Studio One, Week Three

 Week 3 has had a focus on finalising the documentation and planning of our project in order to move out of the pre-production phase. The progress has been substantial but has required us to revisit the asset list, which has already had many iterations. Our group leader I find has handled this well and has made multiple difficult decisions based on our group discussions.

While the pre-production process has been frustrating in terms of planning and pragmatics, I have thoroughly enjoyed the satisfaction of accomplishing tasks and solving problems in a group. Examples of this include solving design problems in development of the Environment maps and collaboration to create concept designs which are congruent. I have found that small victories have provided much needed motivation.

During the course of the week, moving towards our art bible goals I have focused greatly on completing moodboards, and my chunk of the concept sketches. A question which has been posed at this stage before the production phase has even begun is how we wish to tackle the creation of our environment in the modelling and texturing phase. We are in the process of fully understanding the implications of modular Vs non modular design. From what we can see a blend of the two would be ideal but the difficulty is in deciding the perfect ratio. Something we have learnt is that the asset list feeds directly into the modular Vs non modular project structure.

Currently we are figuring out to what extent we will have a modular work flow. The nature of our environment is one which is clean and fairly minimal, but must also be passable as a research facililty. To be convincing our design must reflect the consideration of real-life examples of lab/military research buildings.

During studio we have had a lengthy feedback session where our design was scrutinised and many flaws uncovered. While we are still aiming for the same atmosphere and style, and are happy with our concept development, the spatial design and pragmatics of the environment needs plenty of reworking. This will also mean further iterations of the asset list.

One crucial thing I have learnt is to let go of ideas which I have grown attached to once their usefulness has expired. Two examples of this has occurred in our last feedback session. One is the security checkpoint I have already designed and imagined within the space. The other is a security door which I had imagined as grand in scale, which now needs to be resized, and further designed.

Our new plan of action as discussed within the group and given the go ahead by our group leader is to further develop several options for our EM layouts. After this we will develop one option further to the goal of a refined space which can be blocked out in 3D. It has also been decided that from our EM we can determine what assets as well as how many assets will be needed. From this point we can make an informed plan towards our hybrid modular/non modular work flow, with this determining our asset list.

alexw_asst1_prp_concept_rawscan_isosketch
Wyld, 2016. Isometric Environment Sketch.
prp_security-door_concepts_scanp07_alexw_v02
Wyld, 2016. Security door concept sketch.

References

Wyld, A. (2016). Exo (working title). Isometric environment sketch.

Wyld, A. (2016). Exo (working title). Security door concept sketch.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s