> If you need another graphic like that in another place, doing it manually is simply not worth the time. Another problem is experimentation. When you are trying to find the final look, you need to test a lot of small ideas: density, direction, color, spacing, gradients, randomness, shape. The faster you can change these things, the better the final result will be.
>
> Doing all of this manually would be a massive waste of time, so building your own procedural art tool for this kind of effect is a perfect solution. The Polar Signals example also works well for the UX argument. A custom tool does not just improve your speed. It gives you an interface that is simply better for this exact task.
feels like the design industry has forgotten about things like Processing. Unfortunate!
I like being able to control the visuals with sliders but I have not had much luck replicating their results using GLM. It would be great if each demo showed its prompt.
just sticking with the zeitgeist around LLMs where selling a finished product is unimportant. it's actually a bad idea. you want to be nothing but a promise in the future of a finished product so that folks can fill in the details of what that finished product will be with their wildest fantasies.
All examples run terribly, like 20fps on m4 pro. Also, examples:
- Liquid metal. I don't understand what this is but this is definately _not_ how 'liquid metal' would look like. Also stickers glitches on edge.
- watercolor. Looks like its blending uses RGB?
- ASCII. not even ASCII. Also why does this run terribly? It's just a simple 3d model with a shader, it should run 1000+fps.
- Bricks. This looks fine. not impressive though.
- Shaders. Refraction shader.
I don't trust someone who says their tool can generate ASCII art renderer without knowing what even ASCII is.
https://pixelpoint.io/blog/how-to-craft-personal-design-tool...
the blog post announcing this
> If you need another graphic like that in another place, doing it manually is simply not worth the time. Another problem is experimentation. When you are trying to find the final look, you need to test a lot of small ideas: density, direction, color, spacing, gradients, randomness, shape. The faster you can change these things, the better the final result will be. > > Doing all of this manually would be a massive waste of time, so building your own procedural art tool for this kind of effect is a perfect solution. The Polar Signals example also works well for the UX argument. A custom tool does not just improve your speed. It gives you an interface that is simply better for this exact task.
feels like the design industry has forgotten about things like Processing. Unfortunate!
interesting they call it a blog, but they don't even have rss
Toolcraft: https://www.toolcraft.com/
One of the better medium volume CNC shops around.
I like being able to control the visuals with sliders but I have not had much luck replicating their results using GLM. It would be great if each demo showed its prompt.
This is freaking good.
Super slick site. I'd love to see a video editing demo added to it.
Interesting move to have ASCII represented by something that is decidedly not ASCII.
All these AI projects disappoint me in how little they care about getting things right, just looking right.
just sticking with the zeitgeist around LLMs where selling a finished product is unimportant. it's actually a bad idea. you want to be nothing but a promise in the future of a finished product so that folks can fill in the details of what that finished product will be with their wildest fantasies.
[dead]