Vista Icons and the Vista 3D engine

I wonder if there is potential for animation via icon-packager... Perhaps IconX should be modified to support more of this kind of feature...

I wonder if there is potential for animation via icon-packager... Perhaps IconX should be modified to support more of this kind of feature...

Thirdy party support for ideas like that would surely work but its just such a shame Microsoft are being so hesitant about using the kind of graphic power on the desktop even budget users today take for granted.

Thinking ahead to future improvements I really wanted to see fully 3D icons that moved around the desktop with some decent physics behind them. Pick up a document and throw it in a folder and watch as it realistically grows and tilts as you "pick it up" and shrink as it falls, hitting the folder floor so to speak and coming to a stop gradually, tilting over as if it were about to fall then catching itself. A few hundred variations on these kinds of effects so they don't become repetitive or heck, just calculate it all in real-time based on how you moved the icon. I was really hoping for some better focusing effects too, using HDRI lighting and some of todays graphics cards effects to subtly convey distance, so the document on top really looked like it was on top rather than just having a basic shadow to suggest this. I could go on but all my expectations on what Vista could have been graphically when I found out it was going to make heavy use of modern graphics processors have been pretty much deflated.

The talent here would make the switch to 3D very easily. Many already design in 3D and convert to 2D. Doesn't it just feel like you're trying to shoe horn the creative possibilities into a two decade old format?

What format would the 3d icons be saved in?

That's a tricky one. Ideally you'd want a new format that could wrap up the dataset, textures, DX effects, physics and all the usual paramaters you'd expect from an icon. The url it pointed to and so on. Problem there would be the need for a completely new editor to create the 3D and that would alienate pretty much the majority of 3D heads out there who are already very comfortable with their chosen 3D App.

I'm no programmer but I think using a common format such as DXF which compresses extremely well and is pretty cross program compatible, then wrapping this file into another format when it comes time to create the final icon. .3DS is another strong contender.

So the process might go something like;

Design icon in 3DS Max, Maya, Cinema4D or even shareware type 3D editors.
(Ignore for the first version any kind of bones or kinematics stuff. Yes it would be cool to have your icon get up and walk across the desktop back to where it belongs but we have to be realistic about making something like this easy to use)
Export icon in DXF format and import into a simple converter that can wrap up the 3D model and allow you to embedd the necessary stuff to make it a functioning icon. Perhaps using scripts that you choose from to decide what kind of behaviour or look the icon will have from a pre-compiled list. Think Swish3D for Icons.
The converter then exports the new icon and voila, there it is, fully textured and ready to grab.

Of course this completely ignores the fact that there is no underlying engine to drive the icon, Desktop X would have to be expanded to allow this new format. Unless you create standalone icons but I'd guess these would become prohibitively resource intensive when used in greater amounts, which is something you'd naturally want to do. I'm not sure under Avalon just what you can get away with visually, I'm still thinking GDI here and I guess that more intensive graphics would be easier to do under Vista.

I guess you could fake it like Swift3D does, just render out the frames necessary but that always created bulky flash. Real vector format 3D is the way to go I think.

I can pictuer it now, I pick up the My Computer icon and as it increases in size and detail, rotating slightly as the cursor grabs one side, bump mapping and a real light source come into play, i see the texture on the model has depth and the overall basic shape shifting in space is convincing. As I move the icon across the desktop, the light moves across it. I think I'd be picking up and dropping icons for no reason at all if the eye candy was that good and on a usability note, how much more defined and usable does an icon become if it can be seen in that much clarity, sub pixel smoothing (anti-aliasing/antistropic filtering etc) giving the percieved detail of the icon much more resolution than the same 2D image ever could.

Ok that's my geeky rant for the day

I don't know. This hits me in the same way my sidebar blog does. I love the IDEA of a lot of the stuff mentioned here. In the end, though, I use my computer. I appreciate the extra aesthetic value, but the real innovation we need is in the file system, in the functional interface design.

I'm much more interested in new metaphors for UI, for designs that put things closer at hand, or organize things in better ways, etc. The idea of 3d icons is cool, and I'll probably play with the idea tirelessly for a few weeks, but after a while it will be commonplace, and not add anything to the usability of my computer.

At the moment, the 3D Icons are not realy "3d" they are 256 x 256 pngs being rendered to a qoud. So they are a flat Bilbord in a 3D space. This may not be the case forever, but the truth is it is all that is neeaded for 99% of the things Icons are used for. If you do true 3D icons you have to build in rendering etc for it all, and god knows what the you would have to limit your polygons to. I would bet that if the Icons were true 3D models, they would look worse not better.

But we shall see. I could be wrong.

PS. Cant spell, going to bed now.

The idea of 3d icons is cool, and I'll probably play with the idea tirelessly for a few weeks, but after a while it will be commonplace, and not add anything to the usability of my computer.

You might be right, sometimes what you see in your head doesn't translate to what can actually be achieved or is even reasonable to expect. Still can't shake the idea that Microsoft are steadfastly refusing to evolve UI in any significant way, if you compare plain vanilla windows to an entire suite of Stardock running, the differences are so great a newish user would have trouble recognising it was indeed windows at all. Without wishing to cause offence, Stardock is a tiny little company in comparison to Microsoft.

One could almost believe that Microsoft was designing the UI for its own purposes and not the end user at all

OK I couldn't resist it lol I'm not out to prove anything here, just thought it would be fun to play with the idea of a 3D icon. I did a few tests, the following image was rendered using nothing more than directx9 effects. Despite the simple look of the model it's actually quite complex, just wanted to push it and see how well it would handle in real-time.



The effects used were texture filtering, anisotropic filtering, diffuse, bump, specular, opacity, ambient, emission and environment mapping. Three light sources were used as well as soft shadows. Basically everything DX9 has to offer that I could get my hands on. The model is composed of over 41000 faces. Ray tracing was used which we all know is pretty intensive, scan lining could quite easily cut down on compute time and some of sexier effects faked.

On my GeforceFX5200 ultra I was hitting around 80fps auto rotating the model at 256x256 resolution in real-time. I was quite impressed overall and a still image just doesn't do it justice.

bad link?

Right, fine for one image. But icons often appear in big groups...

bad link?

I dunno, DA gets busy maybe that was it, it seems to work here. The image is at http://www.deviantart.com/view/23973360/

Right, fine for one image. But icons often appear in big groups...

Yeah this is true, I didn't know how to simulate a lot of 3D objects spinning at once so instead went for a really high poly count on one model. that's 1mb of data in the speaker. You could fit quite a lot of icons into the same space and I don't think the overhead would be noticably different.

Hello,
mormegill are you making tutorial for themes if yes then when will you launch and where?

Yeah this is true, I didn't know how to simulate a lot of 3D objects spinning at once so instead went for a really high poly count on one model. that's 1mb of data in the speaker. You could fit quite a lot of icons into the same space and I don't think the overhead would be noticably different.

It would be interesting to set up a small test. I have a beta of Visual Studio, but I got no idea on how to incorporate DX files into programs. I suppose it'd be easier if I had Avalon to mess about with...

We should be getting a beta of Sparkle soon, and will be able to do some real world testing. But Like I said, I think we will find that 2D qouds will stay the standard for some time. Not that it wont be cool to have the optio to do more. There are only so many animated objects we want on our desktop. This is one thing that apple has down, they know that subtle quality will out shine in your face "effects" every time.

subtle quality will out shine in your face "effects" every time

I have to agree here.

Most people I know, including may network administrators and desktop support techs would go for the subtle upgrades for large networks of work stations.

I don't think that customizing will hit full stride until work places are using some of the things we all know about (and use) already. The "subtle quality" graphics that are enjoyable, yet do not distract the user from the use of the work tool (computer) would be the grain that tips the balance in favor of customization on a seriously large scale - IMHO.

I am a bit conservative though, so I tend to fall back to a well built skin for the shell, a dock or two, and a full set of custom icons.

It would be interesting to set up a small test. I have a beta of Visual Studio, but I got no idea on how to incorporate DX files into programs. I suppose it'd be easier if I had Avalon to mess about with...

Can't really help you there but great that you thought of trying it. I'd happily provide 3D models, textures or anything involved in playing around with the idea. Isn't it this kind of experimentation that the skinning community is all about?

There are only so many animated objects we want on our desktop. This is one thing that apple has down, they know that subtle quality will out shine in your face "effects" every time.

I completely agree, design has to be a secondary consideration to function. Something a lot of flash coders could take note of lol

I wouldn't like to see a 3D network globe spinning on the desktop, it would look neat for a short while then annoy the hell out of me. But if it responded in 3D while I was manipulating it, now that would work great. Anything that aids in the usability, I'm all for that.

Quick example of how 3D could really enhance usability. A DVD-ROM drive icon on your desktop in 3D. Mouse over it and the drawer opens. If there is a a real DVD in the drive, the icon shows a real DVD in the open tray. Nothing in the drive? you see an empty tray. You can of course do all that in 2D to look like 3D but you end up with massive file sizes. 3D is so great because it is a vector format and can do the wildest things visually without bloating the file size.

I found this which I thought was really interesting. It's a really easy way to make real 3D objects which are exported in XAML ready for WPF (avalon)

http://www.erain.com/Products/ZAM3D/DefaultPDC.asp

After checking out more about how 3D works in Avalon it's clear now that any 3d object you care to create can be used in some pretty fantastic ways. The coding looks really simple too, but with visual tools already here to take away the need to code 3d by hand, its a complete breeze.

Heres an example of what you can do in 3D in avalon. Import a 3D object from another application, currently I think there is only a directx importer but others will come or make the model in Zam 3D. The model can now have XAML code written to animate it, light it, texture it and make use of the 3D elements in ways I wouldn't have thought possible. For instance you could make a 3D television and actually play real video on the televisons screen.

How cool is that?

I can't wait to see where this goes.