Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / 3D Modelling vs. Programming: Which do you think is more fun? Which do you think is harder?

Author
Message
Chris Redfield 2008
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Sep 2007
Location: Beecher\'s Hope
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 05:09
Personally, I think 3D Modelling is more fun. Programming can be an absolute nightmare at times, but that is just me.

"Wether you think you can, or you think you cannot, you are usually right" - Henry Ford
PAGAN_old
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Jan 2006
Location: Capital of the Evil Empire
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 05:18
I like both, i am not even sure which one i like better. programming can be frustrating but its very rewarding once you get stuff working. i really cant see one without the other.

dont hate people who rip you off,cheat and get away with it, learn from them
Venge
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2006
Location: Iowa
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 05:30
I first wanted to be a programmer, but then it got too boring. So I switched to modelling/animation, but then it wasn't challenging. So now I'm studying for animation at college and coding in DBP in my free time. Good to exercise both sides of the brain.

I will live forever or die trying.
My game blog
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 05:35
I personally can't do either.
I think it's easier to program at first though because you can make something which does a basic function much easier than you can, for example, make a shoe which looks like a reasonable interpretation of a shoe. It may be that you more harshly analyse your results when they are visual, but as I'm not very good with the whole visual thing, I would say modelling is harder as making something look good is only one facet of programming, whereas it's pretty much the key point of modelling.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 05:54 Edited at: 7th Dec 2009 05:54
For me it goes hand-in-hand. I'm not really that great of a 3D modeler or a programmer, but lately I've been working on my programming skills by coding my own level editor. As for 3D, I haven't been able to practice that lately because a), I just got a new laptop and don't have a mouse to plug into it and b), I don't have any software for it yet (though I'm going to download Blender very soon).

I'd say for me, programming is more fun because it's like a puzzle that you have to solve. At other times though, it can give me quite the headache.

dark coder
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 09:33
I think both are very fun to do, but I find programming far more rewarding, as code generally lasts a very long time and often has good reuse value. Whereas making lots of models is akin to starting projects from scratch all the time, thus there's a lot of tedium involved before you get any meaningful results out of it, and you can't always use the models for a whole lot so the reward is far more limited in many cases.

As for which is harder, I would have to say programming by far, it's just such a large field that encompasses practically everything, including 3D modelling; everything you can model can also be created with code, and many models can't be created without code. Obviously, it depends on what type of programming you're talking about, but as primarily a graphics programmer I find I have to apply most of what I know about modelling and art in general to achieve the best results. You have to be very creative to be good at both as they are both art forms, one just requires far more technical knowledge than the other, in general(as the title isn't very specific).

MSon
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jul 2004
Location: Earth, (I Think).
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 09:38
Programing is more rewarding, But i consider Modeling more difficult to do so i usualy just code my models instead of using any modelling program, but i guess it depends, if you spent your early years modeling or programming.

Everyone Be Cool, You, Be Cool.
Chris Redfield 2008
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Sep 2007
Location: Beecher\'s Hope
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 10:06 Edited at: 7th Dec 2009 10:07
Personally Im not that good at either, to be honest. I've given it more than a few go's at bolth Milkshape 3D and DB Pro for example. I could name a few times where I sat up all night into the wee hours of the morning trying to work either one of them at least somewhat decently. My rewards? Nothing but headaches. I guess some things aren't meant to be. At least for me they aren't. But overall, from a difficulty standpoint, Milkshape seemed slightly easier.

"Wether you think you can, or you think you cannot, you are usually right" - Henry Ford
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 11:40 Edited at: 7th Dec 2009 11:42
For me it depends on the code, and the model - I mean, it's not cut and dry, and modelling has quite a few steps to it, all of which demand their own skill. Coding I think is more relaxed, because basically the chances are, that if you get confused or frustrated, it's your own fault - you can step back and figure things out on your own terms. On the other hand, when things are complex with a model you are making, they are complex and all you can do it resort to a simpler model. This is especially true of UV mapping and rigging high polygon models.

Both are equally fun, it just depends on what you call fun. If you can model and texture etc, plus code - then you've really no excuse to be bored, there should be dozens of things you could be getting on with. I need to do both, for me, I'd find modelling really boring without something to do with the models (code), and if I was coding, then that would be boring with no media to play with. That's why I even learned modelling - because my lack of skills in that area doomed any project I had in mind.

So if you are bored modelling then do some code, if your bored coding then make some media. Personally, I think that people who can do both are very lucky and should capitalize on their skills. I mean it's usually the case that a coder can't model and a modeller can't code.
I think I'm quite a reasonable mechanical modeller, but a horrible organic modeller. Making buildings, hardware, guns etc, it's fun for me because I can envisage 3D shapes quite well when they are technical, even UV mapping and texturing the mechanical stuff is fun. But the thought of modelling a head sickens me :X - has anyone had a good look at the Bruce character models? - they look like Heroin addicts who've chewed their own ears off. Mechanical modelling has it's feet on the ground, you have an existing object or set of rules for the model, and it is fun to sit with a set of digital calipers and a scale model and recreate something. I imagine it's probably quite fun to make characters and head models as well, as long as you know what your doing.


Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 12:00
What kind of programming, and what kind of modelling? Programming some stuff is easy. Programming other stuff is a nightmare. Modelling without a poly limit is quite easy. Making a tree in 50 is a nightmare.

Athlon64 2.7gHz->OC 3.9gHz, 31C, MSi 9500GT->OC 1gHz core/2gHz memory, 48C, 4Gb DDR2 667, 500Gb Seagate + 80Gb Maxtor + 40Gb Maxtor = 620Gb, XP Home
Air cooled, total cost £160
RUCCUS
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 13:09
I dont look at it in terms of difficulty but instead in terms of what you get out of it. I was dead set on working in game programming for my entire time in high school, but I had always been good at art and modelling on the side. Then last minute when I was picking my colleges it hit me - would I rather be known for programming the grass to sway aroudn in the wind in the next Halo, or be known as the guy that designed the new rocket launcher?

I answered the second, but Im sure some people on here will disagree .
BearCDP
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2009
Location: NYC
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 13:10 Edited at: 7th Dec 2009 16:54
Even the most basic of models is a pain for me to work with. I made a 3d mole character in trueSpace3.2 once; it was ugly as all hell. And try as I might, I ended up giving the poor thing a limp. I never knew what I did wrong, but the poor little guy never had a chance. He'd scurry along, one leg jutting out at an unnatural angle, blindly following wherever I told him to go, even off the edge of the matrix (okay, that was because it was an extra credit project for class and I was too lazy to set coordinate bounds, so not really related to modeling).

So for me modeling is difficult, programming feels more natural and rewarding to me. I can read books, tutorials and documentation and figure out most things with programming, but not so with anything remotely related to visual art.

What's even better than programming, though? Music and sound effects!

Programming is my other skill. But modeling, I always find someone else to handle it, and in the meantime settle for cubes with textures drawn in mspaint that say "I AM A BAD GUY" in Comic Sans font.

Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 13:18
Modelling is far more fun, i dont know why.. programming is very hard (i just started learning C++ in school though) but as many here have said: very rewarding.


[Q]uik, Quiker than most
Sid Sinister
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2005
Location:
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 16:34
I'll be doing both! I received my degree in animation in the spring and am now working on my bachelors of science in game software development. I love the art side for it's creativity and I like the programming side for it's problem solving. If I were to pick one as my favorite, right now I'd have to say the programming side. There is something about breathing life into a game that geeks me out

"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" - Isaac Newton
Current Project: http://strewnfield.wordpress.com/ (Last updated 06/11/09)
YavinB
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Sep 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 16:34
Modeling is more fun, but programming is what I rather do for life.

If it involves money I'm in. (only if it Benefits me)
Cyborg ART
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Jan 2007
Location: Sweden - Sthlm
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 21:51
I have been modeling for 2 years, and programming for about 2 months. But I must say programming gives more satisfaction when completing something.

lazerus
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2008
Location:
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 22:10 Edited at: 7th Dec 2009 22:18
Models and media. Putting the meat onto the skeleton.

Im in the arty side of life. ^_^ Coding is slightly too mono-tone for my tastes. Black + white kills my eyes aswell lol.

hated that sig

David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 22:30 Edited at: 7th Dec 2009 22:35
Modelling is harder: It's subjective. Whether or not a model looks 'right' depends on who looks it it - and often you will need second opinions. Code, on the other hand, is either right or wrong: It works or it doesn't (you get stylistic disputes but it rarely affects the 'output' - whereas stylistic dispute is half of what visual/model arts actually is)

Quote: "be known for programming the grass to sway aroudn in the wind in the next Halo, or be known as the guy that designed the new rocket launcher?"


Thing is, you could probably be both: I don't know how Bungie works team-wise but I'm guessing any weapon design probably involved a game designer, a bunch of artists and at least one code monkey to decide whether it's actually technically possible / what needs to be done to make the weapon doable. Same with the grass: Art + Code co-operation. Both of your examples (I'm guessing) are probably examples of multi-discipline cooperation

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
heyufool1
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Feb 2009
Location: My quiet place
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 22:43
I love doing both but I gotta be in the right mood to do modeling whereas programming I can always do... So I suppose I like programming more.

Your bedtime story is scaring everyone
If found my very own Fail!: http://cheezburger.com/View.aspx?aid=2712171776
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 23:35
Quote: "It works or it doesn't"


You can structure it very differently internally. OO, procedural, optimisation for speed, memory usage or stability, indentation style. Code is an art and code has style.

Athlon64 2.7gHz->OC 3.9gHz, 31C, MSi 9500GT->OC 1gHz core/2gHz memory, 48C, 4Gb DDR2 667, 500Gb Seagate + 80Gb Maxtor + 40Gb Maxtor = 620Gb, XP Home
Air cooled, total cost £160
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 23:48 Edited at: 7th Dec 2009 23:49
Quote: "You can structure it very differently internally. OO, procedural, optimisation for speed, memory usage or stability, indentation style. Code is an art and code has style."


Yes, like I already said:

Quote: "you get stylistic disputes but it rarely affects the 'output' - whereas stylistic dispute is half of what visual/model arts actually is)"


The style is hidden. When you run an application you don't see its source code, nor do you care about the stylistic decisions made, because they're irrelevant.

Visual arts, on the other hand, are nearly entirely defined by the stylistic result

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 7th Dec 2009 23:52 Edited at: 7th Dec 2009 23:53
Of course style affects the output. Programs that are written in a decentralised, multithreaded style don't hang every time they go to fetch a file. Programs written in a modular style can be expanded. Some programs are written to be as spartan and as simple as possible, only filling one specific role. Zinf, for instance. Others are meant to be as large and all-encompassing as possible, such as Songbird, for the sake of argument.

Athlon64 2.7gHz->OC 3.9gHz, 31C, MSi 9500GT->OC 1gHz core/2gHz memory, 48C, 4Gb DDR2 667, 500Gb Seagate + 80Gb Maxtor + 40Gb Maxtor = 620Gb, XP Home
Air cooled, total cost £160
lazerus
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2008
Location:
Posted: 8th Dec 2009 00:20
You cant make a game without any of them so i call it a draw here.

Though thiers alot in modeling that has to be accounted for aswell, not just asethics, poly placement, workflow, egdes, edge loops, deformation, the list is probably just as long as the coding side.

Though your stylised code cant do much without shiny sparkle models to show it off, vice versa.

David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 8th Dec 2009 00:24 Edited at: 8th Dec 2009 00:30
Quote: "Of course style affects the output. Programs that are written in a decentralised, multithreaded style don't hang every time they go to fetch a file. Programs written in a modular style can be expanded. Some programs are written to be as spartan and as simple as possible, only filling one specific role. Zinf, for instance. Others are meant to be as large and all-encompassing as possible, such as Songbird, for the sake of argument."


None of which is seen (or better yet, understood or cared about) by the end user.

Quote: "Of course style affects the output"


What the hell are you coding in, ASCII art? If you want to, you could code equivalent apps in ASM, C, C++, Java etc. all in different paradigms, and they could all achieve the same thing. The end user doesn't see the code, and doesn't care.

In the same vein: If you're on a tight deadline you can cut corners in terms of code design, provided the application works . You can't cut corners (easily) on art, because the "guts" of it are on show (although I suppose you could argue rigging design etc. but meh)

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 8th Dec 2009 00:29
I think a user can tell if a program doesn't stall during certain operations, or if a program can have useful extensions installed, or if it runs faster than other programs that do the same task. Style will always shine through regardless.

Someone who doesn't know how to 3D model doesn't know how a realistic face is achieved or a cartoony face - but they know the outcome. Someone who doesn't know how to program doesn't know how a lightweight, fast program is achieved or an expandable, extendable program is achieved. They, too, know the outcome.

Athlon64 2.7gHz->OC 3.9gHz, 31C, MSi 9500GT->OC 1gHz core/2gHz memory, 48C, 4Gb DDR2 667, 500Gb Seagate + 80Gb Maxtor + 40Gb Maxtor = 620Gb, XP Home
Air cooled, total cost £160
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 8th Dec 2009 00:40 Edited at: 8th Dec 2009 00:42
Quote: "I think a user can tell if a program doesn't stall during certain operations, or if a program can have useful extensions installed, or if it runs faster than other programs that do the same task. Style will always shine through regardless.
"


No it doesn't. You can have a fantastically designed / well styled block of code that runs dog slow. You can also have a hacky mess that runs extremely fast. Emulation is a prime example of this (Where the "right way" is often the slow way).

So whilst style affects the output you can't instantly say "The style of this is good/bad" because you can't see it which is my point.

Quote: "
Someone who doesn't know how to 3D model doesn't know how a realistic face is achieved or a cartoony face - but they know the outcome. Someone who doesn't know how to program doesn't know how a lightweight, fast program is achieved or an expandable, extendable program is achieved. They, too, know the outcome."


This isn't about knowing the outcome. This is about creating the outcome. Code can create a perfect outcome whilst have vile guts (e.g. a great functional game with hard coded levels). You can't do that with visual arts. Because everything is on show (the guts of it ARE the end product)

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 8th Dec 2009 00:43
@David R
Yes, but a good programmer will create a good outcome, while a bad programmer will not, despite meeting the specification of the program.

David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 8th Dec 2009 00:48 Edited at: 8th Dec 2009 00:51
OK, obviously no-one has understood my point, so here's an example

Good application:


Bad application:


The outcome? 4. For both applications. If a user receives a compiled app, they get 4. It makes zero difference to them how (between good and bad) the application is made, because the result is the same

This is my point. Code gets an easy ride because end users don't see it. When artists create art, everything they do is on show. Because the "work" they do (equivalent to the code) IS the end product

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 8th Dec 2009 00:50 Edited at: 8th Dec 2009 00:51
You don't think well designed programs show? Oblivion, for instance - think of all the wonderful modifications that have come about as a result of it being designed from the inside out to be reconfigurable - the style of design and coding. It has and always has have a lot of bugs. Flaws. But because it was written in a style that allows it to be expanded and extended it is above and beyond what it was originally capable of it's a hundred times better than a bug-free but hardcoded game. And people do notice. Oblivion is not only Game of some Year, it did pretty well in sales. It was made in a style that was fit for purpose - the best kind of style there is. The most realistic 3D model ever is wonderful unless the rest of the scene is cartoony. (thus making it not fit for purpose)

Athlon64 2.7gHz->OC 3.9gHz, 31C, MSi 9500GT->OC 1gHz core/2gHz memory, 48C, 4Gb DDR2 667, 500Gb Seagate + 80Gb Maxtor + 40Gb Maxtor = 620Gb, XP Home
Air cooled, total cost £160

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-25 15:08:19
Your offset time is: 2025-05-25 15:08:19