the activity table, which you had to follow. This is another example of a similar product, and it was also informative, but it didn’t provide the level of freedom we wish to allow when designing our product.

Pictures of the Leeds Museum activity can be found here:

http://picasaweb.google.com/RobertDyke1985/CityMuseum#



Post 02 - Brief Meeting 1

On the 7th of October 2010, myself, Chris and Jon had a brief meeting about the proposed project idea. We all agreed that it has scope and interests us. The main interest for me is the design of the individual items. The rationale and context of such a project was also mentioned and decided that hypothetically if commissioned to be made from actual Portland Stone, it could be an installation in the Tout Quarry: Portland with each piece having a significant shape. It was also suggested that the user or interaction with such building blocks could result in visitors making their own interpretation of Portland Art and Sculpture, thus making it potentially educational, but also an activity for a wide demographic.

At the end of the meeting, some tasks were delegated amongst the group. By the 13th of October, I am aiming to visit at take notes on both the Kirkstall Abbey Visitor's Centre in addition to the Henry Moor Institute and the Leeds City Museum.

Chris was set the task of looking into additional examples of museum installation and to explore methods of showcasing. Chris also suggested looking into similar products, such as the Early Learning Centre building block activities.

Jon has been tasked with looking into which buildings, (both in Leeds and other areas) that have used Portland Stone, as well as beginning to research various shapes and designs of such structures.

We are going to have a meeting, on Wednesday the 13th of October to discuss our findings. Plans for constructing the Pitch (due on the 20th of October) will also be discussed next week. The pitch should consist of information such as the rationale, context of the proposed product as well as the demographic, followed by examples of similar products. This will potentially be presented using the Open Source software, Prezzi.


Location source websites

Kirkstall Abbey: http://www.leeds.gov.uk/kirkstallabbey/

Henry Moore: http://www.henry-moore.org/hmf/about-us

Leeds City Museum: http://www.leedsmuseum.co.uk/tour/

Post 01 - Initial product blog enrty

This is the first of many blogs, aimed at recording the research and development of the MSc Collaborative Practice Module. It will include updates of what the group is up to, rationale behind key research paths and any discussions, meetings and decisions made.So far, we have made a group and consists of the following people:

Robert Dyke (me)
Chris Deakin
Jonathan Wong

We are currently known as Group 7: with the project title '3D Puzzle Game'. We met up at 11am on 6/10/10 and agreed that the product must be suitable to both our combined skill sets, as well as the brief. However, the emphasis on this was that a good, solid and thorougher level of relevant research around the subject would be beneficial and help progress the project. After the Collaborative Practice module was over, we had a second meeting, with more ideas being suggested. After a brief discussion with Richard Stevens, it was apparent that a slight tweak, or change must be made to the project. We then decided as a group on a different project (this still needs to be updated of X-Stream). The new project idea is as follows:  

The development and design for a prototype 3D building type installation. The simple based geometric shapes (similar to early learning centre style shapes) designed with a view that the they can be used or commissioned to be made out of Portland Stone.

The idea is that it will be a design of the blocks and shapes (we will aim to texture using limestone / Portland stone textures either captured or created from scratch), which will be based on elements of architecture from buildings, built from Portland Stone (Civic Hall, St Paul's Cathedral etc).

I think that this could be an interesting approach to the brief with plenty of research opportunities. The only concern expressed is that the final product will be a 'plan', or design, and not the physical product since as Mr Stevens mentioned, "we cannot sculpt with stone". But at every step, including modeling the pieces, we would take into consideration the point of view of the sculptor and what level of detail should be adopted. So with that respect, I think the final design can be shown, presented through an animated 360 of the individual pieces, a brief animation of examples of structures and shapes that can be made using these pieces and rendered images of these pieces. There was also some talk of utilising the 3D printer located in the other Leeds Met campus to showcase examples of the shapes but that is currently subject to feasibility

(Extract from an email conversation between myself and Richard Stevens)

I received a reply from Mr Stevens saying that it sounds interesting and that its ok for the final piece to be a 3D plan; but highlighted issues such as our level of architectural knowledge, as well as the context of the product.

I believe that these can be solved with some good research and development. These blogs will be updated with our activities related to the project, with links to sources of information and other media based inserts.

Since then, I briefly looked at some basic information regarding the Portland Sculpture & Quarry Trust, as well as the Weymouth 2012 Olympic sailing event preparations.

Initial Source links
Portland Quarry: http://www.learningstone.org/index.php/General/background.html
Weymouth Sailing Event: http://www.london2012.com/games/venues/weymouth-and-portland.php