[elcritch]

Seems like video game engines and the like would be useful ways to get lots of 3d models to corresponding point cloud data. What's the blocker to doing that? The models shown on that page look like 3d graphics circa 2000's or earlier.

[JayStavis]

I agree that random sampling surfaces of 3D meshes seems like a reasonable way to generate synthetic data for mesh > point cloud.

Without knowing a dang thing about AI, it feels like the problem moreso lies in:

1. Math related to topology: vertices, faces, edges, tri vs quad etc

2. Different topologies for the same object are better for different use cases. Rendering, skinning, morphing, physics etc all have different optimal topologies, and the definition of optimal varies based on workflow and scene specifics or even the human who has skills based on certain topological preferences. In other words, I'm not sure how much of 3D workflows are standardized even -- getting the topological data for workflows is no easy task, and it's not super usable until the model output can plug right into a workflow and the existing DCC ecosystem.

text2img generates a static asset, text2mesh is far more interesting beyond just the static rendering part which is where mesh topology becomes a big sticking point.

[nl]

Yes, I agree this is a potential way forward.

I believe there are three problems:

* There isn't software that generates point clouds from video games. This should be solvable but AFAIK hasn't been done yet.

* The diversity of models in video games is much lower than the real world

* Games use a bunch of techniques to reduce the poly count while making assets look like they are high poly (eg texture mapping). It's unclear what should be generated here.

Take a look at the field of NeRFs (Neural Radiance Fields: https://datagen.tech/guides/synthetic-data/neural-radiance-f...) for more on this subject.

[numpad0]

Or ask CG designers, under consent and with credits, for data recordings of intermediate steps. Same for illustrations. It almost seems like circumventing experts is the point.

[nl]

This isn't what is needed. The intermediate steps aren't useful.

[numpad0]

Don't human designers do image or point cloud -> clean 3D mesh in an iterative manner? I see it will be significantly more computationally expensive to iteratively deform a cube to a tree by NN, but I don't see why it isn't a solution.